Nice strawman argument there.
I am sorry that Sen Clinton didn't win but this kind of post is about one step above the PUMA BS that we see over at noquarter.
I am getting sick and tired of being called sexist because I didn't think that Sen Clinton was the best candidate. For the record, I do not think that Sen Obama was either .. but he is who won and it wasn't all because everyone that voted for him was a sexist pig.
This kind of post accomplishes nothing other than sowing division and I am baffled as to why you would bother to write it. And if you were attempting snark .. you failed .. miserably.
Yeah, I have to agree with Rob here. What was the point of this post, except to share with us YOUR perceptions and the shortcomings that bred them?
Honestly.
Maggie; how about one with the room-temperature political I.Q. to refrain from praising the republican nominee as a better qualified candidate than her democratic rival in the primaries?
I think that's a good non-gender-based litmus test. :o)
I voted for Clinton in the CA primary before she decided to overdose on stupid pills. I did so because I figured that she'd not bring a knife to a gunfight in the general election for once. Not a fan of her later primary campaign.
...And proving Maggie's point: this comment thread.
Maggie:
You're full of shit.
Clinton lost the nomination for three reasons, none of which have anything to do with male bloggers.
First, her vote on the war and her subsequent failure to owe up to it is what opened the window for Obama's campaign in the first place.
Second, she ran an unbelievably stupid early campaign, ceding large swaths of the post super-Tuesday landscape to Obama by default...especially the Caucus states.
Third, she surrounded herself by incompetents or sycophants. Mark Penn? Howard Wolfson? Harold Ickes? Patty Solis Doyle? Once the delegate math was against them they spent most of their time in futile effort to create some sort of new "Clinton Math" rather than win states.
Had she actually taken a principled rather stand against the war or had a post Super-Tuesday campaign strategy she would have stomped all over Obama.
And you're complaining about bloggers?
Well it's not only that, but it completely misses the mark.
Clinton didn't lose because she's a woman, or had feminine traits.
She lost because people viewed her as being cold and cynical. Full Stop. Sure, the pundit class which fetishizes masculinity went nuts. (Especially with the crying thing...which by the way probably gave her a huge boost)
Also the fact that she was perceived as being so casual about going to war didn't help.
In short, it was her masculine traits, not her feminine ones that people looked down on.
And that's the wider sexism, that in order to achieve power, masculine traits are necessary. This is a problem for so many reasons.
BTW. The "blogger boyz" as you call them, were influenced not by sexism, but by, as always, insider baseball. It was Clinton's campaign team (and in retrospect rightfully so), especially Mark Penn which doomed her support.
Great post, Maggie,as usual.
And how interesting that your observations are met with defensiveness and hostility.
Actually, it's not that interesting. It's pathetic and depressing, really, how some people can't stand reading observations about sexism and sexist practices.
I was once part of a community service organization that was funded by a rich white woman who had been rich (and insulated) all her life. We were getting constant feedback from the folks we served that our staff being all-white and not working class enough was a problem, so we asked for a consultant to come in and work with us in hopes of changing our process and expanding our staff in new directions.
We were all women.
The consultants asked us to come up with the two main difficulties we wanted to address and change. I raised my hand and said "Well, obviously, class and race."
The rich woman, and her acolyte (another woman raised with enormous privilege) glared at me. The rich woman said she thought it was most important that we deal with sexism and, okay, maybe racism but only if we called it ethnicity.
I looked around the room and waited for an ally. Everyone else was scared to cross her. Finally I raised my hand again and said "Sexism isn't the issue we've been told about. We're all women, we're not running a ton of crap about that at the community. Class is the biggie."
The rich woman stood up and bore down on me (I was on a cushion on the floor), standing over me and starting to scream that I needed to GET OVER IT and couldn't we all just get along. Honestly, those were her words. Her acolyte said if I didn't like the organization, I could just leave.
Finally one of the others in the room found her courage and said "Class is clearly the elephant in the room. You just proved it."
Well, the consultants (who were paid by the rich woman) decided to focus on sexism and ethnicity, things went to hell rapidly thereafter and the group folded. No surprise there.
In this case, sexism IS what "they" (we) keep saying left a nasty smear on this campaign (not on Obama, make that distinction) and a rift in the party. I know some of you want to say "fuck 'em all", the equivalent of "if you don't like it, you can leave". But that's not how I operate. I can assure you, if Clinton had won the nomination with a public record of mainstream media and blogger racism aimed at Obama equivalent to the woman-hating that she endured (there are concrete tallies out there), I'd be raising my hand and not shutting up about that, either.
I know, first-hand, there are legitimate reasons to not vote for Clinton. I DID NOT VOTE FOR HER, EITHER, get that through your skulls. But sexism, the attitudes I parodied in this piece (none of them are straw men, they are ALL comments which were written/uttered/repeated by so-called progressive male bloggers, over and over) -- this is a poison which has made women in our party sick to our stomachs. It's about the oppression, stupid.
If you didn't say or support those kinds of gender-based attacks, then this parody is not about you, is it?
Maggie,
I agree with your post in general, but NOT as it relates to Clinton SPECIFICALLY.
I had this conversation with someone who was very pro-Hillary, and whose local "Astorians for Hillary" group decided--when Obama became the presumptive nom--to SUPPORT MCCAIN.
You read that right.
He left the group immediatley.
Having said that, Hillary lost because she ran a cynical, slimy, scaremongering, covered-in-shit campaign. She hit more low notes on the runup to the nom than a baritone singing "Old Man River." She came off as a plastic phony powermonger who didn't give a shit what kind of collateral damage she did to the larger Democratic campaign as long as she won.
Liza think how many Clinton supporters acted when they felt they were being accused of racism. Did they say "yes I am racist and some of my views of Obama were "colored" by my racist attitudes," Or more recently how did Bill act yesrerday when Snow asked him if he might have been racist in his actions during the primary he got mad.
I do not mention this to dismiss or minimize the sexism that Hillary experienced merely to point out that whenever anyone is accused of something vile and disreputable like sexism or racism, most likely they will turn on their accuser. Its' kinda like asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife?" Nothing good can come from the framing. But then again in my experience half the time nothing good comes from talking about provable things like sexist/racist/homophobic acts versus calling people sexist, racist, or whatever flavour of dehumanization they are serving.
It is very true that Hillary was held up to an inhuman standard by some people and she was treated unfairly while she also treated others unfairly. I don't know who the blogger boyz are but I am guessing that some of them were very happy to meet
by the way maggie, in the opinion of this documented attitude case.
you
are
not
full
of
shit.
not by a long shot.
having an opinion that runs contrary to the opinion of another does not make one full of shit. it might not even make one wrong.
good grief, have we descended to junior high? i hated it then, when it was fucking age appropriate and shit.
i hate it now.
democracy, republics, all those types of responsive governments rely on the differences of opinion to function.
if we all agree we get elections like mugabe's.
because i'm also a literate fucking snob i'll quote shakespeare (not the sister, whom i love, but the dude, willie)
The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
anyway, you're not full of shit. my work here is done.
hey maggie, your argument is bull shit.
if hillary was a guy I would have still despised him. how about we have a canadate taht isn't explicitly tied to a republican lite president, who didnt' sell every one down river for big busniess, who didn't sit on the board of wallmart and help to keep the unions out. I want a canadate that is on my side regardless of gender. the clintons actions over the years has shown that they are not.
the mysoganiy didnt' kill clintons canadacy, it didn't even dent it (or at least Obamas bigot problem compinsated for hilalrys) Hillary killed Hillarys campaigne. MAke up meaningless excuses will jsut sadle us with this side show again in 4 years....more over it will cause actual mysognaistic behavor to go unaposed, cryign wolf one to many times and what not.("she jsut like Hillar...").
In the end crap like this is goign to turn more peopel ageinst hard core feminists then support your cause (look they support hilalry...she was a worhtless tool, I guess "they" want us to never be able to criticize any woman....). Bigotry, is bigotry, supportign Hilalry just because she had ovaries (and calimign that anyone who didnt' support her is doing it due to gender is jsut taht) is bigotry adn will turn peopel away form you.
Maggie:
Sorry, I was out-of-line in my comment upstream.
However I still beg to disagree. Setting aside the claptrap that shows up on comment threads, can you point us to some actual posts by prominent left-wing male bloggers to illustrate your point? It's all still out there in the blogosphere.
I remember endless criticism of her war stance. Endless criticism of her Mark Penn-based campaign strategy. Endless criticism of her "new math" approach to the nomination. And her sucking up to the white racist element in Appalachia. And yes, I remember a lot of sexist bullshit from the mainstream media...from both men (Chris Mathews) and women (Maureen Dowd). But I really don't remember a lot of sexist anti-Clinton stuff from prominent male left-wing bloggers--the ones with an actual audience like Kos and Atrios--not anonymous comments on some thread.
Hey, was my version of Maggie's post different than the rest of yours? In the one I read I saw no mention of Senator Clinton by name. How fascinating every one of the people who are offended by the writer of this post made that exact same conclusion-jump.
I think the post stands on its own without such inference. Indeed, we are at a point where someone has articulated quite nicely how sexism plays out in the left-wing blogospere and punditry. I think rather than insulting the person who brought the argument to the table, we discuss the merits of the argument, Without Referring to Specific People Who Aren't Even Mentioned In The Argument.
But sexism, the attitudes I parodied in this piece (none of them are straw men, they are ALL comments which were written/uttered/repeated by so-called progressive male bloggers, over and over) -- this is a poison which has made women in our party sick to our stomachs. It's about the oppression, stupid.
If you didn't say or support those kinds of gender-based attacks, then this parody is not about you, is it?
You have no idea how much I needed that. I was beginning to doubt my own sanity. Thank you.
Liza, stupidity and bullshit, of the kind that cost Clinton the nomination, will often be met with hostility over here. :o)
This aint the FDL puppy-pound.
Maggie, I see what you are trying to get at but we have to have a discussion about this idea of sisterhood.
In theory it works. Just like in theory Hillary Clinton's election or the election of someone like her would mean much for women in this country. But just like affirmative action or the abscence of WOC in statewide office despite the gains of white women on that front the reality is alot different.
So I guess my question to you is why should I as a black woman care other than the recognizing that there is something wrong happening to someone else and it should be stopped?
This discussion doesn't help me defeat the sexism in my life.
Hey, was my version of Maggie's post different than the rest of yours? In the one I read I saw no mention of Senator Clinton by name. How fascinating every one of the people who are offended by the writer of this post made that exact same conclusion-jump.
Ummm.... Maggie's post was about sexism towards female presidential candidates from the progressive male "blogger boyz." Who did you think she was talking about. Winona LaDuke?
As for the merits of her argument? The complete works of the progressive male "blogger boyz" are still out there in the blogosphere. How about some concrete examples from prominent progressive male bloggers to illustrate each of her 16 points?
prominent progressive male bloggers to illustrate each of her 16 points
move the goalposts much?
Hey, was my version of Maggie's post different than the rest of yours? In the one I read I saw no mention of Senator Clinton by name. How fascinating every one of the people who are offended by the writer of this post made that exact same conclusion-jump.
Cowboy Diva, Maggie did mention pant-suits, crying and sports references as a detriment.
Who other than Hillary Clinton would that stereotype apply to in our current politics given what occured during the primary?
I think I'm safe in assuming that Maggie applied this post to parodying all the nonsense that women candidates face but the recent sexism that Hillary suffered was a significant part of foundation.
God, to have to explain this all over again...
Gag gesture with finger-down-throat..
Clinton lost because she decided that by sucking up to the conservatives, she could gain more than she'd lose by throwing the progressive wing of the democratic party under the bus.
And what pisses a lot of progressives off and makes us "hostile" is that her supporters are in perpetual denial about that, and keep acting (and posting) as if the democratic presidential nomination was a tube of Preperation H, to be awarded to her as ass-salve for all the years she was flayed by the right-wingers...which made the fact that she so diligently climbed into bed with them on Iraq, and in her campaign tactics, all the more repugnant.
BTW, Maggie, and the rest of the die-hards:
She lost. And she's back in the Senate, $25 million dollars in debt.
While Obama is awash in campaign funds; most of it in small donations.
Don't you think it's time you started dealing with that?
baltogeek,
So I guess my question to you is why should I as a black woman care other than the recognizing that there is something wrong happening to someone else and it should be stopped?
me personally? I don't know, other than the whole concept of picking up the damaged from the side of the road because that is what we do. I would, however, like to hear your version of 16 points, or whatever, along these lines.
As for your point about MJ's post pointing to HRC; recent examples may make it fresh, but the points are still valid, presidential campaign or no.
The fact that she repeatedly talked about how well-qualified John McCain was for president, while dissing Obama, is just ONE of the huge brainfarts that she committed.
But this, alone was enough to finish her off for a LOT of democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a...h?
v=aOytXkCw0NY
Incidentally, their reaction to it
had jackshit to do with "misogynism".
"Won't object to being called a girl, no matter how old she is."
WTF? Clinton called herself a girl.
Just for example.
I am mystified as to why this tired old corpse of a tirade is being exhumed again NOW.
remember folks IOKIYAC is in effect much like IOKIYAR. see the media is mysoganistic, adn says masognaistic things, thats Obamas fault, he and all of his voters MUST BE PUNISHED. People directly connected to the Clinton campaigne, hell the canadates spouse say racist things...well thats jsut politics, ahs no baring on the race(or we need top toughen up cause the right wing will use racist attacks...not mysognaistic ones, jsut racist)
right. group A dose nothing bigoted, and has no connection to the group that did. group B acts and makes very bigoted statemnets. So group A won because of bigotry???? Well if thats the argument I can agree with it, Hillary lost partialy because of bigotry, spacificly the bigotry her campaigne, her husband, and their sarogets deminstrated.
I recognize gutless, unprincipled, self-seeking, time-serving, business-as-usual aging yuppie scum when I smell it, and I'm not gonna support a specimen of it irrespective of gender.
I do not apologize for that.
17. Is fully aware of items 1 - 15 and does not fall prey to the mentioning of ANY of it. (It negates number 18.)
18. Does not have a "woman as victim" mentality.
19. Does not fall to the ground kicking and screaming but acts like a real WOMAN and beats the pants offa all comers with her SMARTS.
20. Approves of herself with no outside support.
21. Displays superior human and financial management ability.
22. Does not borrow money from self when a plan is proven to be a failure.
23. Is bright enough to recognize when a plan has failed and immediatly, graciously, admits it. Moves on.
24. Does not make plans or live in a bubble.
25. Does not exploit her own gender to get votes and money, thereby victimizing the very people she claims to represent.
Always happy to help 
That was from me.... btw
So, what does wearing a pant suit have with being qualified or not to run for Pres?
That, and a lot of other stupid, nonclassy shit in this posting is what put me off from Maggie's premise.
We get flayed for what we wear, and if we run and don't pay attention to our clothes, then we get flayed for that, too.
The post was wrong, or if it was snark or irony, it wasn't obvious, even to those of us who are open-minded enough to recognize stuff like that.
The post reminded me of Good Ol' Boy attitudes... we dont' need that crap these days.
MAGGIE DID NOT MENTION HILLARY ONCE IN THIS POST.
This post is not about Hillary. And nothing in it is specific to Hillary. Every bit of it is about one flavor of bullshit or another that females in politics have had to duck -- too often, as Maggie notes, from ostensibly "progressive" men -- for the past 25 years that I'm aware of.
For every item Maggie noted, I can name at least two not-Hillary examples. The fact that the majority of them did, eventually, get thrown at Hillary was utterly predictable, because all of them have been so thoroughly road-tested over the years.
THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT HILLARY. Those of you who want to re-hash that fight need to find somewhere else to do it, because GNB wasn't the place for it last spring and it's sure as shit not going to be the place for it now.
But if you want to talk about the way that this crap always gets dragged out whenever a female candidate steps up, please carry on. It's a conversation that needs to be had.
BTW; a couple of my favorite
"mysoginists", Jen and Myrtle June :o), have weighed in on this thread.
What they said. :o)
Mrs Robinson |perhapse you should have psoted a message along these lines then...due to Maggies history, a lot of us justifiably assuemd that this wa anotehr one of her "Hillary lost due to mysogany" rants. She has doen those in the past, on this site. If we are allowed to take Maggies post/comment history in to account this was very clearly about Hillary.
Perhapse soemone with a less biased past coudl have gotten the message acorss better. How you are viewed by the reciver gose a long way to determining the meaning of your message. Maggie, at least on GNB is viewd as beign on of the Hillary partisans. She ahs been viewd that way from her post from way back when. I don't even know if you the staff see the precived biases, but the readership dose...my guess is if we all put togetehr a list of who is bised in what direction our lists woudl match up *VERY* closely.
Frankly to me MRs. R, your the only one that I would buy as nutral.
IF this post wasn't about Clinton, then this was the wrong time fot it to eb posted by this author.
Well, I mean for my comment to apply across the board. Lessons learned for women in politics every where and for women in general too.
I live in a state with a very popular Democratic governor, a RED state, and she pulled down 60% of the vote and not once did she make any of the items on the list central to her campaigns. I live in a town, a democratic stronghold in a sea of RED that had a R mayor for 8 year, where we have our first woman mayor.....same thing. None of those items were mentioned as central to her campaign. She won a landslide victory. So I'm not sure what the heck the fufarah about "women in politics" has to do with that list. It just doesn't. These are hella smart women who did not seek public office as a society ball but as self assured women with smarts and no nonsense attitudes.
Mrs. R. when all manner of media is holding hillary clinton up as "THE leader of Women Democrats" (which is laughable to me), its not a far leap to know Maggie is writing about a group of people that hillary belongs to. While everything she lists there pertains specifically to hillary's run for President, it can apply to many other of her political peers, like pelosi, and followers as well.
If anything, hillary and pelosi, both fellows of the woman as victim school, exemplify women who should not be followed.
common MRs R, Maggie mentions, Tina Fey, and Obama multipul times...
if you don't like the primarie fights beign brought up, talk to your writers....
tell me its not about clinton/obama when these lines vanish
(14) Has never been married to or closely related to a man who is/was powerful in politics, because she's like totally responsible for anything he ever did. (Cleared for PBO™, of course -- dynasties are so cool there, I mean, did you hear how the Kennedys came on board for Obama?)"
"4) Is not Humorless, as defined by the Adam Sandler (NOT the Tina Fey) Lofty Standards of Comedy."
This post is not about Hillary. And nothing in it is specific to Hillary. Every bit of it is about one flavor of bullshit or another that females in politics have had to duck -- too often, as Maggie notes, from ostensibly "progressive" men -- for the past 25 years that I'm aware of.
Ummm....right. if you say so. There are so many other female presidential candidates other than Hillary for whom the following apply:
(3) Doesn't wear pantsuits....
(7) Is not tearful in public.
(10) Has been "more than just a Senator". (Fine for PBO™, though.)
(11) Doesn't try to count eight years living and working in the White House as experience. (Fine for sons of former Presidents, though.)
(14) Has never been married to or closely related to a man who is/was powerful in politics, because she's like totally responsible for anything he ever did....
Kent,
let me get this straight.
You are arguing that because MJ's comments seems specific to Senator Clinton's recent campaign for the Democratic presidiential nomination, they are not valid points for a conversation of sexism in US politics? How would you suggest we start such a conversation? Or do you think it unnecessary?
a) Being tearful in public took down Pat Schroeder in 1988.
b) I once had the joy (!) of watching Phyllis Schlafly in a debate on abortion in 1993; she brought her purse on stage with her; I can think of nothing in a man's dress accessories that would so obviously highlight his masculinity as that purse did Ms. Schlafly's femininity. What women wear affects their treatment from others all the time.
c) The next point refers to lack of experience, a charge leveled at almost every woman who ever attempted public office. Do not act surprised, please.
d/e) For the last 2 points, I would refer you to those women who were governors in the south when their husbands were term-limited out of the office; it was assumed that their husbands would continue to govern in their wives' names, hence making a mockery of what women could offer in positions of leadership and their own personal value to their primary relationship all at the same time.
To repeat Mrs. R's statement, "This post is not about Hillary" and everytime someone tries to make it so, we lose another opportunity to discuss sexism in the public square.
Seriously, Kent; how would you start such a discussion?
Cowboy Diva:
I don't think anyone here is arguing with the fact that there was a tremendous amount of sexism and mysogynism directed at Hillary in the recent Presidential campaign. Maurine Dowd anyone? I don't think anyone can argue with that. And a whole lot of racism directed at Obama. We went through weeks of media hand wringing after North Carolina about whether Obama had become the "black candidate" and whether that would doom his campaign. Not to mention the whole Reverend Wright fiasco. The mainstream media was drenched in this stuff as the media matters archives can easily demonstrate.
Which is, of course, why Edwards is our nominee.
Seriously though. The original post (as I read it) was talking about how sexism within some club of progressive male "blogger boyz" was the problem.
We can talk about sexism all you want. However I will take issue with the argument that sexism and not mistakes is what doomed the Clinton campaign, or that progressive male bloggers are the culprit here. If you have examples though, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Sexism in the public square (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Maureen Doud, Laura Ingraham, Fox & Friends, Dennis Miller, Chris Matthews etc. etc.) is a very old story.
Sexism within the progressive "blogger boyz" club (Atrios, Kos, Josh Marshall, Erik Alterman, Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum, etc.) is an entirely different subject. One I think that requires some actual examples to make your point.
Which one do you want to talk about?
Class is always the biggest issue in the room that no one will talk about- especially in American politics.
This issue is in the end the one that will destroy the system as Republicans push Gilded age corrupt corporate racketeers and Democrats promote the managerial or professional class alternative. It's a shame that Democrats don't promote actual working class people, but at some point in politics what you have become is what you are. It's not a coincidence that all the celebrity journalists focus on issues concerning the top 5 percent because their salaries place them comfortably in that range.
If the corporate(Republicans + large minority of Democrats) and nominally anti-corporate parties(slightly over half the Democrats) can't push a solution that bridges the gap, then they will surely be destroyed.
Cowboy Diva repeats herself because apparently reading for comprehension is difficult, as Kent again brings up HRC and racism (which is another good topic, but was not the primary topic of the original post):
To repeat Mrs. R's statement, "This post is not about Hillary" and everytime someone tries to make it so, we lose another opportunity to discuss sexism in the public square.
I realize this may seem like I am changing the subject, because MJ mentioned "bloggerboyz" and I did not, but while the blogosphere has its own issues I think that for the most part at this point in the conversation it reflects the larger culture.
OK, here's an interesting topic.
How does the sexism experienced by Democratic and Republican candidates compare?
Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Lisa Murkowski
vs
Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landreau, Hillary Clinton, Patty Murray, Claire McCaskill, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi.
It seems to me that the mainstream media saves nearly all of it's sexism and bile for Democratic candidates. The Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world use sexism as a weapon against Democratic women but they rarely eat their own. Living here in Texas I don't recall ever hearing any sort of negative sexist bullshit about Hutchison from the local talk radio machine. But they are screaming about Pelosi nearly all the time.
When was the last time any media figure said anything sexist about any major female REPUBLICAN candidate?
Anyone?
"When was the last time any media figure said anything sexist about any major female REPUBLICAN candidate?"
hmm. Secretary of State Rice gets some flak, especially with regard to the clothes she wears (Nancy Reagan got some of this too, iirc).
Are the women you mentioned considered a threat by anyone? The right-wing machine may just use sexism as a way to short-circuit their problems with policy; revert to personal diatribes rather than process dialogues because its easier maybe.
When I lived in Texas (8 years ago, true) people didn't necessarily talk about Hutchinson period. What about Ann Richards? Until she campaigned against Bush, how was she treated in Texas? In my head I have it as positive but I am willing to be wrong.
Diva - Being tearful in public also brought down muskie.... I think it was. This is not gender specific. It is unprofessional. Period.
Maggie's post is exactly about hillary clinton. People have pointed out the specifics that make it so. It just is.
Now, I don't see how you can talk about sexism in politics without just talking about sexism in general. It is not unique to politics. It happens to women everywhere everyday. And you all think getting a woman elected President will change that? It won't. Its a ridiculous premise at best. Its identity politics and it is wrong. Just wrong. Period.
When there is a woman, and there will be, who is going to be President of everyone and conduct herself in a professional manner and be an effective manager by her own credentials and experience that's when we'll have a woman President. And, that's when we should have a woman President. I'd be so proud to vote for that.
Cowboy Diva:
Limbaugh et al. started shrieking about Ann Richards when she exploded onto the national scene in 1988 after giving the Keynote speech at the Democratic Convention. That was actually before she became governor. She was the state Treasurer at the time. All her campaigns were full of sexism, mysogynism, and bile from the right. Her 1990 opponent, Clayton Williams was a mysogynist asshole who famously joked about rape and refused to shake her hand during the debates. She very narrowly won the 1990 election with 49% of the vote due in part to a Libertarian candidate on the ballot. Her 1994 campaign against shrub was the coming out party of Karl Rove. Enough said.
By contrast, Kay Bailey Hutchison has had absolutely smooth sailing during her entire career and would be the hands-down favorite for governor if she decided to abandon the senate to run as has been the speculation here.
Goddam haloscan neither protected my comment with a nimbus nor did it scan it into its' deepest safest recesses of its soul then regurgitate them for all to see in their naked glory.
Anyway in short my opinion is that Maggie is right in her call. Some of the people who were against her disliked her for being a middle aged, assertive woman. Some of the men who dislike her for that will not react positively when they are called on their bullshit.
Some people however in their mind may feel that folks who opposed Hillary because of her views & positions might see this as an attempt to discredit them. I cannot see what is in their hearts. The exact same dynamic applies to some of the democrats who were against Obama, some hated him for his race, other hated him for his views and policies. In my mind this is similar to someone who dislikes Israel's Palestinian policies might actually respect and see the humanity of Jewish people while some antiJewish people will oppose Israel because they hate Jews.
eve
The other thing that I had said is that the democratic party is similar to the org that Maggie mentioned in her story, there are some factions in the party that dislike people of colour, or women, or muslims, or glbt folks. Because these factions will want to see other groups disenfranchised the party will never be effective, eventually the party might split up which might not be a bad thing.
Lastly I mentioned that I do not know who the blogger boyz are exactly but if they include who I think they do I remember that many A list NY bloggers met the Clintons in September 2006 and were all really in fanboy heaven, none of the coloured bloggers in NY were invited to meet them( Steve wrote about this, so did Culture Kitchen) so I guess my point is that there might be more going on with the blogger's than they say. Though from what I have read Kos can act in sexist ways.
My own feelings on this as a black man who was very aware of how Obama was dehumanized I can see how it was done to Hillary also. Maybe many people will ask themselves am I a progressive or a fauxgressive.
I won't deny that some of the bloggerboyz don't have a real disconnect when it comes to sex and race. I've seen a few of them in action behind the scenes. Not only do the Just Not Get It, they get really offended when you try to Make Them Get It.
I've still got the scorch marks on my hiney from the Open Left round-robin on Hillary, which the site's owners finally put a stop to in no small part because talking about womenz stuf iz complikatted. It's not that the threads were any more contentious than they usually are at OL (which is, apparently, the online watering hole for snarky white boyz); it's that they'd done enough talking about gurlz stuff now, and it was getting icky, and they wanted to talk about something more fun like offshore drilling.
I actually saw Darcy Burner pull one of these guys out of a meeting at NN and tell him to shape up or else. Really. And when he came back, he looked seriously chastened, and apologized.
So, yeah, that problem is there. Still, they're our guys, and they do seem to respond to being ganged up on. As Myrtle says, it's an endless fucking job, teaching men to behave (and if you're black or brown, teaching white people to behave) but that's the price we pay for living in this here here and now.
(James Dean voice) "You're tearing me apart!"
What Kent said at 3:35.
It's the same playbook for whoever gets the nomination: If they're a Republican, they're a straight-talkin' square-shooter. If they're a Democrat, there's just gotta be something "funny" about them.
And the tried-and-true way to make that particular point is to turn the Democratic candidate's gender against them. If you're a man, you get feminized (in what's actually a brain-dead charicature of femininity).
If you're a woman, you get the best of both worlds: Acting too "masculine" gets you labeled as a cold, emasculating shrew, while if it appears you're showing your "feminine" side, well then, obviously you're not tough enough to incinerate whichever dusky-hued foreigners currently need incinerating, because they happen to be sitting on top of something we want (or looked at us cross-eyed).
It's wrong and unfair, and I don't blame any woman for being pissed off about it. If it helps blow off some steam, then by all means rant. When someone pulls this nonsense, they deserve to get called down for it -- just as some of Clinton's posse needed to get raked over the coals for their racist bullshit.
In my opinion, though, even if it was inevitable that Clinton would get whipsawed by sexism, she could have survived Obama's challenge and possibly won the Presidency if she'd been a smarter campaigner. (And not so eagerly joined herself at the hip with an arrogant, spineless and clueless Democratic leadership, with its virtually unbroken record of miserable failure and abject surrender.)
If she'd won, I'd have voted for her in November without the slightest hesitation. It's only fair now to expect the same from her supporters.
Mrs. Robinson, was pointing out Hillary's constant suckups to the right wing, part of the bloggerboyz "misbehaving"?
Enquiring misogynists want to know.
:o)
tanbark -
It's not what misogynists say, necessarily, but how they say it and where they're coming from.
Once you grasp that and begin to be able to see it, then you begin to be positioned to answer your own question.
Jesse - Tanbark is not a misogynist. Its a valid question. People have introduced a whole "secret" language into this thread and asking for the particulars seems pretty reasonable.
I mean, just being against Hillary was reason for whole communities to label people misogynist as a political ploy. Now, the word has been misapplied so many times it is pretty much become meaningless. If everyone is a misogynist, then no one is.
Again, people are reading into answers being giving, that which we didn't say, just as people read into Maggie's post, that which she didn't say.
I didn't call tanbark a misogynist. He self-labeled.
What I said was, dwelling in the question for a while is more useful than my trying to answer the question with specifics. After one has dwelt in the question for a while, then one may become able to see that the same question, asked from one place is not misogynist, asked from a different place, is misogynist. It really has to do with the mood, the spirit of inquiry, that with where one is coming from, NOT with any given set of words.
Which is what I said. *smiles*
Goodnight.
I always have trouble wading into discussions and posts like these. I get my back up, because it sounds like some people want me to defend my feminist creds, some are claiming feminism but using it as a bludgeon, some are clearly sexist and in denial, some are sexist and know it...
where came we come together when everything is so charged?
I don't accept that this post was not in part about Sen. Clinton.
But I do think it was about other women in politics and the idea of women in politics. Still everyone is raw and tired after the primary. And the real enemy is slobbery at our door waiting to pick us off, chew us up and destroy our country...
so I remain skeptical that this is a productive fight to have at this time. Confident that it IS a productive fight to have on Nov. 5th.
I am:
raw.
tired.
agreeing with tlg that it's possibly not the most auspicious moment, but honoring Maggie and people who feel that pain...
I so wish Sen. Clinton had listened to her better angels and not run. I hope those better angels are holding her in light, even now.
Well, Jesse, since you jumped in, why don't YOU answer my question:
IS pointing out Hillary's support for the war, "misogynism"?
Is pointing out her Rovian tactics in her campaign, "sexism"?
Is pointing out her openly speculating about the possibility of the political assassination of Obama as a reason for staying in the race, "sexism"?
I'd really like to hear your answers on this. :o)
Oh. As some of the other posters on this thread have asked: If we weren't dragging Hillary out one more time as "victim" then what was Maggie Jo doing?
She's made a mini-career out of this at FDL. I don't know why you brought her over to the GNB and thought she could run it here and not get called on it.
BTW, Jesse; for you and MaggieJo; it wasn't just the bloggerboyz who helped run Hillary out of the race. There were a LOT of good, progressive women who did their part.
Many months ago, when the entire democratic field was still in the race, Jane Hamsher held one straw poll at FDL.
Hillary came a poor fourth.
No more straw polls at FDL. :o)
who or what the hell is pbo?
tanbark: see, if you agree wit hEVERY SINGLE THING that a women says, adn never disagree with them regarldess of wither or not they are right(includeing agreeign with contradictory ideas from two women) you are not mysoganist...every disagree wit hone and you are..unless of cours the women has been kicked out of the feminist club...
If you like me, look at individuals and judge them equaly regarldess of their gender...well you are tehn not placeing women above men adn are a mysognaist...real easy to understand.
oh. please. can we all give it a rest.
for a bit.
my head hurts.
and my heart.
Little Gator, we WERE giving it a rest, but if Maggie Jo wants to unrest it, and start picking at the Hillary-scab again (and that's what she was doing by saying that the male bloggers like Kos, etc., were "sexist") then we should all get to unrest it.
At this point it's about running bullshit, which is something that Sen. Clinton, just like the bush administration, has been doing a hell of a lot of, in the past 6 years.
THAT is why so many of your readers and posters are weighing in on this. It's over. She lost.
No wounded victim award.
Diminished political power.
NO veep spot.
We're moving on.
Her supporters like Maggie Jo can move on with us, or not. But a lot of good progressives, men AND women, are sick of being pilloried for mysogynism for doing nothing more than criticizing Clinton for her sucking up to the right all this time.
For the record, I've not posted nor commented at Firedoglake. My name is Maggie Jochild, not Maggie Jo.
This election is certainly not over yet. Our candidate does NOT have it in the bag. And the most recent Zogby poll, under deep analysis, raises some scary questions about where votes for Obama are going, and why. One good place to read theories about women that doesn't assume we are monolithic is the recent post by Melissa at Shakesville, Somehow I Don't Think McCain Deserves The Credit For This.
The Democratic candidates' race was razor close. If misogyny (note spelling) affected only 3% of voters, that was likely enough to determine outcome. I'm furious about this as a principle, and so should you be -- hate has no business determining who our candidate is.
The list of "criteria" above which are trotted out to determine a woman's "electability" are generic and apply to more than Hillary, though of course many of them were also used to attack her in particular. You'll see them come back into play if we have a woman named as Democratic Veep (even if it is NOT Hillary). And the recognition in this discussion that they are applied differently to Democrats and Republicans is precisely my point. Just as the racism being used against Obama would never be employed by Republicans against one of their own, such as Colin Powell, if he ran for President.
Oppression with regard to race, class, and gender is SYSTEMIC and INSTITUTIONALIZED. It's not generic and it does not both flow ways (an argument always used to try to diffuse charges of injustice). It's a power flow from non-target to target. The Right has only to tap into what's already out there. I expect those of us on the progressive end to resist this call to pack behavior.
I have never questioned the thinking and decisions of those who didn't support Hillary for issue-based reasons. In the first place, I'm in that number. But if your argument includes any of the "criteria" I listed above, then it wasn't an issue-based decision, it relied on sexism. It arose from your gut as sexism, no matter what your gender. (We're all trained in it.) And when I read the posts and comments of male bloggers during the campaign, at least 10% of the time (much more often at some blogs) they could not formulate a sentence about Hillary which didn't include one of the tried-and-true calls to sexism above. Some of which, yes, Hillary tried to shrug off, makes jokes about, go along with. Shuck and jive. Seldom works, in my opinion.
"Hope" and "Change" lose luster when a noticeable portion of your supporters are gleeful about having "shown that bitch" how "she's not relevant" and telling that 45% who voted for her that if they can't just "get over it", they can go elsewhere. A dissonant message, which not everyone is mature enough to hear without wanting reprisal. In the case of a voter, reprisal is taking your vote elsewhere. If that is, in fact, going on, I'm determined to initiate a dialogue which says yes, we are the party who will at least listen to all issues equally. ISSUES (in this case, sexism), not a Hillary re-hash. If you can't resist making it about Hillary (either pro or con), at least consider you might be having difficulty thinking clearly in this area.
As for particulars, there are several feminist blogs who kept a Hillary Sexism Watch, but the best and most impartial was at Shakesville, where it reached at least 108 posts here. They've kept a concurrent Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, now up to post #71 here. This is an invaluable community service. Go read for yourself. I'm so not going to annotate it for you -- making women "prove" their arguments is an old diversionary ploy. The information you demand is out there, go go find it yourself.
(Haloscan doesn't want to take this comment because it has "too many links" -- keep it dumb and short, I guess they're saying -- so I'll split it up and see if I can get this past in two comments. To be continued.)
Okay, part dos.
Shakesville is also now keeping a Michelle Obama Racism/Sexism Watch, up to at least post #9, here. They usually link these to the
Oh, haloscan is making me work for it today. To finish the above --
They usually link to the Michelle Obama Watch. I personally would have added the Vanity Fair piece on her, because praising women in public for playing by the "dress according to your gender" rules is simply the flip side of making jokes about pants. The patriarchy rules with both carrot AND stick.
Finally, to answer some of the more "I don't remember anything learned during the 1970s" questions above, I refer you again to Shakesville's Feminism 101: Feminists Look For Stuff To Get Angry About. Because, you know, an angry woman isn't attractive.
Apologies for the mistake about FDL, Maggie JoChild.
For the rest of it, as some of the posters on here quickly pointed out, there were "criteria" in your little list that were CLEARLY about Hillary.
And I note that nowhere in either of your posts, have you mentioned the names of Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, or any of the peckerheads who WERE guilty of misogynism.
Instead you were insulting and condescending to the "bloggerboyz" like Kos. All of whom went after Hillary for the fact that she was brickdumb enough to think that she could triangulate her way to the nomination.
And, I'm still waiting for an answer from SOMEONE, on the question of whether or not pointing out her rightwing stance on the war, and she and bill's dogwhistle racism, and her use of Karl Rove's campaign playbook...is "sexism".
She got thumped in EVERY straw poll taken on progressive blogs. MoveOn did it to her, in spades, and there had to be a lot of women who were helping them do it.
You were posting about Hillary, and your anger at the fact that, when so many people thought the nomination was hers by birthright, and damn the issues, a relative political newcomer took it to her, big time.
As FOR Obama, the latest AP-Ipsos poll has him up by 6 points. Which is just where he should be. If he had a big lead now, the only place he could go would be down, and the lead that counts will come after the convention in Denver.
Lastly, Hillary Clinton couldn't win the democratic nomination. Are you seriously telling us that REPUBLICANS and INDEPENDENTS would give her the presidency?
She had so much support that she is $25 million dollars in debt, as we speak. Obama has broken all of the fundraising records.
The delegates and superdelegates looked at THAT, and at the campaign that she ran, and made the obvious decision.
You may not like it, but you're stuck with it. And putting up left-handed whines about Hillary's losing being the result of misogynism (and that's what it was) is not going to do her any good.
If you want to rant about this, there are plenty of progressives who are tired of being slagged by Clinton supporters because they were disgusted with her truckling with the people who are responsible for the situation we're in, who will rant back at you.
@ Maggie Jochild: Thanks, your post and follow-up two-part elucidating comment are well done. _You_ are not the one obsessing on the recent candidate dust-up here.
Again, people are reading into answers being giving, that which we didn't say, just as people read into Maggie's post, that which she didn't say.
I didn't call tanbark a misogynist. He self-labeled.
What I said was, dwelling in the question for a while is more useful than my trying to answer the question with specifics. After one has dwelt in the question for a while, then one may become able to see that the same question, asked from one place is not misogynist, asked from a different place, is misogynist. It really has to do with the mood, the spirit of inquiry, that with where one is coming from, NOT with any given set of words.
Passive/Aggressive much. See, Jesse.... this is a game I just don't play. Maggie's post was most certainly about Hillary. No question. Tanbark didn't "self label" since I typed those words. And your little game of not answering the question to prolong the discussion is kinda what is wrong with attempting to have any discussion.... at least an honest discussion. So if we're not going to be honest in our discussions, in our intent, in our words, then what is discussion for? I don't play games. Such a waste of human spirit to manipulate people. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. I believe in that.
And, I'll remind you that posting photos of Vanessa Hudgens, then salavating over her nekkid photos is promoting the objectification of women.... which IS misogyny. I don't think you have the creds to be coming after anyone with the misogyny stick. Especially, not THIS woman. Neither did the fdl folks. To be attacked in this way was clearly a back channel missive from the clinton camp. Clearly. And the dishonesty in that whole "we're not supporting THE candidate" when, in fact, the blogs were was, and is, dishonest and manipulative. There were several blogs, not just the hotwetpuppies place and you can tell because they all come out with the same topic at the same time. Its the same plausible deniability we saw with Reagan and the arms for hostages crap. Its dishonest. Its childish and its really beneath most of these very smart and good people who participated in it. Readers/voters deserve better.
TLG - Sorry, but they seem to want to have a discussion. I don't think anyone is all that hopped up over it. I'm not. It just is what it is. Discussions happen
Maggie - Thank you for clearing you your preference in name. I may have called you Maggie Jo, so I'll get it right.
I don't think your list there is difinitive of "tried and true" indicators of sexism. Its unacceptable for anyone to deploy tears as a manipulative technique in a professional setting. Its just not done by anyone who intends success. That's different for anyone in a private relationship and many people, in particular woman, use this to manipulate their entanglement mate. Its because the person using this ploy in a private relationship lacks the power of self. And while people may be perfectly happy in a personal relationship that works this way, it is unacceptable to a public adult professional relationship. It doesn't scale. The person in the private relationship may be perfectly happy to participate in co-depend disfucntional ways, but to expect an office, or an entire population to indulge the selfish nature of the tearful ploy just doesn't work. We've had 8 years of the petulant little boy and to indulge another person their fantasy to be President just beacuse they "whaaaant it" *stamps foot*, turned people off all over this planet. That's not sexist in the least. Now, your filter sees sexism in probably most everything and everyone you encounter. I see sexism, probably much of the same as you see, however, its my right to deal with it and the person perpetrating it on the spot when it happens. And I do. The institutionalized sexism IS in fact there absolutly. I agree. The difference in that is I expect, and make it known, to be treated fairly and you seem to expect to be treated in a special manner. That's what hillary expected. You can't have it both ways and say you want an level playing field AND you want to receive specail treatment. One is fair, one is not. I'm always for fair and equal.
Conversations about sexism in our daily lives will always be contentious when ever you use hillary clinton as a shadow topic, an example..... and feel that you somehow are the be all and end all authority of who is sexist and who is not. Hillary clinton's behavior did more harm to women in politics than sexism. Pitching a fit is not helpful in solving problems as we've seen in the last 8 years. Someone should have told her that.
John McCain's trip to Sturgis and his selling his wife or telling her she should be in a topless contest.... Well, why aren't we talking about that? Why aren't we calling upon the petulant pumas to explain how they can vote for that in their ploy for attention?
Oh yeah, how many lives were lost in Iraq today. How many people are out on the street today? These problems are paramount.
Identity politics suck as solving any problems. This is my bottom line.
Jesse - you need my IP to ban me. I'll save you some time and supply it any time its requested. Always happy to help
Maggie: the bigot vote is a wash and you know it, Obama can't get the racist who flocked to Clinton, Clinton can't get the mysaginists taht flocked to every where else.
The big glareing diffrence between the canadates, and teh only reason that bigotry had an effect on Clinton was that she activly courted the racist vote...she whent out of her way to try and court the racists dems...that turned off a large protion of the rest of us. Obama NEVER courted the mysaginists, they where never part of his equation, and frankly he probably didnt' get msot of them (not many people are onyl one type of bigot).
mysaginy didn't have an impact on the election for Hillary, racism did.
Bravii to Tanbark and Myrtle June for fighting this tired old battle yet AGAIN, this late in the game, when we are literally in an election fight for our lives.
I have some tried and true criteria of my own. Mine are for identifying women who spout feminist dogma like cartoon caricatures instead of LIVING the assertion of equality. The use of bullshit buzzwords like "patriarchy," for example. That one's up there.
And so are manipulative weeping, piggybacking a career on a cheating asshole of a husband, and
using gender as a weapon to win a political primary.
I name no names, of course.
Jesse - you need my IP to ban me. I'll save you some time and supply it any time its requested. Always happy to help
Myrtle June -
1. It is "it's", not "its".
2. I have your IP. We have all IPs, all the time.
3. re: Your "banning" Strawhorse.
We have banned two (2) people other than obvious trolls in the 13 month history of GNB. Both of them we spent time working with prior to banning them.
4. About banning and disagreements.
Do I agree with you most of the time? Hardly ever. But so long as you don't attack people personally, so long as your attacks are on ideas and not on the people, you are welcome here.
Same goes for other people with whom I frequently disagree.
It pleases me deeply that GNB is safe enough for you and others to come here and express yourself freely. You are not in danger of being banned, or even being given a warning, so long as you don't attack others personally. (Rare exceptions apply; you personally have never crossed the line, that I can remember. *shrugs* Memory is failing and I didn't do a search, so who knows. I don't really care.)
Are there other places where we might limit people's expression?
Probably, and I'm trying to work out a Terms Of Service (TOS) right now, along with a formal Privacy Policy (for California, as well as everyone else.)
Everyone who is a regular knows not to use the "C" word. The "N" word is allowed, although we prefer you not to use it unless there's a damn good reason.
In general, bloggers will apply correction when we see it is needed. If someone is dominating a conversation, or if a conversation is going off-topic, we'll try and steer it back. I remember two specific cases where individuals got what we considered a little over-excited about certain topics in the last six months, and talked about them ALL the time, no matter what the thread was. We told them to stop. They did, problem solved. Also, while it's fine for people to link to other posts, they shouldn't pimp their own blog in their own comments except rarely. If we want to read your blog, we'll hit your website link next to your name.
If we feel a commenter has crossed the line, bloggers may call a strike, or take any other means they feel appropriate to settle things down.
You, MJ, are a valued part of the GNB community and what you do contributes. Even if I almost never agree with anything you say. *smiles*
Breathe.
1. Yes, I know. You're the second to correct that for me.... e and you. Hmmmm maybe you and e think alike then..... naahhh. Nemmind. 
Do I agree with you most of the time? Hardly ever.
A great source of pride for me! 
Now, back to the topic at hand.... and about those answers?
Maggie gave links and commentary on some answers.
Done here.
Maggie-
I won't deny there was both racism and sexism in the democratic primaries. The sexism was quite blatant particularly from the media, but wasn't something I saw from anyone connected with the Obama campaign. On the other hand while the media (other than the right) wasn't particularly blatant about racism, I did see quite a bit of it coming from people closely connected with the Clinton campaign.
I do think racism and misogyny ended up canceling each other out to the extent they affected the outcome of the primary.
The larger issue is important however. Female political canidates are treated much differently both by the media and the average person on the street. Wardrobe and hairstyle are subject to much more comment than would be seen with a male candidate. There always seem to be comment and speculation about any unmarried female candidate in a way you wouldn't see about an unmarried man with no children.
I think the real solution to this is more women in positions of power. When women are 50% of the politicians, 50% of the media management, etc. a lot of the misogynistic nonsense will go away. The question is how to get there from here with the institutionalized sexism being yet another strike against any democratic woman running for office.
Still I do think at least one glass ceiling got smashed. The next time a woman runs for president as a democrat she far more likely to be seen as a serious candidate.
One point to note: one can be black and still be racist towards blacks.
Also, one can be a woman and still be a misogynist.
Odd...maggie posts this crap, the ncnn starts pushing clinton wants on the ticket stuff..im startign to see the "let the convention pick the vp" crap start to filter up.
are there marching orders comeign down? it would explain why every one got so defensive when we called out the obvius attempt.
I have no problem with discussions of sexism. I have a big problem with all the nastiness on all sides when it wanders into the primary fight.
which.is.over.
just my opinion.
I want to know what to do to make it better next time. BUT I want to have that discussion after we win in nov.
Commenting by HaloScan
