Writer. Music head. Political junkie. Pop culture whore. Funny black boy. Looking to have a voice in the world -- with a few good sponsors.
Find Me Here:
As expected, this race-baiting style of politics that seeks to play off the racial prejudices that linger on in this country in the name of career advancement presses on, despite its growing moments or irony and absurdity. Former Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate and Dorothy Zbornak look-alike, Geraldine Ferraro, has been making waves for her comments about Barack Obama’s front-runner status -- arguing that his darker hue is the main factor behind his success.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Yes, we all know how privileged Black men are in this society. This from the mouth of a person who was nothing more than a token choice based on her estrogen count in a throwaway election against a popular incumbent President twenty fours ago.
Ferraro isn’t doing anything but following Gloria Steinem’s lead in stating that gender is much greater hurdle in this country than race. Steinem has since retracted her statement that gender is the most restricting factor in this country given it was pointed out to her that while Black men were given the right to vote before women, they weren’t exactly greeted with fanfare at the polls.
Dorothy Zbornak: The Remix is sticking to her story:
While I appreciate her honesty about how gender factored into her selection as Mondale’s running mate in ’84, she still sounds like someone who leads a life devoid of reality.
Case in point:
"For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
Since being criticized for her comments, Ferraro has gone on to say that racism works both ways and that people are now targeting her because she’s white. That pour soul.
To be fair, Hillary Clinton has been a target of sexism. People have questioned her femininity and in the same breath argue that she has to be stronger. Her choices in wardrobe have been debated as has the way she's chosen to wear her hair. And they are indeed some people who spew venom her way because she is a powerful woman.
But let’s stop pretending.
Hillary Clinton is an ivy league educated upper class white female married to the former President of the United States. If Hillary Clinton ran as Hillary Rodham, would she even be in contention for the Democratic nomination? If she were Hillary Rodham, would she have launched her political career as the junior Senator from New York?
The idea that a wealthy white woman married to the President faces more hurdles than a man of color not born of privilege is laughable and ignores a certain privilege afforded to her.
She has been given a free ride throughout the campaign. Her “vast” experience is as thin as a crackhead in ’88.
While the media has pressed Obama about the Rezko fiasco, little has been said about her husband’s presidential library contributors, and the likely presidential favors that come with them. Unlike every other candidate, she has yet to release her tax returns. Why should she when the media hasn’t pressed her to?
When an Obama adviser branded Hillary a “monster,” the Clinton campaign vehemently called for her removal. However, nothing outside of expressed “regret” as come from the Clinton camp in response to Dorothy Ferraro’s comments. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s comments that Pennsylvania voters may not be “ready” to cast their vote for a Black man were glossed over completely.
When she’s not playing victim, she’s usually on the attack, vilifying her opponent to the point where you have to wonder if John McCain managed to wrestle enough pocket change to chip into her fledging campaign.
If the press were being hard on her (or fair), they would chip away at her fabricated experience and point to her actual roles as corporate lawyer, Walmart board member, and the years she spent in the White House keeping the press at bay.
Or maybe they would target her claims as a child advocate on the issue of episodes like these:
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.
The more she cries victimhood, the more annoyed I become. She is no victim. She and Ferraro are nothing more than walking, antagonizing examples of affirmative actions main beneficiaries.
I applaud her for trying to be a First Lady of substance, but it’s not as if going on trips to Bosnia with Sinbad has brought us one step closer to world peace. When she's not crying publicly to plea to female voters for their support, she’s releasing campaign ads featuring women of every color to “Do it for Hillary!” Her campaign is largely based on the successes of her husband, and for a long time relied on him to attack Obama. Is that feminism?
Hillary Clinton is to feminism what Soulja Boy is to hip hop. Her career has very little parallels to the female Senators and Governors who have prospered based on their own records versus those of their husbands. And if she were that much of a hardship candidate, she wouldn't run her campaign with an air of inevitability.
When Obama wins Mississippi and South Carolina, it’s because he’s the Black candidate. When he wins Wyoming, Utah, Iowa, and North Dakota, these states simply don’t matter. But when Hillary Clinton’s campaign launches racsist divide and conquer tactics to win Texas and Ohio, she is the comeback kid.
The world is so cruel to her.