Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
Olberman is just disgusting at times. Worst person in the world for being the only leading TV female anchorwoman and *noticing* a few things, even *admitting* to some pressures in the runup to the war.
K.O. has truly jumped the shark. I want reason not bombast, and K.O.'s not even that eloquent a bloviator.
No Cicero he, but even Cicero engaged your reason and logic more often.
Couric appears to be showing signs of ...journalism, lately. Or at least signs that she's thinking about it.
These are not the 'droids you are looking for...
I haven't watched MSNBC for months. In fact, it's not even on my remote's favorites list anymore.
It has, like DKos, become a cesspool.
But here's the thing, digby: You're right. It happened. I saw it, too. And I NEVER saw Barak Obama or Michelle speak out against it while it benefitted them.
Now, I'm sure I'll get trashed for saying that.
But honestly......the next time I hear or see anybody ask me to feel sympathy for Michelle or her daughters after Hillary and Chelsea were treated so badly.....I will flat f'ing turn away.
I can only hope that when Michelle and her daughters get the same treatment from the media while in the White House as Hillary and Chelsea did, that Michelle is able to handle it with the same strength and class as Hillary and Chelsea.
That's where I am right now.
And I don't care if it means I'm not in the kewl kids.
Keith Olbermann is now a parody of himself, and totally worthless as a "credible" journalist.
There was sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton.
Was she a victim in the sense of having to endure that vileness? Of course.
Did it take a toll on her? Probably yes.
Was she a victim, in the sense that would not having that coverage made a difference to the outcome of the Democratic primaries? I don't think so.
Does the lack of difference to the outcome excuse the sexism in the coverage? Of course not.
As your # 1 fan, I think the use of WTF is beneath you.
Good for Katie Couric. And while we're at it, how about the barrage of sexist crap in advertising that is completely degrading to women, hurts little girls and their sense of the possibilities ahead for them in life, and has made a huge industry out of creating eating disorders for women by teaching them to hate their bodies. This is nuts. And if they can get away with doing this to Hilary Clinton and running away, they can count on doing it to every other woman, especially if she dares to defy their stereotypes.
You think the misogyny and/or sexism directed at Hilary was something?
Just wait until the Repubs come to grips with the fact of how little chance McCain has of winning, or even making a creditable showing.
Then we are going to see some racism which will make all of us, no matter who we supported during the primary, very disgusted.
Yes, how they handled Hilary's primary run was bad, but just wait until Obama has them feeling very threatened.
Let's be clear about this:
Was the media sexist in its coverage of Clinton?
Undoubtedly, relentlessly, and shamefully.
Did Clinton lose the primary because of sexism in the press?
No. She is doggedly determined by ultimately mediocre politician with no common touch whose "views" have been sandblasted by focus groups with their collective fingers in the prevailing winds. She has no common touch, she reeks of phoniness, and no one knows what she really believes. And she ran a campaign that had no Plan B.
So why the denials and bristling when you suggest that sexism ran amok this primary season?
I personally think it's because so many of us thought Clinton was seriously, maybe fatally, damaging Obama when it was clear she had no way of actually winning by the rules--we don't want that to be forgotten in this first draft of history appears to be trying to assert that Hillary lost because of sexism rather than because she is a lacklustre politician who ran a short-sighted campaign.
Both things can be true:
1) The media was unforgivably sexist in covering Clinton this season;
2) Clinton lost because Obama won.
There was sexism, racism, and now ageism. That's the world we live in. The press is part of that world too. At least the Obama campaign didn't make it part of their strategy, like Hillary "hard working white people" Clinton did with race.
Sexism certainly reared it's head in this campaign, but no more so than racism. And the racism was aided and abetted by the Clinton's, themselves.
And, Olberman's outrage at Clinton's Sioux Falls Hey-anything-could-happen speculation, was courageous and utterly justified.
Keith is a rock for our side, and by going after Clinton and her authorization vote, and for her vetting of John McCain, and all of the rest of her truckling to the right, he did what the "progressive" blogs who were shilling for Clinton, should have been doing, for years.
Why is the media always allowed to judge themselves when these controversies come up? Isn't that like making the defendant the judge in a trial? Isn't that like letting a student with a crappy term paper give themselves the grade?
Give me one other situation where the accused always gets to say how fair the accusations are?
Maybe I'm just really dense, but aside from a couple of episodes from pundits and the unfortunate talk of cleavage and pantsuits, I really didn't see much sexism. I didn't get the sense that anyone was questioning her ability to lead based off of her gender. I know that a lot of other folks did, though, especially women.
Now, I don't think that it can be said at all that the Obama campaign ever made sexist attacks on Clinton. That is the more important part, I think.
::But honestly......the next time I hear or see anybody ask me to feel sympathy for Michelle or her daughters after Hillary and Chelsea were treated so badly.....I will flat f'ing turn away.::
And this is why feminism has been on a 15-year-long losing streak. It's practicioners can't seperate the personalities from the principles.
Ok, but when the Maureen Dowds and the Sally Quinns start smearing and trashing Michelle or her daughters, don't expect Americans to care.
There's lots of evidence of the sexism, which Digby and sites like Media Matters chronicled throughout the race. (She has also written more than one blog post saying she doesn't think Clinton lost because of it.)
Here's just a little highlight reel for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g...7/sexism_sells/
It was worse on the blogs. This one in particular was filled with vile misogyny in the comments that would have made me quit blogging and tell y'all to fuck yourselves.
The pollsters say race does not explain the gap; recent Democratic nominees, all white men, lost big among white men.
Wow, what a huge mystery this is.
To hear the rhetoric coming out of Democratic "progressives", you would think that every white guy in the country had a Wharton MBA and a private jet.
The reality is that most white guys are just working stiffs. By way of example, two-thirds of the workforce in America's longhaul trucking are... white men. Who surely are not getting rich out of that line of work.
The Democratic Party, all too often, instead of focusing on improving conditions and compensation across the board for *all* ordinary workers, has instead frequently succumbed to the siren song of identity politics and affirmative action. The resulting redistributive measures with regard to employment and opportunity have, since the 1970s, come predominantly at the expense of said blue-collar white males. (Whereas the tiny number of elite CEO white guys have been inconvenienced not in the slightest, including under Bill Clinton.)
If I were to single you out to get kicked in the teeth repeatedly, over something you might not have anything to do with in the first place, I'm not so stupid as to expect that you would love me for having done so.
Yet it comes as a GIANT SURPRISE to Democrats that they have a problem with working white men. Sheesh. Perhaps another course in postmodern literary theory will bridge the gap of understanding.
--
The other irritating thing is the "Did Hillary lose because of sexism?" question. Certainly she made some mistakes, but if you're boxed in time and again by sexism, your choices to get out tend to be more reactionary and less palatable. And then to be a Clinton is double- or triple-jeopardy. Too hard you're a bitch, too soft you don't have the right stuff, say the word "kitchen" and you're playing the gender card, reference your experience they want to talk about Monica or Whitewater but in Republican distorted terms, talk about what you did in as First Lady and it's why you didn't divorce Bill, talk about your Senate experience and it's how we don't need a Clinton dynasty, mixed in with the hubbub of cleavage-gate, C.U.N.T. shirts, attacks on Gloria Steinem, etc. I can just imagine all the other potential female candidates lining up to take this kind of abuse.
The main reason Olbermann slammed Couric was that (according to Olbermann) she misrepresented Lee Cowan's statement that "it was hard being objective covering Obama" into saying that Cowan was in the bag for Obama (Cowan was NBC's embedded reporter for the Obama campaign). Olbermann pointed out that Cowan went on to say that, yes it was hard to be objective when one is that close to any campaign, but professionalism required him to make the extra effort to be so.
To reiterate what Penman said:
Both things can be true:
1) The media was unforgivably sexist in covering Clinton this season;
2) Clinton lost because Obama won.
One can also dwell on either point, but must also ponder the truth of the other.
I think Hillary Clinton is a unique case. I can't understand or explain it, but our esteemed national political press appears to Hhate her guts. From my perspective, sexism was just one of the bigger arrows in a quiver of loathing and disdain that permeated ALL of her coverage. Given a responsible, professional press (I know) she was the nominee Feb 5.
“She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself,
I suppose HRC asked them to comment on her clothes, her laugh, her cleavage, and to refer to her as a bitch. Yessiree, its always a Clinton's fault.
“She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way.”
what a delusional narcissist.
.
But honestly......the next time I hear or see anybody ask me to feel sympathy for Michelle or her daughters after Hillary and Chelsea were treated so badly.....I will flat f'ing turn away.
Yeah, that bitch Michelle Obama -- she said she "thinks the world of Hillary Clinton." And clearly that's, um, code for how much she hates Hillary. Or something.
Again, Mary, you're confusing the actions of the media with the actions of the candidates. You hate Michelle Obama because Keith Olbermann and his frat-boy pals said assholish things about Hillary that you didn't like. And this makes sense to you?
There is no possible way a misogynist could ever see the misogyny in the media coverage of HRC - they don't know what misogyny or sexism is. It would be the same as expecting a racist to see and admit their racism.
.
I NEVER saw Barak Obama or Michelle speak out against it while it benefited them.
If Obama had spoken out, it would have been perceived as gallantry, as coming to the aid of a woman who couldn't defend herself.
Obama let Clinton defend herself, while not uttering sexist remarks of his own. Obama didn't join the media mob that was telling Clinton to "stifle herself," as Digby (via Archie Bunker) so eloquently put it.
Obama's feminist bona fides are in good shape.
I know this is a lefty site and we all ain't allowed to say it, but Olbermann is a bit of a dick.
Does the media have it right this one time, or is it it possible that they are a bunch of incompetent, narcissistic, un-self aware, celebrity putzes refusing to do any kind of self reflection or examination of their own piss poor behavior as usual?
EXACTLY! except that it isn't that they are "refusing" to do self reflection, its that they look at themselves through the same distorted glasses that they look at everything through so it is not possible for them to do honest self-evaluation. (Not to make excuses - they are all piss-poor examples of human beings. Any decent person that wants to do honest self-evaluation can, but it takes more than what these Narcissists are capable of.)
.
I will also say, I think that the extreme misogyny demonstrated over and over by the media (she reminds you of your first wife outside probate court? WTF?) kept her in the race much longer, because Clinton was and is a very popular figure in the Democratic Party.
The worse the media treated her, the more people wanted to get out and vote for her. I voted before the Misogyny Machine had really wound up to its full pitch and if I'd seen all the shit flung before that vote, I may well have voted for her.
I think ultimately she was defeated more by her Iraq war vote and the general "throw the bums out" feeling that meant that a familiar figure wasn't going to win, but a lot of the lefty blogs needed to STFU with the paranoia long before the primaries ended.
Olbermann sucks and is chief Narcissist. Olbermann is about Olbermann. He is completely self-absorbed. Its nice when he rants against wingnuts, but it became abundantly clear during the primary that Olbermann is all about the spectacle of the rant, not the content.
.
I'm sorry for being so irrational, but I can't get past this:
Mr. Clyburn... also voiced frustration with former President Clinton, who described Mr. Obama’s campaign narrative as a fairy tale. While Mr. Clinton was not discussing civil rights at the time and seemed to be referring mainly to Mr. Obama’s stance at the Iraq war, Mr. Clyburn saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism.
“To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us,” said Mr. Clyburn, ...
It makes me sick.
That there was sexism in the media's coverage is not nonsense, in fact it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
But to claim that sexism cost Hillary Clinton the election is, if not nonsensical, then at least dishonest. Hillary lost the election because of bad moves made by her campaign. They started the race with every advantage imaginable, high name recognition, tons of cash, and high approval ratings (among Democrats at least), but they squandered these advantages through bad strategy.
The reality is that the transparent misogyny of many in the media seemed to accomplish nothing but to energize Senator Clinton's supporters. It did not hurt her, and may have, ironically, helped her in some races. To claim Hillary lost because the media was biased against her is to let Mark Penn, Terry Mcauliffe, and the Senator herself off the hook for the obvious mistakes they made during the course of the campaign.
I don't have much to add about the misogynistic treatment of Hilary (which I too saw and which disgusted me beyond measure). I will say, though, that commenters at another beloved political blog got me angry enough to e-mail the moderators. Every time said blog put up a post about Ann Coulter or Dana Perino or some other RW female, the comments degenerated into "would you do her? how would you do her?" Repug males usually got bashed by genital-nicknames. I was a little surprised that homophobia was less omnipresent than sexism.
Yes, I did speak out and politely asked people to be less crude. It didn't get very far, that I could see.
She was defeated because she was treated by the press exactly the same as Al Gore was in 1999-2000, an object of derision and disdain, + bonus misogyny.
What Arun said, up above. Lots of visible sexism, but Obama *was* the irresistible force in this primary.
Of course, now that Hillary is out of the race, we're starting to see that sexism pointed at Michelle Obama, who really looks a LOT like Hillary did back in '92.
This isn't *just* sexism. This is the press DOING ITS JOB: casting Democratic and liberal leaders in a bad light by any means possible, INCLUDING using sexism, racism, or any other low impulse that can be found. Somehow, that's even more offensive.
I think Hillary Clinton is a unique case.
that is absurd. HRC is only the first case - the first serious case, which is why the misogynistic fangs and claws were so vicious. Check out the media treatment of any of the next women seeking a high public profile position not reserved for women - it will be the same: clothes, how they carry themselves, the tone of their voice, their bitchiness, etc.
.
I saw a fair amount of sexism in the primary coverage. It was impossible to avoid. The problem now is that some outraged Clinton supporters blame Obama for that instead of the TV pundits who are actually responsible.
I think Digby hits an interesting true point, which somewhat undermines the 'rampant sexism' argument.
The GOP (and the media who buy their memes) routinely feminize Democrats. Doing that to a Dem candidate who happens to actually be female shouldn't be very surprising. I really wonder how much of the 'sexism' was because Clinton is a Dem, not because she is a female.
It should definitely be noted that using feminization as a sort of political attack is much more profoundly sexist, regardless of the gender of the candidate being attacked. Think about it... it is equating female with weak, incompetent, or otherwise bad. That is clearly an attack on all women, even if the person being attacked is male.
Correction: I should say that it 'undermines the rampant sexism against Clinton argument'... Rampant sexism is there all right, but it is nothing new. It pisses me off a bit that all of a sudden people take notice because the target is a particular female.
Honestly?
I think this focus on sexism is just a bit putting on the blinders in and of itself. Is there sexism in the media? Hell yes. It's part of their natural authoritarian mindset.
But at the same time, there's been this unwillingness to accept that Clinton's authoritarian mindset (well, the campaign as a whole) might just be part of the reason why she lost. She would have won against ANY OTHER AUTHORITARIAN. Really. She would have beaten Kerry, would have been beaten Dean, would have beaten Gore...well maybe not. Actually, I'll say it's a coin flip.
Obama? Obviously not. His background of community building is a perfect fit for not just the politics, but the society of today.
It's not 2000. It's not 2004. People want to get involved. They want to get connected. We do it in our day to day lives. It's a part of who we are. Sure, it's mostly the younger folks...but it's older folks as well. The times, they are a changing.
Mark Penn is an analog player in a digital world.
That's the problem. Without mentioning the divisive, top-down, 50%+1 DLC triangulating politics, blaming it all on sexism rings VERY hollow. This hollowness is why, at least in the blogosphere as a whole, the whole sexism thing is getting the short shaft. Which I don't think is good for anybody.
"And I NEVER saw Barak Obama or Michelle speak out against it while it benefitted them."
So why do you believe that the Obamas had a responsibility to speak out about sexism? Are the Obamas supposed to be your magic Negroes fighting against every wrong and storming the barricades. Sure sexism and misogyny are ongoing problems in the press and in American society but that is not why Sr. Hillary lost her bid for the nomination. Stop blaming the Obamas because it's not their cross to bear.
The MSM simply is not capable of believing they can be sexist. Why? Because they're well educated, they're well-to-do, they're snotty and elitist. And this type is simply not sexist. They think sexist is what Archie Bunker is, and they are the antithesis of Archie Bunker.
Kudos to Katie Couric for seeing it like it is.
Correction: I should say that it 'undermines the rampant sexism against Clinton argument'... Rampant sexism is there all right, but it is nothing new. It pisses me off a bit that all of a sudden people take notice because the target is a particular female.
Having the target be an actual woman and not a "feminized" man made the attacks far more obvious and open, because they weren't able to hide behind code words like "earth tones." I think that if, say, Nancy Pelosi had been running, the attacks would have been just as overt against her, too.
Republicans have also used racial attacks and code words against Democrats for years, and now that facade is starting to crack as well since we have an actual African-American running for president and not a white guy who can be made to stand in for all of those scary hordes of black people.
That was the whole point of those attacks: you could make a white man stand in for Scary Feminazis or Scary Black Militants and still have the fig leaf of pretending that what you were saying wasn't really about women or African-Americans. Now the mask has dropped off and everyone can see that the subtext has become text.
Were the "sexist" media attacking Clinton? You bet.
They also were committing an act of overt anti-sexism by not raising the universal demand that she quit.
Do you really think that a man would have survived the beating she sustained on Super Tuesday?
If the MSM had declared her the loser like they did Mitt Romney she would have been forced to concede.
Instead, the woman vs. black man narrative proved too much for the networks, so they let Clinton stay on well past the obvious moment of her defeat.
If the tables had been turned the clamor for Obama to concede would have been deafening.
Not shouting Clinton out of the race after losing Super Tuesday was one of the greatest acts of favoritism ever seen from the MSM.
"Depressingly, even Olbermann"? He's been at the forefront of this for quite awhile, unfortunately. He even tore Elton John a new one in a recent Worst Persons for the musician's assertion that sexism against Clinton was rampant. I was half expecting him to say "shut up and sing"!
Olbermann's obvious shilling for Obama and ignoring of the sexism against Clinton did a lot of damage to whatever credibility he might have brought to well-reasoned arguments against Clinton's campaign.
Also, as Pluege observes, Olbermann has become largely about Olbermann. I never, ever had any use for Bill O'Reilly before, but the more Olbermann picks on him the more sympathy I feel for the right-wing nutjob. And I'd really rather not feel that way.
Again, Mary, you're confusing the actions of the media with the actions of the candidates. You hate Michelle Obama because Keith Olbermann and his frat-boy pals said assholish things about Hillary that you didn't like. And this makes sense to you?
The kind of comments that Mary makes here are very revealing. For her, and many like her, their backing of Hillary was never about support or respect for Hillary. It was always about hate for Obama. And now they've started hating Michelle as an extension of their hate for Barack. It's really sad.
Not shouting Clinton out of the race after losing Super Tuesday was one of the greatest acts of favoritism ever seen from the MSM.
Horsesh*t.
This was one of the closest primary races in modern political history. The Poobahs of the MSM constantly, loudly, proclaimed her "dead" and deluded and why won't the stupid b**** just quit already?
Ted Kennedy didn't get pressed to drop out this way. Either did Jerry Brown in '92.
And if I hear/read one more iteration of "It's not ALL women, it's just THIS woman," I swear...
And..what, you're reading Mary's mind? Wow. You probably ought to make better use of that skill than bloviating on a blog.
The 'forced to concede' meme is not useful. Very very few people on Obama's side were advocating for her to actually be forced out... what was pissing off a lot of us was that the race was reported as breathlessly 'neck and neck' for far too long. Later in the race, Clinton got a lot more attention than deserved and sucked up a lot of the oxygen by feeding the horse-race flames.
Lets please drop the meme, or at least the horrible 'she should have been forced to concede' framing of it.
Hillary lost because she sucked as a candidate.
Lied every day.
Used race and lies to smear Obama.
Wanna play the sexist card. Find another victim.
This ain't it.
“She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself,"
Is that media equivalent for "she dressed provocatively so she was asking to be raped"?
Using this standard, of course Michelle Obama and her daughters will be attacked. They are celebrities; they are in the public sphere; they are not Republicans; therefore, they must be asking to be treated like garbage.
digby, I posted about this as well -- with this addition under the photo published with the story:
"Wow ... if a major newspaper is going to publish an article on sexism in the media, is THIS really the image that should accompany it? Note the photo above of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her head is missing, and the camera is focused on her chest ... and some people wonder if there is sexism in the media? Good grief!!"
BAC
I'm sorry to say it, but plenty of comments on this thread reveal exactly why sexism is such a deep and pervasive problem. People seriously arguing -- as many Obama supporters do -- that "Sure, there was sexism out there, and we deplore that. But it actually helped Hillary. It riled up her [old, angry, female] supporters. So, hey, a real silver lining for her, after all."
Q.E.D.
In my view, the missing count in Digby's indictment is that this was overwhelmingly the misogyny of the Left, not the Right. It is important to note the misbehavior of the media, but (a) the worst media were the leftest media -- MSNBC; and (b) the netroots were a pretty foul sink, too.
In fact, plenty of really prominent leftie bloggers abandoned positions of policy that they had formerly treated as sacrosanct in order to embrace Obama and deride Clinton. They didn't seem to care that she was proposing a much more specific and much more progressive agenda -- as Paul Krugman kept pointing out (again, to a chorus of netroots derision). And the emotional intensity of hatred against Clinton in some places -- Avarosis, for instance, but plenty of others, too -- far exceeded the emotional intensity directed against Obama.
What was going on here? The netroots were supposed to be ideological, no? If you accept that ideology was no longer guiding these people's judgments, then what was? Style? Likeability? "There's just something I don't like about her. I don't trust her."
And what might those things be disguised, even unconscious expressions of? Hmmm?
otherlisa - No mind reading is necessary. Mary's comments speak for themselves.
So why do you believe that the Obamas had a responsibility to speak out about sexism?
BECAUSE SEXISM IS FUCKING WRONG!!!!!
Leaders lead, politicians pander. Obama is a politician.
.
They didn't seem to care that she was proposing a much more specific and much more progressive agenda
Sorry, you're wrong. Except for her health care plan, there was nothing more progressive about Hillary's agenda as compared to Obama's. And in fact, she ran to the right of him on foreign policy.
If you accept that ideology was no longer guiding these people's judgments,
Sorry, but it was. Hate to burst your bubble.
No, it WASN'T ideology. It was political structure.
The Orthodoxy of DailyKos
I wrote that in response to the Clinton supporters leaving DailyKos en masse.
I'll summarize it here. To put it bluntly, there are several things that are VERY critical for the progressive blogosphere, or at least were before this campaign began.
One of those things, is the 50-state strategy. Run everywhere, challenge every place. Get the message out. Even if you don't win, you're sending a message of strength.
Another, is getting rid of crappy corporate consultants who are more concerned with ad buys than winning.
More resources towards grassroots efforts as well. Fund people on the ground doing the work.
These things, for large parts of the netroots, are non-negotiable. They just are not. And certain bloggers and followers, via their support of Clinton, who's campaign has really been the opposite of these things, found themselves on the wrong side of the fence. And they were SHOCKED about this, and chalked it up to sexism and wiped their hands of it.
It's not ideology. This isn't ideology. It's more about organization. And yes, the media is filled with sexist pigs. But that doesn't change the fact that blaming once-friends as being sexist, and ignoring what their actual reasons are, they're not the problem.
Maybe, just maybe you are.
With respect, I think many of the Obama supporters commenting here miss what I think is the most significant aspect of the Media's misogyny.
When the Media belittle and demean one of us, not only do they divide us, but they weaken those among us who they aren't belittling and demeaning at that moment.
Does anyone remember Elizabeth Dole being subjected to this sort of abuse when she ran for President? Can anyone cite an instance of any major woman Republican leader being subjected to such constant vilification? Does anyone really doubt how the Mighty Wurlitzer would resound with outrage if such a thing did happen?
If you guys really think this has all been about Hillary being Hillary or a Clinton, you've been contaminated with the Kool-Aid, too. This is about entrenching the radical right wing in power by character assassination of leading figures on the left.
In banding together to struggle against this long-term takeover of our country, we can resist it; in permitting our leaders to be ridiculed and diminished in this way, we end up wondering what hit us on Election Night.
You may well have noticed that embittered Clinton supporters are not shy about noting that they are little inclined to defend Obama in view of the stony silence of the Party Leadership when its other leading candidate for President was being compared to a psychotic stalker, etc.
It's all very fine to say that Obama had nothing to do with that -- except that now he is the leader of the Party and all that baggage comes with the job.
Dismiss what has happened over the course of the nomination campaign at your peril. It's about to happen to Obama ("baby mama" etc. is only a warm-up), and he's going to need fighting friends, not fairweather ones.
If that's all too Nineties and "polarizing" for you, fine -- but don't be looking for help when the going gets rough. We out-of-date and out-of-touch old folks will be munching popcorn in the stands.
Sexism is a cover for racism. There are guys out there who imagine that anti-discriminationa and affirmative action regulations intended to level the playing field put traditionally disadvantaged groups--women, blacks and other ethnic minorites--at an unfair disadvantage because they don't recognize that the treatment that they used to take for granted was in fact a special privilege that members of traditionally disadvantaged groups didn't have.
They took it for granted that of course they'd be able to get car loans at reasonable terms, that they wouldn't be stuck working at boring dead-end pink-collar jobs, and that they wouldn't have to compete with women or minorities. So to them leveling the playing field looks like putting them down in order to provide unfair advantages to women and minorities.
They don't believe that women or minorities are disadvantaged and so they read any suggestion that they are as illegitimate "whining." But you can't say that about minorities, so women are a surrogate for their complaints. But make no mistake: what's underlying the sexism directed against Clinton is resentment against the recognition that women and minorities have been, and continue to be, disadvantaged and against policies that would level the playing field.
Avarosis's complaints -- to pick one of many -- were about Clinton's failure to appreciate the 50-state strategy... like that? Huh?
I don't think I said anywhere -- I certainly didn't mean to say -- that there are no reasons a person could prefer Obama to Clinton. I'm saying that the juxtaposition of (a) a seeming willingness to treat long-held ideological positions (healthcare being front and center -- and crucial) as not so important, after all, and (b) a level of hatred that was quite striking... requires explanation.
a level of hatred that was quite striking
That's the part I don't get. It appears irrational to those of us who don't share it.
My "friend" at work has been sending me anti-Hillary emails for, oh, about 12 years now. Disgusting jokes. Bad pictures. Photoshopped pictures. Wild stories involving killing Vince Foster and lesbianism. Every month. 12 years. There was a bit of a flurry in 2004 - a bunch of John Kerry is a traitor emails. But the constant was Hillary Clinton.
You know if my conservative friend thought enough me to send me all that garbage, our heroic reporters in the MSM were getting the same. And it has always showed in their coverage of her.
Honestly I did not know how she was ever going to get beyond that garbage. But she did.
If you all think that this won't happen to Michelle Obama you are sadly mistaken. Just wait until she has anything to say about any little policy an Obama administration might consider.
And when the shit comes down no doubt you will all gasp and clutch at your pearls - how dare they do that to Michelle - those racists!
Another work "friend" put it well today: "GWB has been a disaster, but at least Laura knew how to act like a first lady." Better start teaching Michelle how to bake fucking cookies...that's all she will be doing in a few months. And that's not about racism, my friends.
Regards.
falstaff:Ideologically, I'm actually a single-payer or socio-economic death kinda guy. (I don't think a modern civil society can survive without full single-payer public health care)
But weirdly, I like Obama's plan a bit more. Why?
If you're going to keep the insurance companies as the primary payer, then competition needs to be kept. And the way I see it, making it mandatory reduces a big bit of competition, which is the ability to say "No thanks, I'll do without". Without the ability to walk away from the market empty-handed, markets don't function correctly.
As well, while having health care for everybody is nice, without knowing how the discussion/politics is going to go, saying universality is mandatory at the get go is VERY risky. Why?
Lets say the price of the cheapest plan goes up to say 5k a year. There's no way a low-income earner can pay this. No bloody way. Will they see government intervention which is forcing them to do this as the problem or the solution? I think that just as often as not it'll be the former.
And that's why I think it's a bad idea in the long-run. Single-payer, when it happens is going to require immense political capital and public will (for it to absorb the loss of millions of jobs, to be frank). That's going to take time to build up.
I don't know if that's what the Obama guys are thinking. But that's what I'm thinking. So that's how my ideology goes.
We "women" are not hating Michelle. Couldn't care less.
But I can tell you, that the media will pick her apart, ESPECIALLY the Maureen Dowds and Sally Quinns, as soon as she makes the White House. It'll happen, just as sure as the sun rises every morning. And the Olbermanns and Matthews and Schusters will join right in.
Down the road, when you see it happen, don't say I didn't warn you.
And don't whine about it either.
Digby has had and has THIS one nailed, people.
"Maybe I'm just really dense.."
You got that right, Nanoboy.
As for Ken and NR, well, like those good ol boys who can't wait to tell you how much their love their good black folk, I have no doubt you love your good women. And I have no doubt you they love you in return. Until....
During the campaign Michelle Obama said, as part of a campaign speech, not in private, that "a woman who can't take care of her own house doesn't belong in the White House."
That was a strategic, tactical message, most certainly written and/or approved by the campaign's Communication Director, designed to both appeal to gender prejudice and to repeat and reinforce long-standing Republican smears.
Jesse Jackson Jr., as an official spokesman for the Obama campaign, said immediately after Clinton's win in New Hampshire that "she didn't cry for Katrinia." Once again, a strategic, tactical exploitation of gender prejudice as well as a disgraceful exploitation of racial distrust and resentment.
There are other examples of the Obama campaigns intentional exploitation of sexism.
But I am long past expecting Obama supporters to be willing to look at the campaign's use of coded gender, and racial divisive, attacks in a fair minded and objective way.
It appears irrational to those of us who don't share it.
But you do share it. It's just aimed at Barack and Michelle Obama.
You're every bit as bad as the people you're decrying; you just have different targets for your hate.
Karmakin -- I'm with you on single-payer. And you may be right, in a tactical sense -- though most healthcare advocates and experts didn't see it that way. But I can only underline what you yourself say -- i.e., there is zero evidence that Obama or his campaign were thinking in this rather elaborate chessgame way. They frankly just seemed to be triangulating -- and publishing Harry and Louise knockoffs only served to reinforce the very worst meme of the right on this subject... namely, that the government forcing you to do something is bad. Indeed, this is what Obama himself did in the debates, repeatedly.
Now, you can maybe argue that that was smart politics on his part -- I wouldn't agree, but one can certainly see how somebody could make that case. However, it was lousy leadership. Damaging ipso facto -- regardless of whose plan were to get put in place.
Anyway, to bring this digression into healthcare back around... none of the Hillary-haters in the blogosphere that I'm aware of credited Obama with taking a better and more clever path toward single-payer.
As noted by Mediamatters
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200806130003
The suburban women factoid is just
that.
There were only 110 suburban women in the poll. The result is that 48 said they supported McCain and 42 said they supported Obama. If four (4) women had changed their minds at the last second and switched McCain to Obama, Obama would be ahead among polled suburban women.
NBC demonstrated their innumeracy by claiming that the difference was larger than the polls standard error. This means that they don't know that the standard error for the fraction of a subsample is larger than the standard error for a fraction of the whole sample -- that is they don't understand that standard errors for averages decline with sample size -- that is that they don't know what standard errors are.
The confidence interval for the subsample is (as is traditionally calculated although this is silly too=) +/- 9.34 %.
Also the 95% interval for McCain - Obama is really roughly
6% +/- 18 % (the standard error of the difference is slighly less than twice the standard error for each since support for McCain and support for Obama have a correlation of close to -1)
This means that your claim that women are being sensible is more strongly supported by the evidence than NBC thinks.
Is it really too much to ask that the news media treat women respectfully and take their concerns seriously?
frankly, yes. so it would seem. welcome to america 2008. yipfuckinee.
Devi - You're a very sick individual. I pity you.
Falstaff:Personally, I think they were reacting directly to the concerns of some of their early, younger supporters, as that sort of thing is a big deal to his core supporters, but that's just me.
There's the other part of it where I don't think that none of this really matters. Clinton was aiming for a narrow win, wouldn't have the mandate to do very much anyway. Obama was aiming to send a message and create a movement that even himself couldn't ignore. What was that..FDR that said..ok..I agree with you. Now go out there and make me do it. Something to that agree. That's the Obama campaign to me.
But at the end of the day, most of the opposition (And yes, Averosis is a dick) was because of actions that the Clinton campaign did. It was reasonable stuff not based anywhere near sexism. I do think sexism DID play a role, but the role it played was making Clinton think she had to be tougher, stronger, and more violent to be seen as "one of the guys"
But I don't hear very much about that.
In other news, Huffingtom Post reports Obama tacking to the Center (sorry, clicked on a link by accident heh). Pretty standard stuff. Not really "aiming to create a message and create a movement even he himself could not ignore."
The whole "Obama is the more progressive" BS is just that. Yeah, he won, and we'll all go out and vote for him. But progressive he is not.
Regards.
If that's all too Nineties and "polarizing" for you, fine -- but don't be looking for help when the going gets rough. We out-of-date and out-of-touch old folks will be munching popcorn in the stands.
That's some real can-do Progressive attitude. I believe the Naderites lived by that motto. Sure got the Green Revolution going, didn't it?
Down the road, when you see it happen, don't say I didn't warn you.
And don't whine about it either.
We'll do more than that, but even just whining about would be better than tacitly approving of it, which is apparently what you're willing to do.
It's amazing, really: the media treated Hillary Clinton in a sexist manner, so people like Mary think it's proper for it to happen to Michelle Obama as well. I don't expect Republicans to rise above tit-for-tat morality, but apparently it's too much to expect for some so-called Democrats and liberals.
Sure, now that you've successfully buried "the witch" you have a newfound sensitivity about sexism?
Oh, that was bee-yoo-tee-ful. The digster has nailed it as it deserves to be nailed. On the subject of ...'I can't believe we have to have this discussion': I've been sensing a sort of weired backward slide lately, to a pre-women's movement era when women as well as men could pretty well be counted on to slap down uppity females. It's been brutal. I will say, though, that Clinton stood up to it well and just went ahead and did the thing that had to be done.
I will say, though, that Clinton stood up to it well and just went ahead and did the thing that had to be done.
HRC was a frickin' battering ram standing up with grace and unwavering tenacity to irrational hatred the big macho he-man woman haters and backstabbing dowd's here and elsewhere could never come close to withstanding. Everyone owes her a debt of gratitude including Obama and especially Michelle Obama who did HRC dirty.
.
no doubt clinton got roughed up a little because she's a woman, but she lost the primary, mainly, because of her cowardly vote in support of the iraq invasion.
It amazes me how often when this topic comes up there's a slew of "Big deal -- it didn't lose her the nomination!" style comments.
It's sort of an interesting question on its own, I guess, how and to what degree sexism influenced the outcome of the race. A pretty difficult one to answer, probably, but kind of interesting.
But it's kind of beside the point.
Perhaps you have noticed that racism did not cost Obama the nomination either.
Does that mean that racism is irrelevant? Should we all just go "Big deal, it didn't cost him the nomination"?
Or perhaps if Obama had lost the nomination, would it make sense for people who didn't like him to go "Hey, I didn't like him anyway, so what does it matter?"
Racism is relevant. And sexism is relevant. To all of us.
Mary doesn't think that at all, Joe Chi. Your comprehension skills REALLY suck.
Just watch the Maureen Dowd articles in the next year.
You'll find out.
Anonymous,
Word is, John Kerry is on Obama's VP list. But HE voted for authorizing the war, too, (as did Tom Daschle, Obama's campaign chief).
Will you REFUSE to vote for Obama if Kerry is his VP, based on his vote for the war?
"It was, at least until recently, something that at least the liberal wing of the party could all agree on."
Something that I also thought that EVERY Liberal could agree on: in the Demcratic party, race-baiting is taboo. Period, done, end of story.
And when the Clintons started that shit I expected you'd shout holy hell about it, just as you would if the goopers or FUX news did it.
But strangely, from the liberal blogosphere as a whole, crickets...
Look, guys, Hillary is OLD news.
The Obamas now stand on their own merit.
And I hope Michelle is strong and as courageous as Hillary was, in withstanding the snarky Village onslaught.
She'll get the same treatment Hillary did. It's who the Village IS, and if Michelle doesn't kiss Sally Quinn's or Maureen Dowd's rings, she'll be completely trashed.
The only question now, is whether Michelle can garner the strength and courage to deal with it.
This is what you wanted.
It's her TURN to deal with the Village.
anybody besides me old enough to remember a guy named Frank Sinatra?
"All or Nothing at All" sure seems like the theme song of the Internet sometimes.
I like Olberman when I like him - talking about Impeachment for example. I don't like him when I don't like him - no sexism in the campaign? maybe it depends on where you look, I don't think K.O. is looking very hard.
I remember that 'former Star Trek kid' guy had a blog about Christmas with his parents and his Dad aping O'Reily's outrage. he said something like "I can tell when Michael Moore is full of shit, he should be able to tell when Bill O'Reilly is full of shit."
any current affairs program that showed the Hillary nut-cracker engaged in sexism. every pundit who put a finger to chin while somebody talked about her BOOBS. LOL. no sexism? give me a break!
There was an unbelievable amount of sexism in the media coverage of Hillary and from the left blogosphere and from many of their readers (including some on this site).
There was also reverse (or inverse) racism from Obama and his supporters who labeled any criticism of their candidate as being racist, while painting a broad swath of Hillary supporters as racists for not adoring their messiah. At the same time, people like the Rev. Wright, and Father Pfleger and the dancing and whooping congregation at Trinity, and Representative Clyburn's dissembling, and the arm-twisting of John Lewis and Travis Smiley, and Oprah's and the >90% Black support for Obama were all considered to be non-racial. So much for a post-racial transcendent candidate!
And finally, the ageism expressed in the left blogosphere and by many of their readers was also astounding. I find it very hard to believe that the polls now show Obama has the support of a plurality of women. To paraphrase, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are polls.
As for Digby giving a pass to that smarmy male-chauvinist jock Olbermann, has she forgotten so soon his idiotic special commentaries or his implicit call to "take out" Hillary, as in only one (man) comes out of the room? I will remember in November!
there was some bias of hillary clinton from the press but was it because she is a female or because she is a clinton?
"HRC was a frickin' battering ram standing up with grace and unwavering tenacity to irrational hatred the big macho he-man woman haters and backstabbing dowd's here and elsewhere could never come close to withstanding. Everyone owes her a debt of gratitude.."
Amen! If there is a silver-lining to this unforgivable travesty, it is how tough and tenacious Hillary was in the face of the unrelenting hatred. She showed more spine than Kerry and Gore ever showed, and for that matter Obama who appeared as thin-skinned as the rest of them when he finally faced during the last debate a fraction of what was thrown at Hillary during all the previous debates. Mary, I fully agree with your sentiments.
i would have voted for clinton if she won the nomination mary. i preferred obama because he opposed the invasion. my clinton vote would have been a lesser of 2 evils kind of vote though.
"She'll get the same treatment Hillary did. It's who the Village IS, and if Michelle doesn't kiss Sally Quinn's or Maureen Dowd's rings, she'll be completely trashed."
She won't get the same treatment because the Village fears being labeled as "racist".
I love Olbermann, he's the only watchable item on cable news, and the reason I ordered up MSNBC. Bashing him for one thing you disagree with him about is short-sighted. Progressives have few enough allies in the media without turning on an effective ally.
His remarks about Couric and sexism in the campaign were garishly off the mark, however. It was a dissonance with reality, and with his own show's clarity of perception. I can only think that he is more concerned with covering for his media buddies, than in admitting the unpleasant truth on this one, and that's no excuse.
Hillary Clinton's campaign did nothing for me as a feminist, however. I am in total agreement with Penman. Did she take an opportunity while in the Senate to advance legislation to bolster women's right for instance? No, she didn't want to associate too much with women, then, she was more concerned with triangulating on "macho" issues like invading Iraq and setting up an Iran bombing campaign.
She may be a woman, she may have led a feminist life, but she has not been a feminist politician. As a progressive, it's important to me that you are active in making the country more progressive, and setting that example for the world. The fact that she looked like a feminist should not make up for the fact that she didn't legislate forcefully as one, nor as a progressive. It doesn't for me, nor did it for the many others who therefore preferred Obama.
...
"His remarks about Couric and sexism in the campaign were garishly off the mark, however. "
agreed. total nonsense.
But honestly......the next time I hear or see anybody ask me to feel sympathy for Michelle or her daughters after Hillary and Chelsea were treated so badly.....I will flat f'ing turn away.
Mary | 06.13.08 - 4:01 pm | #
Way to stick up for your fellow women!
...And when the Clintons started that shit I expected you'd shout holy hell about it, just as you would if the goopers or FUX news did it.
But strangely, from the liberal blogosphere as a whole, crickets...
Well, just a few places (cough MyDD, cough TalkLeft, slight cough The Left Coaster)
But as much as African-Americans supported and liked Bill Clinton, let's not forget in his first Presidential campaign he showed his white bonafides by overseeing the execution of mentally-retarded Ray Rector (three guess as to what color he was), and of course, we have him to thank for "Sister Souljah" being part of our political vocabulary. Next to that, 'hard working white Americans' is almost nothing. But then, Hillary didn't get to the general election campaign, so who knows what we might have seen?
I'm sorry, I forgot it was Obama playing the race card against the Clintons! How dare African-Americans fall for the twisted lies of that radical "God Damn America" Black Muslim! (/snark)
For the sake of Hillary Clinton's future reelection prospects, she'd better hope African-Americans are more willing to forgive Bill and her for their perceived racialist remarks during this campaign than Clinton supporters are of Obama's purported sexism.
"But as much as African-Americans supported and liked Bill Clinton, let's not forget in his first Presidential campaign he showed his white bonafides by overseeing the execution of mentally-retarded Ray Rector (three guess as to what color he was), and of course, we have him to thank for "Sister Souljah" being part of our political vocabulary. "
Let's be clear: ricky rector wasn't 'retarded' at the time he committed his crime, and was convicted by jury, so I cut Bill some slack on that. But in retrospect, Bill did know how to reassure the Bubas that he wasn't one of them 'welfare lovin' liberals.(and all that suggests)
Yes, there was a lot of silence. A disappointing amount, from a lot of people that I used to respect much more for being clear-eyed and honest, and willing to comment on just about every type of dog whistle politics. People that know it and can recognize it, strangely silent.
There is pronounced and persistent misogyny in this country. It's really as simple as that. The vast majority of men (including Dems) seem to be infected to varying degrees, and even a fair few women (usually those leaning far right).
On the contrary, Joe Chi.
Barak Obama better hope he hasn't offended every single woman , blue collar worker, or "Appalachian" in the country with his bitter, clinging, hillbilly remarks.
And Jim Clyburn better hope he hasn't turned the previously NOT racist white Democrats competely against affirmative action of any kind, or turned back race relations for 30 years, by trashing Bill Clinton.
Best get a grip, Joe.
More bullying isn't gonna fix this mess. And those who think it does, HARM Obama's chances even more.
Think about that, hot shot.
Single-payer, when it happens is going to require immense political capital and public will (for it to absorb the loss of millions of jobs, to be frank).
Loss of millions of jobs which don't have anything to do with actually delivering health care, sure.
As for health care jobs, expect for them to boom. The USA ranks 14th in terms of registered nurses per capita globally. The USA ranks 52nd in terms of physicians per capita. You will find similar disparities down the line in fields like physical therapy, respiratory therapy, radiologic technicians, and what have you.
Much of the reason why health care is so wildly costly here is that strenuous measures have been taken to restrict the supply of health care professionals. Note that some of the worst offenders in this regard have been the professionals themselves. MDs don't want more medical schools to open.
--
What to do about this sexism? Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and Democratic candidates should pledge to respond to complaints about sexism directed at any candidate to the news organizations involved (and that includes the blogs, frankly).
There should be people in the Democratic National Committee hired to deal with this (and the same goes for racism). If there's a consistent and flagrant pattern of behavior and that behavior doesn't change, then candidates and the party should simply refuse to interact with those news organizations. It's like the earlier boycott of Fox News. They should boycott them, in other words.
After all, these news organizations depend on coverage of the candidates for their ratings and readership. (It would be nice if this policy would extend to those who consistently ignore the issues involved in this election and focus on irrelevant personal details, but that's probably asking too much.)
This will only work if it's a united front, however, and if it's a united front that is maintained.
Digby, you could start such an effort.
You people who keep insisting that Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of sexism are MISSING THE POINT.
You keep creating the same tired straw-woman over and over and over.
Digby's post is not saying "Clinton lost because of sexism." She is saying: "There was sexism in the primary; I saw it; and it was hateful and wrong."
How do you people translate that to "Poor Hillary, those sexist meanies made her lose the primary"? Do you READ, or just post your knee-jerk responses?
Furthermore, you talk about her loss as though it were some huge, humiliating, landslide loss. She had 18 million votes, give or take. Almost exactly as many as Obama.
And did you GET A LOAD OF the photograph accompanying the NYT article? A headless Hillary Clinton, and a close-up of her breasts.
Nope. No sexism there. No slighting of a U.S. Senator, no casual disregard for women. Just a fair, unbiased story about how Hillary Clinton's supporters claim she was subjected to sexism and misogyny.
She was. If she had ten votes to Obama's kabillion, that does not change the fact that she was subject to sexism and misogyny.
I'm so tired of this.
Sue - You are a liar. Give me one example of Obama "label(ing) any criticism of (him) as being racist" or "painting a broad swath of Hillary supporters as racists for not adoring (him)."
You can't, because those statements about Obama are baldfaced lies.
Why are you lying about Obama, Sue?
If the rightwig media are going to
attack Obams's wife they should
think twice.Because Cindy McCain
can be a hellive a target.A record
of a 3 year drug addict stealing
money from a organisation she ran
in LA.On her record alone she would
not qualify clearence to live in the
White House.
Hillary Clinton lost because she was "politically savvy" enough to think that kissing rightwing ass was just the thing to do, to relieve her of the "librul" stigma. She thought that she could trade the progressive supporters who were her natural constituents, for the peckerhead vote.
Which is why she got hammered in EVERY straw vote taken by progressive organizations and blogs. The progressives and moderate democrats in Iowa were the first ones to help Obama start the process of derailling the coronation express. And he took it from there.
Not a single post on here; not ONE, has talked about her record of support for bush's vanity war.
Not ONE comment about her statement praising McCain as good commander in chief material.
Nothing about her schmoozing with Murdoch and Scaife.
Not a breath about her support for Keil-Lieberman, and for the flag-burning amendment.
Nothing about her applauding enthusiastically for bush's last koolaid dispensing at his SOTU last January, when Obama had the decency to sit stonefaced, which is what EVERY human being in that damn chamber should have done.
And, of course, nothing from the republican-lite bunker about her saying she needed to stay in, in case political assassination reared it's ugly head again.
One. More. Time.
She didn't lose the nomination because she was a woman; she lost it because the democratic voters know yet another unprincipled political hack of a chameleon when they see one.
Call your next case.
Not only what and how they covered Hillary, but what they didn't cover.
And, after she won three states by landslides late in the game, they still were portraying her as a loser. Move on, there is nothing to see here... but look over there, Obama smiled ooooooh.
I haven't taken the time to read the comments thread but I'd just like to say, as a middle-aged white male that yes. yes, yes, absolutely Hillary Clinton received alot of sexist media coverage in this race.
Absolutely.
Shrill or not, I'm glad for Keith Olbermann's relatively liberal and partisan voice on TV. But this quote is completely off base:
"... the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism."
It's not nonsense. She was. Keith struck out on that. If he'd confined his remarks to the question of whether sexism, racism, or anti-liberal corporatism had been the stronger force then he'd have been on firmer ground. But Senator Clinton did endure sexist treatment by many in television, the print media and blogs.
Personally, I credit Obama and Clinton both as superior politicians, but Obama does not have the Iraq albatross hanging around his neck. That more than sexism would be the major reason I'd give to his win. But whether it was the prime reason for her loss or not I just don't see how you can look at media coverage of Senator Clinton and miss the load of sexist crap that was heaped upon her.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama used race as a weapon and as an excuse. The old white ladies who didn't vote for him were closet racists, a.k.a. the Bradley effect. Hillary's tears were racist. The whole group of comments in his South Carolina memo calling the Clintons racists were aimed to cook up hysteria over absolutely nothing. The hoodwinked/bamboozled ole okie dokie was more racialized talk, used for cynical purposes. He dragged out Geralidine Ferraro's comments in the 12th paragraph of an obscure newspaper just in time for Rev. Wright, to say see, she does it too. Mr. Obama got down in the slime and the muck, on an issue that is full of danger and risk of backlash, and he did it for his own self-aggrandizement.
Obama stood silent in the face of the endless brutality towards Hillary on the TV -- the article left out so many of my personal favorites (for example, why doesn't somebody take her to the vet and put her to sleep) -- there are so many more. Obama should have spoken up not because he's a magic negro but because he's a human being who purports to be a leader.
As for whether the brutality was just about this woman: Would it be O.K., if there was one particular black person who the TV didn't like, if that person was called the N word? If not, then it's not O.K. for there to be a calm discussion on CNN on whether it's O.K. to call Hillary the B word, because you know, after all she is one.
So now Obama may be the victim of smears and he wants all of us to be outraged, when he showed no moral courage at all when smears benefited him. I'm with Mary in that my first impulse is turn around is fair play, but remembering those better angels, I'll say no, that's not right, we should all be better humans than Mr. Obama.
Oh boy, here goes another Clinton-Obama rantfest. Christ.
Sexism and racism are serious cultural problems we face. I hope everyone can agree to that. And we should all be having a reasoned conversation about their respective origins, manifestations and effects. AND we should should hold our public figures accountable when they cross certain lines. But, holy crap people, Your Preferred Candidate and Candidate's Surrogates are not innocent. We all knew this bigoted crap could come from the authoritarian right, but we now see pockets of the left spewing it as well. This is culture wide, some may even suggest species-wide, and Your Preferred Candidate was capitalizing on dog-whistle politics in order to eke out an edge in a tight primary race between two historic candidates for president of a country mired in the divisive identity politics of George W. Bush's "leadership."
Digby, as usual, is spot-on here. And anyone with an equally measured observation of the growing racist muck will also be spot-on. The country needs these conversations. But the problem is not Clinton or Obama exclusively; rather, it's the culture that allows federal candidates to rationally (politically speaking) use them as bait. This country has been working for a long time on these problems. Perhaps this will be a step that gives the American left yet another reason to be introspective, and hopefully to improve upon itself.
Obama told AIPAC he supported Kyle Lieberman - after (I think) he didn't show up for the vote.
Obama gave a speech in the Senate supporting Hillary's flag burning amendment -- the purpose was to prevent something worse.
And anyone who thinks Hillary was calling for or wishing for Obama's assassination has to hate her to begin with -- and Obama's pushing that to all the press people was obscene.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama used race as a weapon and as an excuse. The old white ladies who didn't vote for him were closet racists, a.k.a. the Bradley effect. Hillary's tears were racist.
Good god, you are such a liar. Obama never said either of those things.
What is it about the Hillary supporters here? Why do they have this constant need to make up lie after lie about Obama? There's something genuinely creepy about the pathology here.
"Has there ever been a case where the media admitted they made a mistake?"
Of course there has. The more important question is has making and acknowledging mistakes ever changed the way they do business?
Jesse Jackson Jr. Obama's campaign co-chair made his comments without express permission of his boss? The race-baiting memo in South Carolina was done without the boss's express approval? He admitted it was his in a debate. Geraldine Ferraro dredged up from obscurity without any direction from the top? Good God you're naive!
Here's one the man said himself, about the bitter clingy people: "They're not going to vote for a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama." They're not voting for me because they're racist. And how about all that bamboozling and hoodwinking--from the man's mouth himself. You think his surrogates on TV talking about redneck racists voting for Hillary didn't get their talking points from the campaign? Geesh.
And he knows what's wrong with that talk--he said so himself in relation to Rev. Wright's racial talk: It gives license to people who pray on hate. Yet he did it anyway, because he learned early in life (apparently he said so in his book) that calling people racists could work wonders.
Digby:
Enough sitting shiva for the Clinton campaign.
It's divisive, unnecessary and not interesting to those of us -- a majority of Democrats and a large majority of progressives -- who thought Clinton deserved to lose on the merits.
Hillary Clinton ran a dirty, race-baiting campaign, constantly broadcasting sleazy innuendoes about Obama's patriotism, race and religion.
Despite a campaign that any Democrat should have been ashamed to run, she lost anyway. She's still one level above Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, but just barely.
Thank God she lost. Finally we'll have a president from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. It's about time.
His problems, such as they are, are with white men.
And whose fault is that? Which Democratic candidate structured her campaign around white men's racial resentment?
It was Hillary Clinton, abetted by the loyal support of bloggers like you, Digby, whose responses to her disgraceful campaign ranged from silence to outright apologetics.
Give it a rest. It seemed to most of us that you were in the tank for the Clinton campaign from day one.
It was a real disappointment. You spent years writing eloquent essays denouncing the bigotry of the GOP and their enablers among right-wing Democrats.
And yet, when you had a chance to walk your talk and call out the disgusting bigotry propagated by the Clinton campaign, you let it pass with an approving wink.
It'll be a long time before I, or any truly progressive Democrat, will trust you again.
But honestly......the next time I hear or see anybody ask me to feel sympathy for Michelle or her daughters after Hillary and Chelsea were treated so badly.....I will flat f'ing turn away.
Mary | 06.13.08 - 4:01 pm | #
Way to stick up for your fellow women!
Joe Chi | 06.13.08 - 9:06 pm | #
I guess sisterhood is powerful -- as long as the "sisterhood" includes only white women.
Black women need not apply to Mary's "feminist" movement.
Here's one the man said himself, about the bitter clingy people: "They're not going to vote for a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama."
He never said that, either. More lies.
I seriously think you people need professional help. Your hatred of Obama has become all-consuming that even basic standards of honesty and decency are thrown out the window in pursuit of your vendetta against him.
Btw, here is the actual quote from Obama, for those people who care about little things like the truth:
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by — it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism."
Nowhere does he say that people aren't going to vote for him because he's black. He's talking about overcoming skepticism and winning votes based on the message.
And here's the entire quote, in context:
"OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing. Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter)."
Obama was specifically saying that these voters aren't racists. Not that that will matter to the to the people around here blinded by their hate, of course.
I know it's pretty late in the thread for this type of comment, but this post eptiomizes why I dig Digby, man (snaps fingers, hipster style).
I'm no girl (or even a girly-man). I was just raised in Texas during the 50s, 60s and 70s watching my now departed mother having to outwork the good old boys at a major hospital supply corporation by a factor of 10 for roughly two-thirds the pay. Not a lot complaining from her, not her style, but I remember a lot of teeth grinding.
So, I get this abiding and deep satisfaction whenever Digby steps back and kicks these gasbags squarely in the crotch. Ballbuster? These are the same media assholes that have always pissed on our legs and told us it was raining. Bust those fuckin' balls.
BTW, Jon Stewart had a pretty good week kicking the living shit out of the media as well.
"Let's be clear: ricky rector wasn't 'retarded' at the time he committed his crime, and was convicted by jury, so I cut Bill some slack on that. But in retrospect, Bill did know how to reassure the Bubas that he wasn't one of them 'welfare lovin' liberals.(and all that suggests)"
Rector's I.Q. was considered to be in the developmentally disabled range. He also shot himself in the head after committing his crime, which rendered him brain damaged. Rector was so out of it as result of his self-inflicted wound to his head that he saved some of his dessert from his last meal so that he could finish it later. What Clinton allowed to be done to Rector was immoral and unethical. If Bill Clinton was the first black president then God is a opossum.
P.S. I just noticed that someone upbraided Digby for using the "WTF" shorthand. Which reminds me, If anyone sees my mother on the flip side or something like that, don't tell her I cussed on the internets, or I'll get into trouble, too (especially for the F word).
If Bill Clinton was the first black president then God is a opossum.
Would you please get God out of the back garden? The summer harvest is half ruined already.
--
Obviously late to the thread. First time poster, part time reader. This is one of the most difficult and complicated issues with Hillary Clinton because there is really nothing else to compare her candidacy to. Obama may be black, but he is also a man. So lots of other candidacies to campare him to . And he is a "liberal" as well. Clinton is a female, but ran both stylistically and tactically as "tougher", "stronger", more commander-in-chief, than her male opponent. The real irony here is that in terms of the candidates and their the narratives they put out there, Obama ran more on values traditionally associated with being female: end a war, dialogue, nuance, listen to your enemies, etc. Clinton ran a more as a "toughie": ready on day one, passes the commander in chief threshold, 3am call, "shame on you barack obama" on bitter-gate. Obama got (and will continue to get) the label of effete, sensitive, not tough enough.
Clinton took a calculated risk with her Iraq War vote, IMO. As a female and a democrat with presidential ambitions, she did not want to be portrayed as weak on national security. This vote, more than anything else, left open the possibility of a challenger and defined the early part of the campaign. Clinton's narrative of being tough on national security, being experienced, etc., ran contra to the claims of sexism, or even, to be honest, of her claim as being a feminist (in political terms). I think there was discordance here in terms of message contradiction. This country, in my opinion, has a very strong misogynist strain. In many ways, it would rather a women be pretty and pleasing, than anything else. This is true in absolutely every aspect of professional life for a woman (except perhaps the sciences or math or coompooters). It is true in almost every aspect of advertising as well. Hillary Clinton is not the first woman to have to deal with this very real, and very pervasive cultural issue. But ultimately, except for overt isolated yet egregious incidents (which should be routinely pointed out in order to raise awareness) her candidacy was treated with kid gloves on issues like staying in a race with no mathematical chance of winning, running a republican campaign as a demo, and dividing her base. The media incidents are shocking because of their unabashed openness -- and this is a real problem and should be highlighted in the media. Yet, Hillary Clinton, while not the nominee, came out of this race as one of the most powerful politician in the US. Like I say, this is a complicated issue with Hillary Clinton.
The whole backlash against Hilary Clinton was part of a larger pattern to paint Democrats in a derogatory fashion. That she was female was handy because making "nutcracker" jokes is acceptable discourse to the halfwitted punditry class.
The press would never, ever, treat, say, Libby Dole or Christie Todd Whitman or Condi Rice like that. Never.
(I always thought our first female president would be a Republican.)
But if there is any form of bigotry that is more accepted in public discourse than misogyny, it is anti-Muslim sentiment. Indeed, to the right wing, even some forms of Christianity are hated.
So I think the "Obama is a Muslim" will be the preferred smear over the next few months.
I am a husband, and a father of two twenty something women. I grew up in this sexist environment and still am disturbed by the ongoing [at times escalating] abuse. The younger generation [in their twenties] of men are in general not an improvement on my generation[I am fifty]. I had hoped that the higher number of women professionals and in supervisory positions in business would begin to have a positive impact on relations between men and women. I think I have seen more positive changes in my generation than in the younger.
People need to immediately and publicly point out when people are behaving [or saying] in a sexist manner. That goes for everything [race, religion, sexual preference, etc.].
Embarrassment is the most powerful weapon you have.
they let Clinton stay on well past the obvious moment of her defeat.
Who is "they"? And who gets to "let" anyone stay in a particular election?
Your arrogant privilege is showing.
I am very sorry that Michelle and her daughters will be called names and humiliated whenever possible. I am also very sorry that Hillary and Chelsea were, and continue to be, subjected to that for so many years.
The sad fact is that those Democrats who hate the Clintons - and there are reasons to dislike them - remained silent about misogyny during those years and permitted the press to establish a pattern of behavior toward women, particularly Democratic women. The press will continue to behave the same way with Democratic women. We all need to speak out, even if it is late in the game.
Why is it that the Obamas should have stood up to the sexism against Hillary?
Just why is that?
Because the Clintons did not defend Mr. Obama about the racism against him. Or the sexism against Michelle.
And people have to really look under a microscope and then spin it in a centrifuge to say Mr. Obama was 'sexist'.
Why didn't the Clinton campaign come out with statements against it, or set up their own web site to clarify the matter of sexism? (like Obamas anti-smear site)
Shano:
DEFENDED him against the racism???!!!
Hillary and Bill were whistling "Dixie" to the peckerheads like it was their last, best, chance to retrieve their lost tiara for her.
Which it was.
And which didn't work.
And she lost...because she and her "braintrust" like Wolfson and Penn and McCauliffe, etc. were brick-dumb enough to throw the progressive wing of the party under the bus while they went off on their ass-kissing mission for conservatives and republicans like Murdoch and Scaife.
And she also lost because about the same time in 2002 that Obama had the political courage and intelligence to speak out against the war, Hillary Clinton was voting to authorize it.
You saw what you wanted to see. And what you wanted to see was every criticism of your heroine as a baseless, sexist attack. Over and over, I see the exact same incidents cited and most of them aren't sexist at all.
For example, it is not sexist to compare a hectoring woman to an ex-wife outside of probate court any more than it's sexist to compare a ranting man (like former basketball coach Bobby Knight) to a drill sergeant. Whether it's an accurate description is another matter.
Moreover, Clinton benefited from the fact that the male candidates were much more circumspect in their criticism of her than they were about criticizing each other of than she was in her criticism of them.
She voted for the war and refused to admit her vote was a mistake, yet was rarely called out for her arrogance. She took more money from federal lobbyists than any other candidate, including McCain, and yet that was a non-story.
On those two issues that is vastly different treatment than a man would have gotten. The size of John Edwards' house was a bigger story. And speaking of Edwards, his haircut got more press than all of the stories about Cinton's appearance combined.
Oh, and she said the race would be over in February but then complained about how everyone was trying to disenfranchise voters by pushing her out of the race before every state had voted, yet no one took her in the media took her to task for that hypocrisy.
So any double-standard she faced helped her as well as hurt her. But some Clinton supporters would rather complain about sexism than face the reality that she was a deeply flawed candidate with a poor campaign strategy.
To the ironically named jen flowers:
The sad fact is that those Democrats who hate the Clintons - and there are reasons to dislike them - remained silent about misogyny during those years and permitted the press to establish a pattern of behavior toward women, particularly Democratic women.
Hillary Clinton has remained silent about her husband's misogyny throughout her marriage and up until this day.
I agree that there was sexism against Hillary. but what I do not agree with is saying that Hillary was the only one singled out for poor and disrespectful treatment by the media. And that everyone, even the Dem candidate she was disrespectful to herself, should have jumped to her defense.
(The single worst slam all primary season in any party was Hillary Clinton praising John McCain over her fellow Democratic challenger. This is something that is going to be looped over and over by the Republicans, it was a huge political blunder on Mrs. Clintons part. And much worse than the petty sorts of sexism the Hillary supporters cry about.
I do not ever remember this happening in any presidential campaign-The Democrat praising the Republican over their fellow Dem? Incredible! Shocking, unethical, and highly damaging to the Democratic Party. Hillary has had to back pedal on this point- by saying over and over that Obamas differences to her pale in comparison to McCain, but the damage is done)
Both Obama and Clinton had unfair and ridiculous coverage at times.
What I think is anti-feminist is the meme that Hillary took the brunt of this, that she was the only target, that it was her alone who had to stand up to our corporate media. No, Both candidates were treated unfairly, not just Clinton.
This meme is the reason that Hillary supporters are so furious, because they cannot see that Obama was subject to the same treatment. This has been blown up into the false story and implication that the primary was somehow 'stolen' from Hillary, that the race was 'close', that Obama got an advantage from the media, that the race was 'unfair' because of sexism.
Because of this some segments of Clinton supporters are still denigrating and slandering the Democratic nominee, threatening to vote for McCain, and implying that Hillary does not 'really' support Mr. Obama.
"Hillary Clinton has remained silent about her husband's misogyny throughout her marriage and up until this day."
Ouch. That's gonna leave a bruise.
:o)
Thank you, Digby! My sentiments EXACTLY.
Everyone who wants to lecture about "why Clinton lost" is missing the point.
We are progressives, right? Why is it so hard to stand on the principle that MISOGYNY IS WRONG, and we are above it?
expatjourno -- "sexism" -- I do not think that word means what you think it means.
shano -- Obama was NOT, by ANY measure, subjected to the same treatment Hillary Clinton was. Major news media outlets were not calling him pejorative names that apply ONLY to people of color, or giggling over the racist equivalent of a Hillary nutcracker, or claiming that his voice sounded like some kind of racist stereotype. If you cannot admit that Hillary Clinton was subjected to unbridled, unfair, egregious, outrageous sexism and misogyny the likes of which NO other politician has seen, you are lying to yourself.
None of what I said has ANYTHING to do with whether Obama was subjected to racism. Of course he was, and by the Clinton campaign, to add insult to injury. That does NOT CHANGE THE FACT that the hatred Hillary Clinton faced for BEING A WOMAN was there, and it was real.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Perhaps Obama will be subjected to equal amounts of racist hatred (I've already seen examples), but I bet it won't be from his supposed allies on the left -- dKos, Olbermann, TPM, etc. And when the racism comes thick and fast, people on the left -- including those much-hated Hillary Clinton supporters -- will be decrying it. Those who don't are, like people who refuse to see and challenge sexism, part of the solutionn rather than part of the problem.
expatjourno,
I think you are confusing Jen with Gennifer.
Bill may well be a sexist, but he isn't a misogynist. Hatred isn't the issue. Respect is.
I do find it interesting that the fact that Obama has experienced racism (and has his entire life) somehow negates the fact that H Clinton has experienced sexism (and has her entire life). This, contrary to some of the posters above, is not a pissing contest. Both sexism and racism are awful blights on our nation and we should all fight both of them. Having
arguments about which is worse is pointless.
It is patently clear from this primary season that 'progressive' men are just as sexist as right-wingers. There is absolutely no difference. They've seen what's happened, and they've not only not spoken out, they've reveled in it. The lefty blogs are like porno frat boy websites now.
Who cares now if McCain supposedly called his wife the c-word? Women have heard that word and much worse aimed at Hillary and her supporters BY DEMOCRATS ON LEFTY BLOGS AND MSM! There is no longer even the pretense of a moral highground for democrats on women's issues. Just look at this thread. Disgusting. They WILL NOT ADMIT IT EVER, Digby.
And, yes, Obama would have looked like a true progressive leader if he had stood up and said "This has to stop. This kind of sexism has no place in the Democratic Party." He chose not to. And lots of women won't forget that.
I challenge any Obama supporter to show an instance of overt racism from the media during this campaign. It didn't happen. But we drowned in sexism and now we are busy denying it. Truly pathetic.
I challenge any Obama supporter to show an instance of overt racism from the media during this campaign. It didn't happen.
Yes - because the racism came from Hillary herself.
"Hard working Americans, white Americans."
Yes indeedy, "Reality". :o)
As one of the sexist progressive men (and women...:o) )who expressed our "misogyny" for her support for Bush's bloody fucking-of-the-cluster, and for her truckling with Murdoch and Scaife, and for all those winger votes, and for her enthusiastic applause for bush's last koolaid pimping, and for her I- need-to-stay-in,-in-case-there's-someone-who-
wants-to-vote-with-a-telescopic-rifle moment in Sioux Falls, let me tell you how PROUD i am to have had a little something to do with helping Barack Obama send her back to the U.S.Senate. :o)
Have you noticed all the kind things that John McCain is saying about her? It's only fair, after she vetted him as a good commander-in-chief. :o)
BTW, if she was deserving of your support, and if she was such the darling of half of the democratic voters, why is it that when she finally bailed, she was $30 million dollars in debt?
Why were you, and the rest of her triangulators, such tightasses that she had to loan herself $11 million dollars to keep pursuing the votes of "hardworking white americans"?
The superdelegates took one look at that situation and asked themselves:
"And we're supposed to hitch the party wagon to THAT mule?"
We dodged a hell of a bullet when Obama pulled in the delegates to force her out. She was the only lifeboat the republicans had in this election. Sinking her was a pure delight. :o)
Hey! Here's a thought: If she really wants to be the veep that bad, let her snake Joe Lieberman, and grab the GOP second spot for herself. What could be more appropriate? :o)
Note that on the subsection of the poll which shows Obama not doing as well with "white suburban women" as Hillary, someone pointed out that the whole poll is 1000 people, so the subset that constitutes "white suburban women is at most a few hundred, so the margin of error on that part of the poll is much higher than 3%.
Where was Hillary Clintons innovative speech on this subject?
Obama had to give a speech on race relations in America.
Why didn't Hillary made a major speech and statement on the misogyny and sexism in America?
Yea, Hillary and her supporters can complain about the very real phenomenon of sexism, but why did she not meet this problem head on?
Write and give a speech on this subject for the women of America, Hillary. That would show some leadership.
Sitting around and complaining about it does not help all that much. Crying foul after the fact never really addresses the problem in a meaningful way.
What a pathetic, dishonest comment. You know as well as I do that if Hillary had tried to talk about the sexism, she would have been even further attacked - "victim", "whiner", "evil bitch trying to silence the media". That's how the sexism game is played - it's a trap.
The ONE time she finally said something was after Shuster's comment about Chelsea and all hell broke loose with the Obama blogs and MSNBC.
Pathetic and disingenuous BS.
I dont think so, if Hillary managed to give a confident, factual and powerful speech on the issue.
The problem with complaining about it after the fact is you tend to look like a 'vicitm' and a 'whiner' trying to blame the media and everyone else.
Then that gets tangled up with blaming 'sexism' as a reason for Hillarys loss in the primary. Not so, but, thats what happened because it was not met head on and forcefully by the Clinton campaign and Hillary herself.
Why should she not have raised even more hell about it? She should have raised hell about it!
She should STILL give this speech.
Total BS. She did say something about it once or twice and the attacks were tripled immediately. It just doesn't work that way.
It's exactly what happens to women in the workforce who dare to speak out against sexism. They are villified and punished and silenced.
If Hillary had given a speech on sexism, it would have been her death knell much earlier. Olbermann and Kos would have led the charge too.
Because when Mr. Obama gave his historic speech on race in America it caused his 'death knell', right?
Believe me, I have be a target of sexism and pay discrimination. the best way to deal with it is to call it out on the spot.
I usually tried to do this with a sense of humor. And I had to quit a couple of jobs (I was a licensed professional athlete competing with men in horseracing as a female jockey).
But the best tactic for me, then and now, is to say something-right away. Dont just let it slide and then complain about it later. Makes you look like a wimp, and with the passage of time they can deny it went down the way it did. It took me a while to learn this-and I learned the hard way.
Hillary should have called it out herself. Right then and there. She should have called out Bill, too, for his 'picking on a girl' statement. ( I know my husband meant well, but I can take it like every other candidate, as long as the attack is on the issues, not my gender)
Address it in a professional manner, with some humor, but seriously and immediately.
I dont think Hillary made any good efforts to address sexism, still hasn't.
I live in lower Tuscarawas County Ohio. I'm a woman and recently lost my factory job due to illness. With those qualifiers in mind, I call bullshit here:
Barak Obama better hope he hasn't offended every single woman , blue collar worker, or "Appalachian" in the country with his bitter, clinging, hillbilly remarks.
He didn't call us "hillbilly". When he said that people in Ohio have lost hope in the government because we have been basically beat down by NAFTA (job loss in Ohio: Google it) he was right. I live here. I know first hand.
Just because we do live in the Appalachian region doesn't make us illiterate, deaf, or just simply stupid. You can spin it any way you want to, but your statement is offensive to me and, quite possibly, many other working class Appalachian women.
"Hillbilly" indeed.
I should qualify my last comment.
I am not so deeply offended by the term "hillbilly". However, I feel that Mary attributed that stereotypical term to us because Sen. Obama mentioned that folks in Ohio and Pennsylvania "cling" to religion and guns, which must make us typical "hill" folk. Nevermind that many of us are educated, can read, and are able to make up our own minds with regard to the issues.
I felt that both candidates were full of shit when they spoke here regarding NAFTA (where it's not working), but went on to praise it in southern Texas (where it is working).
So, Reality; can you and the rest of the misogynistas scrape up $30 million, so Obama won't have to use a dime of the money I sent him, to cover her campaign-debt ass?
55 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
