Sexism, Racism and the Media

It was probably just a matter of time before the discussion of a primary campaign that includes a strong woman candidate and a strong African American candidate include issues of sexism and racism. Right now, the issue getting the most air time is racism. I have an idea about why, but will talk about it later in this post.

Let's examine for a moment what is driving all the media frenzy. It's THE MEDIA.

Yes, those folks what are too lazy to actually do any investigative reporting, and prefer to simply go with what they think is "sexy" or "easy to report" -- regardless of its accuracy or merit.

There are two comments that seem to be driving this -- what former president Bill Clinton said about Obama's record regarding the war in Iraq. And a comment Sen. Clinton made about how hope becomes reality.

What Bill Clinton called a "fairy tail" was NOT the Obama campaign, it was the idea that Obama's voting record in Congress is any different on Iraq than Clinton's. Looking just at their votes, one could easily conclude the two candidates have the SAME position on Iraq. THAT is what Bill Clinton was talking about.

Regarding Sen. Clinton's comment, it requires a real stretch of the imagination to think it was racist. She was rightfully pointing out that it takes more than inspiration to make "change" happen. There is absolutely no question that the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the inspiration that sparked the much needed legislative change. But even as remarkable as Dr. King was, a reasonable person would have to acknowledge that he could not have made the change on his own.

President Johnson's legacy ultimately became the Vietnam war, but before that he had a long history of work on advancing civil rights. Dr. King knew it, and the two men were in communication about what needed to be done.

For an overview of that time I suggest you read The Power and the Inspiration, by Sean Wilentz.

In a pair of television interviews earlier this week, Clinton made the uncontroversial historical observation that Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement put their lives on the line for racial equality, and that President Johnson enacted civil rights legislation.

Her point was simple: Although great social changes require social movements that create hope and force crises, elected officials, presidents above all, are also required in order to turn those hopes into laws. It was, plainly, a rejoinder to the accusations by Obama that Clinton has sneered at "hope." Clinton was also rebutting Obama's simplistic assertions about "hope" and the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the end of Jim Crow.

The historical record is crystal clear about this, and no responsible historian seriously contests it. Without Frederick Douglass and the abolitionists, black and white (not to mention restive slaves), there would have been no agitation to end slavery, even after the Civil War began. But without Douglass's ally in the White House, the sympathetic, deeply anti-slavery but highly pragmatic Abraham Lincoln, there could not have been an Emancipation Proclamation or a Thirteenth Amendment. Likewise, without King and his movement, there would have been no civil rights revolution. But without the Texas liberal and wheeler-dealer Lyndon Johnson, and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Hope, in other words, is necessary to bring about change--but it is never enough. Change also requires effective leadership inside government. It's not a matter of either/or (that is, either King or Johnson), but a matter of both/and.

Dan Abrams tonight on the Abrams Report is taking the media to task for its poor journalism in reporting this matter. Hopefully someone will post a YouTube video of the exchange.

I would hope everyone would join me in the opinion that racism and sexism are both equally wrong. And I think it's a no-win scenario for any Democrat to try and make either of these a campaign issue.

Having said that, I would like to applaud the Clinton campaign for NOT making a big deal out of comments made by Obama national co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. the day after the New Hampshire primary. Rep. Jackson went on the attack suggesting that Clinton's tears needed to be "analyzed" ... that they needed to be "looked at very carefully in light of Katrina."

Jackson was clearly making a sexist comment when he suggested that Clinton's tears needed to be "analyzed" -- and could be construed as trying to tie racism into the discussion by including mention of the Katrina tragedy.


I have to wonder why the media didn't make a federal case about this?

Could it be because of their own inherent sexism, so clearly on display leading up to the New Hampshire primary?

Clinton's campaign didn't say anything about this because they don't want this contest to be about gender OR race.

Campaign staff and supporters in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns would be wise to not allow themselves to be drawn into this divisive dialogue by a media that is NOT THEIR FRIEND.