by Molly Ivors
Well, thanks for all your kind words on my last post, folks, but I've been reflecting a lot on this "you disagree on substantive policy issues, so you're a racist" line of thought, and I think we'd all better prepare ourselves for what's coming, by Super Tuesday if not South Carolina (schedule here). I will state unequivocally, as I have before, that I could and will easily throw my support behind any of the remaining candidates (with the possible exception of Bill Richardson, who appears to have had a Charismatic Bypass operation, and who, as my beloved Hecate notes, did fuck-all for energy independence in the sole Democratic administration of the last 28 years). They're all charming, intelligent people with strong support, even if only some of us make it into the paper.
But.
Primary season is all about highlighting differences. Theoretically, each candidate could merely stump on their own merits and let the pundits figure out the differences, but in our current era of personality have-a-beer-with political analysis, that's just out of the question. Call it rampaging Dowdism.
Or possibly, the pundits are too goddamned lazy to figure out differences on their own, and they like it better when candidates attack rather than explain. That's only one of the conclusions to be drawn from this bizarre encounter, noted by the Washington Post the other day:
During a question-and-answer session with reporters after the speech, Matthews asked Clinton how her plan to get out of Iraq is different from Obama's. She started describing her plan. He interrupted to insist she distinguish it from her rival's. Here's how it went from there:
"Well, you guys can figure out the difference," she said.
"No," Matthews interrupted, "you tell us the difference."
"I'm not on your show," she retorted. "I'm trying to answer the question."
"Please come on the show," Matthews implored.
"I never understood why you're obsessed with me," she replied. "Honestly, I've never understood it."
Tweety watchers, among whom I decidedly do not count myself, have long noted Matthews' obsession with President and Senator Clinton. He hates them, trumpets every piece of bad news about them, even does a lame-ass impression of Bill, or so I hear. (In the desire to retain my soul, I don't watch him.) But begging in public is a little weird, even for him. Still, kudos to Senator Clinton for calling him out, both on his laziness and his creepiness.
I was thinking about this encounter while reading Gloria Steinem's thoughtful OpEd today, comparing the relative and considerable merits of Senators Obama and Clinton, and the clear difference in their treatment. Steinem argues that a woman with Obama's credentials could never be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, noting the pervasive and naturalized attitudes which plague gender relations in America: "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House."
Steinem notes that generally, in the race for equity, black men have clocked in ahead of women: "the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)." Which is not to say that it's an Oppression Race, just to note that American history does have precedent in this arena. Why?
The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
As far as I know, no one has yet shown up at an Obama rally with a sign that says "Eat Watermelon," although a parallel event did happen at a Clinton rally yesterday.
SALEM, N.H. -- In an unprecedented display on the campaign trail, two young men interrupted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton here on Monday night, screaming: "Iron my shirt! Iron my shirt!"
Clinton seemed not to understand the chant at first, but when she finally heard it, replied: "Oh, the remnants of sexism, alive and well."
There's even a picture:
Think about this: were someone to do something equally offensive at an Obama rally, the public outcry would be deafening. And it should be. UPDATE: Made it onto Yahoo! (h/t blerb) and into the wingnut blogosphere, who are sure it's a plant. Or just some dumb kids. Whatever. Who cares? Wheee!
But the public outcry from the left should be deafening, too, and I'm seeing a whole lot more about the authenticity of tears than the patently offensive nature of the attacks on Senator Clinton. But the silence is deafening, isn't it?
Ultimately, Steinem offers a hopeful prognosis, tempered by some understandable worries:
[T]o clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
Is entrenched sexism Obama's fault? Of course not. But neither should he ignore the fact that he might be benefitting from it (as well as from the corporate media's blind fear of economic populism). If invoking Johnny Mathis earns me a "slur" from a soi-disant liberal, then how can we countenance, even by silence, the repeated demands for and attacks on gendered behavior levelled at Senator Clinton?
UPDATE: Bad form, John.