Geraldine Ferraro was supposed to make history. After all, she was the first woman to be nominated for vice president on a major party ticket way back in 1984. As the first female vice president, Ferraro was going to change things, as this is what Democrats always promise to do. And to be fair, Democrats often do change things,
the meaning of the word "is" is just one example.
But then something funny happened. Ferraro turned out to be a spectacularly bad politician, her husband was doing business with the fucking mafia, and the definition of the word "loser" was changed to prominently feature Walter Mondale's name and photograph. The Mondale / Ferraro ticket was humiliated in ways that anyone who hasn't worn a gimp suit and a ball gag can never truly understand.
Ferraro presents herself as something of a fairy godmother to Hillary Rodham Clinton, which only seems fair because they both define themselves by what's between their legs. Without their vaginas, they are nothing. It is almost impossible to come to any other conclusion given their recent statements.
Indeed, it was that attitude that got Gerry shitcanned from the Clinton campaign just shy of three months ago. She said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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".
The problem wasn't so much that Ferraro said that as much as it is that she said it in public, where people who aren't Bill Clinton could hear her. Which is unusual, because everybody knows how much fun it has been to be a black man throughout American history. Christ, why didn't she just go further and say "Look, I know those people couldn't vote for the first 191 years of our history and die of things like sickle cell anemia and lynching, but they sure can dance and that has to count for something, doesn't it?"
Of course, pointing that out was terribly sexist and Ferraro has had her knickers in a knot about it ever since. She has launched a virtual jihad against those who would dare to vote against a woman. Fatwas have also been issued against the sexist media from Geraldine's asexual perch at Fox News.
Sexism, she tells us, is all around us. There's no escaping it, which also explains why women won't stop laughing at the size of my penis.
Yesterday, the former member of Congress from Neverland laid out her argument in
a Boston Globe essay that's easily one of the top ten silliest things I've ever read.
Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.
The reaction to the questions being raised has been not to listen to the message and try to find out how to deal with the problem, but rather to denigrate the messenger. Sore loser, petty, silly, vengeful are words that have dominated the headlines. But scolding and name calling don't resolve disputes. The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.
Among the words I would have included in the above cited headlines are: "shrill," "ruthless," "bitchy," and "cuntish." I'm frankly shocked that I haven't been hired by a major metropolitan newspaper yet. But the journalism industry is biased against white guys with shaved heads, potty mouths, overactive libidos and teensy peckers. Everybody knows that.
Ferraro says twice in those two paragraphs that Hillary was "treated unfairly" but never explains how or gives examples of that treatment. Is the fact that enough people didn't vote for her evidence of sexism? Would it have been racist if Obama lost and Hillary won? If so, why isn't Bill Richardson taking to the streets on behalf of overweight Hispanics
named Judas?
If there really are women out there who think that Hillary's defeat (which actually occurred several months ago by any mathematical standard) is evidence of sexism, then those women are idiots and proof that the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution should probably be reconsidered.
When the primaries started, Senator Clinton and, presumably, Congresswoman Ferraro were fine with the Democratic Party's proportional allocation of delegates which has been the party rule since 1972. Now they argue that the only the popular vote should matter. In the beginning of this mess, they approved of not seating Michigan and Florida because they were "rogue states" under the party rules. Now "every vote should be counted" and disagreeing with that is
comparable to slavery.Allow me to suggest that if a white male candidate tried either one of those maneuvers, he'd be laughed right out of politics. Yet, Hillary Clinton hasn't been. Instead, she's being touted as the next majority leader of the United States Senate as I write this. Not bad ... for a girl.
If the Democratic Party establishment and its primary voters were sexist, do you really think that Clinton would have been the presumed presidential nominee for
eight fucking years? I somehow doubt it.
The fact is that Hillary and her demented husband ran the single most incompetent primary campaign in my memory. The entire endeavor was predicated on the premise of inevitability, which is neither sexist nor particularly democratic. It was the devine right of the Clintons to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Clinton '08 was lazy, stupid and given to irresponsible spending in ways that have probably shocked even Al Gore. The delegation of resources was staggering in ways that indicated hubris, stupidity, or both. Clinton '08 raised a quarter of a
billion dollars and is currently in debt up to their tits. Hillary ran her campaign in pretty much the same way that President Bush has run the federal government.
And that's
fine when you're running against a halfwit like
Chris Dodd. But Barack Obama, rightly or wrongly, quickly became far more than just another candidate, he became movement - closer to a personality cult, really - unto himself. That's a much tougher race to run.
That she didn't prevail isn't evidence of sexism as much as it of arrogance and a breathtaking lack of organizational skill. The allegations of sexism are a desperation play and not a particularly effective one. But don't tell Geraldine Ferraro. She's having fun.
That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.
Does that mean substandard candidates will henceforth win for no reason other than gender? That'll make for an interesting general election campaign. If Hillary couldn't beat Obama without flashing her weeping cooter for the world to see, John McCain would beat her directly into hell without breaking a sweat.
People like Ferarro seem to insist that the problems facing female candidates are almost entirely due to male sexism. Yet, study after study reveals two important facts. First, women are not as likely to run because they don't like doing things that are required in politics, such as asking strangers for money and going negative on opponents.
Secondly, women are far less likely to vote for women candidates than are men. In fact, Hillary has only consistently beaten Obama among women without college degrees and those over 65. Men aren't sexist against female politicians, women are.
And decrying sexism in the same sentence as the name Clinton is rich with irony. The candidate's husband is known to have at least once met a woman for the first time, dropped his pants and implored her to "kiss it."
When
that woman had the temerity to file a civil rights lawsuit that their administration's legislation expressly provided for, both Clintons stood aside as their depraved minions excoriated her motives and morals. That pattern was repeated almost endlessly throughout the Clinton administration.
That same administration passed a welfare reform bill that was absolutely brutal on single mothers, the majority of whom are white, and Hillary has yet to comment either way on it.
Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro, and the women's movement generally never spoke out against the public or private treatment dished out upon women by President Clinton. But they sure took care of
Bob Packwood, perhaps the greatest champion the women's movement ever had in the United States Senate, didn't they?
Packwood's private behaviour was probably not as bad as Bill Clinton's (Packwood was never
accused of an actual rape), but the prices the two men paid couldn't have been more different. Packwood was ruined and Clinton left office with a 63% approval rating, due almost entirely to women. Packwood admitted to chronic alcoholism, which in no small contributed to his actions, and went into treatment after his resignation from the Senate. Clinton is on the record as saying that he treated women the way he did "because I could."
But Bob Packwood committed the unpardonable sin of being a Republican. That this isn't something that
NARAL mentions in their dinners honoring Ted Kennedy, who is so enlightened that
he won't even open a woman's car door for her, doesn't make it any less true.
The fact is that the women's movement does absolutely nothing for women and hasn't in a long time. It is, however, very good for the Democratic Party. Or is it?
Geraldine Ferraro won't rush to point this out to you, but she was hardly the most qualified candidate for the vice presidency in '84. She was in Congress for less than five years, represented one of the safest Democratic seats in the country and did virtually nothing when she was there. Walter Mondale wasn't looking for someone who could assume the presidency, he was looking to "make a statement."
If qualifications meant anything, Mondale would have chosen
Gary Hart or
Sam Nunn. Both are men that everyone would have recognised were capable of being president if it became necessary. They also would have made Ronald Reagan actually work for the states of Georgia and Colorado. But Hart and Nunn lacked the most important qualification of all in 1984: a vagina.
The fact is that qualifications mean nothing in American politics. Ferraro wasn't qualified, and neither is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Neither, for that matter, was George W. Bush. Christ, the governor of Texas can't issue a pardon without getting eight other people to agree with him.
Ferraro is taking an intellectually interesting position here: It's wrong to vote against Hillary Clinton because she has a snatch (although there's absolutely no evidence that anyone has), but it's perfectly appropriate to nominate Ferraro herself for high office for no other reason than her possession of same.
Here's another fact. Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democratic candidate not named Barack Obama in American history. Again, she raised a quarter of a billion dollars, more even than President Bush did in either of his races.
Ms. Ferraro stated early on in her dopey editorial "That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt," yet presents no evidence that it did. She goes on to say "Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know." If you don't know, isn't it safer and less divisive to assume that it didn't, especially since you're not presenting any compelling reason to think that it did? Does losing 19 primaries and caucuses in row make an election close? And isn't being divisive the GOP's job?
What Ferraro and Clinton are seeking isn't equality of opportunity or even equality of outcome. They couldn't be clearer that they want to
win for no other reason than they used to bleed from their fucking crotches on a regular basis as that's the only qualification for office Ms. Ferraro mentions in her article.
Geraldine Ferraro has essentially come out and asserted something that I never would: that women can't win in a fair fight. And when you consider that Benazir Bhutto was twice elected in a place as sexually backward as Pakistan, where
honor killings aren't unheard of, it tells you something about her opinion of America.
Which is her right. I just wish that she didn't have to be such a bitch about it.
Link ruthlessly stolen from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who has to deal with
Michelle Malkin all friggin' day.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Suffragette City By: David Bowie
From: The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars Permalink
