Will White Feminists Speak up for Michelle Obama?
For weeks now, we have been hearing from feminists that Hillary Clinton was badly treated in the primaries. Some arguments are overblown -- sexism is not why she lost -- but it has been valuable to raise the issues. Now, though, the issue is how another working mother is to be treated: Michelle Obama. The attacks gathering on her are scurrilous, profoundly sexist and racist. Will prominent white feminists and female pundits and officials -- including Congressional Republican women -- speak up forcefully against slurs on Michelle Obama? It will be a strong test of their good faith. Do they care about fairness to all women involved in public life, or are they just whining for Hillary or maneuvering for her voters?
Advertisement
Was this reposted and the previous thread deleted as censorship?
June 12, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
good question
June 12, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way to answer this question would be to look for cached versions of the previous post and provide us with evidence. I can only assume that few here clears there cache on a regular basis.
Otherwise into the silent night it goes.
June 15, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is right on point, an opportunity for these feminists to put their money where their mouth is - do you oppose this type of attack on all women, or just Hillary?
June 12, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't defend sexist women -- Michelle was making snide comments about having a model family in the White Hosue -- just remember she is the one who actually slept with the intern who was trying to seduce her. It is only later that Obama decided to marry her.
She wanted Hillary to be held responsible for the misdeeds of her spouse and made no allowance for the role of forgiveness between two people who love one another.
She has her children attending a church which teaches hatred.
I will continue to judge her by the content of her character, not the color of her skin.
June 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not quite the same post, subtle differences...
June 12, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever - teach my that trick so I can erase my embarrassing half posts that have real technical errors. This seems to be a transparent attempt to restart the discussion and erase previous comments because the answers were not what she desired. I don't see anything substantively different from her original post.
June 12, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, it is exactly the same post -- and it was reposted only because of my incompetence in getting it to the right place when I originally wrote it.
Sometimes there are conspiracies, but not this time....
Theda S.
June 12, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted on the old thread: I posted this story story on TPM a few days after AlterNet posted it 2 May, 2008. This is exactly how a feel about the whole situation.
June 12, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Story
June 12, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from Theda Skocpol's response, and presuming it's either true or she's an unusually brazen liar, that's a trick you could actually use, like right there.
June 12, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
June 12, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, er, that looks like one of them "non denial denials" as "WoodStein" used to call them, norw Josh Marshall qualifies it with "on the staff." :-)
Contributors are obviously either not considered staff or considered staff but not that kind of staff where one pays attention to what they do: there's M.J. Rosenberg examples, and just the other day Steve Clemons did it the latter with admission by Andrew Golis right on that thread that Clemons had taken down the post for a while and edited a user's comment. Funny there's also the curious qualifier in that statement about "a Coffee House post" which limits to only one of several sections of TPMCafe, but I would give benefit of doubt and not conspiracize on that. :-)
P.S. News to me was that Clemons was empowered to edit a comment by someone else. In the past we had Rosenberg remove whole threads, but his own only. I always was under the impression that only managers could remove someone else's stuff, and I only saw them use it on trolls only a couple of times in several years, and those were so bad there were no complaints about it by anyone else.
June 12, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Josh's initial reply, I thought it was just a technical glitch here and there. (I felt like the old Martin Short tobacco exec character on SNL, "Is it me? It's not me, is it?"). But then it seemed to happen frequently to MJ. About the same time as MJ's last invisible ink pieces, Todd Gitlin posted one in which he mistook a reference that some Obama critic was making and was railing against something he had misunderstood. I believe I was the first commenter pointing out his error when the whole post disappeared. In that case, I understand why he would want to delete it. He was criticizing something that he'd just misread and it had no value as a prompt for discussion. But why can't they at least leave a note behind explaining their "edits"?
June 13, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just remembered the subject of the Gitlin piece that was deleted. It was a criticism of Obama's relationship to Ayers being more than he let on and mentioned a book by Ayers. Professor Gitlin mistook that book for a different one Ayers had written later.
June 13, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I remember seeing that one happen now, too. As I said on that thred that Josh posted on, if they are posting under their own name and have a reputation to maintain, it's often understandable, if they at least leave a goddamn notice that they have done it! Otherwise, in my eyes, it hurts their rep anyways, cause it's like a little kid trying to hide a broken dish from Mom.
June 13, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"admission by Andrew Golis right on that thread that Clemons had taken down the post for a while and edited a user's comment."
Where is this admission and to which which post does it refer?
Is this true, false, or mis-construed? The answer is important, because if we really and truly have insiders editing user's comments, we don't have anything worth preserving here. If Clemons edited a user's comment, without a disclosed good reason and without announcing the edit, he needs to be banned from this space.
June 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You replied to a post that had not been posted. So I assume when the post was received you saved it for comment purposes?
June 12, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/unprofessional-dishonest-editi.php
I bookmarked Josh's response from a prior thread becuase it seemed like a firm statement of policy. I had seen entire posts or threads disappear previously and it struck me as censorship on a journalism site. I don't mind posters correcting the record or clarifying, but I don't understand how entire articles and responses disappear into nowhere.
Plus if THEY can remove & edit posts, why can't readers edit, preview or delete? At least in that case I wouldn't have to title my 3rd attempt due to formatting errors as: The Effing Jazzy Rule A Cautionary Tale Again without the Effing Fonts & Styles I Can't Figure Out!
June 13, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You want the same rights the elite have, you have to get in on the activist blogging on it :-), by becoming a proud member of the TPM software whiners' club. Responsibilities include voting up posts complaining about the software like this June 10 one on the Reader Blogs when they come up, as they do weekly. As Yoda Urbinato suggested on that thread, squeaky wheel gets the grease: I think there should constantly be a post on the recommended list about the need for an edit function until it actually happens. There's strength in numbers, solidarity! (Psst: they don't read a lot of the comments on the threads, they are busy with other stuff.)
June 13, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it OK if white and black men stand up for her too? Or are only white women allowed?
June 12, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about brown red and yellow people? Can we get a pantone color chart for who can and can't stand up against sleaze?
Oh wait... how about we just make it simple, and take note of who fails to stand up against sleaze, who plays identity politics, and hold them accountable for strangling our culture with these moronic endless debates.
June 12, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodbye and good riddance to identity politics.
June 13, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would certainly hope anyone with an ounce of common sense would speak up against this nasty smear campaign against Michelle Obama.
That stuff is incredibly corrosive to democracy. The US can't continue to be a prosperous and powerful nation with political decisions being made on such a moronic level; any more than our culture could survive by replacing school books with the National Enquirer. It's just gutter.
June 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
National Enquirer. That's exactly what Fox News reminds me of. Unfortunately, the rest of MSM media news isn't much better.
Thank goodness for TPM.
June 13, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
laurajordan - National Enquirer has too much credibility. FoxNews = Weekly World News.
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/Dick%20Cheney%20robot%20heart%20Weekly%20World%20News.JPG
June 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Michelle Obama was being oppressed. c'mon, people: she said some stupid things, and she should take her lumps for it.
the Republicans are going to make outrageous claims about their opponent, but we knew they would. the good news is I don't think people are buying it anymore. as a former Hillary supporter, I have to say I'm suddenly feeling really good about this election, and I really think Obama can win.
that being said, tho, he and his wife have been a tad thin-skinned and they need to get over it.
June 12, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baby mama? You don't think that's a problem?
June 13, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 12, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep. Absolutely.
To that I'd add "feminists" and everyone need to drop all these phony labels and remember how to think for themselves again. Don't just regurgitate the slogans and PC dogma, inform and think for yourself.
These zombies on the left and right with their endless slogans, knee jerk politics, and fervor, will be our ruin.
Frankly, it makes them easy prey from the real predators of the world, the ENRONs and Carlyle Groups and such. You think the ENRON traders cared if they ripped off "Grandma Millie" whether she was an old hippie or a religious wingnut?
To the real sleaze bags, they're all easy prey. People need to get past the 60's and realize while they've been quibbling they're being looted and bled to death.
June 13, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. All you need to be is a fair human being to "denouce and reject" such things.
June 12, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda,
Can you provide some examples of these profoundly sexist attacks?
June 13, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Fox describing her as Barack's "baby mama," which, in this case, is both racist and sexist.
June 13, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The outrage! Have you complained to MSNBC for their sexist coverage of Senator Clinton where she was referred to as "she devil" "strip-teaser.""witchy" voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." "not a convincing mom" "Madame Defarge" "Nurse Ratched.", not to mention pimping out her daughter.
On CNN a commentator objected to the calling of Hillary a bitch being a racist because some women are actually bitches. Send any cmments then?
But Fox News called Michelle Obama Barack's Baby Mama and that gets you outraged. The silence of those who sat by and allowed Hillary Clinton to be smeared in sexist terms means that this type of disgusting attack on Michelle Obama is more acceptable. So for all the Obama supporters spewing the B word and worse about Hillary, you've lost the moral authority to confront such an attack against Michelle Obama.
June 13, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...what righteous indignation.
Lets see. Bill Clinton says (paraphrasing) " No big deal Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" but Obama supporters are bad for not defending Hillary? I am not saying what was said about her by Matthews et al were anything but reprehensible. I watched the Clinton campaign opportunistically jumping on any Obama verbal misstep for political gain (see: "Bittergate"). And saying only she and McCain were qualified to be Pres. And your crying 'foul' for us Obama supporters not jumping to Hillary's defense? Or is a tinfoil hat being worn and Matthews et al were all part of Obama's "dirty tricks" team whose job it was to smear Hillary?
Obama is the nominee and I hope all of us on the left will support him just like we would have supported Hillary if she was the nominee. We need to move forward not look back. The feelings of bitterness is understandable. I would have been crushed too if the person I supported, Obama, didn't get the nomination after coming so close. It was a close race that played out until the end. One side had to 'win' and one side had to 'lose'. But it should still be about getting a D elected in November.
June 13, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed with electing a democrat in November. But please don't take that to mean I will ignore the democratic party's silence in the face of sexism in this campaign. And please don't expect me to be silent in the face of the vilification of Hillary in gender demeaning terms particularly on the liberal blogosphere - so called democrats spewing sexist and misogynist attacks against Hillary. For folks to expect the feminist movement to step up to the plate for Michelle Obama after deafening silence from democrats and progressives for what Hillary faced is appalling. I find it incedibly hypocritical and I am sure that I am not alone.
And as an African American woman I know I am where I am because of the people who paved the way before me. and so Obama was compared to Jesse Jackson. Is it really that outrageous? Jesse won 30% of the dem primary vote and 14 states. It was not an insult - it was a statement of history. It's a fact and one that pother people had noted before Bill mentioned it. How that makes him Grandmaster of the Klan is beyond me. The next female candidate will be compared to Hillary.
Bill Clinton was able to win despite the sexist attacks against Hillary and I am sure Michelle Obama will exhibit the same strength in this campaign. When Michelle Obama called Hillary polarizing, she should have known that that polarizing image came in the face of GOP smear attacks on Hillary. The ironic thing is that Hillary understands better than anyone what Michelle Obama will face. Will Hillary defend her? Michelle Obama said if Hillary won she'd have to think about supporting her. Maybe Hillary will have to think about defending Michelle Obama. The Obamas and the democratic party have done nothing to earn Hillary's defense, but she may the better person and do it anyway.
June 13, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I can't say I begrudge your point of view. Yes, I feel Hillary was at times treated unfairly by the MSM and other times, as "anObamaDemocrat pointed out, she received more favorable coverage than Obama. All that time spent on Reverend Wright by the MSM? There was a whole televised debate that delved into such pressing issues as "American Flag Pins" and proper "National Anthem etiquette". To be honest I can't describe how happy I am that the primaries are over. Much more of it and the party/movement would have been torn apart.
But I can understand how you feel. Both sides were targets of unfair and sometimes offensive (re: Chris Matthews misogyny) comments.
Now let's get a D elected!!! 8)
:)
June 13, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're may be getting trolled again. Try and add up the things dijamo declares and see if they make any kind of sense. Dijamo is a vertiable geyser of disinformation. Take this comment from her blog:
Huh? Hillary voted for the war and was an economically conservative neoliberal along with Bill, heading up the DNC and New Dems, the most right wing Democrats during the entire period since the New Deal.
Dijamo's posts are filled with this disinformation and attempts to poison the well.
Just because someone claims to be a black woman online doesn't mean s/he is one. Statistically, how probable is the persona of the highly political black woman supporting Hillary who is continually trying to poison the well and divide Democrats against Obama?
What's the probability of a pudgy white Freeper adopting that persona for thrills from his mom's basement?
Again, these trolls pop up every election season. Large numbers of idiots and Freepers playing halloween, and it's difficult to tell them apart. They're both irrelevant though.
June 13, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are misinforemd. Hillary's economic plan is more progressive than Barack Obama - true universal healthcare, greater gov't intervention int he foreclosure crisis, etc. There is not a person with an ounce of intelligence that will say Barack's policy proposals are more progressive than Hillary.
Hillary is more moderate on foreign policy and Barack was more progressive...until he started running in the general election. Now if dictators want to meet wth him it will be at a time and place of his choosing should they meet the appropriate metrics - what Hillary's position was all along.
Those who claim that Obama was more progressive economically don't understand what the hell progressive means. I am talking to you. And I am who I have always been - don't need to put on a front for everyone. Your failure to understand that a black woman can vote not on color but on policy exposes your own ignorance.
June 13, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
For you to take such a broad brush and claim that all people who supported Obama before now lack a moral high-ground based on behavior of other people is ludicrous.
First - your high horse road off a while ago.
Second - some of those same people you denounce and reject did indeed reject the sexist treatment of Hillary. At a certain point (particularly after being repeatedly and rudely called sexist by posters similar to your self) there is little a bunch of silly posters can do on a closed loop called TPM.
Third - not much room to argue when you categorically claim everyone on the other side cannot make a point because you declare them unfit. Show me your badge.
June 15, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmic, are you suggesting djiamo may actually be some old Republican guy, who picked an avatar that looks like everything we would trust as "one of us" to gain our trust, so he could trash our party using falsehoods laden with feigned feminist bitterness?
...and that they are posing all this divisiveness, and repeating again and again they are "for" a Democrat in November?
And just to reassure us they really are a young black woman, they mention it again and again, despite the fact we should be able to see that in the avatar?
Surely someone wouldn't go that far to fool us all, I mean this is just the Presidency we are talking abut, so who would ever care enough to put on such an elaborate ruse, and hang out here pouncing on every pro-Obama post, the same way Billy does whenever someone disses McCain?
Boy, I sure hope people wouldn't be so mean and hypocritacl as to decieve all of us that they are a Democrat, but they are really Republicans taking our intrs-party contests and truning them into bitter fights?
I would slit my wrists before I would believe that could happen!
June 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you may have noticed I have said I will support Obama and have posted pro-Obama posts. I have repeatedly said (and acted on the principle) that I will encourage other Hillary supporters to support Obama because he is NOT MCCAIN. However I will not excuse the Obama supporters who turned a blind eye to sexism and are reactivating their NOW cards and grabbing pitchforks to defend Michelle Obama. So if you want me to quiet down on the criticism, you Obama folks should just put away your argument that feminists must rally around Michelle Obama.
It's a losing argument because you have no moral standing to argue against sexism. The Obama supporters' newfound dismay about the sexist media is transparent as saran wrap. If you gave a crap about respect for women in the media, you would have spoken out against it rather than telling Hillary to toughen up and stop whining and sexism played no role in the primary campaign.
So put the sexism issue away - why not you did it when Hillary was running - and focus on why Obama rather than let's protect Michelle Obama which just exposes the hypocrisy of Obama supporters. You have no moral stading remaining on the issue so take the advice you gave to hIllary. Deal with it and move on.
June 13, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bills point was that Obama winning SC was meaningless because the OTHER fairytale black candidate, Jackson, also won SC and look how it turned out for him! Blacks aren't REAL contenders - they just get the black vote (so what?) in black states (so what?). REAL people (whites) in REAL states (almost all white) won't ever vote for such a gimmick candidate in the end - just like they didn't vote for Jesse J in the end.
Essentially saying that a black candidate can only ever get token support because they are "only" black (you know, like Jesse Jackson) is very insulting.
June 13, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary had the women in her campaign take a back seat to the men. She threw the women under the bus as soon as times got tough (Patti Solis Doyle). If Obama did that it would be unforgivable to you, but Hillary? Letting the boys tell her how to act is just political strategy, right?
And remember when that labor leader said Hillary is the type of leader with "testicular fortitude" and all she did was smirk? I will never forget the deafening silence by PEOPLE LIKE YOU who ignored how incredibly sexist that was and just laughed it off. The Clintons used racism to get votes and ignored sexism to keep them. Real classy.
June 13, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
She fired both Solis-Doyle and Mark Penn, and then put in a woman as head of the campaign. I guess she's covering her tracks as an anti-feminist.
By the way, I hear we don't have to worry, Obama will take care of all the feminist issues just as well and even better.
June 14, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
COMPLAIN to MSNBC? Seems like you'd be thanking them.
In fact, Clinton recieved the highest percentage of positive coverage from MSNBC among major cable news networks according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism: http://journalism.org/node/11275
A quote: "The Clinton campaign had MSNBC to thank for a greater portion of statements disputing the concept that she is unlikable, 22% on MSNBC versus 13% on CNN and 12% on Fox News."
Covering up bumbling failure due to poor planning and execution by blaming those who actually HELPED you shows just what kind of President Hillary would have been - and, thankfully, will never be.
June 13, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Positive when talking about her policies. Please be assured Chris Matthews was not using racist terms about Senator Obama like he did with Senator Clinton. It amazes me that even now so called democrats don't find that unacceptable. HELLO! If it's acceptable against Hillary then it's okay against Michelle Obama too or do you not get that simple concept? like he did
It should also be noted that study only goes through 3/9 and does not include the more strident anti-HRC tones that emerged as the campaign went on.
June 13, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That study is completely irrelevant regarding racist and sexist treatment of the candidates. It is a study about media characterization of political themes and tactics and how they played (i.e. did networks positively cover Clinton's "Ready on Day One" theme). You're using this study deceitfully to say something it doesn't. Does this study even mention gender or race?
June 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama isn't running for office.
June 13, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet... she may just get an opportunity to do that one day, Hillary has certainly broken that glass ceiling, because of her we know a First Lady can win hig public office, withouth ever running for city council, or state government, or even governor. The road to the White House might jsut start at the White House!
Maybe this is really all a gigantic ploy to propel Michelle into a Senate seat in some state she won'tneed to actually live in until Barack is moving back out of the White House!?!?
Hey, the First Lady glass ceilng has been shattered, so what's to top Michelle from advancing because ehs spent 8 Years as the First Lady?
June 13, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Hillary's claim to have broken the glass ceiling is a perfect example of her self-interested opportunism. When she gave her "magnanimous" concession speech, did you notice that she said there were "18 million" cracks in the ceiling? That was Hillary trying to gather "her" voters together and rally them behind her. 36 million Democrats voted during the nominating season. Hillary counts her voters because they voted for a woman. But Obama's don't count because he's a man. See how she plays the game? She doesn't deserve an inch of slack.
June 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, I have complained to MSNBC.
Sadly, the stuff that comes from Fox News doesn't shock me anymore. At all. They have no cred. They're like the National Enquirer--you just expect them to be shocking and tacky. What would really shock me is if they were to do something classy and fair for a change.
June 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Laura,
I feel the same way about Fox. I never watch it but when I hear about things like the "Baby Mama" crawl, I can only write it off as something a RW propaganda network would run. Unfortunately, FOX gets away with stuff no other network can because they're known to be partisan. I have to believe that much of Fox's huge viewership comes from those wanting the National Enquirer type stuff. But when most of the other major networks have allowed some pretty rank stuff during the primary, it's a definite shift in the press coverage. And the fact that most people didn't rail against it at the time only encourages the media to bring it back out when it will get the most viewers, in the general.
June 13, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
The other cable news channels (MSNBC, CNN) have made a mistake in trying to emulate Fox News, to the degree that they have.
Fox News is increasingly becoming cartoonish. I think we'll see, over the next couple of years, Fox News and the rest of the right-wing noise machine become increasingly irrelevant. In a few years, there will only be the dead-end old-timers left, fighting and re-fighting the old fights from decades ago.
"Oh, damn those elite Yankee Reconstructionist Carpetbaggers!"
June 13, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi dijamo. Any citations for all those quotes? Source and context matters.
Saying bad things about Hillary's voice is not sexism (it can get screechy -- a fact as much caught on tape as Dean's campaign-busting "Yeeha"). If I say Bush's voice has sounded like moronic, faux-macho, and panicked put-on since Day One, does that make me a man-hater? No. You can't read a bigger agenda into it.
If Michelle takes lumps for saying something stupid, fine -- taking her to task over her remarks about being proud of America is not a line of attack I like, but it is fair game. Attacking her as nothing but a baby mama making terrorist fist jabs? That's something else. That's unconscionable, close to dehumanizing. Such attacks are exactly the reason we need to elect Obama -- to send that style of politics to its room.
And your approach of "too bad for her because people said Hillary has a screechy voice" seems pretty empty.
June 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What just happened? The above post by me was supposed to appear as a reply to dijamo's post of June 13, 2008 12:32 AM.
June 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
subgenius
June 13, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
too true.
June 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do your own homework on the Google. Because it doesn't matter how many facts or how clear the hypocrisy is, you'll just close your eyes and excuse what happened anyway. But since I am generous, here are a few links to get you started.
This should catch you up for Chris Matthews in context through January 9:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/15149/90400
This is a NYT piece on sexism in the campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?bl&ex=1213502400&en=ce19a1d9a8f54dd5&ei=5087%0A
June 13, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, okay -- that Matthews link is good -- apparently he's a sexist loon. I would also argue that he's not quite a real journalist, that generally what he does is (in the words of Jon Stewart) "bad for America" -- and that I was unaware of all these quotes because I haven't watched him in years. So I accept that Matthews is sexist -- but it's a huge leap from there to saying that a candidate's wife deserves to be slandered.
Something you (dijamo) said in yesterday's version of this thread bothered me, and I replied to it then -- you were upset at Michelle over her perceived attack on Hillary back in August '07. Let me relink now because I find this account of that event persuasive, and maybe it will turn down the heat on your feelings in some small way:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/obama-nothing-p.html
June 13, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't buy it and it's not the point anyway. It's not about Michelle Obama - it's about why this newfound mission of protecting her when Hillary was thrown to the wolves by the democratic party? Do we stand for respect for women for all women or just black women or just the black women we happen to like. I despise Katherine Harris and Condi Rice, but I've never had to attack them in gender demeaning terms to do it and speak up when other people do. It's called being against sexism and misogny on principle. It's called attacking sexism to create a culture of respect for all women rather than choosing the one you like that's worthy of respect.
June 14, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He asked for an example and I gave him one. Chill out. Yes, I said, "Chill out."
I don't watch Fox, so no I didn't send them a letter. I'm not a big CNN fan anyway, so I didn't send them a letter.
I agreed that it seemed like the Clinton were just "prostituting" Chelsea. She's a grown woman. Why can't she talk to reporters? Personally, I wouldn't have used the word "pimp" on air, but I agreed with Shuster's assessment. I also agreed that she was behaving in a small, petty, nasty manner - she-devil. Though, I wouldn't have used "she-devil," just small, petty, and nasty.
I was mostly disturbed by the comments about her voice and laugh. Other than that, I gave some people, including Christ Matthews some slack. Christ Matthews treats his female guests with the upmost respect - especially since he's stopped commenting on how attractive they are. And I cut folks some slack if they used gendered langauge to criticize something that is bad about Clinton's campaign. With the exception of the b-word and c-word, lots of English adjectives are gendered in a way that doesn't discriminate against women.
Now, I'll ask you. Where was all this righteous indignation with Pat Buchanan and Fox spewing all kinds of racist ignorance? Most importantly, where was all this indignation when the Clinton campaign played on mainstream racism? I don't recall Obama using sexism to his advantage. Do you?
So, again. He asked for an example. I gave him one. Chill out.
June 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sure are nursing that grudge. Or, are you simply another McCain troll doing the work of appealing (supposedly) to Hillary's sympathizers?
My vote is for the second option, based on the tone and focus of your posts. The avatar is a nice touch, though. :-)
June 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was to "djamo", by the way.
June 13, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification.
June 13, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
June 13, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were no sexist attacks. Hillary is delusional. As she was fond of saying, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fucking kitchen. Or, as I say, if you want to run with the big dogs, learn to piss on three legs. The game doesn't belong to anyone, and there are no rules. Hillary would have done a lot better if she hadn't acted like such a fucking pussy. She wanted to be treated special because she's a woman. Tough shit for her. Politics ain't beanbag.
June 13, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's totally obnoxious and totally lacking factually.
1) There were sexist attacks on Hillary from the usual MSM goons, and many on the left did in fact condemn them, as they should have.
2) Hillary's camp also exaggerated the sexist attacks to play them up for sympathy. For example at one rally a couple goons had signs saying "iron my shirt" which was clearly an isolated prank by a couple morons, and her campaign and proxies kept citing it as widespread sexism.
3) Calling that as being a "pussy" and making analogies about how one needs to "piss on three legs" is moronic.
June 13, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I seem like the kind of person who cares, don't I?
Here's the funny thing about Hillary: she's not a pussy, and she's fully capable of holding her own in the world of hardball politics. And if she had wanted to, she could have taken on the sexist remarks directly. No doubt she would have wiped the floor with the people who made them. But it served her purposes to not deal with the remarks, because it was far more valuable politically to be able to complain about an overarching sexist bias in the media. It plays to her goal of gathering women around her and presenting herself as their great martyr/defender. If that's what gets her up in the morning, I guess it's no skin off my ass, but it seems petty and self-serving to me. And pretty fucking cynical.
Get one thing straight: Hillary is not, never has been and never will be a victim. She is a professional politician who knows precisely what she's trying to accomplish. How she gets there is her business. Personally, I'd rather win the election.
June 13, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Camille Paglia, at least, thinks the "Iron My Shirt" stuntmen were planted there by HRC's campaign.
June 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Camille Paglia is a brilliant political strategist. Anyone who think this was an unstaged event should be deprived of the right to vote on the grounds of naive stupidity.
June 16, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And sexist attacks are never profound...
June 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was happy to chastise MSNBC for Chris Matthews' comments about Hillary and for David Schuster's comments about Chelsea.
I confess I didn't even know about Tucker Carlson's ridiculous sexist comments. I never watched Tucker Carlson. But, hey--crap like that from Tucker doesn't shock me. He makes dumb-ass comments and insults people all the time.
June 13, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Carlson said wasn't sexist. He could have said the same thing about a guy. And if he had, no one (not even the guy he was talking about) would have taken offense. And Ken Rudin's comment? I suppose he could have picked Godzilla instead of Glenn Close. But it wasn't sexist. It was just true.
June 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bunny Cat! Tucker Carlson said something like "hearing Hillary's voice makes me involuntarily cross my legs."
Tell me you were just unaware that he had said that. Please tell me you're not defending that!
Tucker Carlson has said other really tacky things--like his comments demeaning people who observe some religion he disapproves of--so it is surely no surprise that he makes sexist insults too?
June 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carlson's guest came up with "Vaginal American". Your talking head corps hard at work.
June 14, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Carlson said was, "When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."
Please explain what's sexist about that comment.
June 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm seriously trying to understand what's sexist about that comment. I just asked my wife if she thought it was sexist, and her answer was, "Well, I'd say the test would be, if he'd made the comment about a man, would it make any less sense? And by that standard, it wasn't a sexist comment."
I think I agree with my wife.
June 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see. If said about a woman, it means she is a castrating bitch. The bitch part is gratuitous. That is, she wants to unman and, therefore, dominate that person. If said about a man, it means he is a dirty-fighting son of a bitch (I like the symmetry here). The image for me from a woman is that she wants to remove the balls; for a man, cause pain but leave them there.
Oh, never mind.
June 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 13, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will 50,000 little brown balls stand up for Quiet Riot?
June 13, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 13, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I just read the original post, which was well-intentioned. But it misses the point that Michelle Obama isn't running for office. Barack is. And so was Hillary. There is a difference.
June 13, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. It's very sleazy for a media outlet to facilitate going after her like that, and it's degrading to our democracy and culture. Gutter.
June 13, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am comparing what Michelle Obama will face to what Hillary faced when Bill was running for President. The press was merciless and attacked her on everything from looks to dress etc. Just because Michelle's not running for office doesn't mean she won't face the treatment. And the progressive left and democrats have lost the moral authority to call the GOP smear machine on their crap because the worst parts of the left actively participated in the gendered smearing of Hillary in the campaign.
This includes you Rabbit Kitty calling Hillary bitch, pussy, needing to piss on three legs - and that's just in this thread & not the crap you've said before. There will be less of an outcry against Michelle Obama because those sexist attacks were used by our own party against a female candidate. Sexism and misogny is not just in a vacuum against Hillary Clinton - it contributes to a broader atmosphee of disrespect of women in the public sphere and women in general.
June 13, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you are posing troll-generated divisiveness as party division. The trash talkers here were NEVER sincere Obama supporters they were provocatuers.
If you can't differentiate between sincere Obama supporters who experssed dissatisfaction with kitchen sink tactics, and trolls with potty- mouths, you do Hillary and Democrats no favors.
Did you actually read the sentence I just typed and understand the simple point I was making? With an open mind?
Or have you already conjured up another conflationary post, putting sincere posters who expressed forensic arguments in the same "lump" as trolls who used diespicable language and epithets?
Once more, don't put clean-debate Obama supporters in the same category with the trolls.
Maybe repeating this simple logic three times will get you to consider what your words sound like, it is almost as if you are not what you claim to be, you persist in emotionally dividing everyone based on what other "not what they claim to be" commentors have provided.
June 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Rabbit Kitty is a troll and not an Obama supporter? I have seen Rabbit Kitty both expressing forensic arguments AND partaking (and excusing) potty mouthed sexist and misogynistic language against Hillary. That dichotomy is what bugs the hell out me - Rabbit Kitty is not some ignorant Republican trying to seed dissension. There are actual progressive liberal demcorats who find gender bashing attacks as acceptable. Democrats used to stand against this crap not partake in it.
For those who criticized Hillary on forensic levels alone or on a personal level as well that did not devolve into sexist attacks, they have the right to speak up for Michelle Obama. But I should hope they spoke up for Hillary too on principle even though she was competing against their candidate of choice. We don't get to choose who is worthy of gender based destruction and who is not. It is a slippery slope and those on the left need to acknowledge they contributed to a deteriorating respect for women in the public sphere.
June 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rabbit Kitty is a snarker, we all know that, and mixes logic with derision as a way to point out hypocrisy, not from personal contempt.
This is exactly what I mean, that you equate the name-callers witht the debators, you blame those who respond to simething withthose who stat something.
Go back and read again, you are mixing the reactors up with the actors, and you don't seem to see the difference, anyone who is even mildly critical of Hillary got the same treatment and contempt as those who called her names.
And if, as partisans they are willing to jump to Michelle's defense now, you choose to promote the same old divisiveness, rather than accept their hypocrisy and do the right thing by defending this black woman from sexism as vociferously as you defended a white woman.
You prefer to dwell on past hypocrisy born of heated debate, rather than the addressing the CURRENT fact there's a deliberate and organized effort by the R's to literally trash the Democratic candidate's wife.
Move on to the next level, djiamo, you need to defend Michelle just the same as you did Hillary, or YOU are much more the hypocrite, especially if you do it on gender, not racial grounds.
MAybe your precious and abundant time would be better spent protecting ALL women than reminding everyone here about past arguments? Or maybe Michelle being a black woman means you think she should tough it out, and poor, defenseless white Hillary needs your protection?
Or are you just stuck in indignation mode?
Move on!
June 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody understands me but you. Sniff... :)
June 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The really hilarious part is that you think Hillary is some sort of precious flower, in need of protection from foul, sexist pigs like me. I have no doubt Hillary has both heard and uttered far worse things than anything you've heard me say. She can hold her own with the boys, and she already knows how to piss on three legs. And if what Terry McAuliffe said is true, she likes to "throw 'em back" with the guys as well:
Actually, according to the NY Times, Terry had his facts a little wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29rivals.html
One of the guys. Hillary's cries of sexism are just part of the never-ending Clinton dog and pony show.
June 13, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama does not strike me as the precious flower type who needs to be protected from the cold harsh world either. So again what you consider acceptable against Hillary you should consider acceptable against Michelle Obama. Glad at least you are being consistent. So when someone in the media calls Michelle Obama a bitch, you'll be quiet or you'll participate in calling her a bitch in the blogosphere. What progress we have made in the fight for women's equality.
When will you get it through your skull that it's not about protecting women or that she's too fragile for such attacks? It's about respecting women in the public sphere and no one should have to put up with that crap. If there's a male politician who's had to deal with this crap please open my eyes. Otherwise just accept you reap what you sow. Thanks for helping to elevate the political discourse.
June 13, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
But see, that's the point: if someone in the media calls Michelle Obama a bitch, she's not going to let it pass and then level some phony, self-serving charge of "sexism" after the fact. She's going to get right in their face about it. Right. NOW.
Michelle Obama doesn't need the assistance of white feminists to make her case (and what the HELL does being white have to do with anything?). She's perfectly capable of taking care of herself. Michelle is a real feminist--living her equality. Hillary Clinton is a shameless opportunist, disingenuously living like a victim.
June 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama has spoken out directly on the Obama Baby Mama? Or is she letting the story get us much play as possible in the hopes of winning over feminists to support both her and her husband? Puh-leeze spare me.
June 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make up your mind. Are you her defender or are you her enemy? I think you're missing the point. Michelle will not only not cry "sexism" in response to this, she will also not cry "racism". Have you noticed the Obama campaign talking a lot about racism? No, you haven't. Because they refuse to play the victim card. From the Economist:
You don't get it. Sexism is not the problem. Using charges of sexism as a way to divide the party in order to win an election is.
June 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem. The Obama campaign certainly raised the race card as often as they could even though the candidate decried it. His campaign was as guilty as you can get in terms of seeding dissension in order to solidify your base.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
So please don't try to pull the Obama's so innocent card. And secondly you said Michelle Obama didn't need anyone to speak up for her and she would do it herself. Has that happened? No. So it defeats your argument and you change it once again.
I think it's despicable what was done to Michelle Obama but I also think the democratic party needs to come to terms with how they were silent in the face of attacks on Hillary. I empathize with her situation but I have no sympathy. If you play with fire, you get burned. Many many Obama supporters have been spewing sexist and misogynistic attacks against Hillary. Now that it's Obama's wife that type of attack is just wrong. Consistency please. If you played a part in creating this cesspool, don't think other people are going to come in and clean it up for you.
June 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would the Democratic Party defend Hillary? The whole point of a nominating contest is to find the best candidate. Anyone who can't defend him or herself doesn't deserve the nomination. Get a clue. It's survival of the fittest. We WANT them to fight.
June 13, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, dijamo--now point me to the specific place in that memo where the Obama campaign levels the racism card. In the MEMO--not in the article. (Just so we don't get off on another one of those pointlessly unproductive tangents you're so fond of.) In the memo, where does the Obama campaign charge the Clintons with playing the race card? In the memo.
June 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the purpose of a memo listing purported insults to the african american community other than to gather up anger against the Clintons and raise the race card. Give me an effing break here. Politics ain't beanbag and this is a clear cut case of trying to smear folks with the racism card. Then they have their surrogates like Donna Brazille bemoaning the Clinton's raising the race issue because Bill Clinton called Obama being against teh Iraq war from the beginning a fairytale. Very Rovian - don't let Obama get caught making the smears - but that's the race card pattern I and I found it despicable.
June 13, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't point me to a place in the memo where the Obama campaign charges the Clintons with racism, can you? Because it isn't there. You're just reading your own biases into it.
June 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, dijamo--now point me to the specific place in that memo where the Obama campaign levels the racism charge. In the MEMO--not in the article. (Just so we don't get off on another one of those pointlessly unproductive tangents you're so fond of.) In the memo, where does the Obama campaign charge the Clintons with playing the race card? In the memo.
June 13, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double post.
June 13, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when will you get it through your skull that respect is something you earn? Your stupid candy-ass rules would give us the weakest possible candidate. A candidate who would then go up against the Republicans--who don't give a fat rat's ass about your prissy little rules--and get their butt kicked.
I'm sorry. There is nothing I have less respect for than the foolish notion that life is supposed to be fair. In politics, you win or you lose. There's no in between.
June 13, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have the greatest respect for "winner" G W Bush (and his great "all's fair" dirty-trickster Karl Rove). I think you're probably smart enough to see that Clinton was savaged throughout the campaign in a way that others were not. And she never played the gender card to get victim-hood sympathy from it (she only recognized it in her concession speech).
Yes, Obama's surrogates played the race card. The accusations of racism against the Clintons, Kerry, Cuomo and Ferraro were bogus. Calling Michelle Obama his "Baby Mamma" seems pretty racist to me. Claiming that MLK could not have achieved his civil rights successes without LBJ's politics- not so much. Race alone didn't win Obama the nomination anymore than sexist attacks alone lost it for Clinton. But the outcomes would probably be different if identity politics, smears and false allegations of smears were not invoked.
June 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll repeat my comment from the first thread which Theda deleted: this post reflects disunity as sustenance. Theda divides; that is what she has done throughout this campaign, and now it appears that she just cannot help herself.
Note the challenge people. It presumes zero genuineness in the white feminist community. How sad one progressive would impose this kind of litmus test on one of the most loyal segments of the progressive community over decades.
I say there is no place for the the Thedas of the world in what I understood the Obama campaign is supposed to be all about. To me, Theda is just another uncle/aunt who ranting in the attic. And this post is Exhibit A.
June 13, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
June 13, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're presuming that a group of people who you identify so broadly as to render your label meaningless are going to get as worked up over what happens to the wife of a candidate as they were over what happened to an actual candidate.
Why should they?
Also, what has Michelle Obama done to earn anyone's passionate loyalty. Granted the Republicans are jerks for attacking her but Republicans attack a lot of people. I get worked up over it sometimes and not others.
June 13, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Also, what has Michelle Obama done to earn anyone's passionate loyalty."
I would ask the same question about Hillary Clinton.
June 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
After 20 or 30 bitchy posts about process we get to the topic.
The current attacks on Michelle Obama are truly ugly. The "Obama baby Mamma" Faux Noise attack is a particularly vicious attack on the Obama marriage and traditional American family values. The attack (and it wasn't an accident) basically says all black men are irresponsible players and all black women are willing to give them a pass.
If we don't all stand up to the Republican slime machine and tell them to kiss off we have no business calling ourselves Democrats. If self-identified feminists don't lead the charge against the mighty Wurlitzer they should hang their heads in shame.
Will we? Will they? Most will, but some are so self-absorbed they only perceive slights to themselves and their buds. Geraldine Ferraro I am looking at you.
If we all stand up to protect the Obama family it will be a proud moment for all of us. If we don't shame on us.
June 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The white feminist establishment will not come out en masse to protest Michelle Obama's treatment because they do not regard Michelle Obama as one of them. The do not regard Michelle Obama as one of them because she is black.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(And by the way, I'm glad you guys on this site have finally figured out that Dijamo is not really black. This is the first step to putting his postings in proper perspective and then ignoring him. Good day.)
June 13, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe they don't regard Michelle Obama as that important.
Republicans will always launch unfair attacks on people. It's what they do. But we have to prioritize our responses.
June 13, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm perhaps this weekend I'll update my avatar with me in my Hillary is my Homegirl! t-shirt.
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=163953794&colorNo=6&pr=F
Your refusal to accept that a black woman supports Hillary Clinton's campaign as passionately as many of you support Senator Obama is really quite sad. But it's time to come clear. Here's the picture of the real me:
http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article%7C10001%7C10051%7C/HallmarkSite/Maxine/?landingPage=maxine&hostName=maxine.com
June 13, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1213366195-0qVc45r2EtHUkxlJpbT0ag
June 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I am sooooo looking forward to Keith Obamasman's special comment on sexism against Michelle Obama. The hypocrisy in the media is appalling. And you should note that daily reporting (which covers the majority of news coverage) is not commentary. It's the commentary part where the sexism has been rampant. Why not do a study on that? Because it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the media.
June 13, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But who cares? That's the point. Who the hell cares? If you gals want to get involved in politics, that's fine. But don't expect to be treated like little ladies at a tea party, because it ain't gonna happen. It's politics, baby. Play the game the way it's played or don't play at all. Nobody needs you.
The point is, you don't walk onto a football field or a basketball court and start laying out the new rules. You play the game the way it's played.
June 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying the white feminist establishment lack priniple and conviction. They are nothing but a bunch of self-absorbed half-baked chest pounding hacks. I hope you are wrong. Women, please God, prove him wrong.
June 13, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post was supposed to be in reply to dragnets post upthread.
June 13, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want them to prove me wrong. I want to see a column from Gloria Steinem about the horrible treatment Michelle Obama has been and is being subjected to.
Somehow, I don't think this will happen though. Black women as a group have always been skeptical of the feminist movement at large, which is understandable. Many of the premier feminists were also ardent racists.
If Dijamo were really black then he would be able to discuss the justifiable and longstanding distrust that black women have toward institutional feminism. My guess is he'll dredge up an essay from somewhere, and repackage the ideas here in a post---all the while asserting to be a black woman. That's if he offers any post on this topic at all.
RonByers I hope I'm proven wrong too. Time will tell.
June 13, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Dijamo....
I gotta lay it out for you...
I love Diane Fienstein. I love Barbara Boxer. I love Gov. Sebelius. I love Claire McCaskill. I loved Barbara Mikulski. I voted for Carol Mosely Braun twice. I can name a dozen prominent women I would love to see as President.
And I think Hillary Clinton is a bitch. The way she mishandled healthcare in the 1990's, the way she mangled her campaign, the way she always thinks anyone not on her side is the enemy, the way she hung around the primary long after it was clear she couldn't win, the way she carpetbagged to New York and made huge promises she didn't keep, the way she whined and complained when she lost the nomination because of her OWN missteps.....
Ummmmmmmmm that makes me view her as a bitch. That doesn't make me sexist. That makes me able to view her behaviors and draw my own conclusions. If you, for one second, think Hillary lost for any reason other than her misrun campaign, you are not being realistic. If she had run an adequate campaign, she would have EASILY been the nominee. She and her team f*cked it up and now she and her supporters are pointing fingers for blame without looking in the mirror. Penn's interview made me gag yesterday. And I repeat again that 15 months ago I sat down with my parents to explain to them why I was voting for Hillary Clinton over their choice, John Edwards. As the campaign progressed...Hillary lost me. Interesting, all three of us voted for Barack Obama in the end.
I also think Bill Clinton has turned into an asshole. Does that make me a "manist"? I don't think all men are assholes. I also don't think all women are bitches. Just Bill and Hillary. Their belief that Hillary was somehow "owed" something turns my stomach.
I was trying to get along...but your continuously whiney posts about sexism are getting ridiculous.
June 13, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a clue. Identify what your particular issue is with her and address that. Don't use bitch as a shortcut because you are too lazy to get to what is really bothering you. Of course if gender is what is really bothering you, bitch is probably the right word to use.
I believe the counterpart of bitch is dick for the males. I could call David Axelrod a dick or I could call him an obnoxious arrogant windbag. Obnoxious arrogant windbag is more specific, gets my point across and avoids demeaning someone in gendered terms.
Feel free to spread this technique to others.
June 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't use bitch as a shortcut. He meticulously laid out the precise reasons he think Hillary Clinton is a bitch. And you addressed none of those reasons. You just accused him of being sexist in response.
Please address what he actually wrote.
June 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of politicians that have had policy failures. John McCain failed miserably on Immigration reform. Does that make him a bitch?
All the calls for Hillary to get out the way and the little lady to step aside and concede with grace when traditionally that is not how the cookie crumbles in primary campaigns is transparently sexist. There are politicians like Teddy Kennedy that did not concede until the convenetion and did not campaign or endorse his rival for the nomination. Was Teddy Kennedy a bitch? Was Jesse Jackson for that matter who won 30% opf the democratic primary and 14 states and did not concede until the convention precisely so he could have a seat at crafting the democratic party platform and ensuring the voters who voted for him had a seat at the democratic party table?
Obama's campaign was the one who played the race card and the media bought into it.
But let's take a step back and say if someone has legitimate policy disagreements with Obama is it ever okay to call him the N word or does that automatically make them a racist? Why is it acceptable to have a legitimate beef with Hillary and resort to bitch?
Please people get a clue. It's not just about Hillary but it is about the debasement of women in our politics, public sphere and in general. If you condone using gender based insults and sexism and misogny, you have no right to compalimn when those same insults are used against someone you do like or agree with.
June 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The simple fact is that we use gendered terms of derision for everyone---not just chicks. It's a function of having gender at all. When I saw Hillary Clinton try to change the rules to have the delegates seated after agreeing to take away their convention right, I though to myself "What a bitch!" After seeing Bill Clinton's parade of oafishness and buffoonery I said to myself "What a dick!" Hillary is bitchy and Bill is definitely a dick, asshole, a cad and worse.
My issues aren't just on policy disagreements (being a liberal I don't disgree to strenuously with many of their policies) but ultimately with the character and temperment of the Clintons. When Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with dozens of women over the past 35 years, that makes him a dick and an asshole. When Hillary Clinton endured these serial humiliations without so much as peep in front of her only daughter and then led the charge to viciously attack and slime these women in the press when they came forward makes her every bit the bitch that Bill Clinton is a dick.
Do you think young women don't see this? Do you think they haven't been watching? Do you think they are blind? Hillary is no feminist role model which is why the overwhelming majority of young women don't view her as a role model and did not vote for her. I know several who think she is a bitch, for all of the reasons laid out in my particular paragraph.
Gender has little to do with it. It has more to do with the character, moral fiber and temperment of a person and the personal behavior. The Clintons have given us ample information to go on and the verdict is clear: they are dicks and bitches.
June 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will be those in the GOP who see Michelle Obama as a racist B because of her thesis in college. They will consider thiis a valid character and temperment "issue". They've already started making this argument AND YOU ARE PLAYING INTO IT. If you have issues with someone address the particular issues rather than smearing them personally. How do you say it's unfair to criticize Michelle Obama when you cantinue to attack Hillary in sexist terms? You have no moral authority. It is sad and disgusting that the democratic party has fallen into the same GOP smear tactics in their rush to villanize Hillary and Bill. I've lost much respect for those in my party who find this shit acceptable.
We have met the enemy and they are us. Or actually they are you. I don't engage in that GOP smear shit.
June 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary Clinton lost any moral high ground or right to complain when she led the charge to publicly deride, smear and slime many of the dozens of women victimized by her husband. That's why young women don't like or consider her a feminist.
Wake up, Dijamo. Hillary Clinton has been using GOP slime tactics against women for decades now. You have no moral standing to complain about this until you acknowledge that basic fact.
June 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Many of the dozens" of women? What is this? 1998 and your name is Ken Starr? Maybe Mike Savage? What a crock.
What color is the sky in your world? Do you often allow yourself to swallow GOP BS? No wonder you're so unpleasant and sound like a Repub.
If you must criticize the Clintons, do so honestly. Don't make up stuff to feed your bigotry.
Good grief! Sometimes TPM sounds like Freeper central. The ignorant bile is astounding.
June 14, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The N-word, as you delicately put it, is at its worst used to apply to any black person male or female. Like kike refers to any Jew.
Now, bitch can refer to all women, but it is more often used, in my humble opinion, to refer to a particular type of behavior, as dick is for men. Asshole can be either, obviously.
Two completely taboo words in public discourse, rough equivalents of the N-word, for men and women are cunt and cock-sucker, although the latter brings up homophobia, a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
And actually, I disagree that calling a woman a bitch on TV wouldn't get the speaker in big trouble.
God, I am so sick of identity politics!!
June 13, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted two replies to Dijamo on Theda's piece before it disappeared. In this resurrected version, neither of my replies appears.
Why not? In both, although I disagreed with Dijamo's position, my responses were entirely civil, as follows:
Reply #1:
Actually, Dijamo, throughout this thread, it has been you who declared, peremptorily, the identity of she who is worthy of support and protection from misogyny (ie. HRC) and she who is not (MO).
I hate to say it, as I have admired other comments you've made, but this tactic is Rovian: accuse others of that which you are doing yourself.
Sorry, Dijamo, with all due respect: no sale on this one.
Reply #2:
Dijamo, it is your fundamental comparison that is flawed, in that Hillary was a candidate, as Obama was a candidate; therefore, Bill and Michelle were outside that relationship. We're having an apples to oranges problem here. The correct comparison, for what it's worth, would be to what extent was HRC treated misogynistally, versus to what extent was Obama subjected to veiled or overt racism. In other words, unwarranted attack, either way.
Theda, in answer to your original question, there are plenty of white women who will support Michelle. Several here, as noted.
June 13, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please note I never said Michelle Obama is not worthy of support and protection. I said our failure to speak up as a party with a vigorous defense of Hillary when she faced sexist attacks has reduced our standing to cry foul for Michelle Obama. You can't turn a blind weye one day and then come rallying to the cuase without people seeing right through your hypocrisy and calling you on it.
When Hillary was Bill Clinton's wife she went through the same crap Michelle Obama will go through because they are both strong intelligent women who seem not likely to bow down in the face of attacks. I wish Michelle Obama the best of luck and while I will not condone those attacks, I will speak up vociferously and expose the hypocrisy of those who think they determine which women should be respected and which should be thrown to the wolves.
We all rely on those who came before us to pave the way and Hilalry paved teh way for what Michelle Obama will be piut through. Of course Hillary became a polarizing bitch because she refused to back down. Perhaps Michelle Obama will find a way to make it through the misogynistic attacks unscathed. But please note those Obama supporters who were silent in the face of sexism against Hillary Clinton have made it harder for us to confront those attacks on Michelle when they happen.
And that's what happens when you rely on situational ethics - destroy Hillary by any means necessary even if it means violating that code of respect for all people that Democrats used to stand for.
Once you head down that road, it's pretty hard to turn back and the people you left behind and told you the party was losing its way will be mighty pissed. Don't expect a welcome home party for Michelle Obama's defenders (who are not feminists and are defending her honor rather than demanding respect for all women) from the feminists who have been smeared and demonized and radicalized and called racist simply for expecting that the first female with a serious chance of winning the presidency should have had more support in the face of the sexist and misogynistic attacks upon her.
June 13, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Michelle Obama that makes you think she requires YOU to cry foul for her? Is it the fact that she's a woman? Because if that's what this is about, you should have a closer look at your own hypocritical attitudes about women. Michelle Obama can take care of herself.
She's still Bill Clinton's wife as far as I know. And she certainly DID bow down in the face of attacks. Did Hillary ever directly confront a single one of the people who made these comments? No, she did not. Because it was far more valuable to her as a candidate to let the comments go unchallenged so she could use "sexism" as a way to radicalize and polarize the election.
June 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html
June 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
An dit should be noted the only time Hillary's campaign brought up the rampant sexism is when they attacked Chelsea and said she was being pimped out. I don't know where you are getting this media outrage over the sexist attacks on Hillary. They passed by without so much as a comment and Hillary's supporters got more and more pissed at the double standard on race and gender. By the way, when did Obama himself bring up the HELP EVERYONE I'M BEING ATTACKED BY RACISTS? He didn't he had his campaign surrogates go out and gather up righteous indignation even where none was deserved. See LBJ, fairytale, nelson mandela, jesse jackson and so on and so on and so on. Where's the criticism of Obama for not standing up for himself. Some intellectual honesty would be nice.