This video makes me wanna puke.
Set on repeat:
They hate us. Period.
Holy crap. I'm crying myself. I think I'll be posting this one.
Oh God.
I wish I could fucking stand in front of her for five minutes.
Just so she could breathe.
I'm crying too.
I do have one exception to take with this video--the Olbermann stuff she's quoting is legitimate criticism of her campaign's handling of the Ferraro mess. Yes, Clinton has been mistreated by Matthews, by Beck, by Scarborough, Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest of the mainstream press. No questions, no arguments, it's despicable and those people ought to be held accountable and won't be. But that doesn't mean her campaign in blameless in all things, and I think the maker if the video does her campaign no service by linking legitimate criticism with illegitimate criticism, and especially by foregrounding it so prominently.
You know, I wasn't expecting to cry at all, and then: "I can be president too!"
Blub!
And by "cry," I don't mean choke up while talking, I mean sob.
Full blubbing with übersnottage and two tear-soaked tissues over here.
Fucking goddammit.
I'm with Diana. I was pissed and wondering if I was going to cry. Then the little girl and the sign. Shit.
Fuck men. Seriously.
For 40 years I've taken this shit personally. Now it's political.
"the Olbermann stuff she's quoting is legitimate criticism of her campaign's handling of the Ferraro mess"
From an unrepetant misogynistic jackass. That's the point.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That may be, Betty, but the maker of the video could certainly have found some misogynistic commentary from him and used it instead. Why weaken what is still a powerful video with that, when there's no reason to? I'm not defending Olbermann here--he's only been not as bad as some of the others, particularly Chris Matthews. I'm just saying that that was a really poor choice of things to pull from in order to make this overall point.
No, Incertus. Because if it was really about anger at unfair campaign tactics, he would be doing a "Special Comment" every night, and most of them wouldn't be at HRC. The point, contrasting Murrow with Olbermann, was that Murrow was concerned with mass media showing us news, Olbermann is about ratings, and trashing women gets you ratings. It wasn't a mistake that the infamous "monster" comment was highlighted - there was no "Special Comment" on that. Misogyny gets you ratings, and blaming HRC for anything, regardless of her campaign being less pure than the driven fucking snow, doesn't get around that.
pocohina,
Set the messenger aside for a moment--the criticism of the way Clinton's campaign handled the Ferraro mess was fair. They were slow on it and didn't distance themselves from her or her statements quickly enough. All the other examples of the media pile-on in that video were patently unfair--they were bullshit, in fact. And that's the difference. That's the reason it's a bad rhetorical move on the part of the video maker.
And foregrounding the Ferraro criticism makes the problem worse because it means that some people will see the Ferraro criticism and won't wait around to see the rest--they'll dismiss it before watching the rest of the video, which is the really powerful stuff.
damn... *sniff*
i'm disgusted with the ugly side of humanity that just leaps out in this race. I'm glad i'm not alone.
As Melissa (I think) has said, this really is about making sure no other uppity woman ever tries this running-for-President-stuff. Wow.
I agree - that is a real downer. I just don't understand how douche hounds like those pundits can get away with all of the misogynistic ranting and double speak, when there's more WOMEN than MEN in this country????
I was half way through and didn't think I could take watching another fuckwad say another sexists thing, but i did.
And now I am all teary eyed and snotty nosed and sobby at work.
But damn she is awesome
"this really is about making sure no other uppity woman ever tries this running-for-President-stuff"
That's what I said too, and I believe it more than ever now.
__
Incertus - i don't see it as weakening anything. The tone of his rant, his posturing, his long history of misogyny - all these things make him making this point (a valid one, it is) unsavory, hipocritical and obviously misogynistic. He's a bigot and so him lecturing Clinton on her handling badly another one is the height of asshat hypocrisy.
I'm a guy.
I don't particularly like Hillary (though, I do respect her) and would not want to see her become president. My problems with her stem from her policy positions and her character, not from her gender.
With all that having been said, I got quite depressed as I watched the video. The sorry state of the discourse and the blatant misogyny just rips at ones soul.
Why does it matter that a person is a woman? Or a person is black? Why can't the press just focus on the issues? Is that really too much to ask? Are journalists really so unintelligent that they can't think of anything else to talk about?
And foregrounding the Ferraro criticism makes the problem worse because it means that some people will see the Ferraro criticism and won't wait around to see the rest--they'll dismiss it before watching the rest of the video
You know, if they left after the Ferraro comment by Olbermann (@ 3:03 btw), after a whole slew of misogynist crap, then you know? They're not interested in the video's message. And that crack he makes about David Duke? Priceless.
i am bawling.
and i don't even live in your country, damnit.
i so wanted her to be the first.
Set the messenger aside for a moment--the criticism of the way Clinton's campaign handled the Ferraro mess was fair.
In this case, Incertus, the messenger IS the message. The criticism was fair, but the pompous, overblown scolding was not--especially since he's never done a Special Comment on, say, his colleagues blatant sexism, or blatantly sexist shit coming from the Obama campaign.
I agree with the gist of what he was saying, too, but it still works just fine for me. Especially as a counterpoint to Wright saying Hillary hasn't had to work twice as hard (which, fwiw, was the only thing Wright said that DID offend me). You'll notice there was no Special Comment on that.
Are journalists really so unintelligent that they can't think of anything else to talk about?
Most of those people aren't journalists, not really, and yes, they're that unintelligent.
I'm perfectly capable of setting aside the messenger, but thanks for the suggestion.
The comparison to David Duke was untrue and uncalled-for, and it was properly contextualized among the misogyny of the rest of the talking heads. Yes, she deserved criticism for the Ferraro thing, but she didn't deserve that. Which Olbermann, and everyone who walks around saying "oh well he has a point so I don't have to examine anything else lalala" to ignore his obvious sexism, has to know, and that was the point. Particularly, as Kate pointed out, compared with the handling of the Wright thing, which contained some blatant misogyny for which nobody had to answer.
This isn't racism versus sexism - they are both equally wrong, which means they should be called out equally. It quite blatantly didn't happen here, and it was an important point to make.
Know your audience -- if they already believe that Olbermann hates women, then that Special Comment is great material to work with, regardless of what it might actually say. Just remember not to pull clips from Friday's Countdown, because that had Rachel Maddow hosting the show instead.
damn you, Kate!
*blubblubblubblubblub*
Regarding Olbermann, I watched that man during the early primaries (before I stopped watching MSNBC altogether) snuggle up to Chris Matthews as he made one stupid sexist comment after the other. Where is his special comment calling out his colleagues for their sexist shit? Where is his special comment denouncing the sexism in the media illustrated in this video? Olbermann, like so many others I once respected, lost his credibility during this primary. He should be in that video, and he is certainly no Murrow.
while y'all are blubbing here's another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...h?v=l9z-
Aatd0wA
" if they already believe that Olbermann hates women, then that Special Comment is great material to work with, regardless of what it might actually say"
Translation: bitchez don't know misogyny when they see, *I* do. And because I don't see it, it magically doesn't exist.
By the way, when I said it made me wanna puke, I meant the beginning part with Glenn Beck and those other assholes I can't stand; I stopped it because I couldn't take ten minutes of them. I had to finish watching it to see the inspiring second half. And yes, blub!
Translation: bitchez don't know misogyny when they see, *I* do. And because I don't see it, it magically doesn't exist.
Translation: I'm arguing in bad faith, because I hate people I don't know based on the behavior of other people I don't like.
(I'm male, but I consider myself a feminist)
Here is the Olbermann special comment. I watched it again after reading the above comments, and I don't see how it fits with the other comments like 'Hillary on a leash' or anything Chris 'come closer to the camera so I can see your boobies' Matthews says. I'd appreciate it if someone (who 'totally gets why he was in there') explained Olbermann's inclusion in the video.
Haven't watched cable "news" shows for years, so while I assumed it was bad from reading news and blogs online, I had no idea until watching this video. Count me among the sobbing. Goddamn.
I almost stopped watching midway but I'm glad I didn't ...
By the way, when I said it made me wanna puke, I meant the beginning part with Glenn Beck and those other assholes I can't stand
I got that Brian, but thanks for clarifying.
And for anyone who's still wondering, there are several comments on this thread explaining the inclusion of Olbermann's comments. If you don't get it, we can't do anything else for you. So maybe we could just focus on all the blatant fucking misogyny we agree is there, instead of derailing the conversation here? Ya think?
You know- I liked Keith Olberman for his stuff on torture. I know lots of women who did. Keith Olberman is not generally just a guy's pundit.
But his Hillary hate turned off a bunch of us even before the Ferraro thing. It's not his legit criticisms that bug us- it's (to steal from an old slogan) the misogyny stupid
I agree with Incertus. If Olbermann had made a sexist statement, it should be included. Otherwise, including his argument here implies that almost any statement critical of Hillary is sexist. And in my mind, that undercuts the very real sexism prevalent throughout the video--and the MSM.
I got that Brian, but thanks for clarifying.
Okay, Kate, I just wanted to make sure I didn't come off poorly. :D
I couldn't really hear the comment that Keith was making on the video. While I agree that not every attack on Hillary is sexist, a lot of them are, and even more are legitimate concerns framed with sexist language, like JMM's "gelded" comment in the other thread.
Those of you who are nitpicking over the inclusion of Olbermann's comment: why? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you think that if you can show that KO's inclusion in the video is somehow inappropriate, that that means that the whole thing is discredited, and you don't have to dwell on the rest of it?
For instance, I heard a lot of "she's a bitch/ice queen/ball buster" comments. While there may be a legitimate concern that she can seem distant or cold (which I don't agree with - I've never seen her as cold), saying it that way is sexist. Plus, it's not even necessary: I just said it without being sexist.
thank you, zuzu!
Really, Olbermann's comment is maybe 9 seconds in a six minute long video.
Those of you who are nitpicking over the inclusion of Olbermann's comment: why? What are you trying to accomplish?
Well, it wouldn't be a thread about sexism if there weren't men around trying to explain to us that when they don't see it, it isn't there. Which is infinitely more important than either women's opinions on the matter OR the sexism we all agree is there. Heaven forbid we talk about those things.
"or blatantly sexist shit coming from the Obama campaign"
See this is one of the things that bugs me, Obama supporters don't see this, adn Clinton supporters are similiarily blinf to the blatant racism of their own Campaign. Both sides seem unable to call out the mistakes on their own side, and both seem equally guilty.
Perhaps some of these guys missed the other women-bashing that has gone on on Countdown, not directed at Hillary Clinton but at other women. Liss has documented some of that here, IIRC. It's all about context.
There is much more to sexism than direct attack. There is also the complacency (especially of men) to confront both the double standard that women are held to, and the rank misogyny that has spewed in the last nine months.
Olbermann's lecture about Ferraro was very, very strong -- fine -- well warranted -- Ferraro was fucked up in every direction.
But where is KO's lecture to Obama about allowing Donnie McClurkin to say -- in A CAMPAIGN RALLY!!! --"God delivered me from homosexuality"? After the Meeks thing came out, why didn't KO make an impassioned appeal to Obama to distance himself from homphobes?
Where is KO's confrontation of Tweety's blatant misogyny, when he's sitting directly across the table from him?
Was Olbermann's outrage about Ferraro's racism warranted? I think so. But the absence of any outrage from him in regards to sexism is notable, and silence is support, as far as I'm concerned.
Well I apologize for helping to derail the thread. I focus on KO here because that's the part where I'd like to learn more. The obvious misogyny is to me, obvious. I can point at it and say, "Hey everybody I found some misogyny" as if I were a toddler learning to point at things. Because I am a toddler when it comes to identifying sexism.
So when I say I didn't see it when other people so loudly proclaim it's there, I didn't mean "it's not there if I can't see it", but "can someone please shine some light on where I should look instead of just calling me an unrepentant misogynist?"
I like that song, but I never ever thought it'd make me cry. Heh.
My fondness for Keith Olbermann is tempered with the sad knowledge that he's a pig. I haven't been able to listen to the podcast of his show for a few months now because it makes me grit my teeth so hard my dentist keeps whistling, "We're In the Money."
Those of you who are nitpicking over the inclusion of Olbermann's comment: why? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you think that if you can show that KO's inclusion in the video is somehow inappropriate, that that means that the whole thing is discredited, and you don't have to dwell on the rest of it?
Speaking for myself (and no one else)... I think the inclusion of KO makes me uncomfortable because I actually like the guy for the most part. That doesn't mean that criticism of him (or his inclusion in this video) is wrong at all. My personal discomfort comes from the fact that I agree with a lot of the OTHER things he says... what do you do with a media figure that you vigorously agree with in some ways and violently DISAGREE with in others? Is it okay to denounce the comments and unexamined male privilage but not denounce the opinions you agree with? Or is it only acceptable if you toss the entire person out the window and refuse to watch him ever again?
My discomfort with this primary season is centered in that same conflict. I prefer Obama to Clinton. But I HATE the sexist shit that has been flung at her (with no consequence or comment from anyone outside the feminist blogosphere). Is the only way to effectively speak against that to vote for her? Or can you have other political sympathies in this race without that being automatic sexist douchehoundry?
Andrea -- You don't have to vote for someone to write letters of protest about sexism to the authors of the sexist material.
As I've said a nonillion times -- neither Clinton or Obama are "my" candidate -- but I will speak out whenever they are subjected to sexist or racist slurs.
"I just don't understand how douche hounds like those pundits can get away with all of the misogynistic ranting and double speak, when there's more WOMEN than MEN in this country????"
Women are doing the dishes, cooking dinner, or tending to child-care during that prime 6:00-8:00 p.m. slot when most of those assholes (O'Reilly, Olberman, Mathews, etc) are on. Remember that whole, women do 70%/men 30% domestic work thingy?
Also, defending Olberman is sad, but understandable because he is the only politically progressive voice out there today--but as time and time again proves, progressive men CAN STILL BE MISOGYNISTS they just don't point to the Bible as their reason why women deserve to be hated (they tend to turn to fake-ass evo-psych).
p.s. I totally cried as well--and now I have to go teach "Notes from the Underground" (talk about a prick protagonist and a dick writer), but you know, the Canon.
legitimate concerns framed with sexist language
Bingo.
There is no need to indulge in misogyny while engaging in criticism--unless one is a misogynist. The whole "but I don't loathe her because she's a woman; I can't stand her because she's Hillary!" line is the most asinine excuse ever. It doesn't wash when the object of illegitimate contempt is Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin and it sure as shit don't pass the smell test in this case.
I know a lot of folks like Olbermann. But he's part of the problem here; any legitimate critique has been undermined by his reliance on crass, gratuitous misogyny while delivering the message (and let me be clear: misogyny is always unwarranted). That's why it's vitally important that we keep calling out the corporate press corps (and the so-called progressive blogosphere) when they peddle tainted information like this. Us voters and media consumers are missing out on the facts when the analysis we are receiving from the media aristocracy has been so thoroughly contaminated by viral bigotry.
Is it okay to denounce the comments and unexamined male privilage but not denounce the opinions you agree with? Or is it only acceptable if you toss the entire person out the window and refuse to watch him ever again?
We all draw the line at a different place. For me, if I happen to know someone is a bigot (racist/misogynist/homophobe/etc.), I don't want to hang out with him, I don't want to be friends with him, and I don't want to beam him into my living room. Others (liberal blogosphere, I'm looking at you) discount KO's sexism entirely because they like him on the war, and some people hate his sexism but like him fine otherwise. Personally, I can't stand his self-important, fact-light ranting, nor his sexism, so I haven't watched him in some time and won't be doing so again. YMMV.
Zuzu and Kate,
Incertus specifically said that he was criticizing the inclusion of the Olbermann comments because he thought it took away from an otherwise great video. You don't think it does, and that's fine too. But not every disagreement or criticism is a ploy to avoid confronting sexism or a claim that it doesn't exist.
Allies can disagree on points of strategy and still share the goal of defeating sexism, can't they?
Is it okay to denounce the comments and unexamined male privilage but not denounce the opinions you agree with? Or is it only acceptable if you toss the entire person out the window and refuse to watch him ever again?
I don't think anybody needs to be tossed out the window. FWIW, I was a huge Olbermann fan for a long time--I was incredibly disappointed, not just angered, when I saw his true colors come out regarding Hillary.
Personally, I have a hard time respecting or watching him anymore, but I can acknowledge that he (unlike many of his colleagues) still says plenty of things that are true and need to be said. And as I said upthread, I don't even disagree with the gist of his Ferraro comments--but I take issue with his smug tone, the hyperbole of the David Duke comparison, and the fact that he gives it to Clinton with both barrels while giving Obama and his own colleagues pass after pass on misogyny.
You don't have to hate someone for being sexist. But if you call yourself a progressive, you should be willing to stand up and call out sexism when you see it--even if it's coming from someone you consider an ally, and even if it's directed at someone you don't like.
Looking at this video is just amazing. I will admit that there has been a lot of misogyny and sexism against Senator Hillary Clinton by these mainstream, male, media pundits. And I'm sure that someone can create an equally powerful video of racism against Senator Barack Obama by many of these same mainstream, male, media pundits. It really shows just how disgustingly bad our news media has become in not just presenting important news to allow us voters to make clear choices for candidates, but also to continue playing up the fear and hatred of having a woman, or African-American, take control of the nation's highest office....An office that has been dominated by white male Americans.
I don't know how to solve this problem, or even if this problem could ever be solved. I could happy with either Clinton or Obama as president. And I hope that the Democratic Party, and both the Clinton and Obama campaigns can find a way to create a ticket so that we can unify this Democratic Party and keep a destructive third Bush term under McCain out of the White House. I don't care which Democratic candidate--Clinton or Obama--becomes the nominee. I want a strong, winning, Democratic ticket for this race to the White House.
"even if it's coming from someone you consider an ally, and even if it's directed at someone you don't like."
I'd even go so far as to say: ESPECIALLY when it's coming from an ally.
BTW, Kate -- thanks for posting this. It was shattering to watch, but truly, montages rule. They take all those itty-bitty erosions we've dealt with every day, and explain to me why I feel flat out exhausted sometimes.
Oh, gosh. Crying.
I really want her to be president, and I was silly enough to believe that she could be.
The fact that she likely wont win breaks my heart like it's never been broken before.
Kate you made a good point in the intro to the video and its getting brought up again in this thread; I guess the question becomes where do you draw the line? I'm finding it so hard because I'm down to one news outlet and I've cut my blogroll at least in half. Alot of people I've previously admired have crossed the line to such an extent I don't know how to "take one for the team" and unite with them to win the WH come November. I've seen others defending various sites and/or people by saying "Hey but they're still progressives!". But, at least for me, being progressive and a feminist go hand in hand, you start this misogynistic shit, you don't have the right to call yourself a progressive and you're not on my team. So what do you do?
I shook my head in sadness because I knew long ago that this was going to happen to her.
I hate it when I'm right about shit like this.
Damn, this shit is hard to take sometimes.
Those of you who are nitpicking over the inclusion of Olbermann's comment: why? What are you trying to accomplish?
Do you think that if you can show that KO's inclusion in the video is somehow inappropriate, that that means that the whole thing is discredited, and you don't have to dwell on the rest of it?
It bothers me because I think the issue of sexism is very real and very serious. And when we just bring up any example of criticism as evidence of sexism, it is used by sexists to undermine the entire concept of sexism. Of course, we all actually know this since we've seen it happen over and over and over again. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of a good video; right?
Yeah, slag, and I've seen so many people say we should only point out the obvious stuff or the sexists won't take us seriously/won't like us/won't play nice, I want to puke.
And when we just bring up any example of criticism as evidence of sexism, it is used by sexists to undermine the entire concept of sexism.
Many women on this thread have explained why Olbermann is being taken to task for sexism, not criticism. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
And I'm not going to base my public discussions of sexism on what sexists might later use against me, thanks, 'cause... duh.
I bet that someone could put together a video of MSM racism against Obama. It would all be innuendo and allusion rather than the full out, unabashed misogyny in this video.
I really doubt whether someone could put together a video that humanized Obama in the same way that this one does HRC because he has not be de-humanized, downright demonized by the media as she has.
PD, CE and Kate,
I agree with what you guys are saying -- I think the hardest part for me is that it specifically is something where each person has to draw the line for themselves... it's almost like I don't trust myself to draw that line, because I'll do it wrong... if that makes sense.
Over the past two years (since I really started reading the feminist blogosphere) I've been realizing just how hostile the current social paradigm is... and now I'm trying to figure out how to exist in it without contributing to it... and I have no clue.
But I'm really glad you posted the vid, Kate. It gives my brain things to chew on, and that's a good thing.
rrp -- Fox Attacks has done several pieces about Fox and racism -- and one on Obama, recently -- but that's all just FOX -- I think it would be more difficult to amass a similar video from all realms of the MSM.
Do you think that if you can show that KO's inclusion in the video is somehow inappropriate, that that means that the whole thing is discredited, and you don't have to dwell on the rest of it?
Not at all. In fact, it's the opposite if you look at my original post on the matter. I think it's an incredible video even with that inclusion--I just think it would have been better had that clip been replaced with something else.
But not every disagreement or criticism is a ploy to avoid confronting sexism or a claim that it doesn't exist.
Sure, but Incertus brought it up over and over and over instead of acknowledging what several people were telling him about why it was sexist and not just criticism. Which sure as hell makes it look like he's looking for a way to dismiss the overall message of the video because he doesn't want to credit that Olbermann's Special Comment was most assuredly sexist in tone, at the very least.
PD -
I just wanted to acknowledge that there are racist attacks on Obama, rather than just blow off the commenter (Eric A. Hopp) who tried to make the old equivalence argument upthread.
There's no way that even the racist slime from Fox would could close to the unapologetic misogyny across the board, which was the point I wanted to make.
PD, the same people who did Fox Attacks did do one on Chris Matthews.
I just watched it again. When are we organizing a women's party in this country?
With you at the top of the ticket, PD? Phone bank at my house!
Portly, you may be right but I think you could make the case against some of the MSM hosts: show that Powell and Obama are the only guests asked about Belafonte's comments, etc.
PD: i assume guys like me can join? 
i do still support Obama, but what pisses me off is that both he and Hilary would easily be better presidents than every single one we have elected so far in my lifetime.
i am really sad about the Olberman stuff as he has said a lot in the past that made me proud of him.
sometimes i hate coming here. you always have something that makes me think "fuck the human race!"
I really doubt whether someone could put together a video that humanized Obama in the same way that this one does HRC because he has not be de-humanized, downright demonized by the media as she has.
Generally true. It's still more socially acceptable to be a sexist than a racist, and that keeps a lot of the criticism of Obama in the sub rosa category.
That said, the attacks on Obama are there, and he'll be facing all this and more between now and the general election.
As for the video -- the KO stuff is a nitpick. What Clinton has had to face is ridiculous, and dispiriting. But regardless of whether she wins or loses the nomination (and y'all know where my money is), she's done a huge service to feminism by dragging this stuff out there for all to see -- and a huge service to the next woman who runs for president as a major party -- oh, let's face it, as a Democrat -- as well.
When are we organizing a women's party in this country?
I'm working on it...
Olberman was the only "progressive" voice on the air for so many years and still covers stories no other MSM show will, but he is still the MSM, still has to compromise to stay on the air, and therefore still a big part of the problem. By taking a stand between the two Dem candidates, he loses his "progressive" label with many of us. Neither Hillary or Obama are progressives, so it insults me that after pretending to be dedicated to true journalism a la Murrow, he instead uses his platform to be a partisian hack for one candidate and in doing so spreads every right-wing meme out there with glee during his first two (sometimes three) segments.
For many of us it's the realization that there's no real journalism left in the establishment media. Olberman was a hero to me and is now just another partisan talking head that I happen to agree with 85% of the time.
He definately deserved to be included and he's no Murrow.
she's done a huge service to feminism by dragging this stuff out there for all to see
Unless she doesn't drop out soon, in which case she'll be doing a huge disservice to feminism, if I remember that theory correctly.
Or will it all balance out, and we'll be exactly as fucked as we were when she started...?
Howdy Kate,
Long time reader here, first time commenter.
The party needs our votes in November. Figure it out.
What do Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, FOX News or any of those folks have to do with the Democratic Party and voting in November?
I'd love to be able to vote them off the air, but none of them are running for office in '08.
Patrick, what I'm asking people to figure out is why a whole lot of people are pissed off right now, and in no mood to rally behind the candidate who's supposed to magically bring unity to the party.
"When are we organizing a women's party in this country?
I'm working on it..."
Actually, 'Liss should be top of the ticket. I'll be SHD (Secretary of Hug Dispensing).
Actually, 'Liss should be top of the ticket. I'll be SHD (Secretary of Hug Dispensing).
- No, you should be top of the ticket. I'll do the organizing.
Unless she doesn't drop out soon, in which case she'll be doing a huge disservice to feminism, if I remember that theory correctly.
I've come out and said since that I don't think she should drop out at all. And I've come to the conclusion that my earlier fears were wrong, because frankly, They are gonna slag Hillary and feminism no matter what, so she should drop out when she wants to. The only way Clinton could hurt the party is to drag this on to the convention even after losing delegates, having the supers turn against her, losing the popular vote, etc., etc., but I don't think Hillary Clinton views her presidential candidacy as a political suicide pact, and I absolutely believe that she'll do what's best for herself, the party, and the country when she's ready to. She doesn't need to do that before she's ready to.
And I'm not going to base my public discussions of sexism on what sexists might later use against me, thanks, 'cause... duh.
Kate Harding | Homepage | 04.07.08 - 5:11 pm | #
No. Instead, you imply that anyone who even slightly disagrees should just get out. And, obviously, that's your right. But when we finally have the first presidential election in history that has both a black man and a woman in major contention, all we do is retreat into our individual corners and glare across the room at each other. "Get on board or get out", is the message, and the neocons are loving every freaking minute of it.
Guess what...not liking Clinton really can have nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. If someone says that Olbermann is biased toward Obama, that's one thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean he's sexist. Nothing I've read here has really proven otherwise to me. So, clearly, that means I'm too stupid to see it and should go back into my corner.
This year's election is just going to go just great! Looking forward to McCain 08 and a hundred more years of war.
That was a fantastic video - I've just now been able to watch it, now that I'm home from work. The clip of Hillary at Pride got me but good - damn, but I really do love that woman, and I think she'd be a fantastic president.
Unfortunately, I can barely even stand to watch the media coverage of any of this anymore. It's too soul-destroying - and I'd be saying the same thing if this were all happening to Libby Dole. It's fucking horrific.
"When are we organizing a women's party in this country?
I'm working on it..."
Can I be in charge of confetti?
I've come out and said since that I don't think she should drop out at all. And I've come to the conclusion that my earlier fears were wrong, because frankly, They are gonna slag Hillary and feminism no matter what, so she should drop out when she wants to.
Excellent news indeed.
Guess what...not liking Clinton really can have nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.
Nice to see you again, Mr. Strawman.
In addition to the confetti, CE, you can be in charge of being a shining example that youth is no excuse for ignorance.
If someone says that Olbermann is biased toward Obama, that's one thing. But it doesn't necessarily mean he's sexist.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Olbermann is, however, both biased toward Obama and a sexist. I don't know how much one thing has to do with the other, because I'm not his therapist.
This year's election is just going to go just great! Looking forward to McCain 08 and a hundred more years of war.
The implication that feminists are to blame for what you see as this state of affairs is fucking bullshit.
Nice to see you again, Mr. Strawman.
I was gonna go with "Missing the Point Award of the Day," but that works, too.
Nothing I've read here has really proven otherwise to me. So, clearly, that means I'm too stupid to see it and should go back into my corner.
No, it means you ought to think a little harder about why all these women are seeing it and you aren't.
"But when we finally have the first presidential election in history that has both a black man and a woman in major contention, all we do is retreat into our individual corners and glare across the room at each other. "Get on board or get out", is the message . . .i>
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!!! Not at this blog, at least.
I will not overlook racism for the sake of "unity" -- because it's not unity. Likewise, I will not overlook sexism or homophobia for the sake of "unity".
You are being asked to take a look at obvious, virulent sexism and misogyny (and take a stand against it). That's not a "get out", it's a "come on in and get involved".
Olbermann is, however, both biased toward Obama and a sexist. I don't know how much one thing has to do with the other, because I'm not his therapist.
Sorry, must close tags.
I honest to fuck can't believe that we're getting misogyny-apologists in response to this video. If this didn't make it clear how damaging this crap is, how it is anti-progressive and that it's the misogyny that's hurting the party -- not the people protesting the misogyny -- I don't know what will.
I'm still mystified by the big-time anger felt by Sen. Clinton's supporters. Now we are too hate & turn off Olberman. What's next, stop watching B.G. for cripe's sake? It's time to breath, people, & realize that all is impermanent, except McCain & the rest of that bunch.
"I'm still mystified by the big-time anger felt by Sen. Clinton's supporters."
I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm a woman. A woman who is PISSED THE FUCK OFF that women are still having to deal with this kind of shit.
oh for fuck's sake.
No one is telling you what to watch, idiot troll.
That you're mystified is really not a surprise, you've got company.
It's time to breath, people, & realize that all is impermanent
Uhm, no, it isn't. It's not time to "breathe," and only someone who doesn't understand what this shit is could possibly say so. And it's not impermanent, either. This stuff damages women, and not in some temporary, let's-hold-hands-now kind of way. And it is unbelievably demeaning and stupid of you to suggest otherwise.
I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm a woman. A woman who is PISSED THE FUCK OFF that women are still having to deal with this kind of shit.
I am a Clinton supporter. Ditto to everything else. Does that help explain it?
(Brava, Kate, and also, my partner informs me that this video was made by commenters who met at that "trash" Taylor Marsh site - I believe it might be appropriate to send a H/T over there, too.)
CE-
There's a reason TM is called a Trash site, and its not worth the h/t, I 'm sorry but that site is Freerepublic style in its feelings about Obama.
There's a reason TM is called a Trash site, and its not worth the h/t, I 'm sorry but that site is Freerepublic style in its feelings about Obama.
I understand that you feel that way, but since I was addressing Kate, the author of the post, it would be merely polite of you to refrain from deciding for her what is and is not "worth the h/t," mmkay?
Which sure as hell makes it look like he's looking for a way to dismiss the overall message of the video because he doesn't want to credit that Olbermann's Special Comment was most assuredly sexist in tone, at the very least.
Only if you're bound and determined to read it that way, zuzu. That's not the case, and I've said that from my very fisrt post in this thread. If you want to think that I'm trying to dismiss the overall message of the video, I can't stop you and I can't make you believe me--I can only tell you that it isn't the case and hope you'll take my word on it.
No, it means you ought to think a little harder about why all these women are seeing it and you aren't.
Kate Harding | Homepage | 04.07.08 - 5:53 pm | #
And you've seen lots of people on here who are saying it doesn't seem sexist to them. Maybe I'm not the only one missing the point.
I have been told repeatedly that Hillary is not a feminist. She took her husband's name, she played the good wife and gave up her career for his, she only did volunteer work, she only won NY because of his name.
I started off pissed as hell and a little sick to my stomach and then I just started bawling. I really want to give Senator Clinton a big, big hug. And then help her kick a lot of ass.
slag, I think I counted four, maybe five men (I'm guessing) that didn't get it against at least four times as many women who do.
So your point is what exactly?
"I have been told repeatedly that Hillary is not a feminist."
Doesn't matter a whit, even if it were true.
Women who don't consider themselves feminists are damaged by misogyny and sexism just the same.
She took her husband's name, she played the good wife and gave up her career for his, she only did volunteer work, she only won NY because of his name.
And, you know, she's running for President. Which kind of trumps that crap.
she only won NY because of his name.
That's complete horseshit.
slag, I think I counted four, maybe five men (I'm guessing) that didn't get it against at least four times as many women who do.
I only counted two, but I may have missed some because I get bored with people who are Determined Not To Get It.
And, slag, it doesn't really matter how many people are missing the point. The salient point is that there is one, an important one, and you're missing it.
I have been told repeatedly that Hillary is not a feminist. She took her husband's name, she played the good wife and gave up her career for his, she only did volunteer work, she only won NY because of his name.
Man, you must watch a lot of Hardball.
Hi Everyone,
I'm IndyRobin and I created this video along with a friend GeekLove.
Could ya all do me a favor. The Obama
'supporters" are hi jacking the vid at youtube and we want to try to keep it up for Hillary.
It took us four weeks to make the video, in which, I cried everyday listening and watching it ... honestly, it tore my guts out... but it was worth it
Could you PLEASE go to youtube and REC it, RATE it as your fav, and leave a comment.
I have read your comments and you have touched my heart. Thanks to each and every one of you. Now that I know that you're here, I'll be back tomorrow.
No, Incertus. Because if it was really about anger at unfair campaign tactics, he would be doing a "Special Comment" every night, and most of them wouldn't be at HRC. The point, contrasting Murrow with Olbermann, was that Murrow was concerned with mass media showing us news, Olbermann is about ratings, and trashing women gets you ratings. It wasn't a mistake that the infamous "monster" comment was highlighted - there was no "Special Comment" on that. Misogyny gets you ratings, and blaming HRC for anything, regardless of her campaign being less pure than the driven fucking snow, doesn't get around that.
pocochina
I made the video, I'm a therapist and you GOT IT
"I have been told repeatedly that Hillary is not a feminist. She took her husband's name, she played the good wife and gave up her career for his"
lol!
well, i didn't take my wifes name, but i am the one who gave up the career, and i am male, so WTF does that make me?
Nope no watching Hardball, just a discussion with another woman.
Talking with ya'll is much nicer, I just couldn't get past her narrow narrow idea of feminism.
IndyRobin, thank you for the video! It was so wonderful and heartbreaking. I was bawling as soon as the old pictures of Hillary started.
Thanks from me, too, IndyRobin.
Thanks from me, too, IndyRobin.
And from me!
Could you PLEASE go to youtube and REC it, RATE it as your fav, and leave a comment.
Helpful hint: Click on the YouTube logo on the bottom right of the video to go directly to the video's page, where you can recommend, rate, and comment, as requested. 
Thanks, IndyRobin! Great work.
Thanks IndyRobin!
Recommended and rated.
"The only way Clinton could hurt the party is to drag this on to the convention even after losing delegates, having the supers turn against her, losing the popular vote, etc., etc., but I don't think Hillary Clinton views her presidential candidacy as a political suicide pact, and I absolutely believe that she'll do what's best for herself, the party, and the country when she's ready to. She doesn't need to do that before she's ready to."
This conditional relationship is troublesome to me. The hypothetical situation set up in the opening seems not so hypothetical in the conclusion. It seems more likely to me that if Clinton does end up taking this to the convention, it will have meant that she either caught up in the popular vote or made some ground with pledged or SDs.
"..and I absolutely believe that she'll do what's best for herself, the party, and the country when she's ready to."
Isn't this implying that she's somehow NOT doing that now?
Isn't this implying that she's somehow NOT doing that now?
Yeah, it is, at least to my view, and you're right to point it out.
The only way Clinton could hurt the party is to drag this on to the convention even after losing delegates, having the supers turn against her, losing the popular vote, etc., etc.,
So, she should just drop out?
Jeff, there is a whole laundry list of Dem presidential candidates who went all the way to the convention despite not having a snowball's chance (Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, etc.), and yet they weren't told they were destroying the party. They ran until they didn't want to run anymore, and until now, that's been the case with every. single. candidate. They run until they can't, and they can't because they've run out of money or they don't get the nomination.
Why are the rules different for Hillary Clinton? Especially when she has a better shot than, say, Ted Kennedy did.
Competition is *good* for the party, as is a long primary contest in which people actually get to vote late in the process and feel like their votes matter. The only people who say it's not are, curiously, Obama supporters.
What's *not* good for the party is disenfranchising millions of Democrats.
The only way Clinton could hurt the party is to drag this on to the convention even after losing delegates, having the supers turn against her, losing the popular vote, etc., etc.,
You mean, the way Teddy Kennedy did, in 1980, when he went all the way to the convention against a sitting President?
U-huh.
That was when there wasn't even a question about the disenfranchisement of two states, or the popular vote count, of the pledged delegate tally. You know, because Teddy actually had no shot in hell. Unlike Sen. Clinton.
Back then, news reports tell me, he was considered "determined" and no one was really bellyaching about "the good of the party," certainly not with the undertones of today. Back then, no one was appalled by his "naked ambition."
I'd really like it if we could stop masquerading our personal preferences by hiding behind the skirts of the "good of the party" and grew up a little, because that kind of talk is just ludicrous baloney.
Wordy McWord, zuzu! Candidates drop out so early and so few make it to the conventions because it's so bloody fucking expensive to run a presidential campaign. They're not dropping out early for the good of the party, the country, or fuzzy bunnies--they're out of cash. So please, let's not pretend that there's some fiduciary duty to give up just because it looks like you might lose.
