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.
Remember when Olbermann jumped at blaming the Clinton campagin on breaching Obama's passport. Yet when it was revealed that Clinton's was breached as well, Olbermann said nothing, not even "Oh shit, my hatred for a woman becoming president blinded me to the possiblity that someone else other than Clinton could have breached Obama's passport." Keith Olbermann can burn in hell.
Yet when it was revealed that Clinton's was breached as well, Olbermann said nothing, not even "Oh shit, my hatred for a woman becoming president blinded me to the possiblity that someone else other than Clinton could have breached Obama's passport." Keith Olbermann can burn in hell.
Yeah, that was fun, right? Fulminating about the "breaking news" for, I shit you not, half a fucking hour, throwing all sorts of insinuations at the Clinton camp, and then, when it became clear that all three candidates' passports had been breached, did he say a word? No. Did he mention that one of the firms involved is headed by one of Obama's foreign policy and intelligence advisors? Do I really need to answer that?
I am Blubby McBlubberton after that video.
And I may watch it again, because damn it, I LOVE a good cry!
Hill-ar-y! Hill-ar-y! Hill-ar-y!!!
Playing it again now...
I am probably most disgusting offended and somehow gallingly amused by a) dude pundits invoking Lorena Bobbitt, and b) local a**hole Mike Barnicle talking about everyone's first wife outside probate court. I missed it somewhere that I am a divorced lesbian.
I definitely see Melissa as the Leo McGarry of this Women's Party of the future. Go 'Liss! And President Portly Dyke!
And thanks, IndyRobin! That was great.
For the last time. I CANNOT run for president. I have a labia piercing.
The country's not ready.
Thanks for posting this.
I think every female blogger should be calling these assholes out and taking them to task. There are enough pissed off women just in these comments alone to get noticed, if we all did something at the same time.
I'm doing my part -- how about you?
Just watched again. Crying again. THANKS IndyRobin!!!
PS: I'm happy to be a talking head for the Women's Party. I love hearing myself speak.
(Oh, and I could probably provide some useful research and strategy, should we need that too!)
(ps. I only revealed my labia piercing "for the good of the party".)
Al Gore hates Clinton too--is he a misogynist? What a load of bull.
Clinton is the face of the DLC...and I am a progressive, so why the hell should I feel bad about her going down? BTW...She has fought a dirty and divisive campaign and BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN I'm supposed to feel bad for her...worry about her feelings? *sheesh*
*double sheesh*
tenmilekyle | 04.07.08 - 7:48 pm |
Stupid Troll Award of the Day!
Oh man. Sniffling here, big-time.
No one should have to take this shit. Is there something we can do to show her some support? (other than voting for her, obviously, but given where we are in the election cycle many of us here may not have a chance to do that.)
I want to make everyone I know watch this. But then, I'd feel bad for making them all cry.
Actually, not stupid, not a troll.
Is that really your tolerance for criticism? That's pretty weak.
Blub blub blub.
My daughter (she of the baby gayest look) got tears on her head during that one - thankfully she was sleeping or she'd have been all "Mom, cut it out!".
I don't think the video would have made any sense to her, thank goodness. She doesn't know that it's possible to be hated simply for being a woman. She doesn't know that there are things she shouldn't do or aspire to simply because she has a vagina. She doesn't know that just by virtue of having a penis, her brother has advantages of which she can only dream.
I hope and pray that she'll never have to learn any of those lessons. I watched this video and cannot imagine someone talking about my daughter the way those horrible human beings talked about HRC. I want to ask them - especially Olbermann, who I used to enjoy but now just loathe - if they kiss their mothers with those mouths.
Yeah, I'm emotional on this issue. I'm also smart, stubborn, mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more. Keep pissing off people like me, Tweety and pals, and you will be in for a terribly unpleasant surprise.
Al Gore hates Clinton too
There's that word again. Hate. Why do we have to "hate" one of our candidates? Why can't we disagree with their policy positions? Take issue with their voting records? Question them when they lie? A lot of this anti-Clinton stuff is based on "reasons" made of mist; the people I know that say they "hate" Hillary Clinton came into this election hating her already and nothing she could do or say would change their minds.
The Hillary-hate has nothing to do with her and everything to do with a. her being a woman and b. being married to Bill Clinton, which also has to do with her being a woman, because obviously him having an affair was her fault. *rolls eyes*
tenmilekyle -- If you're a progressive, disliking Clinton doesn't give you (or anyone) a pass on misogynist speech. Just like disliking Obama doesn't give anyone a pass on racist speech.
That's what this thread is about -- misogyny of the virulent, hateful, naked variety.
Is that really your tolerance for criticism? That's pretty weak.
My tolerance for criticism? Yes, I get all hysterical when people are mean to Hillary, I totally do. Soon I'll start crying, and expecting you to feel sorry for me, and then all the angry feminists will take away your right to free speech!
Give me a fucking break. I didn't call you a troll because you disagree with me; I called you a troll because you obviously haven't read the thread, and because no one here has said anybody should worry about Clinton's "feelings." Oh, and also because your framing is sexist. And stupid.
You know, I really hope that little girl with the sign is still too young to recognize just what's happening to Clinton. Maybe if all the little girls think she lost in an actual fair fight, some of them will grow up without being completely disillusioned.
Oh, here I go again.
I'm sorry I don't believe Ferraro's comment was wrong. Sen. Obama said the exact same thing in an interview. She is not a racist. The race card has been played so much during this election that it makes me sick. I'm sure you're going to think I'm racist for saying this but my life would prove you wrong. On the other hand there has been sexist attitude from Sen. Obama.
Ferraro's comment was racist. Period. And that's not what this thread is about.
...and what was I saying that was misogynist? Seriously kids, I'm not misogynist.
That college student was getting ready to work for Nixon, right? That corporate Lawyer sat on the board of Wal-Mart, right? That candidates mouth piece (Carville) tried to remove Howard Dean from his position and replace him with Harold Ford (DLC), right?
@tenmilekyle
and that makes the misogynist crap in that video and elsewhere just dandy, eh?
You're not supposed to "feel bad" about her losing the nomination, asshole. But if you're any sort of progressive, you should have noticed the nature of the slams against her are gender based.
And by the way...yes, I think those Jackasses are Jackasses--but putting Olbermann in it is just plain silly.
"worrying about her feelings" was the give away
and what a disappointment Olbermann turned out to be...until he lectures Obama for the sexism he should remain front and center in this video
Hi All,
Its Indy Robin again. Thanks if you are rec and making comments at Youtube. Appreciate it very much
Reading through the comments and want you to know that this video was NOT just about sexism ... it is about
Character assassination:
is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. For living individuals, this can cause the target to be rejected by his or her community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are typically very difficult to reverse or rectify, therefore the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can be life-long and more, or for historical personages, last for many centuries after their death
I was responding to the thread, not the video. Who the hell doesn't get that those guys (not Olbermann, again) that those guys suck...I totally hate them. Do you really think that a progressive doesn't get that?
I'm not going to argue this anymore, because I don't want to veer the thread...but I really don't see why we should be shedding a tear for a woman of privilege, who has never lacked privilege for on moment of her life, just because she is a woman. She is about as representative of most women as John Kerry was of most men.
again though, totally not misogynist, totally not a troll.
I just watched it for the first time. I am so mad I want to put my fist through a freakin wall.
And for those of you who don't think KO is sexist....I used to be his biggest fan. And my wife was his second biggest fan. But she started noticing the constant making fun of the Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears/Lindsay Lohan crowd. And was getting pissed at the misogyny. I in my infinite knowledge did the, "Oh honey, Keith is our hero. He's not sexist." I sure knew a lot. The day he day he makes a comparison of Chris Matthews to an equivalent of David Duke, I may believe he is something more than a fraud. But I'll never watch him again.
Thank you, IndyRobin. That needed to be said. Heading to You Tube now.
shorter tenmilekyle:
because she is not my ideal vision of a feminist, it is o.k. to use sexist language against Clinton
Clinton has not had class priviledge all of her life.
but I really don't see why we should be shedding a tear for a woman of privilege, who has never lacked privilege for on moment of her life, just because she is a woman. She is about as representative of most women as John Kerry was of most men.
Because misogyny toward women, no matter their economic background, still affects all women, because it says to society at large that it's okay to hate them because of their gender.
"..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?
Slightly poor phrasing -- she's doing nothing wrong right now, at least not by running for president. (I could quibble with some targeting of some things here or there, but I can do the same for Obama). What I mean to say is that I strongly believe that when the time comes, Clinton will do the right thing.
As for the Kennedy comparison -- Kennedy deserves if anything more opprobrium than Clinton would ever get from me. It's arguable that Kennedy fatally wounded Carter in 1980; Carter didn't get blown out by Reagan. If Kennedy had decided not to challenge Carter and take it to the convention, Carter might have been able to beat back Reagan. He certainly would have had a better shot. Kennedy in '80 is what I fear when I imagine the worst-case scenario for the Dems this year.
That said, I strongly, strongly doubt that Clinton would take it to the convention without at least a strong claim to the popular vote or the overall delegate lead. I expect that we'll see Clinton and Obama split the remaining states, that the supers will follow Dean's request and make their intentions known in June, and that once Obama has a Florida/Michigan-proof lead, that he'll magnanimously agree to seat them as-is. I'd say that scenario has a 75% chance of coming true, that there's a 20% chance that things are questionable enough that Clinton is justified in continuing on (i.e., she gets a popular vote lead or has some claim to a delegate lead with Florida/Michigan factored in), and a 5% chance that Obama somehow implodes to the point Clinton wins. If the outcome of the race is not in doubt, Clinton will do the right thing. And frankly, if she's got a shot at winning, she's doing what's right for her party by staying in.
What these pundits have done to her would never have been done to another male candidate. Oh wait, remember what they did to Gore? We are having another ertswhile candidate, Obama, shoved down our throats like it or not. I love Hillary and would very much want to see her elected but they have beaten her up so badly I have my doubts.
She is about as representative of most women as John Kerry was of most men.
Yeah, except that she is representative of women, because we all take shit from misogynist assholes, regardless of how much money we have.
It's time to breath, people, & realize that all is impermanent
Yeah, calm down, ladies. Let the big boys concentrate on the important things.
Fucking god. I can't stand it. You don't have to be a Clinton supporter to hate the way she's being treated. I've never cared for her positions, but damn, my estimation for her has gone way up over this campaign. No male candidate has had to put up with anything like this level of shit. At this point, I don't care that Clinton is neither a Champion of Feminism or my Dream Candidate. She's my sister and she's damned brave and I only wish she was playing on a level field.
I really don't see why we should be shedding a tear for a woman of privilege, who has never lacked privilege for on moment of her life, just because she is a woman.
That's not the point at all. You're supposed to watch it and realize that everyone in the media thinks that it's ok to shit all over a candidate FOR BEING A WOMAN, not because of any dirty doings of her campaign or whatnot. Did you watch the video? Did you realize that nothing in it was an attack of substance against her record as a senator? Every - single - word was a slur against the fact that she's a woman, and that by definition is a slur against every single woman on the planet. The vast majority of the chatter surrounding her is NOT about her policies or her record or her actions, but junior-high level giggling that she has a vagina so she's not fit for office. THAT is what you're supposed to notice and care about. If you oppose her record so much, then you should be furious that her record isn't the subject of debate because everyone can't stop focusing on the fact that she has girly parts.
I was too angry to cry, but I did get a lump in my throat thanks to Maya Angelou's "Rise up, Hillary." So should we all rise up.
My heart leapt when I saw the mention of a Women's Party. It's been the impossible dream for so long, but if anyone can make it happen, you strong, brilliant, remarkable women can. And I would be honored to do what ever little bit I could to help.
I think that it was effective to put KO at the beginning of the video BECAUSE so many progressives like him. He is supposed to be our friend, and yet he betrays us. In this primary season, the misogynistic and racist betrayals by my supposed friends (in the media and real life) have hurt more than betrayals by my known enemies (i.e. Fox News and dudes who fly confederate flags.
It's time to breath, people, & realize that all is impermanent
Nice to know women's experiences with misogyny and sexism, things we experience OUR WHOLE FUCKING LIVES, from birth to death, can be so easily dismissed as "impermanent."
What the fucking hell.
What are you, some freaking hybrid of a sexism apologist and a Buddhist?
There is nothing sexist coming from the Obama campaign
"Sweetie" We can just drink tea with Bhutto,if she was still alive and talk about the latest nonsense fashion.
After all Obama's foreign policy experience includes living in Indonesia as a child and raveling to Kenya. This is much more substantive than drinking "tea" with world leaders as an adult.
What I found most interesting is that Rev Jessie Jackson snubbed Shirley Chisolm when she was running for president. Congressman Chisolm was into "woman's rights..not civil rights. Civil rights meaning male rights. His son, Congressman Jackson accused Hilary of crying more over her hair than the victims of Katrina. So much for that Rainbow Coalition and the Obama Bowel Movement.
I've now watched this vid 3 times and the "This One's for the Girls" video. This "mad as hell" video is in some ways so effective because of the lyrics of the song - that she's a complex, imperfect person. (duh.) So this video is more humanizing and thus more inspiring, even though the "This one" video is still rad.
What are you, some freaking hybrid of a sexism apologist and a Buddhist?
Heh. I almost called him out on the bullshit co-optation of Buddhism there, but I got distracted.
Oh, and THANK YOU, INDYROBIN!
That said, I strongly, strongly doubt that Clinton would take it to the convention without at least a strong claim to the popular vote or the overall delegate lead. I expect that we'll see Clinton and Obama split the remaining states, that the supers will follow Dean's request and make their intentions known in June, and that once Obama has a Florida/Michigan-proof lead, that he'll magnanimously agree to seat them as-is.
What makes you think that Obama will ever have a Florida/Michigan-proof lead? Or that the anger of the Florida and Michigan voters can be assuaged by "magnanimously" agreeing to seat them, after the issue of the nomination has been decided?
Also: You seem to have a lot of faith that the superdelegates will declare early, and in a manner benefiting your candidate.
I do agree that HRC will not drop out until it's clear that she's lost, but for fuck's sake, why in god's name can't Obama just clearly win?
zuzu | Homepage | 04.07.08 - 11:14 pm | #
Because the system we use to select nominees is stupid.
As for why I think Obama will get over the top -- because he has a ~170 delegate lead right now, all signs are that he's got more supers in the wings, and given the lay of the land, it's all-but-impossible for Clinton to get within 100, unless she wins Penn, Indy, Guam, and Puerto Rico something like 90-10. The odds against Clinton winning are very steep, because frankly, she's lost more than she's won since January. She's behind because she's received fewer votes. Obama is ahead because he's received more votes, even if you factor in Florida, even if you factor in Michigan and don't give Obama a single vote from the state. If Clinton was ahead by a similar margin I'd be saying the exact same thing; I'm not ruling out a Clinton victory, but it will almost certainly occur only after an Obama collapse. This is not a slight against Hillary. A supercandidate comprised of the best parts of John F. Kennedy, Catherine the Great, and Jesus would struggle to overcome the lead Obama has. Hillary Clinton is a very, very good candidate, and while she's had to deal with the Mark Penn handicap, she's run a race that would have defeated any Democrat I can think of in the last forty years -- except for Obama.
Catherine the Great
They did the same shit to Catherine the Great that they're doing to Hillary now, saying she died fucking a horse or whatever. Women have had leadership roles before and they always have it harder than the men do.
DONATE MONEY! Hillary needs more money for this rigorous campaign. It's great to get all "up in arms" over sexism, but let's not forget this is still a RACE and she's still in it to win it.
PLEASE HELP HER WIN. PLEASE DONATE a little or a lot...whatever you can, even if just 10dollars!
HELP HILLARY WIN.
And of course keep up your emails to MSNBC. I have yet to stop my complaints, eventually we'll come together somehow and we'll figure out a better tactic.
DONATE TO HRC, TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
hillaryclinton.com
"She's behind because she's received fewer votes."
But Jeff -- it's not OVER. And until it is, could you just honestly claim your enormous Obama bias and let the voters decide?
"A supercandidate comprised of the best parts of John F. Kennedy, Catherine the Great, and Jesus would struggle to overcome the lead Obama has."
See there? That's what I'm talking about. Jeff -- Obama's lead is not really ALL that huge. (JFK, CtG, AND Jesus combined -- the best parts therof, no less? -- Jeezus!)
And for once -- for once *wishing on a feminist star, far, far away* -- could a thread about the rank misogynism aimed at the first woman EVER to have a viable run at the presidency NOT devolve into "she has no chance" or "she's worse" or whatever the fuck else someone might want to throw in to distract from . . . . . .
from . . . .
the RANK FUCKING MISOGYNY!?!?!?!?!?!
People are crying because one of the most powerful people in the world had gotten unfair media treatment? There's a lot of things to cry about in this world. The plight of poor Hillary Clinton isn't fucking one of them.
The plight of poor Hillary Clinton isn't fucking one of them.
The plight of WOMEN, who are demeaned this way, every day, IS.
Fuck it. Now I'm just plain old pissed off.
But Jeff -- it's not OVER. And until it is, could you just honestly claim your enormous Obama bias and let the voters decide?
The number of times voters have ignored my predictions and done something else is somewhere in the neighborhood of the number of stars in the sky. I never said it was over -- indeed, I've taken great pains to say it isn't -- but it's very close. And barring an Obama collapse of Memphis-like proportions, I'm not seeing a way for Clinton to win, given how things are right now. But Obama can collapse, and even if he doesn't, the voters can still vote. Even if Clinton can't beat Obama, her winning, say, eight of the last ten primaries would be a strong repudiation of him. I doubt that will happen, but stranger things have.
As far as getting off-topic, I've been responding to people complaining about my saying, way back up there in the thread, that Clinton wasn't doing anything wrong by staying in the race and that she's most certainly faced tremendous misogyny, and that win or lose, her candidacy has been a good one and those who value equality owe her a debt of gratitude. If that's an enormous Obama bias that I'm using to distract from misogyny...well, I'm not seeing that.
The plight of poor Hillary Clinton isn't fucking one of them.
It isn't just about Hillary Clinton. Why is that so hard for you assholes to grasp? All you need are two brain cells to rub together.
For (probably not) the last time: We're not upset because unfair media treatment is being leveled at Clinton because she's "one of the most powerful people in the world." We're upset (enraged, horrified, heartbroken, despondent, and yeah, bitchez, I'll say it: HYSTERICAL) because this treatment is being leveled at Clinton because she's a woman with power. The arguments shown in this video are not against her record as a First Lady, a Senator, or a private citizen, but as a woman. She is not being criticized for being a poor leader. She is being criticized for being a poorly-behaved lady. If you're still missing this essential, vital, glaring distinction, I have to wonder why the hell you are hanging around here???
But I suppose I'm beginning to sound shrill. At times such as these, when I'm periodically feeling down, I have to remind myself to retract my claws, put my leash back on, and go iron his shirt, before someone decides to take me out behind the barn.
This video is about nothing but Hillary Clinton. If you want to make her a stand in for all women everywhere, go ahead, but that's pretty goddamn stupid. Why is that so hard for you dipshits to grasp?
"I've taken great pains to say it isn't -- but it's very close."
Yes, but to my mind, "very close" and "the best parts of JFK, CtG, and Jesus" in order to win -- are very, very different.
Wowzers | 04.08.08 - 12:35 am | #
Wowzers, first, when trying to convince people of something: don't insult them.
Second: if you actually paid attention to the video, you'd understand why what you just said is just about the most asinine thing anyone's said in the last week, and that includes John Calipari saying that free throws aren't particularly important.
Hillary is being attacked because she's a woman. Therefore, women are being demeaned, as Hillary being a woman is seen as a legitimate line of attack.
By all means, go after Clinton for hiring (and not firing sooner) Mark Penn, attack her war vote, talk about whether she's the best candidate for president based on her record vs. Obama's and McCain's. You can do that without attacking Clinton for being a woman, because her being a woman is not a negative. It is not a bad thing to be a woman. It does not make her weak. It does not make her too emotional. It does not make her a castrating bitch.
She simply is a woman. That is a part of who she is. And it's irrelevant to whether she would be a good leader. If anything, that she's gotten as far as she has without cracking under the weight of the misogynist bullshit she's been subjected to shows her gender may be a net positive, insofar as I doubt very much that many men would have achieved as much, or done as well for themselves, if they also had to answer daily for the grave sin of being men. And I imagine Clinton could have done more, and gone even further, if she was freed up from having to defend herself from those who see being a woman as a negative.
Regardless, oppose Clinton if you must, but do so for the right reasons. Not because she's a woman. If you can't find a reason to support Obama other than that he's running against a girl, for the love of Jebus, please get off my side.
"If you want to make her a stand in for all women everywhere, go ahead, but that's pretty goddamn stupid."
Oh -- so when people make racist comments about Obama, that doesn't have any effect on people of color everywhere?
Better trolls, please.
Wowzers | 04.08.08 - 12:35 am | #
o.k. you don't have two brain cells to rub together. Maybe you can get together with all the other trolls that have coming around lately and pool brain cells. Maybe come up with two or three.
I respect Maya Angelou, who closes this video. That says something.
Yes, but to my mind, "very close" and "the best parts of JFK, CtG, and Jesus" in order to win -- are very, very different.
In a saner system, Clinton could maybe beat Obama. If the Dems apportioned delegates Winner-take-All, she would be beating Obama. It is a close race. But unfortunately, because of the way the system is set up, it's difficult mathematically for her to overtake Obama, even if she racks up 80%-20% wins the rest of the way. That's just reality -- no matter how good Clinton does, she probably can't beat Obama mathematically without Obama doing something stupid.
Clinton's path to the nomination essentially relies on her ability to close the gap with Obama, and her ability to persuade superdelegates that Obama is patently unfit to be the nominee despite his winning the pledged delegate count. If she can close the gap to 100 or so, then she can argue that with Michigan and Florida, that she'd only be behind ~40 delegates, and maybe then she can persuade them. But if, as seems likely, Obama is still winning in votes cast and delegates, it's going to be a very, very hard sell, and I doubt she's going to be able to make it. That said, she should be able to make the pitch without being attacked for it -- this is part of the insane system, after all -- and if she is very close, and gets the supers to break for her, then she gets the nomination, fair and square.
I think the odds of that are astronomically high -- 5% chance, maybe -- but until it's a 0% chance, I don't see why Clinton should consider dropping out, and once it's a 0% chance, I think she'll become a very formidable ally to Barack Obama, because she's a very good politician and that's what very good politicians do when they lose a primary. (And if the chance increases of a win? If I'm wrong, and she wins Pennsylvania big, and pulls of a North Carolina upset? If her chances improve, then she should stay in the race until people are pressuring Obama to drop out.)
Yes, Jeff, I understand the math.
Thanks for the "help", though.
But "the best parts JFK, Catherine the Great, and JESUS" is, to my mind, rather hyperbolic -- and if you really have that much faith in "the math", and Obama's lead, why keep repeating this, unless you are attempting to press your bias?
PortlyDyke | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 1:03 am | #
I did so in answer to a question -- I didn't bring it up in my original post on this thread. And part of why I bring it up is to back up the idea that Clinton has the right to continue running, and that her run is a net positive. My bias for Obama is not nearly so overwhelming as you think it is, and I feel absolutely justified in saying that I have absolutely no animosity toward Clinton at all. (In another discussion group, I'm known as an inveterate Clinton apologist, because I go after those who try to paint her as the evilest candidate ever.)
But that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to suspend reality in discussing Clinton, either. It's condescending to pretend that Clinton has a really really good chance at the presidency when she really doesn't at this point; it's condescending because Clinton's worked too hard and run too good a race to get a "Tried Hardest" medal. Losing a race is no sin, and no strike against a politician -- or there'd be an awful lot of politicians, from Al Gore to Hubert Humphrey to John Edwards, that we'd have to disown. Indeed, some of my favorite politicians fell just short of the brass ring, and yet managed to change politics despite their failure to win. And I'm certain of this: if I'm right, and Clinton does fall short, she will end up like Gore, like Humphrey -- as politicians who still accomplished great things, despite not earning the presidency. And if you think I'm being condescending comparing Clinton to Gore, then please understand that there is nobody I can think of who I'd rather be compared to.
So here's some late night stream of consciousness analysis...
One of the disconnects for me Jeff with your arguments is that you're still talking about her "right" to remain in the race, even if in defense of the notion, when that issue appears to have been laid to rest at this site. Could this be a strawman? I'm never sure how to use that term?
Why are you still making this case?
To me, it's like you're the Shakes inside baseball guy (love a gendered metaphor, i do!), but there's a more lukewarm market here for that kind of election coverage. I rarely see discussions of "the math" ad nauseaum (sp?) here like I do at other sites. I find that refreshing, in part because the general sentiment that comes across to me in these pages is the notion that the race is not over, so let's all discuss the inequalities, coverage and frames of this race, rather than a blogger's interpretation of how the race is over, no matter how charitably it is spun for the trailing candidate.
It took me forever to realize that reading comments threads is an equivalent to listening to sports and talk radio call in shows. The sports equivalent, again, is particularly lacking here, and that's what I feel like the generalized "this race is so over, let me tell you how and why and the wisdom behind my brackets" goes over so poorly here.
A friend over the weekend was telling me that he finds following sports so freeing and pleasurable because in the end dudes (mainly) are discussing with great passion teams and players and competitions that have little material bearing on our lives - unlike politics, he added. Hence, another reason why I think this cheerful handicapping you keep offering of the two candidates is falling flat for many of us.
For me, anyway. I'm coming to this site to hear about the latest in shirt-ironing and flag lapel wearing and not how this means Clinton is losing and should not get out now, of course, but that staying in is basically futile but totally her right and somehow transformative in its own right...until it's time for her to drop out of course...which should be about any minute now...or in 3 months, or 6, but either way, inevitably, to a 95% confidence level. Right?
"Losing a race is no sin, and no strike against a politician -- or there'd be an awful lot of politicians, from Al Gore to Hubert Humphrey to John Edwards, that we'd have to disown."
Agreed. Losing a race is no sin.
Al Gore was an acclaimed candidate, Hubert Humphrey was nominated on the first ballot, and John Edwards -- well, he's never been nominated as the Dem candidate for Prez (more's the pity) but he was acclaimed as VP for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
I'm not asking you to "suspend reality" -- just asking you to not invoke the "unreality" level of JFK, CtG, AND Jesus (all wrapped into one) -- to imagine Clinton as a viable candidate at this point.
Kerry took the 2004 convention with 98% of the delegates -- he went in with 2,162.
IOW -- Obama has only 75% of the delegates that Kerry went into the convention with in '04, and Clinton has 68% of the number Kerry went in with.
That's really NOT an impossible dream.
Difficult? Yes. But not impossible.
In truth, we don't know how many delegates will be seated at the convention. Maybe 4,046 (in which case, Obama has only 40% tied up, Clinton 37%, -- and if you don't believe that "super-delegates" can change their minds, well, I have a bridge for sale in the Gobi desert... ).
Regardless -- Clinton and Obama's race is closer, numerically, than most Democratic candidates vying for the nomination at this point in the process in recent history -- so why insist that considering her candidacy as viable is "suspending reality"?
I'm with Redstar (2:22 am); this thread is about language, not math and probability.
My bias for Obama is not nearly so overwhelming as you think it is, and I feel absolutely justified in saying that I have absolutely no animosity toward Clinton at all.
I believe the second half of that, Jeff. I don't think you have any animosity toward Clinton. But as for the first half, I don't think your objectivity is nearly so overwhelming as you think. I don't harbor animosity toward Obama, but I'm damn well biased for Clinton. One doesn't require the other.
It's condescending to pretend that Clinton has a really really good chance at the presidency when she really doesn't at this point;
You know what's condescending? Explaining the same thing to us about 5 separate times in this thread, then claiming you were "just answering a question." You answered it with the first post about how she can't win--why did you feel the need to keep repeating it? WE GET IT.
it's condescending because Clinton's worked too hard and run too good a race to get a "Tried Hardest" medal.
Oh, come on. Are you one of the people who heard Clinton compare herself to Rocky and went, "Rocky LOST, dumbass!" Even if you're not, you can share the Missing the Point Award with them.
Losing a race is no sin, and no strike against a politician
It's no strike against a white male politician. You cannot compare Hillary or Obama to any past presidential candidate in terms of what it will mean for them to win or lose. One of them is going to break a barrier and the other is going to be the one who couldn't break a barrier. And I daresay it's condescending to pretend that a loss by either one of them would be comparable to a loss by someone who truly didn't have to work twice as hard to get respect from the rich, white men who run everything.
I'm not going to argue with you about delegate math, because I don't care about that right now. I am not yet resigned to a Clinton loss, but I'm prepared for one, and I understand why people think I should be officially resigned. I'm not fucking stupid, and neither are any of the other women who've supported her--including the ones who are still unreservedly pushing for and believing in a Clinton victory.
Your position seems to be that it's not impossible for her to win, but it would take a miracle. Fine. What I'm asking, then, is that in this thread of all places you quit shitting on people's hope for a miracle. The fact that you think it's condescending to act as if she could possibly win at this point but DON'T think it's condescending to come into a thread where women are talking about how personally meaningful this campaign is to us, how seeing the little girl with the "I can be President, too" sign made us all fucking lose it, and keep saying over and over, "She can't win she can't win she can't win," as if that is the most important point you could possibly make in this particular discussion... I just really don't know what's gotten into you lately, Jeff.
And now I'm crying again.
"What I'm asking, then, is that in this thread of all places you quit shitting on people's hope for a miracle."
Smells like privilege.
"I just really don't know what's gotten into you lately, Jeff. "
The same thing that's in all of them.
Don't you silly girlz know that the most important thing to stress when women are talking about their own struggles is that it's all hopeless? We can't have a single conversation about the hopes of women without reminding them it's all hopeless, never gonna change, not that bad anyway and you know, all our fault.
This video did not make me cry; did not make me weep for my soon-to-be 25 year old daughter. It made me sad that some of you are so full of self pity that you can take several quotes and use them for a self-pity party.
Hillary and her husband made 110 million dollars this decade. One hundred and ten million. She is not some powerless little everywoman fighting for you.
And apparently, Talk Left's Messianic self-pity is contagious. I hope you don't catch Taylor Marsh' hate.
BYW. Nobody ever did call Hillary Clinton a "nigger'. And unlike Pastor Wright, her husband never served in the Marine Corps fighting for a country in which every city has a black section that also happens to be a poor section. It is a coincidence, I am certain.
I wonder why poor people don't make 110 million dollars? Maybe they need to do favors for their friends.
Stop feeling sorry for yourselves.
They picked on Hillary - I'm gonna cry - boo hoo
Grow up
this thread is about language, not math and probability
The dialogue against H. Clinton has shifted to the more 'rational' field of mathematics in the mainstream media, as well. Not much of a surprise - it's a safer way to use sexism. Less overt.
Hillary should absolutely NOT drop out, despite all the garbage the pundits dish out.
Didn't we learn anything with Gore? You need to wait until the last vote is counted- the last I dotted and T crossed when things are close.
And who is to say that in the time before the Democratic convention, some huge political gaffe or corruption is discovered about Obama? Then what would we do? We'd have basically no one left but him to go up against McCain.
The whole process is wonky in this cycle and I am sick of it all.
She can't win because the numbers are against her. Except they aren't, and she can.
"It made me sad that some of you are so full of self pity that you can take several quotes and use them for a self-pity party."
Oh lookie another dipshit troll who can't tell the different between his opinion and reality.
It is a coincidence, I am certain.
tjproudamerican | 04.08.08 - 7:57 am
Just like it's a coincidence that all the presidents have been white men.
Don't pretend fighting for equal rights is immaterial - no matter who is fighting.
Nobody ever did call Hillary Clinton a "nigger'.
Very true. But the more important part is the second part of what he said--that she hasn't had to work twice as hard to get ahead, which is utter bullshit. If you don't get that, then I'm guessing you've never been called a cunt.
"Grow up
Moonbat boy | 04.08.08 - 7:59 am | #"
yeah, o.k.
Is there a costume involved with being Moonbat boy?
Ah, the "delegate math" that never, ever seems to take into account the fact that simply being the leader in pledged delegates does not equal winning.
Big Tent Democrat had an interesting post a few days ago tracing the origin of the pledged delegate lead becoming the holy grail.
Unfortunately, all the delegate math in the world doesn't change one simple fact: this nomination will be decided by the superdelegates, and the superdelegates don't have to bestow it on the leader in pledged delegates. Those, after all, are the rules.
Thanks IndyRobin!
zuzu, don't you know the rules only apply when the liberal men have said so? And when they don't like the rules, they're fighting for a more democratic system! Srsly.
the superdelegates don't have to bestow it on the leader in pledged delegates. Those, after all, are the rules.
But Zuzu, don't you realize that if the superdelegates actually, you know, carry out the function of superdelegates, IT WILL TEAR THE PARTY APART?!? Your crazy girl logic does not take that INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT POINT into consideration. You don't seem to understand that an Obama win will make every Democratic voter orgasm simultaneously, after which we will all immediately set about trying to buy the world a Coke--but a Hillary win will mean CHAOS AND DESTRUCTION, since there are only like 4 people in the whole country who actually voted for her, and they're all stupid.
Maybe you ought to calm down and think about the facts here, missy.
Astraea & Kate Harding
Now YOU got it. We better get ourselves in the kitchen to fix the poor fighting-for-democracy-until-it-conflicts-with-
their-personal-agenda men some lemonade and snacks! And be NICE when you serve it.
after which we will all immediately set about trying to buy the world a Coke
I'll get out my patriotic hotpants, Betty.
Kate Harding | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 7:32 am | #
You rock, Kate.
there are only like 4 people in the whole country who actually voted for her, and they're all stupid.
Yeah! And all of them will vote for Obama, too! He's the One True Candidate!
the more 'rational' field of mathematics in the mainstream media, as well. Not much of a surprise - it's a safer way to use sexism.
I don't know about you, but as soon as I got boobs, math started to make my head hurt. It's a good thing girls can't understand this delegate "math" thing, or we might realize what bullshit it is. Luckily, math is way too rational for me.
Wow, there were some pretty horrible things there. Just 3 points.
1. I think a lot of this misogyny is laid bare just because she's HRC. That doesn't make it less horrible, and I guess is in fact a reminder of how much is kept under the surface. So I guess it's an example how misogyny is "allowed" if a woman isn't the literal incarnation of the divine feminine (ie the blessed Condi Rice).
2. But also, I would say don't despair, this too shall pass, yadda yadda. Y'know why? Soon, women will be the only educated professionals in this country. Women doctors? Yup. Women lawyers? Yup. Women journalists? Ayup. So...it WILL happen, almost certainly in my lifetime (I'm 26).
3. That said, this kinda pissed me off.
"The party needs our votes in November. Figure it out."
Ok...seriously...wtf? What is this? Yes we need you to vote in November, no matter WHO the candidate is. Because while the Republicans are deeply unpopular, they have a media-blessed candidate who have a LOT of otherwise liberal people swooning over "Teh Maverick." Which is a load of dung, obviously.
Look, at the very least, this primary lets you realize who your real friends/progressives are. A lot of crap has bubbled forth to the surface, and the shit ain't pretty. But yes, we do need you, all of you, to utterly annihilate the neocons come November. So please join us.
Ok...seriously...wtf? What is this? Yes we need you to vote in November, no matter WHO the candidate is.
Lit3Bolt, this is precisely the problem. You just saw the video, didn't you? Obama himself, and some of his surrogates, have engaged in sexist behavior as well, the party has said nothing, the "progressive" blogosphere has been among the worst offenders, and people like you expect us to fall in line and vote for the Democrat in November. This may very well be the pragmatic action; I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks John McCain would be a better president than either of the remaining Democrats. You will, however, find plenty of women who, having perceived the depth of the shit that's been flung at Hillary Clinton, are angry enough at our so-called allies to consider voting for a third party or staying home if she is not the nominee. No one is under any obligation to vote for anyone, no matter how good you may think the reason is.
A lot of crap has bubbled forth to the surface, and the shit ain't pretty. But yes, we do need you, all of you
No, it's not at all pretty. It's damaging in ways men will probably never understand. And it's very dismissive of that damage to say, "Well, come vote for the Democrat anyway."
So please join us.
Don't you understand? We've been trying to.
Look, at the very least, this primary lets you realize who your real friends/progressives are.
Exactly. And to my despair, I'm finding out that I have a hell of a lot less than I thought I did at the start of this race. And at the moment, I'm really resenting that, once again, I'll be expected to swallow all this crap and forget this ugliness ever occurred. You know, For The Good Of The Party.
Jeff, I know it may feel like people are piling on you, but I really think Kate hit on something important there about why people are challenging you. Like it or not, this thread - like so many of the threads regarding the Clinton sexism watch - is about language and attitude and how they can be combined, in ways both subtle and not subtle, to try to push from the race our first viable female candidate. The sports talk analogy was also a good one.
This video was cathartic for me because it sums up, in nine minutes, so much of the crap that's been directed at Clinton in the MSM over the past few months - and still ends on a message of hope. And damn, you know? The reason so many of us are literally crying about it - and why we're filled with so much righteous anger - is because it is, in a nutshell, the truth of what we've been seeing for so long.
And so when the nitpicking starts in this thread, it strikes a sour note. I don't think you were consciously doing that, but that's how it came across. And honestly, the fact that you're a guy means you have to be extra careful with that kind of thing. Not because we're big oversensitive crybabies who can't handle The Truth About The Numbers (because, really, we do understand the math. Honest.), but because it veers awfully close to the paternalistic, rational, head-patting tone that too many men take when women get excited and upset about something. And again, I don't think you're doing that consciously. You're smarter than that. But that's how it can sound to so many of us who've been putting up with that kind of shit all our lives.
I really do appreciate that you've altered your position and your language about Clinton staying in the race for however long she wants. But this kind of thing - along with the nitpicking about whether KO was really being sexist while glossing over the entire fucking rest of the video - makes many of us think that, no, we're still not being heard. It's the "Yeah, but..." response. "Yeah, okay, I'll grant that there have been some bad things said about Clinton, BUT including KO was wrong and ruins the message of the rest of the video!" "Yeah, Clinton should stay in as long as she wants, BUT let me spend paragraph about paragraph explaining why she won't go all the way while women are expressing how emotionally moving that little girl holding the sign was." It's about tone and language.
Ok...seriously...wtf? What is this? Yes we need you to vote in November, no matter WHO the candidate is.
That's exactly my point. The party needs our votes, so the nominee needs to earn them instead of counting on us to come out and vote against McCain either way. Personally, I almost certainly will--but there's a part of me that doesn't even want to, after the way this campaign has played out. And I am NOT the kind of person who ever believed in protest voting or staying home before this.
Obama's never asked for my vote. He's simply assumed I'll vote for him--and threatened that his supporters would NOT vote for my candidate if she were nominated. He's let his proxies try to bully Clinton out of the race instead of just focusing on winning it. He seems perfectly content to get the nomination without counting the votes of 2.3 million Americans--even though, as the delegate mathletes are always quick to point out, that wouldn't necessarily stop him from winning anyway. I find all of that deeply problematic.
Is that enough to keep me home in November or only vote down ticket if he's the nominee? Probably not. But I'm just one voter. And I have heard a lot of people, including some I would NEVER expect it from, say they plan to stay home if things keep going the way they have been. Obama needs to ask for and earn all of our votes if he wants to win the general, period. Counting on McCain hate is not a winning strategy.
And as we've discussed on this blog many times, bullying people into taking one for the team really isn't cool. People have a right to stay home, a right to vote for spoilers, and yes, even a right to vote for McCain if that's what their conscience dictates. You don't get rid of that problem by telling people they're stupid, short-sighted assholes. You get rid of that problem by nominating a candidate who can earn enough votes to win.
I sure as hell hope Obama can earn enough votes to win, if he's the nominee. But he's going to need to acknowledge that nearly half of primary voters didn't pick him, a frightening number of those feel incredibly alienated by his campaign and his supporters, and they don't all hate McCain enough to vote for him anyway. That's his problem to solve, and nobody else's.
I'm not sure how I can jump back into this thread. All I can say is that, Kate, Melissa, CE, Betty, and any others I forget, I think that especially after this video, a lot of people get it. The people that don't are just being willfully ignorant or complacent. Eventually a point is reached where a percentage of people's minds can't be changed.
I sure as hell hope Obama can earn enough votes to win, if he's the nominee. But he's going to need to acknowledge that nearly half of primary voters didn't pick him, a frightening number of those feel incredibly alienated by his campaign and his supporters, and they don't all hate McCain enough to vote for him anyway. That's his problem to solve, and nobody else's.
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. But you did it better.
Or, what CE said.
Heh, nice cross-posting action there, CE.
Thanks for posting this Kate. Your thoughtful posts on HRC have helped me see her differently.
Thank you Portly Dyke for just about everything you have said on this thread!
I teared up too. At one point, i wanted Clinton to leave the race, just so this misogyny would stop. Just so I wouldn't be faced with undeniable evidence that being a woman keeps me from having power. Of course the misogyny won't stop if she's not in the race anymore. It was a selfish wish. And i don't think that anymore.
Thanks again for challenging my views on her.
This campaign period has laid bare the mysogyny in the Democratic party, in the "progressive" blogosphere, and the MSM. This is starting to make me wonder if the only way to break the glass ceiling is through a token. If HRC loses the nomination unfairly, and Rice is McCain's vp, I'll be in a serious quandary in November.
Yes yes yes to everything Saliari said. And another thing that really bothers me about the nitpicking about the video: it isn't just about Hillary Clinton. At least for me it isn't just about this primary season, except in the way that the misogyny has been so in-your-face, a reminder of just how much so many men hate women.
But this is what women face every fucking day, and it's not even the worst of it. And every misogynist attack against Clinton is like a bullet wound, another reminder, something that might heal but always leaves a scar, and feminists are covered in them and can probably identify every fucking one. Oh, that's from the time in Jr High when an asshole slapped my ass as I got something from my locker and I can't bend over without thinking, is some fucking man going to look. And this other one is from that time when I realized a man I respected turned into a sexist asshole and now I feel more alone than ever.
And this one, right in my chest, is when I saw a little girl holding a sign saying "I can be president" and it broke my fucking heart because I know how many times she's going to be told she can't.
And then some people come in and claim that part of that isn't valid because you don't see it, because that nice liberal guy isn't really a sexist? Yeah, you're going to get people pissed.
...And now I think I need a few minutes away from the computer.
Heh, nice cross-posting action there, CE.
Indeed!
The Clinton's are a sign that our soul is sick. They are multimillionaires who attract people who are way better than them, and in the process make George W Bush assertions: "You are either with The Clinton's or you are a sexists."
Don't despair all you weepers:
Here is good news: Condaleeza Rice is campaigning to be McCain's Vice President.
Here is a chance for all feminists to join behind a strong woman candidate.
Best Case Scenario: McCain picks Condi, who is not only a strong woman in power but a single woman. McCain has to step down and Rice picks Kay Hutchinson for her VP. Women and Americans cannot lose.
All the strong women supporting Ms. Hillary as THE candidate, and all the feminists here, especially the weeping men ("Oh the humanity! Criticizing the poor, unknown, pull herself up by her bootstraps, plucky strong woman, Hillary, our national treasure, Hillary!") will have their Woman.
When we NY state voters asked Hillary to run for Senator, knowing how much she loved her home state, knowing how little personal ambition she had, we were surprised to discover that she had once been First Lady and Walmart's lawyer.
We knew of the great work The Rose Law Firm did, of course. We knew that Bill Clinton had executed Billy Rector to show that Democrats can execute an insane person (we are tough, afterall!), we were extra-thrilled.
Hillary, like Cher, goes by her first name like all strong woman, Paris, Brittaney. We feminists won't forget if she isn't made President.
I am already working on Chelsea 2016!
And every misogynist attack against Clinton is like a bullet wound, another reminder, something that might heal but always leaves a scar, and feminists are covered in them and can probably identify every fucking one.
I would say women in general are covered in them, Astraea - actually, the first time I remember being outraged about unfairness to a woman, it was about Hillary Clinton. I was eight years old.
Oh, yay, another troll who confused this thread with one made entirely of straw.
tjproudamerican | 04.08.08 - 10:18 am | #
Unfortunately, I'm out of practice with stream of consciousness, so I'm afraid your ranting makes little sense to me. But here's a clue: it's spelled "Condoleeza," and also, you're an idiot.
Salieri, that was my sports analogy, so thanks!!
Morning everybody.
CE, you're right, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But feminists, I think, are more conscious of it.
" I'll get out my patriotic hotpants, Betty."
You have those too?
__
"Look, at the very least, this primary lets you realize who your real friends/progressives are. A lot of crap has bubbled forth to the surface, and the shit ain't pretty. But yes, we do need you, all of you, to utterly annihilate the neocons come November. So please join us."
Our friends are clearly not progressives. And there's NO WAY i'm rewarding that with my vote. If McCain does win, I'm not to blame. My vote was theirs to lose, and they fucking threw it away.
If Clinton withdraws, I'm voting McKinney.
_
"Don't despair all you weepers:"
Shove it, troll. We get it, you're a clueless douchebag who can't see the forest for the trees. Your song is stale. move on.
Salieri, that was my sports analogy, so thanks!!
Sorry I didn't credit you properly for that one, Redstar! I was too lazy to scroll up, I'm afraid.
I think we need new campaign buttons around the theme:
"Democratic Primary 2008: Just Like Sports, Except It Actually Counts"
"Democratic Primary 2008: Cheerfully Handicapping Our Fucking Lives"
Here's a concrete example of how Sen. Obama has NOT reached out to women: this week he publicly contradicted Ed Schultz of Air America, who called McCain a warmonger at an Obama event, but he hasn't had anything to say about Randi Rhodes calling Sen. Clinton a "fucking whore" at an Obama event. That's it in a nutshell for me.
Yeah, at this point I still plan to vote for him if he's the nominee, but it's getting harder. A lot harder.
Thank God Hillary has her millions to console her.
And, don't forget, the love of a good man.
p.s. You are the weepiest bunch I have ever seen.
Astraea | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 10:27 am | #
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. And very few things bother me more than women who won't call themselves feminists.
And there's NO WAY i'm rewarding that with my vote. If McCain does win, I'm not to blame. My vote was theirs to lose, and they fucking threw it away.
Yeah, exactly. Obama, and the party, are going to have a lot of work to do if he's the nominee. And it's made far worse by our so-called progressive allies pretending all of this is no big deal. Many of them are too busy congratulating themselves for not being racists to realize what fucking misogynist assholes they are.
I'm late to this post, but maybe someone can tell me what the video is? I can't get it to play.
BTW
"douche bag" is an ACTUAL anti-woman slur.
The whole notion of "douching" is anti-woman, stemming from an unnecessary ritual purging of women's supposed impure physical nature.
If you stopped weeping about a candidate who blew a 100 million dollar 25 % lead you might see this.
it's spelled "Condoleeza,"
Not to undermine your point, CE, but it's actually spelled "Condoleezza."
Not to undermine your point, CE, but it's actually spelled "Condoleezza."
Hee, I had actually just noticed I left out the second "z." How embarrassing.
tjproudamerican is still an idiot, though.
Well, I sure got told off. I guess I have to support Sen. Clinton or forever be a woman hater. Wait, my wife (Iknow, I know, it sounds like I possess her, but that would way far from the truth) & I vowed to never vote for a Clinton again after he pardoned Mark Rich. If that makes both of us woman haters, well, continue hurling your lame insults & see how far that gets you? You are preaching to the choir while calling every negative slur you can think of. This is not good. Plus, I've learned so much about engaged Buddhism on this thread.
""douche bag" is an ACTUAL anti-woman slur.
The whole notion of "douching" is anti-woman, stemming from an unnecessary ritual purging of women's supposed impure physical nature."
Ugh, you are an idiot.
Obviously, I know this, hence the reason I called you it. Your sad misogyny is anti-woman. Keep up.
Thank God Hillary has her millions to console her.
And this is a minus how? If this is true, then we have to dump nearly all of the politicians because the majority of them are rich. You can't even make arguments that matter.
Oh, and the douching thing is used here precisely because of its anti-woman connotations: it was a useless and dangerous practice and thus perfectly describes useless but dangerous morons. Like yourself -- someone who can't take the time to look around at a blog before trolling to find things like http://
shakespearessister.blogsp...ev.html#click10 .
Salieri,
I LOVE IT!!
Are any of the more recent commenters actually referring to the video and original topic of discussion AT ALL????
I vowed to never vote for a Clinton again after he pardoned Mark Rich. If that makes both of us woman haters, well, continue hurling your lame insults & see how far that gets you?
The operative parts being "a Clinton" and "he pardoned." Treating women as mere extensions of their husbands - as this does - is a classic misogynist tactic. You're free to vote for whomever you like for whatever reason you like, of course, but don't pretend it's not a stupid, sexist reason. I doubt your wife would appreciate being hated for years because you're a clueless troll. It's kind of the same thing.
Jesus, trolls. Don't you have some puppies to kill or something?
coldH120wi, the point, which has been made clearly throughout this thread, is that it's the misogyny, not the criticism, that's the problem. Using sexist language as a shorthand for what one doesn't like about Clinton is sexist, just as using racist language for what one doesn't like about Obama would be racist.
Well, I sure got told off. I guess I have to support Sen. Clinton or forever be a woman hater.
I know I shouldn't engage, but....
Can we seriously put an end to this bullshit? NO ONE SAID THAT. I swear to fucking Zeus, EVERY SINGLE TIME there's a thread about sexism against Clinton, someone comes in and starts this crap.
NO ONE is saying that you have to support Clinton or be a woman hater. NO ONE. Many of the posters here are Obama supporters, or haven't made an affiliation public. It's the height of intellectual laziness to go for the whiny, self-pitying strawman just because you got smacked down (and rightly so, sorry to say). So lay off already, would you?
Honestly? Is it really so hard to have an honest talk about sexism in the media?
And what CE said: Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.
"I guess I have to support Sen. Clinton or forever be a woman hater."
Strawfeminists are trolls tools. The point isn't that you have to support Clinton OR be a misogynist. The point is that it is possible to not support Clinton and not using misogynistic framing.
of course, you know that, but you'd rather be an asshat troll.
tjproudamerican is still an idiot, though.
Agreed.
"I disagree with Sen. Clinton's policy positions, so I don't think I'll vote for her."
There, I just made a sensible, non-misogynist statement about not supporting Clinton. Why is that so hard for people? Well, the secret is that it's not hard, at all. Misogynists are so because they want to be.
You are a sad sack bunch.
Why don't you re-write silly songs and sing them outside NBC:
We love you Hillary
oh yes we do!
We don't like the douche bags
who don't love you!
any critique of you
is untrue
Oh Hillary we love you!
anti-woman comments fail to notice:
when Hillary was First Lady, that was why we vote for her.
When The Clinton administration did anything bad, that was Hillary's husband.
She was responsible only for the good things.
And when she gets into office, expect pardons and White House Sleepovers, because, hey. Others do it and by now The Clinton's really have a taste for wealth.
I survived the Battle of The Tuzla Tarmac & let me tell you, as my wonderful candidate said:
"I don't recall anyone offering me tea that day!"
so that little girl didn't even feed Hillary and Chelsea. No wonder you are all so angry!
Condi Rice in 2008!
tjp: more evidence of the power of this video...thanks again, Indyrobin.
tjproudamerican | 04.08.08 - 11:15 am |
Are you quite finished? I think you've vomited all over this thread enough.
Just ignore It -- I suspect tjp is randyson anyway.
p.s. You are the weepiest bunch I have ever seen.
I like how that's supposed to be an insult.
OK. I'm stupid, thanks for sharing that. Your techniques for educating me, name calling, etc., really worked. I've been voting for Progressive candidates since before most of you language types were around, so don't be lecturing me. Is there any adjective to be used against Sen. Clinton that won't offend the real, true feminists on this thread? OK, I strongly dislike most of what the very wealthy Sen. Clinton stands for, let's see: Wal-Mart, voting FOR this vanity war of Bu$hCo's. That's enough, & ought to be enough for anyone. But I disgress into issues, she's a woman, with a woman's sensibility about things, something that I just cannot understand. Essentialist, much?
So coldH120wi -- are you earnestly saying that the crap in that video is not misogynist?
And if so, are you earnestly saying the misogyny is OK, as long as it's directed toward someone you dislike?
Should be "if not".
And if you think that directing misogyny at someone you dislike is OK, is it also OK to direct racism at someone you dislike?
OK, I strongly dislike most of what the very wealthy Sen. Clinton stands for, let's see: Wal-Mart, voting FOR this vanity war of Bu$hCo's. That's enough
But that's not what you said. You said you wouldn't vote for her because of something her husband did. If you don't like Hillary Clinton because you think she "stands for Wal-Mart," well, I think that's stupid, but there's hardly anything sexist about it. That isn't what you said, though. So let's not pull a bait-and-switch here, mmkay?
I've been voting for Progressive candidates since before most of you language types were around
So the fuck what? Idiots can be found at every age - which doesn't mean you are one, just that nobody gives a shit how old you are, and also that misogyny should be called out no matter how old the asshat spewing it. Clear enough for you?
I would like to see what tjproudamerican would say or do to anyone who directed the comments on the video at his mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, daughter, or anyone he cared about. It's easy to be cavalier about hurting someone when it's directed at someone you don't know, but bullies don't seem to grasp that we're talking about real people. Like they give a shit anyway.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 11:17 am | #
Right?
Some of us are good with weapons, too. Even when we're crying.
cold H120wi, I didn't call you any names. One more time: using sexist language against a woman simply because you don't like her personally is the same thing as using racist language against a person of color because you don't like him/her personally. The first is sexist; the second is racist. Neither is any more acceptable than using racist or sexist slurs in general.
THE ISSUE is that "the issues" are submerged in the sea of vicious attacks using sexist language, focusing on Hillary Clinton's gender, and discounting her intellect, her individuality, and the solid progressive basis of her political agenda.
THE ISSUE is that a lot of women are angry to the point of incandescence at being treated like blithering idiots because they have temerity to expect to be taken seriously, to have their voice heard.
And if you don't get why this is an "issue", then why are you here? Hypotheses, anyone?
Your techniques for educating me, name calling, etc., really worked.
One more thing, because trolls seem to do this a lot. They disrupt the conversation, piss all over everything with a bunch of half-assed misogyny, and then whine about how it's our responsibility to educate them. You know what? It isn't. However, Melissa has helpfully created entire posts just for clueless trolls to learn the basics of what we're talking about. Do us all the courtesy of reading them first, or don't expect any in return.
" so don't be lecturing me"
Translation: I'm a man! I'm right by virute of my weeny!
"That's enough, & ought to be enough for anyone."
Then why not just say that? Why toss around aimless, stupid logical fallacies first?
"But I disgress into issues, she's a woman, with a woman's sensibility about things, something that I just cannot understand. Essentialist, much?"
Sexist moron.
"I disagree with Sen. Clinton's policy positions, so I don't think I'll vote for her."
Brian, while I don't agree with you (being a Clinton supporter), it's amazing how simple it is to say that in a way that seems reasonable. But I doubt those you directed that comment to want to get it.....
Betty,
I think he's ashamed of his weeny. Sounds like deep issues there....
During this campaign, my wife and 25 year old daughter have come to dislike Hillary.
We watched Jon Stewart last night, and we all agreed with him that she would be more convincing if she didn't try so hard.
Direct answer: these things in the video are people talking the way people talk. Many women said W reminded every woman of her first husband. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey actively recruit for Hillary because Hillary is a stereotype.
So, no, I don't run out and pound the sidewalk and cry for my country when people make remarks about Hillary Clinton that you say are hate speech and sexist. My wife and daughter are tough and strong women. Their careers are doing well. My wife has all women bosses.
What Arabic country do "Hillary" ditto-heads inhabit? Move to America. When Condi Rice is our first female president, I am certain you will cheer loud and long.
Most Americans are not "Oh dear me!" people. Sorry weepers.
Do you all really fall down weeping because a few people say some things you don't endorse?
Are you REALLY that weak?
If you think that sexism is the reason "Hillary" (which is such a stupid decision to run as her first name, it makes her sound like "Cher" or "Paris") is losing, you are sadly mistaken.
Unfortunately for you, people dislike your candidate because they know her and see her speeches.
Unfortunately for you, her husband defines who she is because of her own actions.
Unfortunately, voters remember Hillary's secretive meetings and Iraq vote and "mis-statements".
Unfortunately for you The Clinton's are a favor-granting enterprise which reaps huge financial gains from powerful people.
She actively defended his all-out assault on women.
Funny story: even though she told Matt Lauer it was all answerable by "the vast right wing conspiracy" on the day that Bill denounced Ms. Lewinsky as THAT WOMAN and pounded the podium and got so angry, a. there was and is a vast right wing noise machine, which she let off the hook, because b. Bill did have sex with that woman.
Who knew? Not "Hillary". Because Jennifer Flowers lied, Paula Jones lied. They all lied. That is the feminist response to sexual assault isn't it?
If you think that video is effective, you have been living in your spider hole too long. Chris Mathews and Keith Oberman aren't the reason "Hillary" is behind. Senator Clinton is.
Who knew? Not "Hillary". Because Jennifer Flowers lied, Paula Jones lied. They all lied. That is the feminist response to sexual assault isn't it?
Someone must be new around here.
these things in the video are people talking the way people talk
Well, that makes it MUCH better.
tjproud -- if that is the way that you talk, you are not a progressive.
Trolls...it's like dealing with toddlers. At what point does one deny them attention and send them to time-out?
Right about now.
Brian, while I don't agree with you (being a Clinton supporter), it's amazing how simple it is to say that in a way that seems reasonable. But I doubt those you directed that comment to want to get it.....
Bill in Birmingham | Homepage | 04.08.08 - 11:50 am |
I didn't say that was my position, it's just an example that not supporting Clinton doesn't have to be done in a sexist manner, which is the argument I've heard. I haven't stated nor decided on an affiliation with either candidate.
And of course the people I directed it at won't get it. People that come by sexism through ignorance but not malice will often change their thoughts and actions when corrected. It's the dedicated misogynists that know exactly what they're saying that I can't, that no one here can convince.
Do you all really fall down weeping because a few people say some things you don't endorse?
Are you REALLY that weak?
because tears are "girly" and teh girlz are weak! /snark.
i cried because i was touched by the inspiration that clinton clearly gave to the girl holding the sign, and to many others. i cried because i am amazed at her strength, facing down this crap and keeping her head high. i cried to see the bond between her and her daughter that came through so strongly, even in stills.
there were tears in my eyes when i gave birth to both my daughters, and i can assure you and any other asshole that it was NOT because i was weak.
there were tears in my eyes when i married my husband -- and in his.
how limited your emotional life must be, troll, to automatically equate tears with weakness. but then "limited" seems to describe you so well, and in so many ways.
Melissa led the way with "take your boobs and go home." that was a powerful look at the writing of the boylogosphere against continuing the voting.
and now this video which did not make
me weep, it made me MAD AS HELL. even
more angry following the Chicago Sun Times Higgins' Hillary as a witch cartoons. (yes, one, then we wrote letters, none printed, then another, Hillary as Oz wicked witch attacking Obama with her opposition research monkey.)
there is not even remotely the same treatment (nor should there be) of Obama with a racist tone. what if Hillary's response to Ferraro had been a major speech on sexism? the reaction would be predictable. "why are you complaining? take your boobs and go home." it is difficult to get a message out when the talking heads on the pol chat shows are virtually all men (welcome to sunday morning, controlled by men on your tv.) with few female guests. AND THEN THEY BASH, sometimes outright, or by the sin of omission, what they do not criticize....Keith O's sin because he does not criticize Obama equally, heck rarely.
the appropriate response to this video is to work harder for the person on the front lines taking the hits, hillary. and for those of you who are not for her, give her another look. for many of us in Chicago Obama is not what you believe him to be.
"Do you all really fall down weeping because a few people say some things you don't endorse?
Are you REALLY that weak? "
how do you manage to get dressed in the morning being THIS incredibly dumb? Does wifey dress you?
Sorry shut-ins.
You ARE that weak.
I hope a Committee of Elderwomen name Hillary President for life and she names Chelsea Regent, Heir Apparent.
Then the Commissar of Language can protect your delicate ears.
Meanwhile, you really are sadsacks. No wonder your hero was brought down by Keith Olbermann. That poor, poor "Hillary" never had a chance.
Zzzzzzzzzz.
"Zzzzzzzzzz."
Seconded. He just makes less and less sense the more he posts. Maybe the battery is running out?
Maybe the battery is running out?
Hee!
Maybe the battery is running out?
Trolls are wind-ups.
Trolls must be clockwork. Their arguments are so uniform and appear so regularly that only mechanical precision could explain it.
"Direct answer: these things in the video are people talking the way people talk."
i.e. change is bad
Or wind-driven.
...sound of trolls disconnecting from reality and floating off onto the blogosphere....
I hope a Committee of Elderwomen name Hillary President for life and she names Chelsea Regent, Heir Apparent.
This is a delightful idea for Isle de Shakes.
This is a great video! Wow!!!
The trolls here bore me cunt to tears.
I hope a Committee of Elderwomen name Hillary President for life and she names Chelsea Regent, Heir Apparent.
I was thinking you could put that on the sign in front of the Shakesville bar Friday night, but it's too damn long-winded. Just like this sentence I just wrote.
Liss - If I come to Isle de Shakes, can I be an honorary Elderwoman? I so wanna vote for Hillary as President for Life.
Or wind-driven.
"Trolls are wind-ups."
Ah, well, for Dog's sake, don't wind it up again.
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.
Time for national primaries - and high time for our debate to be about issues, and against McCain.
I want to vote for the one who does the best job against ReThuggLikkin's in general, and against McCain in particular.
I like how people like tjproud, if they don't already start out incoherent, get gradually more and more incoherent as they attempt to bully us with their bullshit talking points. They just ramble from point to point with little bits of hate and phlegm in between meant to glue it all together, and they just come out sounding like the tools they are. And the majority of these morons always seem to have a wife and daughter or three. I feel sorry for the wives and daughters, although I figure they either don't exist or they at least secretly know their husband/father is a moron.
I'll gladly elect Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee if only to watch tjproud and his ilk splutter and fume for 4-8 years. (Of course, that won't be the only reason, but it will be a satisfying side effect.) They'll fume as much if Obama is elected, too. I truly can't wait to see them implode. And I can't wait to move out of country if McCain is elected. Either way, I win.
"During this campaign, my wife and 25 year old daughter have come to dislike Hillary. "
Perhaps this has more to do with keeping your household harmonious than it does with their voting preferences. If I had to live with you, I'd lie too.
Finally watched this video (I'm not a big video watcher)--and now I'm sniffling. Not crying, mind you.
But, I loved the song, loved the last half.
We need her as out president.
It doesn't matter what you think or don't think of Hillary. The next female candidate won't be treated any differently. Any woman perceived to be strong enough to run against men for the presidency in this country will be accused of castrating her opponents and keeping their testicles in a box. Forget her experience, her policies, her aptitude. She will just be another castrating bitch and any information will be filtered through that lens.
So the next woman you support who undergoes this type of treatment..you will whine and cry. And should I feel bad for you and your plight because you didn't help in the beginning to make it better for the next woman.
Kate: "He's let his proxies try to bully Clinton out of the race instead of just focusing on winning it."
Hi, Kate ... this has been Obama's strategy since he was elected to the IL legislature.
In that election, he got all his Democratic opponents eliminated on technicalities re their voter petitions -- including the incumbent who had lost a special election to the USHoR to Jesse Jackson Jr.
Then his next election ... his campaign *helped* move his D opponent's sex life out of divorce court and into the court of public opinion. IOW, he eliminated the opposition, he didn't "win" the election straight-up.
He lambasts PACs and then operates one -- and is the only candidate for Prez who has actually given $ from his leadership PAC in the 2007-2008 election cycle. I guess Clinton & McCain thought it would look like they were trying to buy endorsements. No MSM reporting on this, either.
I've written about these inconsistencies at Newsvine at at USPolitics @ About.com (my primary blog).
Jon Stewart is taking notice of the campaign tactics:
http://www.comedycentral.com/vid...?
videoId=165746
To return to topic -- there are things about each candidate that I'm not happy with, but at the moment (with Edwards out), HRC is at the top of my list. I **hate** that what passes as political analysis/commentary is as superficial and demeaning as what was shown on this video. I don't watch TV "news", and I now know why I'm not missing anything.
Some people are confused about the Oberman clip regarding Ferraro.
Maybe the people who constructed it could answer their motivations better. However, the ass ripping given by Oberman on race doesn't have a counterpart in commentary on any sexists comments.
Also the part about Hillary having a large enough box to hold the testicles of the DNC leadership...Isn't that Oberman's comment?
"he hasn't had anything to say about Randi Rhodes calling Sen. Clinton a "fucking whore" at an Obama event."
*****************
it was NOT an Obama event, in point of fact, and he wasn't there. Schultz was introducing him. Rhodes was also suspended from her job. Schultz wasn't. There has been a lot of sexism in this season (and a LOT of racism too). Some of the sexism has come from Obama supporters. But I see precious little of it coming from Obama himself.
I was one of the many people who were willing and even eager to get behind Sen. Clinton back when she was the inevitable candidate. And I'd still vote for her if she were the nominee. But the way her campaign has been run has turned off a LOT of people, and I'm one of them. For me, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has a great deal to do with the racism she countenances from her surrogates, and the really dishonest and slimy behavior of some of her operatives. Wolfson and Penn in particular. Yes, they are independent moral agents. But she hired them. The buck stops and all that. If she won, she'd have at least as much fence-mending to do with people like me, who live with/love/are people of color, and have been hearing 'wait your turn' all our lives.
If *he* won, *he'd* have at least as much fence-mending to do with people like me, who live with/love/are women and/or LGBTs, and have been hearing 'wait your turn' all our lives.
Betty Boondoggle
Absolutely, especially in terms of LGBTs, where he's made some missteps. I was responding to the sentiment that Obama has to mend fences. I think that would be true of either one of them.
Yes, Sexism is a powerful corrosive force that hurts all Americans and is deeply problematic. I am a feminist because I am sick of this shit. I am a feminist because women should not have to choose from a set of bad options and be labeled and controlled. Voting for HRC because sexism is bad is not empowering, it's not really a good reason to vote for her at all. Let's grow up and have the real complicated, messy conversation this really warrants
Well yes
I am voting for HRC because I agree with her policies.
I am not voting for Obama because his policies are unimaginative re-treads of HRC's policies and he lacks experience.
He foolishly believes that his childhood experiences, a 3 week vacation and a trip to Africa as a US Senator where he naively interfered in their elections "while finding" himself passes for foreign policy experience.
i just watched it for the first time. when the little girls holds up the poster that says "I can be president too" i totally started to cry.
thanks so much for posting this.
wow, i just read through the comments which i just skimmed before posting my own... i am not the only one! i can't believe that
Commenting by HaloScan
