The Politicization of Feminism: Why Geraldine Ferraro is Not Good for Women

A few weeks ago, when asked by Detroit reporter Peggy Agar how he plans to help American autoworkers, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama replied, "Hold on one second, sweetie, we'll do a press avail, thanks."

This has now been immortalized as the "Sweetie-gate" scandal, and admittedly, it was disturbing. I couldn't understand how Barack Obama, a man with a remarkably accomplished mother (whom Hawaii Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie once called "the original feminist"), a strong independent grandmother, an equally accomplished and successful wife, and two young daughters, turned out to be such a closeted sexist.

My concerns cleared a little when I went down to the cafeteria at my hospital where I have lunch every day and know pretty much all of the cashiers. As she does every day, the friendliest one (who I always try to go to) said, "Thanks, honey!" as she handed me my change. I realized that in the four years that I've worked there, I have also been called "sugar", "darlin'", "sweetheart", "love" - and one of our secretaries even calls me "babe" fairly often.

They are all women. And I am a man (pending just one more karyotype test - pray for me). I don't particularly think of myself as sexually attractive. To be honest, I have several unappetizing stretch marks on my ass. But I've gotten every term of endearment there is. Specially when I've traveled in the South.

So I had lunch, quietly wondering if I should be offended. I thought of the details, the minutia: this was about a man saying it to a woman in a professional environment; women say it to other women too, not only to men; but men don't call other men sweetie! Then the counter-arguments: men do call each other bro, pal, man, amigo, and dude in the same spirit - the difference in semantics isn't necessarily a difference in intent based on the receptive gender, is it? And how do you define "professional" anyway? Does cafeteria interaction between cashier and other employees qualify?

Shortly after this story broke, I realized I wasn't the only one poring over this incredible outing of a major presidential candidate's overt misogyny and disrespect of women, which he had managed to hide so well over the years.

There was also Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential candidate in American history, addressing the Sweetie-gate scandal on Fox News (watch 3 minutes and 20 seconds in), and talking to Meredith Viera on NBC's Today Show about how sexist Barack Obama's campaign has been (see clip below).

She mentioned "several" campaign incidents, notably when during a stump speech, Obama, in a gesture demonstrating how he deals with "dirty" Washington politics, brushed imaginary dirt off his shoulders, in this clip.

Ferraro interpreted this as "diminishing" Clinton, alleging that it was sexist and offensive.

Okay.

Sitting by her was NBC and Air America's brilliant Rachel Maddow, a feminist in her own right, visibly stunned. She civilly attempted to counter Ferraro when she accused all of the candidates in the December 2007 Democratic primary debate of "ganging up" on Hillary Clinton. (Note: Yes, Clinton was running against seven men who she was beating handily in the polls; as any male or female frontrunner would be, she was attacked by her trailing competitors.)

Watch Maddow's response to Ferraro's examples 4 minutes and 50 seconds into the video:



At one point in this clip, Ferraro even refers to Obama as a "typical man" (2 minutes and 20 seconds in).

Ferraro, one of Hillary Clinton's most respected campaign advisors, was dropped from the campaign in March 2008 for the controversy she caused by alleging that Barack Obama has the stature he has in the country because he's black. She further defended her comments afterwards, alleging discrimination against her because she's white.

Okay.

First, I think Geraldine Ferraro deserves an enormous amount of respect not only for being the first female vice presidential candidate in US history, but for her record as a civil rights activist and her work as ambassador for the UN Commission on Human Rights during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Second, I agree that there has been an extraordinary amount of sexism in this campaign. I do think that a lot of the opposition to Hillary Clinton is because she is Hillary Clinton. But I do think, unfortunately, that a significant proportion of that opposition has been because she is a woman.

As I referenced in a previous post, this Rebecca Traister Salon piece is an excellent analysis of this pretty disturbing aspect of the primary race. I also think Geraldine Ferraro makes an excellent point in the Today Show interview (clip above) when she talks about the disgusting "Iron My Shirt" incident (click here to watch) that Clinton was subjected to during one of her speeches earlier this year. She is right - the incident would have garnered significantly more media attention and sympathy if it was racist in nature. I agree with her that sexism is somehow more easily accepted in society than racism.

But the reason people will pay less attention to Geraldine Ferraro's valid points is because she peppers them amid so many unrelatable, invalid ones. The "Iron My Shirt" incident is an example of the very serious, horrific kind of misogyny that can form a basis for discussion and education - it would be hard to imagine any reasonable woman or man not being able to feel the blatant offense in it.

But lumping it in during the same seven minute stretch with the shoulder-brushing incident and Sweetie-gate trivializes it. It turns people's minds off from the big picture by virtually invalidating it.

Unfortunately, "feminist" has become a bad word over the last two decades, just as (for the sake of analogy) "Muslim" has become a bad word in around the same time. In the same way that the word "Muslim" is now associated with the image of bearded, turbaned, uneducated terrorists, the word "feminist" has come to be associated with angry, man-hating, bra-burning, extremist women. This is simply because both of these movements have been politicized to ridiculous, unchecked levels by the infiltration and subsequent rise of radical, agenda-driven loudmouths who have hijacked them.

And Geraldine Ferraro is not doing a whole lot to help that. Sadly, she is perpetuating it. By focusing on 'Gotcha!' type pseudo-sexism, she is not only alienating men who, like Barack Obama, are very obviously not sexist yet are being accused of it; she is also alienating girls, boys, men, and women around the world who can't relate to her views. She is distancing women like Rachel Maddow, who emphatically expressed her disagreement with Ferraro in the Viera interview, and is probably, in almost all aspects, the perfect example of what the modern woman (or man, for that matter) today should be like. The only legitimate issue mentioned in that interview - the "Iron My Shirt" incident - was virtually overlooked and buried under the pseudo-gotcha stuff.

The feminist movement has to be taken back from those using it for political motive. The very word "feminist" needs to go back to its association with women like Abigail Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, Margaret Mead, the pre-2008 Hillary Clinton, and more recently, Rebecca Walker and Maddow herself.

Finally, saying as Ferraro did that she may not vote for Obama "if" Clinton doesn't get the nomination means that she - still an influence and role model for so many women that believe in and live her values - is willing to lead her supporters to elect John McCain, directly, or indirectly by not voting.

She would prefer to withdraw her support from a candidate that has grown up among strong, independent, educated, accomplished women, who supports and understands their issues - and instead opt for a party that is anti-women's reproductive rights, anti-family friendly policies (like modifying the Family and Medical Leave Act, for instance), is associated with countless extremist sexist religious "leaders", and prefers tax cuts for CEOs to those for single mothers.

Okay.

I guess she does have a point. McCain has never simulated brushing anything (anyone?) off his shoulders - and who can imagine a conservative calling a woman sweetie? Right?

Click here to see where else people are politicizing the feminist cause!

Don't Fall for the New Sideshow

Today, Hillary Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the Democratic campaign in June 1968 while speaking about her reasons for staying in the race, according to this report from the Associated Press. The video:



Later, she offered a botched apology, seemingly more to the Kennedys than anyone else:



There's a choice here for Obama supporters to make something more of this than it is - a mistake - as unfortunate as the statement and apology are. It's very unlikely that Clinton is hanging on to the hopes of Obama being assassinated. She was probably talking about things in a timeline context. Also, it's not a good idea to further cleave the party this late in the campaign, as if enough damage hasn't been done already. David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, played it like this:



Probably the best strategy. Remember how Michelle Obama's comment, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country..." was made into such a big campaign issue, when it was just a case of misspeaking. The less brouhaha there is over this new issue, the better.

Besides, Clinton's not in very good shape as it is. Attacking her when she's down may cost Obama a significant chunk of Clinton-supporting Democrats.

Though there is one constituency that Obama clearly has over her:

Bush Pulls a Jeremiah - and Unites the Democrats

It's pretty obvious that Karl Rove has left the White House.

John McCain's association with George W. Bush is more of a concern to voters than Barack Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright: A Gallup poll conducted on May 1-3, 2008 shows that 33% of voters are less likely to vote for Obama because of the Wright association; however, more - 38% - are less likely to vote for McCain because of his Bush association. On top of that, 64% say that the Obama-Wright association won't affect their vote at all - significantly more than the 54% who say that the McCain-Bush association will not affect their vote.

Today, the reason for those dynamics is a little clearer.

Speaking to the Knesset (the legislature of Israel) in Jerusalem the morning after Israel's 60th anniversary of independence, Bush casually compared the intentions of Democrats, particularly Barack Obama - who support exercising diplomacy with the governments of countries like Iran and Venezuela - to those who wanted to "appease" the Nazis over sixty years ago.

The extremism of this allegation and its evident hypocrisy is reminiscent of the extremism and hypocrisy of Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright: Bush implied that Democrats will somehow be complicit in the imminent destruction of the United States or Israel because of their foreign policy strategy, just as Wright implied that America was complicit in the 9/11 attacks on its soil because of its foreign policy strategy.

The difference is, Bush said these words himself, in a foreign country, as the President of the United States, not the pastor of some church in Chicago. He has virtually handed the Democrats a loaded gun, with enough ammunition to last well into November.

Bush's comments have reportedly sent a wave of excitement through the Democratic party, particularly within the Obama campaign. He has not only managed to unite Democrats (many of whom didn't even agree with Obama's proposal to talk to Iran in the first place) and given them a platform to justifiably voice their outrage - including Joseph Biden calling the remarks "bullshit" - but also handed the Democrats an advantage in a debate in which most analysts felt they, especially Obama, were disadvantaged: foreign policy.

Here are the problems with what Bush said:

1. George W. Bush himself has not only held talks with, but openly negotiated with Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who is alleged to have sponsored the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988. This diplomacy led to the successful end of hostilities between the two countries over Libya's nuclear program, which Gaddafi agreed to discontinue.

Also, among the three "Axis of Evil" countries Bush named in his State of the Union speech in 2002, North Korea is the only one that has openly conducted nuclear tests and possesses confirmed nuclear weapons. Again, the Bush administration has not only held talks with, but openly negotiated with Kim Jong Il, attaining reasonable success in the partial curtailment of the country's weapons proliferation program.

2. Speaking of the Axis of Evil, Iran is stronger now than it was before the Iraq war.

To go into Iraq - the only Axis of Evil member that actually did not have a declared nuclear program, not to mention a single nuclear weapon - all it took was a little unsubstantiated suspicion and a few convenience-based, selective intelligence reports. But despite several years of Iran's Ahmedinejad shooting off at the mouth about wiping Israel off the map, holding Holocaust denial conferences, directly threatening America, speaking at both the United Nations and Columbia University in New York, and most notably, adamantly continuing to pursue his country's nuclear program, America has barely taken any action.

Why?

Because the Bush administration has stretched the country's economic and military sources too thinly across the world, funding (on borrowed money, the majority from China) and fighting two wars, at least one of which can arguably be called a quagmire.

Ahmedinejad knows that no matter what he says or does, the United States is not in a position to do much more than slap sanctions on him, even that with restrictions, considering Iran's a pretty big oil producer. (By the way, China and Iran are strong allies - funding an intervention here won't exactly be a breeze.) So Ahmedinejad, Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez - also the head of a prominent oil-producing country just miles from the U.S. - can say all they want, as loudly as they want, and do all they want, because they know America can't come and get 'em. This has strengthened countries like Iran - and weakened the United States - probably indicating the need for a significant policy change.

3. Ronald Reagan, the darling of all of the Republican candidates this campaign season, helped bring the Cold War to an end through intelligent, tough diplomacy, not a stubborn refusal to speak to the USSR government.

4. Bringing up the Nazis wasn't a good idea on the part of Bush. Here's why:

The business dealings of Prescott Bush, W.'s grandfather, and father of George H. W. Bush, were the subject of a lawsuit brought forth against the Bush family a few years ago by two former Auschwitz slave laborers, alleging that Grandpa Prescott Bush, former Connecticut Senator and director of the Union Banking Corporation - whose assets were seized by the U.S. government during World War II - helped finance Adolf Hitler himself, aiding his rise to power.

This lawsuit from these two Holocaust survivors led to the unveiling of previously secret documents that shed light on the issue a short while before W. was up for re-election. Fortunately for W., the Dems didn't find it within themselves to Swift-Boat him at the time.

By the way - for those who are suspicious of this being left-wing propaganda, the network that was instrumental in digging out these documents, as evidenced on their own website, was Fox News: Click here.

Apparently, Senator Prescott Bush, founding officer, vice president, and director of the United Banking Corporation (UBC), was also managing partner for Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), a firm led by E. Roland Harriman - heavily invested in UBC, owning the majority of its shares - and his brother Averell, a former New York Governor.

BBH dealt closely with Fritz Thyssen, a German industrialist who significantly helped to finance Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, though he severed his relationship with him in the later part of the decade. The UBC was the primary hub for the US-based part of Thyssen's business, which is what led to the government's seizure of its assets during the war. Prescott Bush continued to work for the bank for long after America entered the war.

There is no more evidence that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazis than there is evidence that Barack Obama is sympathetic to Ahmedinejad or Hamas. But the Bush family's association - by money and just one degree of separation, to Adolf Hitler, with an ensuing multibillion dollar lawsuit from two Holocaust survivors - probably appears significantly stronger than some Hamas leader saying Obama would be a good leader for America.

The Democrats couldn't have dug a deeper hole for John McCain than George W. Bush has.

5. Finally, William E. Borah, the Idaho senator that Bush quoted in his speech as saying, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided..." and credited with harboring a "foolish delusion" - was known to be a progressive politician; a maverick so known for his independent thinking that President Calvin Coolidge once remarked about his horseback riding, "It's hard to imagine Senator Borah going in the same direction as the horse."

Borah was renowned and often fiercely criticized for occasionally deviating from the party that he belonged to: The Republican Party. Good luck, John McCain.

George W. Bush has singlehandedly thrust himself ass-first into the 2008 campaign season and, in collaboration with some very amateur speechwriter(s), done the Democrats a huge favor.

It's pretty obvious that Karl Rove has left the White House.

Why Can't Hillary Clinton Close the Deal?

Watching the post-Pennsylvania primary coverage, you’d think Hillary Clinton has pulled an unprecedented upset by beating out Barack Obama with a “decisive” 10-point margin.

There are two components to the spin.

First, why wasn’t Senator Obama able to close the deal in Pennsylvania, despite outspending Clinton 3 to 1 with record amounts of money in the state? And second, why can’t Senator Obama win big states that Democrats need in the general election?

Obama wasn’t able to completely close the 20 point gap in this one state – Pennsylvania – despite the millions he spent, and according to Clinton, that makes him unelectable.

Does that mean the superdelegates should now gravitate towards Clinton, who (i) cannot close the much wider, nationwide 130+ delegate gap even if she gets up to 70% of the remaining delegates in the primary season; and (ii) has run out of money at least twice in the last two months, even having to loan her campaign $5 million at one point?

So the first question probably brings up even more questions.

How was Obama even able to raise the money to outspend Clinton 3 to 1?

Why wasn’t Clinton able to raise as much money – if not more money – than Obama, having been a multi-term New York senator, not to mention First Lady for eight years with a wildly popular Democratic president?

Why did she have to loan her campaign millions of dollars earlier in the primary season?

How is it that Barack Obama, after outspending Clinton 3 to 1 in the state, still has over $41 million in the bank while her campaign was in debt when the polls closed in Pennsylvania? Is he more advantaged than the 100-million-dollar Clintons?

Let’s step outside of Pennsylvania and ask the bigger question.

How is it that a black man – whose first name rhymes with Iraq, last name with Osama, and middle name literally IS Hussein – has come out of nowhere, de novo, with no prior political connections and just over one Senate term, singlehandedly dethroning the Clintons, who are virtually royalty in the Democratic Party establishment, if not in the entire country?

With the immense stature and recognition that Hillary Clinton has had nationwide over almost twenty years, how is it that has she not been able to defeat the unknown-till-very-recently Obama by more than just 10 points in Pennsylvania after six weeks of Jeremiah Wright, Bittergate, Bill Ayers, his weakest performance ever in a debate that was watched by over ten million people, and an initial lead of more than 20 points?

Moving on, the answer to the second question is shorter. Winning large states in a primary has very little to do with winning them in a general election. The Democrats in these states voted for either Clinton or Obama during the primaries because they had a choice among multiple Democratic candidates. In the general election, they won’t have that choice, and will most likely vote for whichever Democrat is going against John McCain, whether it's Obama or Clinton.

Every primary election season has those that swear they will vote for the other party if their favored candidate isn’t made their party’s nominee - don’t forget the hordes of Republicans who loudly and publicly vowed to vote for Hillary Clinton if the not-too-conservative John McCain ended up as their nominee. Now that the fight has died down and the GOP has almost uniformly coalesced around McCain, does anybody seriously believe that these Republicans – such as Ann Coulter or Bill Cunningham – will still vote Democratic in November? Come on.

Either Democratic candidate will be able to carry the states that Clinton has said only she can carry in a general election.

When (yes, "when", not "if") Obama is the nominee, Massachusetts will not suddenly go the way of McCain because Clinton won it in the primary. In the same way, whichever Democrat won Texas (Clinton by popular vote, Obama by delegates) is very unlikely to carry it in the general election.

That brings us back to the media coverage. Despite popular opinion, the media has helped Clinton all along, by treating this as a “close”, “neck-in-neck”, “tight” race, even though it was effectively over more than six weeks ago.

So don't fall for the electability argument. Clinton cannot take McCain down for one simple reason: she could not – and cannot – take down Obama.

Clinton Did Obama a Favor in Wednesday Night's Debate

The Clinton-Obama ABC debate on Wednesday was almost universally slammed for being off-message, with almost an hour consisting of "Gotcha!" type questions irrelevant to voters. There is also consensus on Barack Obama's performance being his weakest in the now twenty one debates that have taken place during the Democratic primary season.

It is true that Wednesday night didn't exactly do wonders for him. However, it didn't derail his almost inevitable path to the nomination either.

What it did do is give him an excellent practice drill for what he'll be dealing with in the general election, when the Republicans come at him with full force.

This couldn't have happened at a better time. This was the perfect time to have this practice round for four important reasons:

1. Even if Clinton beats Obama by a 20-point margin in Pennsylvania and beats him by 10 points in each state that's left, she's unlikely to overcome his lead in pledged delegates or the popular vote - EVEN IF Michigan and Florida are counted as they are. That's without Obama's name on the Michigan ballot. Try it yourself: http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/. So he's got this locked up. Only a really big scandal - much bigger than Jeremiah Wright (which Obama survived), Bittergate, or Bill Ayers - could possibly convince the superdelegates to overrule his lead. Basically, if Obama had to falter in a debate, it's better he did it now than earlier, before he had a solid delegate lead; or later, when the Republicans will be lunging at him with all of their ammunition.

2. Obama has a lot of money - several times more than Clinton. His campaign raised over 30 million dollars in February - and over 50 million in March, at least 20 million more than Clinton. Most people agree that the primary reason he has managed to close the gap in Pennsylvania is that he has outspent Clinton three to one. His momentum after a better-than-expected Super Tuesday performance and during the string of 12 primary/caucus wins in a row in February allowed him to raise record-breaking amounts of cash. If any of the controversies that have plagued him in the last six weeks - coupled with a sub-par debate performance - had come up back then, he may not have raised this kind of money, and may have had reason to worry. However, this week alone, he will again have spent over 3 million dollars on television ads in Pennsylvania, which cannot be matched by Clinton.

3. The "Gotcha!" issues WILL come up in the general election. He will likely be swift-boated, 527ed, and attacked relentlessly by the Republicans. Hillary Clinton and moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson did him a FAVOR by allowing him to "practice" dodging and dealing with these attacks at a time when, if he screws up a bit, it takes very little away from his almost inevitable pledged delegate and popular vote lead. Again, it's better that this happened now: any earlier, and it would've affected his chances of winning the states that he did. Any later - meaning after he becomes the nominee - and his first "practice round" would have been against the Republicans in the actual general election, obviously a big risk.

4. Many Democratic leaders, including undecided superdelegates (including one of Hillary's campaign advisors, in a gaffe) have said that there'll be a nominee by June. If they're serious about that, and there is indeed a nominee in June, it can only be Obama, for both mathematical and political reasons. If Clinton is the nominee, it'll have to be under extenuating circumstances, where the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegate lead somehow by coming out in droves to vote for her, and that is not likely to happen by June. The only way her chances become a little better is if the fight goes to the convention. This is why Clinton is going negative and attacking so much. Her only road to the nomination is to prove him unelectable to the superdelegates. There is no other way for her to make it.

Now, to win, Clinton needs to get the superdelegates on her side.

To get the superdelegates on her side, she has to prove Obama unelectable in the general election against McCain.

To prove him unelectable to the superdelegates, she has to attack him, and stress his negatives as strongly and as often as possible.

Because both of them hold virtually identical positions on issues and policy, the nature of these attacks has to be based on character deficiencies and compromised credibility.

The attacks damage him not only among Democrats and Republicans, but among independents, who John McCain attracts as well. This is the swing voter group that the Democrats need this time in November to nab the presidency.

Here's the question: how long will the superdelegates allow Clinton to skewer Obama incessantly as she's doing - when he's almost certainly the Democratic nominee? Are they willing to risk damaging Obama and blowing yet another opportunity to take the country back - for Clinton - who has a less than 5% (being generous) chance of scoring the nomination?

Democratic National Committee leader Howard Dean, who has intelligently picked up on this (as I'm sure many other uncommitted superdelegates have, or will very soon), has said that he wants "a decision now": http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.

This realization is unavoidable for Democrats. Obama will be the nominee. The debate was great for him - it allowed him to see what he's in for, with the help of Clinton and the moderators. He didn't exactly hit it out of the park, but he managed to hold his own. Now, he has plenty of time to consult with his advisors to generate counter-strategies.

Despite what Hillary Clinton says, the media has actually helped her by treating this is as a "neck-in-neck" or a "tight" race, when it has been practically over for weeks. Democrats - including Barack Obama - should now thank Hillary Clinton and the ABC moderators for doing their nominee and their party a favor for once, by readying him for the general election.

Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania. Obama will win North Carolina - which should seal the deal for most remaining undecided superdelegates - that's my guess at where the race ends, if it hasn't already. It's probably time to forget about Obama versus Clinton and start focusing on Obama versus McCain in the general election.