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 SexismTo 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=printOn 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?