Was this reposted and the previous thread deleted as censorship?

I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly seems suspicious to me. An explanation would be nice.

******

Now that you've mentioned it, I'm going to sit down with Andrew and give it another look and try to see if we can get to the bottom of what happened. But I assure you, no one on the staff has ever knowingly taken down a Coffee House post, though we occasionally take down individually comments for violating the TOS -- foul language, hate speech, etc. In any case, we'll give it a look and report back. All I would ask is that on these various different grounds, I'd ask people at least assume things are errors until we have a chance to answer/explain. Most of the issues like this are either misunderstandings or problems caused by our staff being stretched thin. Josh

Posted by Josh Marshall
June 6, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

Is it OK if white and black men stand up for her too? Or are only white women allowed?

Why do I feel that this is a continuation of a fight that for all intents and purposes has ended?

I have no idea what stand "feminists" (re: Hillary supporters?) will take on the smearing of Michele Obama. But I am hoping (and expecting) everyone on the left (and center) will stand together behind Barack Obama and denounce the baseless attacks on him and Michele.

Well said. All you need to be is a fair human being to "denouce and reject" such things.

Theda,
Can you provide some examples of these profoundly sexist attacks?

And can you also provide some examples of your rallying a defense of Hillary when she faced profoundly sexist attacks? Or is sexism only wrong and noteworthy when it is done to the wife of your chosen candidate?

If you read the comments section at talkelft they were all about defending Hillary and now they are all about bashing Michelle Obama. I guess racism trumps feminism for at least some Hillary supporters.

Will 50,000 little brown balls stand up for Quiet Riot?

This is an incredibly stupid genderist, racist post and thread.

Just as celebrities have no right to privacy when they're out in public, Hillary has no right to play the sexism card when she's running for office. She's not a woman. She's a politician. If she can't fight her own fights on the merits, she deserves to lose. If there were sexist remarks made during the campaign, she should have addressed them--one by one, and when they happened. The reason she didn't is because she's a fucking phony and a whiner. You don't wait until you've lost and then complain about it. You fight to win. Hillary's biggest problem is that she thinks being a woman makes her special. Nobody's special. Not even Queen Fucking Hillary.

I oppose this on all women...Michelle Obama is not running for President. Let's get to the issues - there are more important things to be concerned about...which will effect our children's children.

Once again your logic is flawed....

She should have gotten out of the way because the math showed it was impossible for her to capture the nomination. No one called for Huckabee to step aside because he was running a rosey-sunshine love fest and refused to say anything bad against McCain. Hillary, on the other hand threw nasty garbage long after it was obvious she could not win the nomination. She attempted to damage the presumptive nominee of the democratic party and damage the chances for democrats in the fall. THAT is why people called for her to step aside....not because she was a woman.

She's a bitch. Get over it. Own it. Embrace it. The press pussy-footed around her for so logn BECAUSE she was a woman. Do you think anyone would have tolerated her disgusting "show" on the final night of primaries if she wasn't a woman? Would a man's campaign have issued a statement "oh we just need time". Bullshit. A man would have been expected to concede on Tuesday and recognize the historic context of Obama's victory.

There's another..... her tacky speech the final night of the primaries was EXTREMELY bitchy. Oh wait....saying that McCain had reached the CIC threshold but Obama hadn't was bitchy too. If you behave in a bitchy fashion...that makes you a what? A bitch.

And don't tell me her attacks on Obama weren't damaging. I saw the Republican press realease yesterday detailing Obama's social security plans using Hillary's words against him.

She's a bitch. Karl Rove is prick. Mark Penn is an asshole. See? All of these words apply because of the behaviors of these people.

It's not sexism. Hillary can't be a dick....as she doesn't have one. She also can't be a penis model, or a male gay porn star. She can, however, be a bitch. And she is.

Fzirst of all, Ted kennedy was an asshole in 1980 and should have graciously stepped aside. It is one of the reasons Carter lost so badly. Kennedy was a poor loser and a dick in 1980. The democrats did not want a repeat of that nightmare....and they would have stepped in if Clinton had been a man OR a woman.

Second of all, I can defend Michelle Obama all I want. For I have not seen a single behavior of Michelle's that could be described as bitchy. One must act bitchy to be a bitch. Hillary Clinton has, on many instances, acted in a bitchy manner. I have cited them before. What is someone who bahaves in a bitchy manner? A bitch.

Unbelievable? What is unbelievable is anyone whom says Hillary lost for any reason other than the fact she ran the shittiest campaign a major contender has run in American history. She should have won. She could have won. But she and her team made tactical mistake after tactical mistake and practically begged for another contender to step in and take the nimination. That is NOT about sexism. That is about the failure of a campaign. If you continue to point the finger of gender bias...you're going to force people to draw some conclusions you might not like. Perhaps the problem is that because Hillary was a woman, she was at a disadvantage from the start. Women are over emotional, indecisive, and unable to keep focus. I can see certain people using those adjectives to describe the failed Clinton campaign. If you want to point the finger about gender and sexism someone might point back.

Do I think she lost because of those reasons? hell no. She was a candidate, just like any other candidate. She made some terrible decisions and blew her clear advantage.

By screaming sexism and pointing fingers, you do nothing but diminish her accomplishments. In fact you strip away any dignity she has. Hillary Clinton was a candidate who wanted to be treated like any other candidate....and she was. Crying sexism is a farce and makes you look like a poor loser.

It wasn't sexism. It was a flawed campaign that was marked with terrible strategic errors.

Can you admit that? can you actually face the reality that it is no one's fault but Hillary's that she is not the nominee today?

Until you do, your posts come off as some sort of sad fairy tale. "She was robbed! She was mistreated!" I call bullshit.

You have me so pissed off by your short-sightedness....I can barely type!

dijamo,

It truly is not helpful for you to continue telling folks -- Democrats -- that they have "no moral authority." So, the entire DNC has "no moral authority"? Since YOU think Democrats didn't speak out against the sexism you saw, now we have no right to speak out against sexism? C'mon your generalizations and accusations are a bit over the top. I guess you're the only around here who has "moral authority."

I saw sexism, racism, xenophobia, classism and religious bigotry throughout this campaign. Now we're seeing agesim--your "jazzy" blog is a good example of that. (Oh, McCain's a Republican so it's okay to be ageistic?) From my perspective, no one in the DNC spoke out on behalf of either candidate when they were being pummeled. Their surrogates at various times attempted to defend and explain, but my sense was that both candidates were left to their own devices and although it bothered me at first, in retrospect I think it made sense to allow the candidates to show their mettle and watch how they handled certain lines of attack.

The only other thing I would add is that for people like me, who never wanted Hillary to run to begin with because I had problems with the Clintons (for lots of reason) it's been very challenging to tease out what negativity has been directed toward Hillary because she is a woman and what has been about her as a Clinton.

On another thread about sexism, I wondered out loud whether something was wrong with me that as a woman--a progressive, conscious woman who has actually done anti-sexism work, I was having a hard time seeing the onslaught of sexism toward Hillary, especially the level of it that allegedly caused her to lose the primary. Considering she was the front runner for 7 years and considering that the media told other Democratic candidates to not even try to beat her because she was a shoe-in, it's hard to see how it was sexism that prevented her coronation.

I certainly can acknowledge the sexism in the media and some derogatory gendered language used on blogs to describe her, but I still contend that it wasn't any worse then the derogatory racist language that was used to describe Obama. I do think that racist language can be more subtle and harder to discern but it was there and remains there.

What I find really problematic about all this is that some women are really leading with this charge of sexism to explain Hillary's loss which subverts the other, perhaps more potent reasons that cost her the primary. It's one thing to say sexism exists, but to suggest that there aren't other legitimate reasons undermines our ability for a full analysis. If we want another woman to run for the presidency, we should examine ALL the reasons equally instead of emphasizing one while ignoring the others. It seems self-defeating to me.

One last point.

If white feminists or black feminists or white non-feminists or brown semi-feminists or any color or combination of the above care to fight sexism or racism or ageism or whateverism in the media, they should most definitely do so. Whatever you believe is right. But please, let's not make this about Hillary, alright? She got her money's worth. She said herself that the nasty part of campaigning was the "fun part." So let's stow the temporary situationally-righteous indignation and deal with reality, OK? The media has been completely egalitarian in their stupidity and bias. No one's getting a raw deal, and no one is getting an unfair break. The media's contempt for us and for our intelligence knows no bias. They hate us all.

So when you're out there fighting for justice, don't forget to fight for fair treatment for obese people and guys who are going bald and kids with thick glasses and bad golfers and women with bad fashion sense and people who are lousy parents and people who drink beer and live in trailers and Italians and Latinos and gays and lesbians and penny pinchers and the filthy rich and on and on and on. Because they all get picked on, and it's all just so unfair that it makes me want to cry sometimes. So fight for them all. And when you've finally defeated your last whateverist, sit back, turn off your television, and cancel your subscription to the newspaper, secure in the knowledge that at that point the media will be so bland, sanitized and fucking boring that there will no longer be any reason to pay attention.

Thank you for your kind indulgence. Carry on...

This thread is a mess. People are all over the place. I will comment regarding Michelle Obama. I am a Senior feminist who voted in the California primary for Hillary and lived to regret my vote. Her campaign was scurrilous in my opinion, and the Bosnia lie and the racial comments along with some of the jerks that ran her campaign, changed my mind and I began to look at Obama more carefully. I always liked Michelle because to me she appears to be a strong person who has her own mind, and has a good sense of humor. I liked her right away. It is clear that she is getting the short end of the stick with those people who have a problem hearing things like the truth. Laura Bush defending her was interesting and good. People with racial bias are clearly going after her. People like George Will are real jerks, commenting all the time about their problems with her. That is hurtful and so unnecessary. She is not running for anything and should be off limits. Cindy McCain is much more questionable in her character, but Democrats tend not to shred individuals like Republicans do. Michelle Obama is going to be a great first lady and people in this country are going to be learning alot about what African Americans go through on a daily basis. I am sure the Obamas will transcend the nonsense, and Michelle deserves to be a well treated first lady considering the fact that she rarely sees her husband; she knows what a wonderful president he will be. In the end, we really owe a lot to her.

Rather than fight and use more problematic slurs among ourselves, it would be useful to look at the effects of sexist and racist media dog-whistling.

Yes, it's disrespectful to all women when the word "bitch" is publicly used to discuss HRC. This usage is not analogous to calling a man "asshole" or "dick." For one thing, these would not be allowed in mainstream network discourse. "Bitch" is technically allowed for the same reason it's so offensive: it's a term referring to animals. In fact, both "bitch" and "Obama's baby mama" are offensive because they reduce women to biological, animalistic functions.

The "baby mama" comment combines racism and sexism in an ugly new way. It's a kind of throwback to the days when racial stereotypes were commonly acceptable. When such terms are given free reign in the media, the intent is to diminish respect for the minority group. The Obama/Osama "mistake" was another rhetorical strategy designed to diminish and re-brand a public minority figure.

We'll see a lot of interesting new variations of old slurs in the next few months, and it doesn't matter how well we responded before. I was please to see that Fox news had to back down on "Obama baby mama" so quickly. Let's keep up the good work!

I'm amazed at the number of posts dedicated to answering a bitter poster obsessed with giving everyone here voter's remorse. If this person wants to be the online version of Maggie Williams, let her. Her side lost, and the recalcitrant on that side will always lament that loss with the same class (or lack thereof) as their idol. To paraphrase Malcolm Shabazz, chickens coming home to roost never make me sad, in fact, they do make me kind of glad.

Doubtful. She's been attacked all along and none of the players who complained about Sen. Clinton's treatment said anything. Prominent second wave feminists, in large part, ignored women of color to the point that women of color said fuck you and started their own shit. Don't expect second wavers to change now.

So far I haven't seen white feminists stand up to defend Michelle Obama in any kind of forceful way, and sadly this doesn't not surprise me. During the primary campaign I didn't see any feminists stand up to the racism being used against Obama, often by the Clintons themselves, and in fact I saw many diehard Clinton supporters, including many self-proclaimed feminists, use racially divisive comments themselves. Clearly there's a great deal of racism among the feminist movement, just as there is in all other parts of our society. Sad, but true.

What irks me particularly about Ferraro is that her criticism of Obama isn't even about sexism, but about his benefitting from some form of affirmative action - "country got caught up in the concept". It was incredulous for me that feminists like Gloria Steinem did not speak up against this blatant racism from one of their own.

Following Dijamo's logic, since no feminists spoke against racism targeted at Obama, the next time another feminist is attacked, she should not expect anyone to come to her defense.

Is that even sound logic???

Interesting question. As an Obama supporter, I've been sincerely impressed with the number and conviction of Clinton supporters now coming out for him. I hope we all do our best to combat the trash that will be coming in the month's ahead.

Someone over at the Huffington Post had a great idea. Everytime Fox makes a derogatory comment about the Obamas, we should donate to the Obama campaign and advise Fox that we've donated because of them. Only problem is that this requires watching Fox.

Dijamo is way off base here.

Though I will concede there were sexist remarks made by some members of the media, sexism did not permeate the race nor did it negatively impact HRC. Because of that, why the outrage? It had no discernible effect other than help HRC.

When you look at the exit polling, when gender was considered by voters, HRC won the demographic. On the other hand, when race was a consideration, HRC also won. Gender was a plus for HRC while racism negatively affected Obama's chances.

I think HRC used race in subtle ways, but she is not a racist. I gave Bill a pass for the fairytale comment as it was misconstrued. I do not give HRC a pass for the LBJ comment. What was the point of the comment? I do not give Bill a pass for the Jesse comment. Why would he even bring that up? All he had to say was "Hey, we lost. He ran a good campaign." When she blew him out in WV, BO did not make any comparisons to white candidates having a good track record in WV. He congratulated her and left it alone. When asked specifically whether the "bubba" vote just didnt want to vote for a black man, he said that HRC ran a good campaign and was better known.

My rule of thumb is whenever the Clintons make a superfluous comment, you know there was a sinister reason for it. They are the consummate politicians not trailblazing feminists.

A real feminist would not have appealed so blatantly to her gender to garner votes in the last contests. A real feminist would not have whined about sexism and how it was impeding her chances. Remember the South Dakota interview where she was saying that she found it "curious" why everyone wanted her out. She is a politician and was playing the game, not bemoaning sexism. That's why I think HRC supporters were hoodwinked into thinking she is Susan B. Anthony or something.

I liked her initial strategy where she was post-gender. Of course, she got desperate and abandoned it for "this is for all the little girls out there" and "women who always had to play second fiddle." And, of course, Bill's constant imagery of HRC being "beat up on" and treated "disrespectfully." I thought it made her less credible as a leader of men AND women.

It's a lame attempt because we do not have to be reminded of the obvious fact that she is a woman. BO did not pontificate about the historic nature of his campaign. It's already obvious. It was the job of the media to push those storylines, not the candidates themselves. I would have been higly disappointed if BO started having "Blacks for Barack" events the same way HRC had women-only rallies.

Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v download, hardware iscsi initiator