So the New York Times has editorialized against NOW’s decision to endorse long-shot candidate Carol Moseley Braun for president.
From the Times’ editorial:
Is it really that “hard to see” the important principle that the Presidency shouldn’t be a white-men-only club? As Moseley Braun has said, it’s time to rip the “men only” sign off the Oval Office’s door. Since the Times sees the value in symbolic candidates, they should have no problem seeing the symbolic value of a black woman running for the nation’s hightest office.
Well, maybe it is hard to see why ripping that “men only” sign down is an “important principle” – if you’re a member of the exclusive club of white men who has reached the highest ranks at the Times.
There are a number of replies to the Times posted on NOW’s websites. NOWPAC has a detailed – and I think sometimes over-the-top – response. Here’s one of the good bits:
Despite her poll numbers and her outstanding performance in the debates, which has drawn appreciative commentary from many quarters, The New York Times trivialized Carol Moseley Braun’s seriousness as a candidate, NOW’s and NWPC’s endorsement, feminism, and women in general by assuming that the candidacy of an African-American woman cannot be serious. What more does Moseley Braun need to do to be considered just as serious as the male candidates? Oh, that’s right, raise more money, but without the help of women’s organizations.
Kim Gandy, the president of NOW, wrote a short response which the Times printed. What I enjoyed more, though, was the page of responses from other folks to the Times. This, for example, comes from a letter by Virginia Kallianes of New York:
Throughout the history of women’s activism, feminists have been trivialized by the mainstream public. To their credit, feminist political groups ignore this condescension and forge forward. Not surprising, when they support women in political roles, they are damned if they do … and damned if they don’t. When feminist groups endorse a woman candidate, they are criticized: “They are only endorsing her because she is a woman, not on her merits; they can’t be taken seriously.” When they don’t endorse a woman candidate, they are criticized: “How can they endorse a male candidate and not the female candidate? How do they expect voters to take women candidates seriously if the women’s groups themselves don’t endorse woman candidates?”
American women are tired of the litany: “Sure we would support a women for president, but … it’s not the right time, she’s not the right candidate, it’s not the right race, she’s taking someone else’s opportunity,” and so forth. But, how could a political group still consider itself legitimate and not endorse a candidate who it has supported through prior campaigns and who has a strong record on the issues it espouses! And, if feminist groups are not upfront supporting women candidates, who else will?
From Gay Bruhn, president of Illinois NOW:
In this race, Carol Moseley Braun—black, female, credible, qualified—is another rock in the stream. She deserves our support, we are proud to give it to her, and we will not be moved.
And this letter from Irene Weiser of New York:
What’s silly is that the other candidates don’t speak of these issues more often.
Serious issues. Serious NOW. Silly, sexist, New York Times.
All due respect, you’re wrong on this. Moseley-Brown is indeed both black and female, but she has done an all-around lousy job thus far in her elected position. Her political history is also pretty bad — remember that Washington DC/Kwesi Mfume financial mess?
I love the idea of a wonderful black, female candidate running for national office — but Carol Moseley-Brown is NOT that woman.
I think America and the world benefit from having serious women candidates, and serious minority candidates, run for President of the United States. I also think it benefits the Democratic ticket, and America, to have CMB speaking at the presidential candidates’ debates. Lastly, I find it odd to call on NOW to endorse a male candidate over a female one.
My candidate remains John Kerry.
I agree with John Isbell. And further, it’s really important to have a cohort of women who make regular attempts at each post. It may sound bizarre, but there’s such a thing as “organizational technology” which allows things like campaigns to devise strategies. Getting women or nonwhite candidates closer to the top is a process which will be refined and perfected by many attempts.
And there are complicated reasons why a candidate may appear to have “failed.”
Oh, come on, there’s nothing groundbreaking about Moseley-Braun. I mean, sure, she’s black and female, but I for one am sick of all of these damn black-female presidents. I mean, the White House might have a sign on its door reading, “People with skin lighter than brown who have a penis need not apply”.
Really, will black women never cease their reign over all things in our culture?
That’s tellin’ ’em, Raznor. :D
Watching the Alberquerque debate, Mosely-Brown was the only candidate whose response made me break out into spontaneous applause — given that I was watching at home alone, it would take something to get me to applaud.
Why shouldn’t NOW endorse her. She’s good on the issues and she is a woman — and it’s long past time for a woman to be in the White House. That my parents voted for Shirley Chisholm makes me hope that she does as well as that wonderful woman.
However, I don’t think she’s running for vanity or for anything other than the good of the party. Remember, she announced shortly after Sharpton announced. I happen to like Al Sharpton, but he is a lightning rod for controversy and media coverage of him tends to condescending and racist.
This is pure speculation, but I think she is running as a foil to deflect the media coverage of Sharpton and to prevent the perpetuation of racist stereotypes of black political candidates. In essence, I think she is putting herself through long days of travel, the joylessness of fundraising and the daily humiliation of campaigning to counteract the sort of stereotyping and racism that we would be seeing in the press if Sharpton were the only black candidate. She should not just get the NOW endorsement, she should get a Purple Heart.
“… if you’re a member of the exclusive club of white men who has reached the highest ranks at the Times.”
Considering who is the editor of the Times editorial page, this is some strange new meaning of “exclusive.”
As for ripping down barriers, who is Shirley Chisholm, Alex?
What you seem to be arguing is that despite being a corrupt friend of murderous dictators, Braun should be nominated simply because she is a black woman. Last I looked that was racist and sexist.
despite being a corrupt friend of murderous dictators, Braun should be nominated simply because she is a black woman.
You’re right, of course. We should save that distinction for …our current… entire Executive branch….
Seriously, Mr. Farber: no one here has brought up Ms. Mosely-Braun’s ties to dictators. If you wish to do so, please do, by all means (with Amp & bean’s permission, of course). And once people have responded to that, maybe then you can deduce their inherent racism from their replies to that specific charge.
But the point is, corruption and ties to dictators are hardly a bar to a presidential office these days. So if she’s guilty, call her on it, and it’s a worthy point of contention. But make sure you’re not trying to hold her to a *higher* standard of purity *because* she’s a woman of color.
More to the point, we’ve discussed this moreorless on other posts about CMB, I find the allegations highly suspect. If you have evidence and not just smears, Farber, please let us know.
The thing is, being black and female does not merit appreciation on it’s own. Ask any CMB supporter what he or she thinks of Condoleeza Rice. But if a black woman is up against a white man of equal merits, then why would it be racist and sexist to choose to endorse the black woman over the white man as opposed to the other way around?
i have to say i’m getting really tired of this CMB line:
“A woman can fix the mess they have created, because we are practical, we are not afraid of partnerships and we are committed to making the world better for our children.”
how arrogant. and how manipulative. no male politician in his right mind would ever get sucked into that pointless argument, so she pretty much has carte blanche to repeat it as often as she likes. who’s playing gender politics now?
if CMB wants us to focus on her merits as a politician, she needs to knock off this offensive line of reasoning. and while i support NOW’s endorsement of CMB in general, i think they are being irresponsible for not calling her on it. (if anyone can show me otherwise, please do so.)
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing