First some bona fides (in my limited writing experience here, it seems that the logic of one's arguments, or the correctness of one's facts, are less important often than the personal details of who you are). I voted for Jesse Jackson in my state primary twice (1984 and 1988). I have represented a significant number of African-American employees terminated from their employment on the basis of race. I have promoted expansive hiring practices in my place of employment and affirmatively sought to hire (hired) persons of color as a member of my firm's hiring committee (often with some explaining to do). I myself am a member of an "other" class and I understand very well the realities of stigma and discrimination, both intellectually and personally. ALso, I am currently the director of an AIDS service organization that works tirelessly on behalf of persons with HIV disease, yet another marginalized and stigmatized group in our country. And honestly, my best female friend in all of the world is African-American (brilliant, accomplished, dear).
(Until a few years ago, my second best male friend in all of the world was a black man, who loved me, and with all of his heart -- but that was its own pathology I'm told, and so maybe doesn't count. Sadly, he died tragically young and still self-hating.) I am not a racist. I am not ignorant (at some rank level, though there's lots I don't know). I am not stupid. I know racism exists. I know I have been privileged (and affected) by its vestiges. So please spare me the lectures about being a racist, or the snide comments about lynching, and all of that other fatuous blather. This diary is about politics.
I do not want to defend the Ferraro comments. At least in the form that I first read them, if nothing else, she seemed too begrudging (in the way that many now begrudge the wealth created by gambling (gaming) for the benefit of native peoples -- unseemly after we stole their land, raped their women and brought them deadly diseases and addictions previously unknown). But I do think you are missing the political point (I don't know her at all to conclude that she is or is not a racist, but I have no reason not to take her at her word). Obama is undeniably where he is in substantial (maybe even, in necessary, but not sufficient) part (please, subjective readers, note the adjective) because African-Americans are clearly voting along racial lines. (Maybe there's another explanation, like blacks are better able to discern a candidate's merits, which explanation itself might be racist, but obviously, on their face, these are not "all things being equal" kinds of numbers and I have not read or heard a better explanation.) Obama is where he is because he is black. Not in the affirmative action sense that so many of you are ranting about, but as a matter of current political reality. Just so, Bill Clinton was right in his observations about Jesse Jackson (which is why, as I recall, Jackson was not offended). Fortunately, the ultimate point did not prove to be true -- that we could disregard Obama's South Carolina win because a black candidate can only win in states with a significant African-American population (the primaries that Jackson won were mostly confined to Southern states with large black voting populations and a few caucuses)-- but the "downplay" was well grounded. Not a single person who is intellectually honest believes that either Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton is racist.
Of course, that HRC is running a racist campaign is now part of the narrative (her "Goreification"), stated as a received truth without any need for substantiation. And just like with Al Gore, I assume that a few years from now, after the cold eye of scholarship completes its gaze, the charges will turn out to be as false, and the Obama campaign as duplicitous. I think the facts already suggest that the appeal to racialism by the Obama campaign was calculated, brilliant and highly effective in galvanizing the African-American vote, first in South Carolina. This article, for example, notes the calculation behind the now-infamous, conveniently-leaked, vigorously-pushed Obama campaign "racializing politics" memo. (See excerpts of the memorandum here.) No credible reading of these remarks (presumably the worst of them, as they were identified by the Obama campaign) would conclude that they are racist, hence all the contortions, obfuscations and prevarications that followed by the myth makers and repeated by the chattering class. Something more insidious at work on Clinton's part? Perhaps, but racist language so subtle that almost no white understands it and that offends almost every black (like a high pitch that only certain ears can hear) does not seem like a very smart election strategy. Looking just at the circumstantial evidence (who benefited, say, and how savvy he has been as a candidate, with hardly a misstep or unanticipated scenario), it might look more like an Obama strategy.
So racialism is at play in this campaign (I am far less certain about racism, at the campaign level: racists always lurk, and act, among us). As I wrote in a prior diary (maybe one is not allowed to quote oneself, so apologies ahead):
In South Carolina, Maryland and Virginia, for example, blacks comprised 55%, 37% and 29% of the Democratic vote, respectively (see the CNN Election Center for all of these and the following data points). African-Americans voted for Obama 78%, 84% and 90%, respectively. A voting bloc this significant and monolithic would be virtually impossible for Clinton to overcome. Based on the vote totals, she would have had to win 85%, 70% and 65%, respectively, of the rest of the vote to win the primary. And yet many wrote of these wins uncritically, pooh-poohing all "Yes, but..." efforts (ineptly by the Clinton campaign, but others less biased, too). And thus was momentum and inevitability made. People love to be in the herd (hence the unfair power of the early, non-representative voting states historically (see Kerry, 2004 and the near-run of the table). I might, too, if I were African-American, given this country's history, and the momentous possibility of an Obama presidency, but we really shouldn't be pleased about such stark polarization (while we should be similarly pleased about the apparent willingness of most white voters not to vote along racial lines). This stark disparity likely wasn't in the Clinton (a staunch and reliable advocate for racial equality) calculus, and is a very tough box to get out of (see South Carolina).
Mississippi yesterday offers the easiest example. There, blacks comprised 50% of the voters in the Democratic primary. Obama received 92% of this vote. Thus, Clinton needed 92%+ of the remaining mostly white (2% "other") vote. Imagine the hue and cry if 93% of the white voters had voted against Obama. (Again, I get the difference between the acts of the oppressed and the oppressor, former or otherwise. And again fortunately, most white voters have not voted so blatantly along racial lines. In many states, Obama has carried a majority of the white vote.)
The point? Call out racism where you see it, but don't conflate all remarks that note differences or advantages among the races with racism. As a matter of politics, it is a real, and large advantage for Obama that blacks are voting along racial lines. That they are doing so might be defensible (see above), but it surely is not how we want to order ourselves in the future, even if now. And my black friend that I mentioned above finds this lack of distinguishing among African-American voters demeaning. Any candidate should be measured first by merit. (By the way, according to at least one poll that I read, voters are more inclined to vote against a candidate because she is a woman (13%) than because he or she is black (6%). So let's not forget the rampant misogyny that exists, too.) The issue of racialism deserves an honest discussion (sociological, political, psychological). That so many people are instead manipulating this issue (along with so many others) for advantage is demoralizing. I truly wish it weren't politics as usual, but it mostly is -- here and out on the trail.