The role of sexism and racism in this primary

[graycem]

has been highly overrated when it comes to the vote count. Neither sexism nor racism has directly affected voting. If someone were sexist they weren't voting for Hillary anyway. If someone were racist, they weren't voting for Obama anyway. While there are instances of both during this primary, I find it ridiculous to assert that it takes votes away from whichever candidate the comments are aimed at. If anything they strengthen support for the candidate, like in my support of Obama. Each time I've heard something I perceived as racist said against him, it only made me more determined to drown out the racism factor by participating even more, donating more, etc. I'm sure the sexist comments have done the same to those who support Hillary.

I didn't suddenly turn into a racist when I heard a slur hurled at Obama. I don't think the sexists heard a sexist comment and then suddenly agreed. Racism and sexism are NOT contagious, they're ingrained ideas about gender or race that people soak up from their environment, their family, friends, life experiences, etc., and are not likely to be changed by a comment or statement from someone outside their personal lives. If anything, those comments only reinforce the racist/sexist ideas people already have about women or African-Americans in general. The prejudices, the stereotypes are already there, and were there long before this primary season began.

Both candidates have made mistakes, and done stupid things, and probably have learned from them. Neither sexism or racism affected their shortcomings. The same mistakes would've been made if they were both white males.

It IS offensive to supporters of both candidates when those comments are perceived as exploiting the prejudices, and that is harmful, especially when the comments come from fellow Dems, and we will have to deal with it over the course of the summer, and reevaluate what is more important, holding a grudge or rescuing our country. Before you begin the evaluation, I would hope that every supporter of both candidates would stop for just a second and think about first and foremost, who said what, and how that is affecting your feelings. I do not think it is particularly fair or wise to allow the media to serve as a surrogate for either candidate, thereby giving anyone the right to ascribe blame to either Hillary or Obama for what the talking heads like Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman say. The ONLY words that Obama or Hillary should be accountable for are the ones they themselves have spoken, and those who have been given the authority to speak for them by their campaigns (Samantha Powers, Geraldine Ferraro and they were both removed as they should have been). Anything else is just lacking in logic and in fairness.

*Don't forget to give them credit for the good things they've said in defense of each other. I for one began seeing Hillary in a different light yesterday when she defended Obama, all Democrats really, against the idiocy of Bush. To be perfectly honest, it's quite nice to let go of resentment and disappointment. I've never "hated" Hillary, Bill received my first ever presidential vote, and I have been strong supporters and defenders of both of them, like many of you have in the past. I have been disappointed, even angry, but it is pretty unreasonable to expect not to ever be let down to a degree when you hold people in high esteem. They are both just people trying to do what they believe in, and nobody is perfect. How many of us have disappointed people who care about us? I know I have, many times in fact. Luckily the people were decent enough to forgive me. Small gestures like the one we saw yesterday from Hillary, from BOTH candidates will go a LONG way to reuniting our party if we just let it. Nothing is more important than winning in November. Please think about that before pointing out how I'm misguided, or delusional, or kool-aid drunk, or naive. I've really given this post a lot of thought, and I understand if you disagree, but I am still asking for your consideration.

Thanks. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. I don't agree.

There are people for whom the "electability" argument is nothing more than a facade to hide their bigotry. Likewise, many of those who laugh at the "35 years of experience" claim did do because the first lady is assumed to be nothing more than someone who selects china.

There are people for whom the proxy arguments are compelling. "Electable"? Well I kind of like what he has to say but maybe Mr Buchanan has a point." "Dishonest?" Well, I remember her doing a lot of stuff as first lady, but maybe Mr Russert has a point."

I think the degree that the average voter is racist or sexist is overstated. That said, I would not minimize the influence wielded by those who are.

[graycem]

2. Hmm..

I do see your point, but I think it's an equal mistake to overstate their influence as well, and I think the tendency to do that comes from our own particular biases for our candidates. I think most people take their vote seriously and make up their own minds about the reasons they support someone. You might believe someone like Tim Russert has changed someone's mind, but particularly in the case of Hillary, because she was basically already well known, most people already had an opinion of her. And racism, well, someone who isn't racist will not be agreeing with Pat Buchanan.

We want those to be the reasons to justify our candidates failures. As Obama himself has said, if he loses, it won't be because of racism, but because he failed to properly deliver his message, even if the media seems to work against him, the responsibility is ultimately his and he must learn to adapt. It's certainly not going to make it easier, but politics have never been easy.