Thanks for the response. I mean, I think we ARE on the same side, we just have a very unique primary this year in which to figure out what our liberal and progressive tendencies REALLY mean.
And Ferraro? Yeah - she's a product of her generation, as well - but she should have known better. To suggest that Obama's lucky to be a black man - no, to SAY it, well, it harks to Babs Bush saying "oh, these people are lucky to be in this gym!" post-Katrina.
She didn't say he was lucky to be black, she said he would not have come this far if he weren't a black man. And, I mean, would as much media attention have been paid to a two-year freshman senator if he were a white guy?
Obama came to our attention when he ran for Senate -- and it was an amazing victory and I remember feeling this great love for him when he joined the Senate. BUT I am also pretty confident that the MEDIA attention that he drew, above and beyond the media attention other politicians have gotten, is partially because he's a black man.
And since nobody's pretending he's NOT black, just like nobody's pretending Hillary's not a woman, I think it's appropriate to ask what that means/meant as far as his candidacy, in this world that's narrated by the media. Sure, it was tacky for Ferraro to say it out loud, and maybe it was meant for back-room musings and op-eds, but I agree with her that, since race is a big part of this election, it's worth noting.
Was it also easier for Hillary to get this far because she was a woman and therefore attracted her own kind of media attention? Probably! But I think people are more often distracted by the fact that she's an old face, and a Clinton, than to be impressed by her novelty or world-changing ability as a non white guy in the presidency. Everybody's ALREADY calling her "more of the same," you know?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-04 02:10 am (UTC)And Ferraro? Yeah - she's a product of her generation, as well - but she should have known better. To suggest that Obama's lucky to be a black man - no, to SAY it, well, it harks to Babs Bush saying "oh, these people are lucky to be in this gym!" post-Katrina.
She didn't say he was lucky to be black, she said he would not have come this far if he weren't a black man. And, I mean, would as much media attention have been paid to a two-year freshman senator if he were a white guy?
Obama came to our attention when he ran for Senate -- and it was an amazing victory and I remember feeling this great love for him when he joined the Senate. BUT I am also pretty confident that the MEDIA attention that he drew, above and beyond the media attention other politicians have gotten, is partially because he's a black man.
And since nobody's pretending he's NOT black, just like nobody's pretending Hillary's not a woman, I think it's appropriate to ask what that means/meant as far as his candidacy, in this world that's narrated by the media. Sure, it was tacky for Ferraro to say it out loud, and maybe it was meant for back-room musings and op-eds, but I agree with her that, since race is a big part of this election, it's worth noting.
Was it also easier for Hillary to get this far because she was a woman and therefore attracted her own kind of media attention? Probably! But I think people are more often distracted by the fact that she's an old face, and a Clinton, than to be impressed by her novelty or world-changing ability as a non white guy in the presidency. Everybody's ALREADY calling her "more of the same," you know?