Geraldine Ferrarro wants it both ways in a preemptive LTTE for next debate

[zulchzulu]

Poll question: Geraldine Ferrarro wants it both ways in a preemptive LTTE for next debate

OK. Is it "sexist" for other candidates in the next debate to put Hillary Clinton's record under scrutiny and compare her record with theirs so voters can decide for themselves? The discussion needs to be brought up again since a new Letter To The Editor brings it back up.



It seems that Geraldine Ferraro (who I respect) wants to have it both ways with political discourse from all the candidates, but wants to lump any political discourse as a "personal attack" with a nice topping of accusatory "sexism" for good measure.

This is from the Letters To The Editor in today's New York Times:

November 14, 2007
Letter
When Hillary Clinton Faced Down Sexism

To the Editor:

A Nov. 9 letter regarding my comments that sexism was a major player in the Democratic debate two weeks ago suggests that the Clinton campaign discourage me from “any more counterproductive comments about ‘sexism.’ ”

I’ve endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, but I’ve never worked for her campaign. But when The Times (and other papers) asked for my opinion of the debate, as the only American woman ever to run for national office on a major-party ticket, I called it as I saw it.

I’ve had some experience with sexism, during the 1984 campaign and in decades in public life before and since, and I’ve always spoken out about it. If I had shut my mouth and simply promoted myself, my life would have been much easier, but my daughters and my granddaughters would have it much harder today.

Watching this debate, I saw two hours of Senator Clinton being bombarded with personal attacks, not only by her opponents but also by the moderator Tim Russert. Yes, she’s the Democratic front-runner, and that makes her fair game for challenges on the issues. But when it got so personal that even Bill Richardson, one of her opponents, had to say “Enough,” I had to agree.

Barack Obama has said that, when he was attacked for 15 minutes in a prior debate, he didn’t raise his race as an issue. Fifteen minutes is not two hours, though, and I feel sure that, if Senator Obama had been subjected to so sustained an attack, plenty of other people would be talking about racism, even if he wasn’t. But then, as I’ve said before, in this country it’s still O.K. to be sexist, but not to be racist.

I’ll be watching the coming candidate debates on CNN, and if the Republican front-runner, Rudolph W. Giuliani, is the sole subject of two hours of personal attacks, I’ll rethink my position.

It will help if, next time out, John Edwards and Senator Obama stick to substantive policy disagreements with Senator Clinton. If they can’t, they’ll only prove themselves unworthy of our party’s nomination.

Geraldine A. Ferraro

New York, Nov. 13, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/l14ferraro.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

On her pointing out that Richardson wanted to stop Clinton from being "bombarded with personal attacks", apparently she didn't get what he actually cleverly said, calling the dogs off while releasing the dogs at the same time:

No, and I’m positive. You know what I’m hearing here? I’m hearing this holier than thou attitude towards Senator Clinton that—it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need. Do we trust her? Do we—did she take money from special interests?

We need to be positive in this campaign. Yes, we need to point out our differences. And I have big differences with her over the war -- I would get all our troops out—over No Child Left Behind—I’d get rid of it. I also have differences over Iran. I think that was the wrong vote for her to cast because I think it was saber-rattling.

But I think it’s important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans. If we continue, I believe, harping on the past and not focusing on the future—look, the reality on the electability issue is, the last senator that was elected president was 40 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562193/

Ferraro chides at Obama's suggestion that he could have pulled the "racist" card in the previous debate because it opened up with several questions aimed at him. Well gee, it was only the first fifteen minutes...as opposed to the suggestion that the entire debate was nothing but "personal attacks" on Clinton. Please...was I watching the same debate that she was? Read the transcript (above link) and point out the "personal attacks".

So the question remains. Is debating Hillary Clinton supposed to be different because she is a woman? Does this help the feminist movement where it appears that any scrutiny is considered "boys picking on the girl"?

Is using the term "sexist" when describing debating a woman aggressively fair game?

[Tarc]

1. The thing is

female candidates for office at held at a much higher bar than their male counterparts. There has been a huge amount of piling on Hillary for a very long time no, and not just because she is leading the polls.

[JohnnyBoots]

2. Wouldn't it be sexist to not debate her as vigorously as any other candidate?

Wouldn't treating her differently because she is a woman be inherently sexist, whether or not you hit her with a feather pillow or a baseball bat in your types of questions and responses?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Is This Another When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife Poll?

DSB

[eFriendly]

4. If HRC cannot take the heat, then get the hell out of politics! n/t

[quinnox]

5. It will be interesting

to see what happens.

Will John Edwards continue his crusade against Hillary?

Will the rest of the candidates join in another feeding frenzy of Hillary like sharks in the water?

My take -
I think it will be a more genial type debate, with Wolf Blitzer moderating. He won't be so interested like Russert was to generate attacks and it will have more questions based around issues.

[zulchzulu]

8. Agreed

Blitzer certainly doesn't use the faux-journalistic ball peen hammer like Russert. I prefer Jim Lehrer (PBS) and actually wish Bill Moyers was doing the questions...

Edwards can be seen as overstepping if he's not careful...but he has to make or break at this point. Dodd and Biden will be pretty amped up too.

[youthere]

12. I think it will ultimately harm him..

Edwards that is. Angry candidates do not play well with voters. Weird how it doesn't seem to be hurting Obama as bad as Edwards.
BUT for the record, I don't think his or Obama's agression toward Clinton at the last debate were sexist.

[zulchzulu]

14. It seems like the MSM likes the blood in the water

Would they rather have a coronation or a mudfight?

I'm guessing the latter.

Not a mudfight necessarily...just the usual pattern of watching a long-held inevitable frontrunner fall into a tumble...usually at their own doing...

[rinsd]

6. Psssst ZZ

Ferraro wasn't talking about calling off the dogs just the attacks on Hillary's personal credibility.

"It will help if, next time out, John Edwards and Senator Obama stick to substantive policy disagreements with Senator Clinton."

"No, and I’m positive. You know what I’m hearing here? I’m hearing this holier than thou attitude towards Senator Clinton that—it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need. Do we trust her? Do we—did she take money from special interests?

We need to be positive in this campaign. Yes, we need to point out our differences. And I have big differences with her over the war -- I would get all our troops out—over No Child Left Behind—I’d get rid of it. I also have differences over Iran. I think that was the wrong vote for her to cast because I think it was saber-rattling."

[asjr]

7. Ferraro has the right to say what

she thinks, just like the rest of us. She is of an age when "sexism" was rampant, but no one knew what label to put on it. I remember it very well. Lower pay than men; keeping the little woman barefoot and pregnant. Running for public office was unheard of. Well, the nerve of that woman! Who does she think she is? Actually, she knew who she was and knew she could do things that others thought she couldn't. We must be careful not to read into a remark what the media want us to read.

[AtomicKitten]

9. I think we need to be careful to not limit debate no matter

how fractious it may appear in order to delineate the candidates. We're trying to choose the best candidate this go, not just going with the flow. And nothing compares to what the GOP has in store, so in my opinion, vigorous debate will serve to hone a better candidate.

Politics as usual just won't do.

Gobama.

[youthere]

10. I'm reading this, and wondering to myself if I missed something in the debate...

what personal attacks were waged on Senator Clinton? Was there a moment, perhaps when I went to the bathroom, one of the candidates said she had funny hair? Or she dressed funny? Questions about her trustworthiness are fair game and NOT personal IMO. I want to know if a candidate is truystworthy or if they are taking money from special interests.

Edwards and Obama went after Sen. Clinton on policy, and they went after her hard, and I have no doubt that were Obama or Edwards the current frontrunner they would have been questioned just as fiercely.
I like and respect Geraldine Ferraro, but I think she's way off on this.
I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter...that's no secret, but I've worked hard to be fair in any and all criticism of her (even if I fail sometimes), and even give her her due. Clinton is already dealing with (and presumably will deal with) enough genuine sexism (like the McCain/bitch comment recently), and I will stand behind her on it every time, but getting pressured aggressively at a debate...doesn't qualify IMO.

[closeupready]

11. I've always loved Geraldine Ferraro

and I'm sure if she saw sexism there, it's there. The Clinton campaign may not want to make an issue of it because even if they know it exists, it's a losing argument for them to take on, because it would make them sound like crybabies. So, they'd just rather not deal with it. Geraldine probably knows that she can help the Clinton team by being a sort of surrogate cheerleader, doing the dirty work while Clinton can try and keep her hands clean. Which I'm fine with as a strategy.

[zulchzulu]

13. I've liked her as well...

...but seriously think she is off the mark on the LTTE. It's as though she wanted to "save face" and still walked right back into the "leave the gals alone" schtick...

I thought Hillary Clinton was "tough enough" to bat off any crazy ideas about "sexism" when the limelight shines hotly for a little bit.

Was the last debate a two-hour attack on Clinton? Friggin' no...it wasn't.

[Cameron27]

15. I don't think there was sexism involved

in the debate itself, that came afterwards when Clinton was accused of using the sexism card when she made the video of the pile-on. FWIW, I didn't think her speech at Wellesley was off the mark and I think it was very similar to Michelle's comments about black voters. They were both speaking the truth, while targeting specific demographics.