One of the most unproductive conversations to emerge from a year of pseudo-debates and meta-coverage of media meta-coverage has been that of whether it is harder to run for president as a black man or a white woman. The question itself embodies a paradox, since the very thing that makes it so urgent to ask (that these are the first ever female or black candidates very likely to win) is exactly what makes it impossible to answer (there is no directly relevant historical record to look back on, and no larger sample against which to check observations). Still the ‘debate’ draws on, a bit of scum beneath the campaign’s surface, constantly felt and every so painfully often discussed.
Each of the tropes the media wields in covering this campaign (and the coverage consists of little else) gets measured against the standard tropes of racism and patriarchy. When Clinton is described as domineering and aggressive, it conceals an implicit comparison to the docile nurturing women of mainstream patriarchal mythology. When Obama is described as cool and unflappable, there is an unspoken comparison to the ‘angry black man’ white America so desperately fears… Or is it a comparison to the laid-back black cool exemplified by Will Smith and Mos Def? The possibilities are, if not endless, extremely varied, and this raises a question of where exactly these comparisons are taking place. Do we make the comparisons ourselves, silently in the process of reading – even as the political media simply report basic facts as they occur? Do the political media have certain expectations of gendered and racial behavior that makes them more likely to report when a candidate conforms to these stereotypes (Hillary cries! Obama is hip!)? Or when they apparently diverge from them (He’s clean and articulate (just don’t mention it)! She loves the war!)? Is it the candidates themselves, aware of their own gendered and racial identities, doing their best to manipulate these codes to their own advantage, and (gasp) to the detriment of their opponents? I hope the questions answer themselves; clearly the culture itself is, if not racist and sexist, permeated with expectations based on racial and gender difference (some would call this phenomenon itself racism and sexism, but I find it useful to keep these terms slightly more specific. At certain points the campaign spectacle has veered toward the more narrowly-defined sense of racism and sexism, notably with the Clintons’ sickening behavior in South Carolina, and with the media pile-on to Clinton’s New Hampshire tears. But these events – at least by our pre-March 2008 standards – were genuine low-points, expressive of a general atmosphere, but in some sense aberrant within an actual chain events).
Yet the problem with the race-gender ‘debate’ is not that it is banal and insoluble; if that were all, then there would be no more reason to discuss it than any other campaign ‘issue’: who represents ‘change’, who has ‘experience’, whom would you prefer to have tucking in your 7-year-old blond-haired blue-eyed Obama supporter at three in the morning. The problem is a much more difficult one, which is that the debate can only ever favor Clinton.
Over the course of the campaign we have heard from various feminist theorists and bloggers, Clinton campaign staffers, and most recently Geraldine Ferraro, that the coverage of Clinton is sexist - not for any particular story, but in overall tone. This is clearly and regrettably true, in the sense outlined above. But it is also true, as is probably clear to anyone living in America, that calling someone or something out as sexist is fairly harmless, especially when compared to the charge of racism, which is normally acknowledged as just the most serious and damning adjective we in the US share. This is a shame, because it means that the impact of a charge of sexism is far less than it reasonably ought to be. If one is called sexist at a dinner party s/he smiles and protests, but call someone called racist and it leads to outrage, an end friendships. Clinton can charge the media with sexism in general, because it is as true as it is nebulous. As it is unthreatening. For Obama, there can be no racism in general; claiming so would be to cast himself as an ‘angry black man’ – it would be an act of suicide. Both campaigns are aware of this.
The numbers support the logic of the Clinton campaign. Women are aware that they are discriminated against not just concretely, but in a million different nebulous, general ways. They understand her campaign’s complaints, and their sympathy is reflected in their support of the Clinton candidacy. African-Americans are equally aware of the general, abstract forms of discrimination they face, along with the obvious and shocking forms of material discrimination. But women are more than half the population, which matters a great deal in a democracy; African-Americans number only 12.8% (and whites are still over 80%). These numbers, along with the extremely unequal impacts of racism versus sexism as terms, tell us far more about how charges of bias are deployed than do any count of mentions of Clinton’s décolletage.
Like everything else in this simulacrum of a presidential race, the debate over racism and sexism in campaign coverage is not about race and sex, but rather about the debate itself. It is a depressing conversation on what kinds of claims can be made, what kind of (what little) evidence they require, and whom they can be made to benefit. As of yesterday, Ferraro is officially leading the pack in this race to the bottom, pointing out how ‘lucky’ Obama is to run for President as an African-American, but there is a while to go.

Obama, if you have to be reminded, is only 1/2 black, the other half is a mother that was abandond by his black father, and her mother that raised him. How does he thank them by making the following statement:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

Like all demigods, his feet are made of clay.

He lied on video tape days before he made his Wright speech.

He lied about his association with Rezko, and this one coming like a freight train at him.

He will have to drop out before the convention.

"He will have to drop out before the convention"

Do you have to tap your heels together three times while you say that?

No my little puppy friend, just for reallity to set in.

LDP, why are you being the anti-Obama racist here? I've noticed that every time there's an analytical argument that points out Obama's good sides, mystery posters like you pop up, spew a bunch of hate and rhetoric, and then suddenly disappear... only to be replaced with another guy spouting similar stuff under a different name?

My friend, apparently you have not vetted Obama like I have. Everything I state is factual and readily available for those who seek the truth. Most of what I post here comes directly from Obama’s mouth; it is for you to see the truth. I am far from being a racist, my daughter and two of our adopter grandchildren are black, and I love them dearly. So no, I am not a racist!

I ment, daughter in-law.

Oh, so you just peddle rqcism as a hobby; you don't actually believe in it yourself. And what else do you do these days, peddle heroin to schoolkids (though you yourself do not indulge)?

I wouldn't be impressed if you claimed to be black yourself. Racist opportunism is no better than the fear and resentment on which it feeds.George Corley Wallace was not personally much of a racist, but he discovered what he'd have to be to win in Alabama, and went for it. I believe the relevant quote is: "They'll never outnigger me again."

I don't think that George H.W. Bush was a racist in 1988, but he profited from the rqcist reaction to the Willie Horton ad that his campaign aides Andy Card, Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater produced. You're just a piddling shadow of that shameful act, but what you're doing is worse and more contemptible.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have so much dirt on each other that to part company from each other would be to commit suicide. Period.

On the other hand, being able to call sexism when you see it is a strength. The taboo on using the word 'racist' means that a lot of equally offensive expressions about race get to slide right by, because nobody is going to drop the 'r' bomb.

If you think Obama is dropping out before the convention you're living in la-la land! He has raised more money than ANY candidate ever, and has masses of new voters turning out not just to vote for him but to organize. He is the Democratic party revitalization dream come true, and the DNC's only hope of catching up to the RNC which has $25 millon on hand compared to their $4 million. Meanwhile Hillary has a modest majority of older people and women which don't add anything to the Dems; and a funding base which has mostly maxed out for both primary and GE contributions. They gain nothing from her, she would be a serious liability if she was given the dem nomination, and they risk alienating a new generation of voters for years to come. The only thing keeping the leaders from tossing Hillary now is fear of upsetting her, and, indeed, respect for her as the first women presidential candidate.

But thank God for Bill Richards! Hillary is history! Too bad she will go down as arrogant and presumptious rather than as a respected leader, which she could have done.

I'm not so much worried about who is the first but who is the last.