So, here's the problem with thinking her comment is okay.

Obviously, the comment is racist/sexist -- true, she was accurate when criticizing white males, but the way it was said implies that the problem is white males, rather than a group of legislators playing cards, or whatever.

So if we can acknowledge that it's racist/sexist, not having a problem with it means that it's the white/male part of the equation that makes it okay. Typically, the thinking along these lines is that it's impossible to be racist/sexist towards white males because racism/sexism is a power + privilege equation; white males are already so powerful and privileged in society that as isolated incidence of racism/sexist isn't enough to harm them in any real way.

But implying that white males in general are both powerful and privileged is an assertion that white males have something that non-whites and non-males don't. And it's not something arbitrary, like bitchin' blonde hair, or something; it's something that gives white males an advantage in business and society.

If you've made it this far, then you have to acknowledge that a valuable advantage like that is a valid reason to hire someone, help someone, or otherwise prefer and favor them over another person. You're no longer favoring them because you're racist, you're favoring them because they have a legitimate advantage over others. It's the same as if you were hiring someone to carry stuff up a ladder and you picked the guy with legs over the guy without, because legs give him a measurable advantage.

Ultimately, it's harmful to non-whites and non-males to think that this is okay. It doesn't bring any kind of equality to the races/genders; it's an assertion that white males need to rise above this shit because they're better than it. It's like telling an adult to just ignore it when a child makes fun of them.