Normally, I'd be excited as hell to see an article in the Boston Globe headlined "Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism." But I don't guess I need to explain why Geraldine Ferraro is so not the person to write that article.
And there is potentially a legitimate point to be made that the Obama campaign was actually casting Hillary Clinton as a racist before any of the incidents of racism attributed to her during this primary. But I don't guess I need to explain why Geraldine Ferraro is so not the person to make it.
No and more no. That is all.
P.S. Who the fuck uses "reverse racism" anymore? I was under the impression that most thinking people acknowledged quite some time ago that racism is racism, irrespective of whence it emanates, and that "reverse racism" was typically a phrase employed by the sort of ignorant doofuses who don't get why it's okay to say George Bush looks like a chimp but not okay to say the same of Barack Obama. Did I miss a memo?
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus