The situation started for me with this post on Racialicious by Wendi Muse: Esquire asks: Can a white man still be elected president?
Have you seen this cover? What are they really trying to say?
“Can a white man still be elected president?” asks Esquire of its readers in next month’s issue featuring presidential hopeful John Edwards.
Um, I’m sorry, but did I miss a memo? I would love to read the article, but the opening remark on the cover is a big time turn off. What exactly are they trying to say here? Esquire editors might be attempting to be cute and sarcastic with their cover page line, but to me it rings of the infamous fear that one day, the world will wake up and find itself being run entirely by minorities, oh and women too...
Then came this post by Jen on Feministing: White Man's Burden.
Elizabeth Edwards is doing a remake on the campaign trail. Why? Because she thinks John Edwards is getting screwed in press coverage. So they're turning to the internet to help get the message out about their campaign, reaching out directly to voters. Sounds like a smart strategy to me. But she also says:
"In some ways, it's the way we have to go. We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars."
Some commenters didn't get what Jen was upset about, sharing statements such as, "Its almost gotten to the point that if you support Edwards or another white male Democratic candidate, you are seen as racist or sexist," and "I just don't understand how her statement is prejudicial."
Well, The Law Fairy took them to school:
Obama got more press coverage because he's an exciting new face. The story of his winning the election to senator in Illinois is the stuff of legend -- he was out-experienced, out-fundraised, out-everythinged, and he still won a landslide victory...
Hillary gets more press for big fat "duh" reasons. She's a fucking Clinton. HELLO????? If she were Bill Clinton's son instead of his wife she would have every ounce as much press.
Elizabeth Edwards' comments were sexist and racist, period. LOTS of presidential candidates, in ANY race, get disproportionately less coverage. That's just the way politics works...
As an aside, I really dislike the way the Edwards campaign is being run. Edwards is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth by having his wife pander to the left of the left as he panders to the relative right of the left. It's just gross. It really makes me lose respect for him as a candidate, and suspect that most of what either of them is saying is more or less a lie.
Cara also weighed in:
I'm really surprised that so many are willing to defend this statement. [Elizabeth Edwards] is basically saying that being a white male is a liability, when in fact being a white (straight, middle or upper-class) male is one of the largest indicators of success in our society. To say that Edwards is getting less attention is fine. To say that sex and race is being unfairly focused on for Clinton and Obama respectively is fine. To say that Edwards is at a direct disadvantage because he is neither female nor black is not fine, and is in fact really insulting and completely blind to the privilege that our society automatically grants to white males.
Yet some people still didn't get it. From mjk82:
I don't understand the problem here...Does any one think for a second that if Edwards wins the nomination, the media won't immediately attribute his victory to racism/sexism?
As if John Edwards is going to win any nomination.
And from Pup, MD:
John Edwards isn't "white males." John Edwards is an individual who is white and male, and that's a world of difference...
The biggest real difference between the backgrounds of these three are that Obama and Clinton have Ivy degrees, and Edwards is the product of a respectable state school...Obama's story might be a poster for how a little bit of affirmative action can do a lot of good for our society...
When comparing three successful lawyers, invoking white male privilege against one of them seems a bit hollow.
This prompted The Law Fairy to break out her expletives and caps:
See, this is a problematic attitude. This is PRECISELY what people say when they're arguing against affirmative action. The problem is, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth if you're going to acknowledge that there's systemic bias and prejudice on the one hand, but argue that it doesn't affect some subset of individuals on the other. BY DEFINITION IT AFFECTS EVERYONE. PERIOD...
I'm suggesting that looking at where the candidates are NOW and completely discounting the possibility that Hillary and Barack have been disadvantaged by their sex and race, respectively, is disingenuous.
I mean, this is RIDICULOUS. People FOR ONCE, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, FOR ONE FUCKING TIME IN OUR NATION'S ALMOST 250-YEAR HISTORY, are FINALLY paying attention to a black man and a white woman (and God I wish there were a woman of color up there too, but I'm still THRILLED with what we've got here) who have an ACTUAL SHOT at the presidency because they are AMAZING people and have WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF and have PROVEN THEMSELVES politically and professionally, and people start boo-hooing because a rich and famous white man, who also get TONS of press attention and TONS of campaign donations and TONS of support from the MSM, has a teensy bit less than a couple other people??????...
Okay, the more I think about this, the more pissed off it makes me...Where was Elizabeth Edwards in 2000 when Alan Keyes was getting less press attention that W? Or did no one think anything of that, because OF COURSE a black presidential candidate will automatically get less press coverage...
The Law Fairy needs to generate this passion into more posts on her blog, if only to entertain me.
