The sexism that Hillary had to put up with is a little different than the racism that Obama's had to deal with not because of its severity or tone but because of its source.

People who make ignorant comments about Obama's religion, or say they won't vote for a black man tend to be, well, er... what's the polite term we use? Low information voters?

Let's just say hillbillies.

Meanwhile, Clinton's endured sexism from educated elites. From people like Chris Matthews. People with seven figure incomes and national platforms.

It's still hard to have too much sympathy for Clinton on this front since as soon as she started to benefit from a wave of Appalachian ignorance she declared those people "the base of the Democratic party" and courted them.

But, Hillary's actions aside, it is true that the sexism against her came from the richer, more influential, elite parts of society and the media. Having some dude in a bar compare you to a monkey on a t-shirt sucks but it's not as bad as having national newspaper columnists comparing you to Lady Macbeth or a blogger sponsored by the Atlantic comparing you to the villain in Fatal Attraction. It also implies that for some reason sexism is still acceptable among affluent, influential, well educated people. Is racism? Probably. But we haven't seen it expressed so nakedly as the sexism during this election.

Somehow we've got to start talking like actual humans

Utopia is a long way off. What you see is what we are. If we overcome the divisions and bias of race and sex we'll move on to something else to fight about.

Human beings are never going to be the same, never have the same genetics, intelligence, experiences, talents, backgrounds, potential...and therefore will never have the same interests and ethics.

They'll always be in conflict, often bitter conflict and therefore politics will always be nasty.

In the present case, you neglect individual personalities in favor of broad categories. Hillary is not liked, Barak is. Jeremiah Wright, regardless of his intelligence and message, is a preening, pompous ass. Were those things different the contest would have been different.

When Morgan Freeman accepted his Oscar he said simply "I thank you". It was the most moving moment.

Had Jeremiah Wright been a man like that he would have said "Barak Obama says that I'm a crazy old uncle, yelling about times and problems which no longer exist. Please, America, prove him right. There nothing I want more", he would have been a hero and Obama would be President. It's that simple.

It really is a shame that it has come to this sort of, what, one-downs-(wo)manship. (Of course, maybe this kind of fight has been present but less surfaced for more or less my entire life.) In the past, I guess, it has divided progressives when we were politically weak; now it stands to divide us when we could be strong.

I really don't want to contribute to this counterproductive fight. But it is worth noting that, if one grants the assumption that sexism has been more on the surface this electoral season, more in the media, etc., that it does not follow that sexism is the greater problem we face right now. For granting the assumption, this takes place within a political context of forty years of tacitly racialized politics, where presidential candidates stir up states' rights fervor almost over the graves of slain civil rights workers, where attack ads regularly feature invocations of white resentment or fear of African-Americans, where candidates think they can get away with racial epithets on videotape if they are obscure enough. Maybe the difference is just that you have to speak louder, in our culture today, if you want to make your sexism heard.

Devon Kearney

For some reason I keep paraphrasing Rumsfeld: you have to run for office in the country as it is, not as you wish it would be. Yes, Hillary has suffered from sexism in her campaing, and Obama has suffered from racism. Neither candidate is at their best when complaining about it. And it's silly to argue over what is the larger obstacle.

The only tangential comment I'd make is that while I've not seen Obama trying to make Clinton's sex an issue in the campaign, I wish I could say the same about Hillary and Obama's race.

It's true that I live with a woman, and have picked up a lot from that partnership. But most of that lot can be summed up as follows--Know. When. To. Quit.

You made me laugh here, and I very much enjoyed the entire essay.

I especially think your point on the passions of youth was spot on and is something that is often underplayed on the "oppression olympics" topic.

The older I get, the more I appreciate the "wisdom of age" on this front, not from my own personal story, but because I have lived long enough to see so many of my elders who were once prejudiced against this or that type of person, or practicians of oppression olympics this or that type, learn, that things are not so black and white, not from books or education, but from life, from knowing other people's personal life stories and realizing that others have pain and suffering equivalent or worse. Those that stay in "ghettoes" of their own sub-culture, and know fewer "others," take much longer to get that "wisdom."

For the latter reason (and my experience living in NYC for the past 25 years), I grow ever more confident that "integration," and mixing of cultures is one of the best things that can happen, it really gets results, through "wisdom of age." You get lots of serious serious blowback when it's forced by government or law (or war), and therefore that option has to done thoughtfully to prevent going 1 step forward and 2 steps back, but done via something like pop culture, it can do wonders. (I think the results of all of the litigation and protest for gay rights, for example, final positive impact is probably equal to the results gained from the popularity of "La Cage aux Folles" through "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.") We've all learned in recent years that it's better to call it "cosmopolitanism v. tribalism" than "integration" but that's semantics.

This is not to be confused at all with "broad coalition" politics. It's simply about existing in a state of tolerance where actual politics and governing, rather than war can go on.

-----

I think you might find the following short but nuanced piece in the NYT magazine yesterday on the Hillary/feminism thang to have a simpatico or intriguing thought or two on the feminist thang (though I think your piece is much better :-)):

"The Hillary Lesson"
By Peggy Orenstein
"What Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has taught our daughters."

More and more it does appear to me that the main real "feminist" effect of what's going on with Hillary's candidacy might be mainly the effect on very young girls (everyone else more "jaded" or having "wisdom of age" depending on your point of view.) They see Hillary on TV, they like her like they like the color pink, they wanna root for the girl to be president and not the boy. But then something I think that Orenstein gets across quite well is that, yes, there are all kinds of nasty things being said about Hillary out there, some go over their head, others don't, and, in the end, it's a reality that they have to learn about and negotiate, and perhaps they might eventually be an agent of change on that front.

----

Oh, and on the "wisdom of age" front as to Geraldine Ferraro, hah, well, mainly what I see there is not so much an intransigent that hasn't changed her attitudes over the years, but someone who lived part of history and gets real real aggravated at what she thinks is revisionist history, and she's not too damn good at communicating that thoughtfully. One down side of old age is people just get real blunt, don't see no reason to "beat around the bush." :-)

Some of Ferraro's angrier recent statements reminds of something from my last discussion with my now deceased 90-year-old aunt. Perhaps a recounting of the anecdote will help express what I am saying about Ferraro. My was the eldest of 7 children of Polish Catholic immigrant farmers, only had an 8th-grade education, raised isolated, but after raising a family went on to a pretty good 20-year career in retail management in a department store owned by a Jewish family. This was in a Midwestern city where Jews are a very small minority and mostly live in the same wealthier area of the city. The topic of Jewish people came up during my last conversation with her, just in passing. She raised her voice and pronounced, even though the issue had not been raised, "there's nothing wrong with Jewish people, Jewish people are some of the finest people on earth, you can't find better people!" Now I'm sure she didn't mean that there aren't any Jewish crooks. :-) And there were no issues of senility in bringing it up in the discussion, she was very sharp to the end. She was just bluntly trying to make sure to fight back against slurs she had heard long ago which she knew from personal experience not to be true.

this article completely misses the point. it isn't that there is sexism against Hillary and no racism against Obama. it's that the sexism against Hillary is considered acceptable but the racism against Obama is not.

yes, the famous Obama/monkey t-shirt. we all saw it online. and what happened? there was a groundswell of disgust and disbelief. it WASN'T acceptable.

and when Gerry Ferraro claimed that Obama was only where he was because he was black, there was such an uproar that she was forced to resign.

compare that to the CONSTANT sexist remarks about Clinton: about her pantsuits, her laugh, her shrill voice, her wrinkles, her crying, her ankles, and so on: not only was there not an uproar, there was a general sense of "oh well, that's just what they're going to say about a woman."

and by the way, Mr. Coates: to say that "...they would never elect a black president, or a Muslim president--which this year seems to just mean a nigger president..." would be offensive if it wasn't so silly. deliberately using race-baiting language like that really detracts from the intelligent things you have to say. anyway, the NAACP held a march in Detroit last year to bury that word...or didn't you hear?

I think a lot of us on the left still agree on that basic point--that our coalition is as much about ethics as it is shared interests.

That's a bit redundant isn't it?

I make the point because some people seem to forget (or don't know) that "ethics" are by definition a philosophy regulating behavior dedicated to the shared interests of community which must be agreed upon.

If someone can't make an ethical argument on practical grounds, it's either dogmatic or otherwise flawed, and false.

Some people seem to mistake their personal opinions or delusions of how the world should operate, with "ethics." They're not the same.

You know why? Because you're a loser, insecure, angry, miserable. You have a loser's psychology - wishing above all else, to humble your betters, to prove that despite all the evidence you are smarter, wiser, stronger.

Typical offensive fare -- when cornered or called out, respond with name calling and armchair psychoanalysis in lieu of substance. Can't counter an argument? Call it boring and its proponent a loser. Brilliant!

Nothing I need to prove, actually. You've proved it all already, all by your little self.