Thinking about it now, I realize it was never possible to have a campaign with a black man and a white woman and not end up facing and talking about both racism and sexism.

People like this should be smacked. Like that idiot who yelled something about ironing a shirt? I hope that moron's wife or mother smacked him one good and made him do all his own laundry for the rest of his life.

From that blog:
“What if one of these 38,000 guys is someone you, as a woman, have to go to and negotiate a raise?” she asks.

Here's to hoping one of those 38,000 guys is someone who has to negotiate a raise with a woman - preferably one who's seen him on that list.

As far as the part of the blog that starts with “A woman, but not her” phenomenon...I think I'm going to have to write a blog post on a different perspective on that. Not really disagreeing, just looking at it another way.

Agreed. Calling out misogyny matters. Obama supporters should not let attacks based on gender slide. Obviously, results will vary, but I've seen several of them on this blog say "hey, that crossed the line -- let's not go there."

I'll even agree with you that the MSM is quicker to catch racism than it is to catch misogyny.

I wish the Clinton campaign was as interested in solidarity against racism. Their attitude seems to be "Hey, a lot of white voters feel this way, so, you know, we've got to be pragmatic about electability. It's better to have it all out in the primary election anyway. Because, you know, it's going to come out eventually."

Would you be impressed if Obama's campaign took the same line on gender? "Hey, I wish I could stand with you against misogyny. I really wish I could. But, you know, a lot of asshole men feel that way. So we've got to be pragmatic, and stir up as much sexist condescension as possible in the primary?"

Let's distinguish what idiot supporters say on blogs from what the campaign itself does. HRC supporters certainly endorse what I'm calling the "racial-electability" argument. I haven't heard a lot of Obama supporters endorse the "gender-electability" argument -- but I'm sure some do. But supporters are impossible to corral. The important thing is, what do the campaigns endorse, and how do they act. Clinton's campaign has gotten deeply into the Wright story. Obama's campaign has not gone for anything analogous. Don't think for an instant that it's because they *couldn't*; as you rightly note, there's a lot of gender-based hostility to HRC, and it wouldn't be hard to stir it up. They haven't gone there.

I'm sure none of this will convince you. But for what it's worth -- it's *because* I actually care about these issues that I'm so disappointed in HRC.

The whole Ferraro flap shows how willing Hillary Clinton is to use race to advance her campaign. The fact that Ickes admitted they're pushing the Wright issue shows how willing she is to use race.

I know this kind of racism from personal experience. It's never "I don't like black people." It's always "well, it doesn't make a difference to me, but what will other people think?" I heard that line a whole lot once upon a time, and I find it still makes me angry to type it out.

Yes, I agree with you that the MSM has been horribly sexist, and it's important to point that out. But sexism is not the reason she's losing this race. The reasons are far more basic. She failed to plan past Super Tuesday. She really underestimated Obama's appeal and didn't take him as a serious threat until it was too late for her to respond well. Once she did see the real threat, her response was to go negative. Finally, she made a bold-faced lie on the campaign trail and got caught.

This election was hers to lose, and lose it she did, through a series of mistakes that will provide textbook examples in the future of how not to run a campaign.

Yes, the MSM is sexist. Yes, some supporters of Obama have been sexist (but many of them here and at other progressive sites have been called out on their sexism - by other Obama supporters).

It's true that Obama could have been better about speaking out about sexism, but at least he never employed it himself. The closest anyone's come to claiming sexism on his part is the overly parsed "periodically, when she's feeling down" statement, and frankly, that one was a bit of a stretch.

Let's also point out that some of Clinton's supporters have not been above using sexism to *promote* their candidate.

Rosanne Barr: Barack Obama: Bow to the woman, and take the vice presidency. Let our country heal. You will run in eight years and be unstoppable as a visionary world leader. You must pass through this filter first though: bow to the woman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/bow-to-the-woman_b_90433.html

Gloria Feldt: Perhaps Obama should live up to his gallantry, throw down his cloak Sir Walter Raleigh-esque so the lady can walk over the latest mud slung against her, and into the nomination gracefully. After all, she is the elder, she is the senior of the two senators, she was in this race first, and she has an enormous constituency. In all other aspects of life, the etiquette would be to let her go first.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gloria-feldt/obama-is-right-words-mat_b_94234.html

In both those instances, I first thought/hoped they were satire, but no. They were serious.

I don't know how to put this delicately:

Some people have bizarre senses of humor. They find it amusing to posture themselves as thought they are ultra-conservative when they are not, ultra-liberal when they are not, racist when they are not, and sexist when they are not.

Such a person could create a site like this not because they are sexist, but because they are using very black humor to poke fun at sexism as it exists in our society. That may also be why some people became Facebook members of the group.

Listen to what the creator of the site had to say:

I created the group with a friend of mine on a whim after a joke one of us made. We never had any political aspirations for the group, and it was pretty low maintenance to begin with, but after a while, we realized that we could make some money if we sold t-shirts, so we kept it going. My friend decided to stop his affiliation with the group for personal reasons, but I decided to keep it going because it was such a popular thing. Eventually people started posting hateful things on the walls and uploading offensive photos. For a while, I took care of it by deleting stuff that was too racy, but recently it just got to be too much so I disabled all outside interaction. That pretty much brings us to the present I think.

And...

First off I should clarify that I disabled the photo upload by my own discretion, as it was being filled with what can only be described as filthy, filthy pornography. As for the press I’ve received, people seem pretty bent on casting me as an opportunistic, capitalistic purveyor of sexism among the ingrates of facebook. And I think that’s pretty apt considering I’m shamelessly promoting my group to increase t-shirt sales. As for whether I think its negative or positive, let’s just say I get a nice fat check every month, and all I had to do was compromise my principles.

It's nice and easy to argue that this is sexism. In fact, it screams sexism. If a Facebook group called "Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" isn't sexism, what is?

But perhaps the subtle truth is that, in a post-postmodern world, nothing that is this obvious can be taken at face value.

I would like to point out that while misogyny is a real and valid concern, your energies would probably be better spent against legitimate threats such as the intractable C.U... outfit. I personally am prone to using the term "hyperventilate" in a derogatory manner when encountering long rants against what is quite obviously not a serious effort.

If you read carefully, this quote comes from that t-shirt selling operation:

Wear this shirt and show your misogynistic pride (and great sense of humor). Also available in women's sizes.

Postmodernism, mayhaps? At worst they are just "trolling" and should be ignored. Indignant malignment is exactly what they want in that case.

Concentrate on the real threats. Those groups are usually far more stealthy in their approach.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have given small amounts of money to the candidacies of Obama, Dodd, and Edwards to reward good behavior. I was an Edwards supporter until the bitter end, and am leaning towards Obama, except for the unforgettable, unbelievably charged misogyny I saw expressed towards HRC at my precinct caucus in WA.

The spokesmen for Obama spoke nothing of his policies or actual proposals - instead, they spat out their hatred of HRC. Men who said they would vote for McCain instead of HRC if she took the day. That's company I'm not interested in keeping.

"Divisive," "strident," "unlikeable," are public code words for b****. The core of the "insult value" of b**** is that it refers to a woman who, in summary, does something you don't like. Or to emasculate a man, to imply he isn't a real man, a dominant man.

"Make me a sandwich" is a reminder a central difficulty for women - not just white women either - who manage to achieve a certain level of power and autonomy in our culture. That there are many - mostly men, but also some women - who are fundamentally uncomfortable with women in positions of obvious power and leadership. If you can't physically demean them, well, you can use words.

Finally, if you think that sexism isn't the main social issue in our culture, you need to take a closer look at the status of women across every demographic. Women constitute the great invisible army of low wage workers, pink collars, service positions, etc. They are more likely to be the sole supporter of children. Women are more likely to be killed by a partner than men.

You find this across the board, that even in demographic groups where young men are emperiled, they are still seen as the great prize, or, when tragedy strikes, the great prize lost. It's not the same when young women fall victim to the same perils.

Sorry to point this out, but the basis of your point as you're making it here is that Facebook group (Stop Running and Make Me a Sandwich), which does in fact now have almost 45,000 members. It is very obviously set up as a joke. Many of the members are women. This is not misogyny. This is silliness and it's perpetuating the silliness through a different iteration to make it a thing.

Now, if you're talking about the group that was set up to oppose Hillary Clinton with the acronym CUNT (I can't remember the name of the organization right off), then your point might be a little more persuasive.

I look forward to the day when we have a female president in this country very much. That I don't want this particular woman has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman and everything to do with the fact that Obama's a much juicier candidate.

As a finale note, the group's icon, Clinton minus the White House plus a sandwich equals thumbs up, is hilarious.

Well, most African-American voters supported Clinton until Iowa and South Carolina. Now they support Obama. So why should Clinton feel bad about playing the, er, Wright card? Serves us Judases right.

this is an excellent article. clinton stands out because she is woman, and obama stands out because he is a black man.

why do we allow a "stop running for president and make me a sandwich" facebook page with 38,000 members? would we allow a "stop running for president sandwich and go drive a bus" page for obama? can you imagine the uproar then? it's okay for misogyny to have a place in public, but not racism? it's not okay to have EITHER!