i think she’s saying there has been more attention paid to race and racism as a factor

Alright beth, I will take you on your word, but I will ask this. How did you come come with a measure for how much racism has been attended to? By this I mean, what sort of metric system did you use to measure how much the media and whoever have paid attention to racism more so than sexism?

Like I said before it’s fine if your lens are trained to spot sexism, but please please don’t belittle those of us who also have to face racism by making false comparisons to the level of attention we receive.

Ms. Cocco’s mistake (or objectionable intention, if that be the case) is in implying that the analogies she draws are the only ones that are valid; that without “crude references to Obama’s sex organs” there simply can’t be racism going on at (or at least in the neighborhood of) the scale of the misogyny against Clinton. A few minutes of reading about the West Virginia primaries should make that claim pretty suspect.

Hillary was exposed to a ridiculous amount of sexist crap. Chris Matthews, and the other talking heads, disgusted me throughout the campaign.

I know of several female voters in New Hampshire who switched to Hillary as a protest vote, largely because watching Chris Matthews gloat over her Iowa defeat made them want to gag.

Cable news really is a boys club. They do know, more or less, that they shouldn’t be openly racist. But it was open season on Hillary throughout the campaign.

Now, none of this is intended to minimize what Obama faced. The attempts to marginalize him a “black candidate”, the remarks about “hard-working white voters”–that was all utterly disgusting, too. But none of that, no matter how ugly, makes the treatment of Hillary any less gag-a-rific. You can’t combat racism by being sexist, or vice-versa.

I really, really don’t think that she was discounting race based remarks or trying to play “oppression olympics” as you call it. I think she was trying point out that many, many people, in mainstream media, have spoken out about the race issues that have come up in the course of this campaign, but few in the mainstream media have been willing to acknowledge that Clinton has faced an unwavering attack for being a woman.

I think she was drawing an analogy that would hit people- because her analogy is loathesome, but also true. The media would be all over these kinds of things if they were race oriented- but I see in every other store, the Hilary nutcracker, bumper stickers that beyond offensive; hell, a few weeks ago I saw a pick up truck with a Hilary doll hanging from the tow hitch- in a noose- and I live in a fairly progressive state. Who is speaking out about it? Where are the arguments that this type of behavior is wrong? I truly feel our society is getting a pass on blatant misogynist behavior.

It is not about which is worse- both are wrong. I also have to say that I am disappointed in your using the term ‘oppression olympics.’ It is belittling and derisive. It is not about which is worse- it is about the fact that both are wrong- and one is acknowledged as wrong and the other isn’t.

Because you’d argue that the white male/female gap isn’t that big? That’s open to interpretation - I’d disagree, but I guess “that big”-ness is a measure highly susceptible to personal biases. But even if we grant that, that only begs the question as to why white people* identify more by race than by gender - since it’s already been well established that racial identification has been a huuuuge part of this race, particularly in certain states - and none of the possible answers look at all charitable to the idea that sexism has been worse than racism during this primary.

Because you think targeting voters by race just has more force of tradition to it than the same by gender, and that mainstream commentators aren’t being racist necessarily by following that? I’d agree to a point - but why does that tradition exist in the first place? What are the consequences of maintaining it?

I have already gone over why and how I think racism and sexism differ, and why the existence of Hillary nutcrackers (notwithstanding the Barack/Curious George t-shirts) does not mean sexism has been worse than racism. Short paraphrase, mainstream Democratic candidates are vetted for their positions on abortion and reproductive rights. How hardly are they vetted for their positions on affirmative action? Who is more widely viewed as the Democratic Party pariah - Gloria Steinem or Jesse Jackson Jr.? I do agree that people are more casual about sexism than about racism, but this doesn’t always work to Black people’s favour - silent resentment can be the worst, deepest sort there is.

I also happened to notice that one very glaring omission from that list. Back when Clinton was the presumptive nominee, some Republicans silently thought of the election in terms of “how do we take down that b*tch?!”. And by “silently”, I actually mean “loudly and openly, with McCain, upon hearing this, letting out a hearty laugh”. I’d say it’s significant because it’s the only such incident that directly implicates one of the three remaining candidates, yet Ms. Cucco doesn’t seem to agree. Did she forget, or is there another reason?

Of course racism has played a part in the campaign, and of course that’s to be decried. What’s most interesting, I think, is how the perception of likeability plays into it. Hillary is a crass and unlikeable person, and Barack is polished and affable. I suspect that has made a big difference in how people are willing to express themselves, but I also suspect that it is more acceptable to bash a woman for being a woman than it is to bash a black person for being black.

The difference between the “white problem” and the “black problem” is simple. There are six white voters for every black voter. A black voter problem is less important than a white voter problem because black voters are less important as a group. A five point difference in the black vote and a five point difference in the white vote simply aren’t comparable in terms of how they’ll impact the election. That’s magnified by the fact that black voters don’t have anywhere else to go - it takes more to make a five point change in the black vote than it does to make a five point change in the white vote, if you’re talking about Democratic primary candidates.

And I simply don’t agree that the mainstream media has treated racism in this campaign — such as the constant refrain that Obama has a white problem (yet somehow Clinton is never seen as having a black problem), or the problematic implications of linking “hard working voters” and “white voters” rhetorically — with disdain and opposition.

Something else I won’t miss? Clinton supporters who either make race-based attacks on Obama’s candidacy, or who (like Ms. Cocco) imply that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t effected the course of this campaign, and anyhow racism isn’t nearly as bad as sexism. And you know what? That’s fucking loathsome too.

I don’t know, Amp - it’s been well and properly argued here on this blog that during this campaign racism has been treated with a lot more disdain and opposition than sexism. I think that this is the point of Ms. Cocco’s comment. I don’t take her comment as a race-based attack on Obama’s campaign, nor do I see it as advancing a view that racism doesn’t exist or hasn’t affected (note) the campaign at all, or that racism is or is not as bad as sexism. And on that basis I think she’s correct.

More info on http://www.abortionrights.org.uk

And apologies for hijacking the comments column - please feel free to remove this comment and repost the info somewhere more appropriate. I just want to raise awareness, it’s going to be a very close vote, every bit of help counts. Thanks very much.