Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
So Obama followers, tell me
We can all agree calling a 40 something man a 'boy' is racist.
Can we agree on what is sexism? Mockery, smirks, etc? Could this be 'gasp' sexism?
Can we agree on anything?
Advertisement
Comments (20)
All of the criticism that Hillary is receiving is due to her actions alone. There are a lot of Obama supporters who have posted here who used to be Hillary supporters, including me. There are also a lot of Edwards and Obama supporters who at one time would have been happy to support Hillary if she won the nomination, but her actions in the past few months have removed the "happy to support" from that equation. I myself would love to have the historic opportunity to vote for a qualified woman for president. Unfortunately for Hillary, she hasn't displayed any of those qualities, from her lack of management of her campaign, to her lack of a positive message, to her and her minions' attempted destruction of a fellow candidate, of the character assassination of Richardson, and so many other things on a list that is much too long, and everyday getting longer, to keep repeating.
April 15, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when Clinton criticizes Obama's dis of people who live in small towns that's not "due to actions alone."
April 15, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's dis of people who live in small towns"
Hillary's Junior Rovians cooked up that idea, and you fell for it.
If you listened to Obama's actual words, you would know that he dissed no one.
April 15, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I don't agree that it was a diss, but to answer your question, no, I don't consider that racist. Just stupid. However, you will not see me, at least, making the claim that it's racist.
April 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell if Hillary is crying at the sexism under her white hooded robe while she's burning the cross on a Chicago lawn.
April 15, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/
April 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naah ..she's just a shrew, a harpy, ruthless as the day is long, a bitch on wheels with no moral compass, plodding, pedestrian, took the most awesome political machine a non-incumbent Democrat has seen in some decades, perhaps ever and ran it into the ditch.
She and her husband are political parasites. Clinton Inc. business, its only business, is the production of politics
Thanks to Barack Obama and the mess the Clintons' have made over the last months, I'd say the Clinton, Inc. brand will continue its months' long slide. Once we're done with her, she will return to a once bright, if not especially distinguished , Senate career of little moment or influence
If that's sexist,misogynistic then women as leaders in this country are a sorry lot.
April 15, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beat the bitch. Did you hear what her cuntish daughter did?
April 15, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 2000, I was among those Democrats who were really excited that she won her NY Senate Bid. In fact, many of us couldn't wait until 2008 when she'd have her first realistic shot at besting her husband's record in office.
Then along about 2001 she began to campaign and by 2002 with her War Vote, I joined the He-Man-Hillary Haters Fan Club because Hillary Clinton is worse than Bill in just about every respect for she will truly say anything, do anything to get elected
April 15, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, nellmc, I hope we can agree on something. We are both Democrats, right? We want better health care, and a responsible but certain draw-down of troops in Iraq, and a better policy on the environment. We agree on those things.
As for racism vs. sexism--you're right that this is difficult to pin down. And I speak as someone who should be Hillary's key demographic, a 44 year old white woman in the south. Certainly "boy" is considered racist, because it's a term used to belittle grown black men by the white power in the South. I imagine the sexist equivalent would be to call Hillary "little lady," as in "that little lady needs to keep her finger away from the nuclear button." Does that make for a fair comparison?
Smirks are too nebulous, too easy to misread if someone meant condescension or was just trying to clear some rubber chicken out of their teeth. Mockery has been dealt on both sides--I think it's been established that anyone willing to run for office puts themselves in the way of mockery. Just as Obama teased Clinton about being an Annie Oakley, Clinton did a pretty funny routine on how Obama gives speeches as if the sky's going to open up and we'll all hold hands and sing kumbayah. I don't think either of those fall into racism or sexism, just... well, you used the best word. Mockery. Mockery of what someone said, or an attitude that seems suspect.
It is unfortunate that some people use perjoratives for women (the w or b or sl words) without a great deal of flak--but please notice that even we Obama supporters usually try to chide them that do. I know it must be frustrating, since certain racial epithets are even more off-limits. I don't know that we can blame Obama or his supporters for that, however.
What we CAN do is keep the conversation open. A simple question of "Wait... does this strike you as at all sexist?" would go farther than "Hey, you sexist!" from the Clinton camp, as much as "Um... does that tread a little close to racism" instead of "You racist!" from Obama supporters. Because in the end, our Democratic candidate should not be elected based on gender or race--which I think is something else the majority of Democrats can agree on.
April 15, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos
April 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree and happily. When any white southern man calls an African- American man only 2 years or so younger than he is a boy, yes, it's only racism. And when Mitch McConnell said Hillary was worried about the Hooters opening up near her and Bill's home, that was sexism. Hell it was worse than just sexism, it was a blatant attack on a woman who had been victimized. That is the same as saying a woman who gets raped deserves it because she wears low- cut shirts, or make-up, or flirts. None of these people should be allowed to get away with this sort of under-handed blaming.
We're supposed to be better than this, people. Hell, we're supposed to be above and beyond this type of tripe.
After Iowa, Hillary was brutally mauled by the MSM, and the misogynist Chris Mathews was the most blatant. Had I been voting in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Hillary. And that was when I was in the Edwards camp, and he was still in the race. I did not turn to Hillary after Edwards, Dodd and Richardson left, but I still respected the heck out of he3r and would have voted for her in Nov with pride. (Not so much, now, but I'll still vote for her, because she is still bett3r than McCain and any other Republican.
So yea, joking about the insecurity and pains Hillary must have felt living with Bill and being around all the beautiful young women who are attracted to powerful men, and calling Obama "that boy" are and should be, equally offensive to all sentient beings in this century.
Keep your eyes on the prize, people. We are not the enemy. Neither one of our camps. No matter our problems, real and imagined are we ever as bad as the most resonable Republican. Let's take our country and our Constitution back.
April 15, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos
April 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little over-broad, I believe. By this standard, Hillary's "the skies will open, the clouds will part..." dig qualifies as (gasp) sexism. I know that you're referring to something more specific -- the "Annie Oakley" comment, maybe? It's more useful to address each statement by the respective candidate on its merits. I know this cuts into a theory that many Clinton supporters have that there is an orchestrated attempt to discredit her because she's a woman, but Occam's razor points to a different conclusion: he's trying to discredit her because she's his opponent in a political race. She is doing the same thing; that's how this works. The fact that he's doing a better job on balance doesn't mean that he's superior by virtue of a Y chromosome. It just means that he's running a better campaign, something he could do as a man or a woman. Pointing to her gender -- and thus inevitably to his -- undercuts what ought to be your core argument: that she's the best candidate. By trying to introduce a handicap factor that artificially boosts her performance, you're insisting that she should be treated differently because she's a woman, which is prima facie discrimination.
April 15, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So basically sexism can't be addressed?
April 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It can and ought to be addressed when a specific comment seeks to discredit Clinton on the basis of her gender. Here are some examples from out of nowhere:
1. A woman isn't tough enough to be president.
2. Shouldn't we worry that hormones will incluence her decision-making?
3. The military will never respect a female Commander-in-Chief.
4. She will encourage reverse-discrimination against males if she is elected.
None of these are true; they are all unquestionably sexist, but I'm sure you can find people from all over the country who would agree with them. You can find similar people who believe similar things about ethnic minority candidates. People who say such things are pertty transparently repugnant and don't really merit a response; they torpedo their own arguments by virtue of their ignorance.
I expect you're not referring to this brand of overt sexism, but rather an insidious flavor of discrimination wherein the speaker merely implies the types of assertions that are plainly stated above. I can't recall an Obama quote (or even a campaign staff quote) that fit squarely in this category without a much-more-plausible alternate interpretation. They called Hillary a "monster," but that's not sexist in either of the constructs I'm laying out. Tina Fey calls her a "bitch," but equates the appelation with strong leadership capacity. Randi Rhodes calls her a "f*&^ing whore," which frankly I could take either way, as I think prostitution analogies have become almost gender-neutral in the DC vernacular -- especially in the environment created by the current administration.
What I'm asking for is a quote -- or series of quotes -- that clearly demonstrates the intentional promotion of a gender bias against HRC. You might be able to cobble together a collection of off-color statements from surrogates and stitch it together to look like more than it is, but I doubt that you'll find much more. Obama is winning because he draws contrasts that voters accept and respond to; these contrasts have little, if anything, to do with gender. But then again, I suppose you see things differently.
April 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wasting your time if you expect something other that vicious insults from the majority of Obama supporters. But then, their candidate is usually unable to be gracious himself.
Last night's Philly Jefferson-Jackson dinner:
HRC: "Neither Senator Obama nor myself could have dreamed we would be right here asking you for your votes. We are the beneficiaries of the work and sacrifice that so many of you and countless Americans have done over so many generations."
BO: "It's not me who's out of touch. It's folks that think that somehow folks are happy when they're out of a job and they lost a pension and they don't have heath care and their schools are underfunded. I know exactly what folks are going through. And I go to church."
Hillary's positive; Obama attacks.
April 15, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Obama's statement an attack on Hillary? I don't see her mentioned at all. It's almost, almost, as if you're aware of an attack made by Hillary that he's responding to. Otherwise, you could be thinking that he was responding to McCain, right?
April 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has been so very kind throughout all this, defending him from criticism and reminding the voters that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are out of touch....
April 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mikeyleigh wrote:
Last night's Philly Jefferson-Jackson dinner:
HRC: "Neither Senator Obama nor myself could have dreamed we would be right here asking you for your votes. We are the beneficiaries of the work and sacrifice that so many of you and countless Americans have done over so many generations."
BO: "It's not me who's out of touch. It's folks that think that somehow folks are happy when they're out of a job and they lost a pension and they don't have heath care and their schools are underfunded. I know exactly what folks are going through. And I go to church."
Hillary's positive; Obama attacks.
It's dishonest to completely ignore that Hillary, prior to these comments, spent 4 days attacking Obama on a mis-statement. Any person with a brain knew what Obama was saying, Clinton twisted his words and relentlessly attacked him for what SHE said he said.
If Obama is such a negative campaigner, where are the Tuzla ads, the Colombian ads????
April 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment