« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Yeah, Let's Talk About It: It Wasn't Sexism Then or NOW
I had decided I would not post anything about the "sexism" that supposedly cost Sen. Hillary Clinton the democratic nomination for President. Then I saw Djamo's piece entitled "Can We Talk About It NOW?"
My answer: nothing much to talk about.
Hillary (pardon my familiarity) did not lose because she was a victim of sexism. She did not lose because she ran a feminist campaign. Far from it. She lost because she ran a lousy campaign.
Let's explore the "feminist" side of the argument, because if there was gender-hate, surely a "feminism-based" campaign would have triggered the desired response to bring forth the woman-hating men.
Instead, she started this campaign and ran until her Iowa loss as an androgynous (neither male nor female) candidate. She was the heir-apparent (not "heiress.")
There was a debate where she claimed to have been "piled on" by the other seven men in the race, after first claiming they were not after her because she was a woman, but the front-runner. She made a trek back to her alma mater, and claimed that the all-female institution had prepared her for the "rough and tumble world of all-male Presidential politics." But the "Piling On" web commercial undercut her case.
Then there is the famous "Iron My Shirt" incident, where two college age young men held signs with the slogan. What it meant, I have no idea. But... But... a candidate who wanted to make a "feminist" point might have said to those two young men: "Gladly! Because women in every culture and of every generation all around the world have taken in washing, ironed shirts, darned socks, sold eggs, baked bread, done whatever they could to feed and clothe their families. When times were tough, your grandmothers grew vegetables in their victory gardens, sold apples and tomatoes to make ends meet. Iron your shirts? Sure, we've ironed the shirts of fathers and husbands and sons who wore the uniforms of this country and sent them to protect our nation while we kept the home fires burning. Iron My Shirts! young men is not a put down, but a rallying cry."
But Hillary didn't say that. She claimed instead that the boys were sent by Obama (with no evidence) to disrupt her campaign. Only privileged women would take exception to having to do a little domestic housekeeping. After all, that's what maids are for.
Her husband and all of her other "defenders-in-chief" were men: Bill, Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Phil Singer, Terry McAuliffe, Geoff Garin, Bob Buffenbarger, Gerald McEntee. Sure there was Ann Lewis and Stephanie Tubbs Jones. But the real dirty work was done by the men in the campaign. A "real" woman puts up her dukes and fights for herself.
She relied on eight years of her husband's experience as President. Her "experience" was suspect. After being called the "face of foreign policy" and regaling us time and again with the evermore harrowing Bosnian sniper fire story, it turns out it was a blatant lie.
She flip-flopped on giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses but never decried the despicable round-ups and deportations of parents without their children. I did not hear one major speech on a woman's right to choose, although she thought nothing of lying about Obama's record on abortion rights when it suited her.
She whined about getting asked tough questions, hid behind an unbearable cackle when tough questions came her way. She threw a hissy-fit (and I mean those exact words) when David Shuster --using the common parlance -- talked about "pimping out her daughter" at the exact time, Chelsea -- not Hillary -- was calling super delegates begging for support, not talking to the media including 9-year old GIRL reporters, taking super delegates to breakfast, being auctioned off as a "date to the L.A. debates" on hillaryclinton.com. She wasn't hiring her daughter out as a physical callgirl, but certainly there is no dispute she turned her out as a political one.
There is the Tina Fey "bitch is the new black," where Fey -- calling both herself and Amy Poehler bitches, too -- talked about "bitches gittin' stuff done" and included Hillary in the list.
Hillary didn't mind showing off her ability to memorize facts and rattle off twenty-point proposals, but she couldn't be bothered being a real woman. Little wonder people didn't believe her "precious tears" moment in New Hampshire. That followed the much vaunted "The Hillary I Know" tour. We never learned much about the real Hillary.
Her campaign was based on "can you top this moments," of chugging beers and shots, Mad Mom-like, clean your room rants complete with the "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" She claimed to have learned to shoot a gun with her grandfather as a single-digit girl -- but we were loathe to believe her tale, coming as it did on the heels of "dodging snipers."
Hillary didn't run as the "wonan's candidate." That would have been a difficult pivot because far too few women would have raised their hands to authorize a war knowing it would be the death warrant for their sons and daughters. Hillary should have been "Another Mother For Peace." Her slogan could have been a reprise of " War is not healthy for children and other living things." But instead she told us of her and John McCain's lifetimes of experience which made them the only commader-in-chief material in the race. But here's the point to ponder: not one of the media types she is blaming -- well, her supporters are blaming -- now ever said anything to dispute her claim. If I wanted a "sexist" moment, I would have jumped on that one. No one ever questioned that neither she -- nor her husband, whose experience as commander-in-chief she was borrowing -- had ever served in the military.
It was only as her campaign drew to its inevitable conclusion -- not winning, but losing because she had played "coronation of the queen" a little too long -- that blaming the media for its "sexism" became the excuse du jour.
Sure there were, are and will be some jerks out there. But Hillary lost for reasons other than sexism. She lost because she assumed she was a shoo-in. And that no one-term, tall, skinny, latte-colored, junior Senator from Illinois would have the audacity to challenge her. And be uppity enough to win.
Comments (168)
A frackin' men!!!!
June 14, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade - you seem to have an aversion to reaitty and facts so let me help you out here. It's easy to base an argument on bull shit and bluster unsupported by facts, but when the facts get proven wrong what are you left with? A bitter nonsensical diatribe that just seems
Fact: I never said Hillary's loss was due to sexism. I said sexism was a factor int he campaign.
Lie: Hillary started the campaign as the Androgynous Candidate and only played the gender card when she was losing for sympathy
Fact: July 2007 in Iowa - "I know how hard this job is. It is hard at any time. But it will have some special challenges following President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I am very proud to be running as a woman to make history as our first woman president. That is exciting. But I am not running as a woman, I am running because I believe I am the best qualified and experienced person." [part of her stump speech]
Lie: "She claimed instead that the boys were sent by Obama (with no evidence) to disrupt her campaign. Only privileged women would take exception to having to do a little domestic housekeeping. After all, that's what maids are for."
Fact: Hillary never claimed the Iron My Shirts crew was sent by Obama and it's never been claimed anywhere that she did. Second if you would really accept someone coming into your office and saying iron my short, shine my shoes and get me coffee and accept that shit, I really pity you. You must be quite the rug to walk on. I'm not the violent type, but that kind of demeaning treeatment might prompt me to kick someone in the tenders. But apparrently you are the yessuh type, please demean me and belittle me and I will own the little box you put me in and iron your shirts with honor. Kudos for you!
Lies: Hillary had men do all the fighting for her and was passively sitting by as the damsel in distress.
Facts: Hillary is much more assertive than Obama and is more than capable of speaking uo for herself. While Obama sends out surrogated to do his dirty work so he doesn't get his hands dirty, Hillary for better or worse says publicly what her campaign will say privately. Hillary will say publicly I would have left Trinity Church. Obama says he accepts Hillary's explanation about the RFK statement publicly, while his campaign is inflaming the issue with memos to the media. Who's the one hiding behind Daddy's skirts again? Right - it's Obama. I don't know a single person who looked at this campaign adn said Hillary didn;t fight for herself. In contrast they said she fought too hard and damaged Obama. Some consistency please.
Howe is it prostituting yourself to campaign for your parent? The media has no absolute right to interview Chelsea. She has the right to determine where her privacy begins and ends. In fact it is the OPPOSITE of pimping out Chelsea to say I know you speaking in the media for me would help my campaign, but i want you todo only what you are comfortbale with. The media is pissed because Chelsea doesn't speak to them so they feel they have the right to demean her as a whore. On a separate note, are the Obama's pimping out their daughters when they put them in the media spotlight. Let's call the child pornography team in stat!
The last half of your diatribe isn't even facts - it's just you perpetuating more sexist attacks on Senator Clinton.
Again Hillary did not lose because of sexism, but you and your condoning and perpetuating of sexist attacks against Hillary makes it harder to confront sexist attacks against Michelle Obama or the next woman who runs for public office or women in general. After reading your post if you really believe everything you wrote, you are a fucking disgrace to women and humanity in general.
June 15, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, Does this sound familiar? "I treat others in the manner in which I am treated. Those who treat me with repect, I can disagree with in a very respectful manner. Those who are so childish that they resort to personal attacks, well they can GFY. They usually have nothing to add to the conversation." It should, you wrote it. And yet today you publish, "After reading your post if you really believe everything you wrote, you are a fucking disgrace to women and humanity in general."
Many of us disagree with you and endorse 100% what Jade wrote. So, guess that every woman who sees and feels things differently than you is ',,,disgrace to women and humanity in general.'
Actually, I don't think that's your call to make.
But, in the spirit of Obama's message, I will not lower myself to your level in my reply, but instead give you some kindly advice.
dijamo, Get Help Now! All this displaced anger, bitterness and the never ending, over abundance of holier than thou posturing must be playing havoc with your blood pressure and physical health in general. (So not even referencing emotional, mental psyche issues) I plead of you, GFY (Go Fix Yourself).
June 15, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course you aree with 100% of what she wrote because why let actual facts and reality get in the way of acknowledging tough truths about what we as democrats have accepted in sexist and mispgynistic attacks throughout this campaign. When Michelle Obama gets attacked, that's when we must regain our decency and rally around her because it's the right thing to do. You cannot get more unprincipled than that. I have no respect for people who think they determine who is worthy of respect and who is not.
I don't mean to be harsh but I call them as I see them.
* anyone who argues that women confronted with sexism are empowered and should confront those calls by demeaning and debasing themselves "Hell Yeah I'll iron your shirts, let me shine your shoes too!"
* anyone who condones likening a woman to a prostitute simply because she doesn't submit herself to the demands of the media
* anyone who participates in the sexist and misogynistic game of harping on a whine or a cackle or nagging to demean a woman
* anyone who mocks and demeans a woman simply for showing emotion when male candidates can outright cry on the campaign trail
Doesn't respect women and doesn't respect herself and is a fucking disrace to women and humanity. That's not an insult - that's reality something Jade (and you apparently) are not too familiar with.
I don't think you folks will ever get that it's not about Hillary - it's about a culture of respect fow women in the media and in the general culture. I cannot believe how far back the democratic party has regressed that people are signing onto shit like this that would have been UNHEARD OF absent the context of Hillary. And to still be defending it is appalling. But now that you are defending it, note that it will be more difficult to defend Michelle Obama when some ass in teh audience tells her to iron his shirts or says she is prostituting her daughters or makes derogatory comments about her looks or call her a bitch and so on and so on and so on. In excusing the attacks on Hillary, you've made it easier for them to succeed against all women. And now you want feminists to rally around Michelle Obama?!?! Hmmm let me think about that and get back to you.
June 15, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam doesn't just want feminists to rally around Michelle Obama. She is actually complaining that Hillary Clinton isn't complaining about the sexism directed against Michelle. The level of duplicity and hypocrisy boggles the mind. But....you see, she's so blinded by Clinton hatred that she excuses everything done to Clinton. She's a disgrace, not to women, to humanity.
June 15, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me? Although everything you stated before your last sentence is false with no foundation, it's your last sentence that defines your thought processes and makes it difficult for anyone to respect or give credence to your position/opinions. This irrational type of statement bespeaks to your frustration, anger and emotional state - this only weakens your ability to be taken seriously.
June 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You complain of the "disconnect" because she's not speaking up about Michelle Obama in the thread asking if Clinton's a covert TPM poster.
Then you go ever further than the other hypocrites making that complaint to proffer the possibility that her silence is a plot so she could step back in and take the nomination.
And here you deny that. Really, you're unbelievable.
June 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you're addressing in your first accusation, as to the second, Yes, as many others, a part of me is waiting for the other shoe to drop and I listed my reasons. I also reiterated that I hope I am wrong.
I've stated my views on this subject, as you have also. We disagree. We each, as do others, have the right to express our opinions. I have no interest engaging in a back and forth fraught with personal, disrespectful verbiage as it serves no positive purpose. If you would like to enter into a discussion without the negative attacks, that would be a good debate. Take care.
Happy Father's Day.
June 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/hillary-are-you-a-clandestine.php#comment-2905480
That's your comment. If that's not hypocrisy when put along side the post in this thread, then what is?
June 15, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your view of "reality" is troubling. Your "facts" are inaccurate and based on opinions.
I'm a woman.
I don't hate Hillary Clinton.
Originally, she was my preferred candidate. Yet I agree with Jade's post.
I've seen and endured sexism in the corporate world since the 80's. Yet, again, I agree with Jade's post.
I resent that you believe this makes me a "fucking disgrace to women and humanity in general".
To engage in a debate on the assertions you make would be pointless. You seem to be cemented in your perspective. No amount of discussion will change your views.
However, let me be clear, I believe you're entitled to your opinion.
I can agree to disagree with you; without delving into immature belittling of another's opposite position.
June 15, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know last night I may have had one lychee martini too many and you know the saying don't drink and type. So I want to apologize to Jade and anyone else I may have offended by caling them a disgrace to women and to humanity in general... because I left out the democratic party.
So Jade and anyone else who agrees that it's okay to use sexism and gender to debase Hillary Clinton in the campaign, who was silent or cheered when it happened because Hillary wasn't their candidate or they didn't like her is a fucking disgrace to women, humanity and most of all the democratic party because the democratic party used to stand for respect for everyone. And in this very post Jade continues not just to ignore but to PERPETUATE sexist and misogynistic tones.
I despise Condoleeza Rice but if I saw her dbeased in ethnic slurs or stereotypes, I speak the hell up. There are many many ways to criticize her on substance that I don't respect people who use the N word or Aunt Jemima etc. Why can't people - actual democrats - do the same for women they disagree with eben if they hate them on a personal level?
That's not a personal attack - that is reality. Disgrace means to cause a lack of honor to and to cause to lose standing, and those who truly believe that shit have caused women, humanity and the democratic party to have less standing to confront sexism against other people when they happen in politics, in the media, in journalism, in the effing blogosphere or in real life.
Hence anyone who agrees and continues to parlay that crap is a fucking disgrace to women, humanity and the democratic party. I think the GFY - Go Fix yourself - is certainly more apt for those people who ignored sexism when it happened to Hillary Clinton. At least I can say my principles are intact. How are yours?
June 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
... maybe you should stop drinking...
Funny, I didn't need to resort to calling you a "fucking" anything when I replied to your original post. Perhaps I should have...
June 15, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for proving my point.
June 15, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, if someone wanted to agree with you, this final statement of yours, really does put the kabbash on it all.
Human rights are not something you decide to defend because it's politically or personally expedient. You decry the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton and yet you end your statement with you're not sure about rallying around Michelle Obama. I find this hypocritical and insincere.
June 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have lost the moral authority to defend Michelle Obama because we ignored it against Hillary Clinton. Until the democratic party comes to terms with why they were so silent in the face of sexism in this campaign, why would feminists in tehir right minds rally around someone who was silent when it happened to someone else? Their still rallying aroudn addressing the sexism that played a role in the campaign against Hillary Clinton.
It exposes the Obama's supporters' hypocrisy when they come to this sudden realization that sexist attacks are really wrong only when the female candidate has exited the race. Now that Hillary is gone lets reinstate our NOW cards and confront attacks on Michelle.
Hillary made it through the fire on her own when Bill was running and in this campaign. I'm sure Michelle Obama is strong enough to make it as well. And if not, maybe she'll reflect on her dismissive Hillary's so polarizing statements and realizze Hillary was polarizing because she was vilified as a strong, intelligent woman during her husband's campaign much as Michelle Obama will be as well. You can't understand someone unless you've walked in their shoes, and Michelle Obama will have a little more appreciation for what Hillary faced when she goes through it herself.
June 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, of all, your're just plain wrong, when your version of the campaign sexism was ignored during the campaign. Many O. supporters here at TPM spoke out against it as did Hillary supporters.
But know what your kind of logic reminds me of?
When I lived in Germany, there was a pervasive attitude that I can only describe as the "It's not my dog" philosopy. It goes like this.
Your walking down a street, your watching someone walk into traffic, but you say nothing. Why? "It's not my dog."
Your decision to not speak out against sexism no matter where it strikes exposes a very shallow approach to your core beliefs. What do you care if some or even 80% of Obama (or Hillary) supoporters are as shallow as you claim they are.
That's pretty weak thinking. Sorry, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
June 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should explain that this was an attitude that mostly prevalent with the older generation-- those who grew up during the war and earlier. Not the younger generation at all.
June 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said I would be silent when michelle Obama faces sexism., I said I would be very vocal in both criticizing the sexist attacks AND exposin the hypocrisy of those people who have this newfound outrage against disrepecting women in the media and politics when it's Michelle Obama but disregarded or participated in it when it was against Hillary Clinton. The same folks who denied sexism played any role against Hillary if faced with the same comments against Michelle Obama will be outraged should anyone in the mainstream media dare to call Michelle Obama a bitch. Are only black women worthy of respect? How about only the women we like? What kind of moral rules do you live by that it is acceptable against Hillary but now that it's Michelle Obama you have the right to be outraged? Give me a break.
Does exposing their hypocrisy weaken the case for protecting Michelle? Absolutely but that is their fault and not mine for contributing to an environment where it is okay to use sexist and demeaning terms because you don't like the particular person they are against. That is the lasting legacy they have contributed to and still don't want to take accountability for.
June 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it seem that Barack and Michelle Obama are being blamed for the sexism in the campaign? Neither of them propagated that theme, and to suggest otherwise is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
I was never a Clinton supporter, but I spent the first half of the campaign exasperated at the coverage of Senator Clinton's make-up, her cleavage, her pantsuits, etc. She is a woman of considerable intelligence and substance, and the media did open up several superficial (and demeaning!) cans of worms with those story lines.
However, only when things weren't going her way did the sexism meme come into the talking points, and that just isn't fair. It can't happen both ways, my friends. What is doubly unfair is to turn around and blame the Obama campaign for the bullsh*t themes in MSM reporting. Be angry, absolutely. But please be angry at the correct entity.
June 15, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, you -- like so many other Hillary supporters -- want to come up with some excuse as to why she lost. You pointed the readership here at TPM to the NOW website and the "media hall of shame" for all of the egregious wrongs done to your candidate.
I -- and millions of other folk -- disagree that sexism affected Clinton in this race.
You may "call it as you see it," but as an umpire, you are deaf dumb and blind to the reality of why your candidate lost.
The only people I saw making Hillary into a victim of sexism (and Bill Clinton the "victim" of race-baiting) was Hillary and her team. I find it ludicrous to suggest that a woman who tried so hard to mimic the macho-man posturing of Bush and McCain was held back by sexism.
Let me make my point from a different perspective: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton entered this race with every advantage.
+ She had the "legendary" Clinton machine at her service.
+ She had the name recognition from being First Lady for 8 years.
+ She had a former President with a positive reputation (at least among Democrats) as her chief surrogate.
+ She had his generally positive record to run on as her own.
+ She had mainstream media AVOIDING any mention of the most toxic aspects of her resume (that is no Whitewater, Ken Starr, Monica, Gennifer, grand jury testimony, Paula Jones and settlement, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster) and only parenthetical references to her colossal failure with healthcare.
+ She had mainstream media supporting her claim that she was more experienced thanall of her rivals including Bill Richardson (two-term Governor, UN Ambassador, Enegry Sec'y), than Joe Biden (36 years in US Senate, foreign relations expert), than Chris Dodd (30 years in US Senate, education expert), than John Edwards (former VP nominee, US Senator, successful medical malpractice trial attorney), than Dennis Kucinich (former mayor, multi-term US Representative, constitutional law expert). (Talk about your fairy tales.)
+ She was "given" the front-runner status by the media even before the race started.
+ She had more money than anyone else entering the race.
+ She racked up more super delegates BEFORE the race started than anyone else.
Her list of "advantages" goes on. And yet with that head start, she still managed to lose. That's like being given a 3-lap head start in a four lap race.
But most importantly, the women who were covering her on the campaign trail -- subject to the sexism of the newsroom, and who "know it when they see it," -- did not see "sexism" during the race.
You have a right to be disappointed that Hillary "I'm Your Girl!" Clinton lost. But stop blaming it on sexism.
June 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jade - I don't know how I can make this more clear. I . DON'T. BELIEVE. HILLARY. LOST. DUE. TO. SEXISM. The post was not even about Hillary - it was about post-Hillary. i.e. what is acceptable for women in the public spehere to face in terms of sexism and misogny in the media. This is a particularly important question now because Michelle Obama is the next target of media attacks and people are looking to the feminist movement to defend her (even though they deny sexism when it's against Hillary Clinton).
There is such a thing as larger principles of decency and fairness outside of Hillary v. Obama. If you want feminists to combat sexism against Michelle, perhaps you should come to terms with the sexism against Hillary. But you don't - you just continue to play into it.
You can't refute the basic point that Hillary faced sexism in this campaign so you just go through a long list of other reasons Hillary lost. This is not about why Hillary lost. It's about what women can expect within politics, the media and the democratic party in terms of respect and fair treatment. Your inability to see beyong Hillary makes you incapable of seeing the larger issue. If what was doen to Hillary linton is not sexist, then it is not sexist to Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc etc etc.
So you continue with your diatribes against Hillary to excuse the fact that you and others played a part in ignoring or participating in sexist and misogynistic attacks against Senator Clinton. That will be very helpful to attract Hillary supporters to Obama and help us to our common end goal of a democratic president in November. And of course it will inspire feminists to support Michelle Obama when she herself was so silent when sexism happened to Hillary. The democratic party is not entitled to command the outrage of feminists at their own whim - rally for Michelle Obama and STFU about Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy is appalling.
June 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm done arguing this stuff, D, but thanks for keeping up the well-reasoned rebuttal. I don't know how they think they'll unify, but my guess from another post today is that it involves a gun.
June 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea Clinton is an adult woman and an accomplished professional. But go ahead and call her a political call girl. And then tell me how there wasn't any sexism in the campaign.
June 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured that reference would piss somebody off.
But let's face it: it wasn't until the end of the campaign that Hillary actually started calling super delegates herself. Until then, the only Clinton(s) calling them were Bill (Mr. Strong Arm Tactics) and Chelsea. Don't know about you, but I'd be reluctant to offer a child of mine as the "prize" going to the highest bidding donor, or the "winning" donor. It's a little too much like... well, pimping out your daughter.
June 14, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You parrot the sexist "pimping out your daughter" line in a blog post about how Hillary wasn't subjected to unfair sexism and... okay... kind of completely undermines your point.
Which is too bad. I agree with you that Hillary really lost because she ran a bad campaign.
But no, she didn't "pimp out" her daughter. This is so beneath you. And I've read your other comments at TPM and... it really is beneath you. No better words for it.
June 14, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade doesn't claim that Hillary wasn't subjected to sexism.
Jade claims that Hillary wasn't DEFEATED by sexism. And Jade is right.
June 14, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely and concisely put.
June 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, actuallly, if you want to get technical about it -- "pimps" are traditionally men. I've never quite understood how that was a sexist put-down of Hillary. --------- And agree totally with Jade that WHAT was being said about the Clintons actions in having Chelsea call superdelegates was quite accurate and worthy of comment.
June 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Palfrey was an exception to that rule.
June 14, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI. How is 'pimping out' while crude at all sexist? Males are pimped out too.
June 14, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's a sexist comment about Chelsea. It implies she's some sort of whore.
June 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, destor... if there was evidence that Hillary gave Bill the wink-wink to woo female super delegates in -- let's call it "the special, extra personal American Gigolo" way -- we could call that "pimping him out" too.
Remember, at the time, Chelsea was giving the media the silent treatment, but was answering questions at town halls. She was accessible to everyone but the "news" crews. And her "accessibility" was used by the campaign as a promotional edge. In exchange for your vote, you can get up close and personal with my daughter.
Maybe Shuster should have said "professional shill" but the job would have been the same.
June 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the most sexist thing in the whole campaign was when the Hillary camp had Carville go out to say that Hillary could give Obama one of her balls and still have more than him. The pimping Chelsea out comment paled in comparison to that, especially since that comment was made by a loud mouth pundit who apologized while the more balls comment was made by a Hillary surrogate who remained gleeful over his perceived hit on Obama.
June 15, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is what pisses me off more than anything else in this angst ridden postmortem - that it was the Hillary supporters who would try to emasculate Obama (or Edwards) while simultaneously use language that made Hillary into a man, and then cry "sexism" when it backfired.
June 15, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
June 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Camille Paglia opined...if someone had made Golda Meir nutcrackers, Golda would have bought all of them she could find and handed them out as party favors. That's how you handle sexism in my book.
June 14, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama should by all the sock monkey dolls and hand them out as party favours?
June 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
June 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev -- You still don't get it. The Hillary "nut crackers" relate to her own personal persona and behavior. They are no different (and just as crude) as her own supporters' equally crude but apparently non-sexist comments about extra balls and testicular fortitude. They are saying that she's a "he man" of a woman .... because she's acting like someone rough and tough and ruthless and WANTS to be perceived that way. It's not something done to any and all successful women politicians (has anyone ever seen an Olympia Snow nut-cracker?) ------------ The sock puppet reflects (in the mind of many, although possibly not the creators they say) one thing and one thing only about Obama: that he is black and incorporates the decades of unseemely references to blacks as somehow more simian than whites.
That's the core of racism or sexism or any other -ism: when you as a person become invisible, meaningless and are denigrated only because you are female/black/Hispanic/whatever. What Don Imus said was clearly racists: those girls were playing basketball and didn't even, for the most part, have 'nappy' hair-dos. Who they were and what they were doing was totally irrelevant to the put-down. If a black man lazes around and does nothing, it's not racism to call him "shiftless" although that term has been used as a racist slur against ALL blacks historically. He is, in fact, being shiftless. --- If Hillary wants to show, daily, how tough she is, how ready she is to "obliterate" Iran, and so on to say she has "balls" may be using sexist language (all courage is NOT masculine) but it accurately describes the behavior she, as an individual, is exhibiting.
Tell me you don't like what I'm doing, in whatever terms you use, means you SEE me and my actions. Tell me you don't like, or make other assumptions about me, me because of my "plumbing", that's sexism. Fuss all you want about sexist terminology, but it's not the same thing as sexism employed to the detriment of a person.
And at some point the literal meaning or source of the language becomes meaningless -- blind people talk about "seeing" things; black talk about something being back because it appeals to the "dark" side or human nature, etc. If, as it has,"bitchy" has come to mean the snappish, fault-finding, erratically-attacking behavior observed in female dogs in heat, then calling anyone - man or woman, human or canine - "bitchy" conveys a certain content. I don't see it as any longer a sexist term.
It's a difficult, shades-of-gray area but there is a dividing line (dare I say a "black and white divide"?): does the statement negatively refelct on what the person is actually doing or does it negatively reflect on the person only because of WHAT they are (female, black, etc.)? Pick your fights.
June 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit, Elizabeth.
June 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point with the Golda nutcracker story is that a leader would handle the situation in a way that puts the issue to rest...whining about it just reinforces the stereotype and adds more ammuntition to the arsenal.
June 15, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should add that a leader would put the issue to rest unless,of course, s/he thought there was a good reason to keep the spin going.
June 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
When McCain loses, I hope he doesn't cry "racism," because he will lose for the same reason Hillary lost. His campaign sucks.
I wish we could have some uninformed-but-intelligent people take a look at thorough descriptions of HRC's and BHO's campaigns with all references to sex and race excluded. Include the Wright scandal, the Bosnia flub, the primaries vs. caucus information, and get an unbiased analysis.
I'm convinced that the Mysterious Gender and Racially Ambiguous "HRC" would be shown to have run a sloppy campaign, and lost for that reason.
June 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we're busy playing the race card on McCain right now... Look it's the Ace of Spades!
June 14, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it not possible to recognize both the cause of her loss as something other than sexism as well as the existence of sexism?
June 14, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is disputing the existence of sexism. What is in dispute is whether or not it is the root cause of Hillary Clinton's failure.
IMHO, the media was no more or less "sexist" during this campaign than in others. Look at the number of women reporters on the campaign trail-- especially those who followed Clinton. (Shailagh Murray and Anne Kornbluth, Candy Crowley, Andrea Mitchell to name a handful.) They were part of the media that followed every step of her campaign. And these are women in a profession dominated by white men. And I didn't not hear any of them crying about how unfair Clinton's coverage was. In fact they were sympathetic to her "crying" when others said, "no, no, no." They went with her to Wellesley and questioned whether she was in fact playing the gender card, and disagreed with her when she said she had been piled on.
Don't you think if these women -- trailblazers in their own right -- would have said something... spoken up at some point, if there was sexism happening?
When Don Imus made his nappy-headed ho statement, the likes of Al Roker and other black employees and correspondents at NBC spoke up. They called it racist. As did black journalists at other venues -- like Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post.
In this instances where were the women when this was happening. Sure Katie Couric speaks up now, but it's "convenient" now. And Couric has her own woes. But I haven't heard women political journalists -- those who worked the campaign trail -- say Hillary was victimized.
She got more coverage -- save for a few news cycles -- than any of her male rivals. She was not excluded from any debate or venue on the basis of her sex. Hell, she got better "softball" questions than they did: "Diamonds or pearls?"
It's just not a viable argument.
June 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post seems to be a response to Dijamo's post. But she does not argue that sexism was the cause of her loss. Those who do take it to an extreme. What you're doing here is no different. Saying she didn't lose because of sexism doesn't have to exclude recognition of any sexism seen in the past months.
Sexism casts itself in many forms and many faces. If the subject of sexism is someone you dislike, does that make it harder to see?
June 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
People have said to you a million times that sexism was rampant in this campaign cycle and that NO, NO, NO, it was NOT the CAUSE of her loss.
June 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, for too many it is.
June 14, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it collapses under its own weight. And those making the argument know it. And Hillary's own actions disprove it.
And when Hillary writes her book on the campaign, she will have transformed herself into Everywoman, and she will have been the victim of the most rampant sexist media coverage ever.
But we will all know the truth.
June 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is, but that's not what some high profile Hillary supporters were doing, and so many of her "regular" supporters, the ones that vote, feel especially aggrieved and disenfranchised.
Hillary and her campaign stoked up, imo, her victimization as a tool to garner votes, her supporters who have been disadvantaged because of sexism, still believe that this is the reason why she lost. Consequently, we need to have these discussions so that people recognize that yes, there is sexism, and contrary to what Gerry Ferarro says there is also pernicious racism, but the fact that this exists does not necessarily determine the outcome of a election campaign.
June 15, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
gettex, I agree with you. It seemed to me that she wanted it both ways--to be regarded as a person first, a female second and also to have the license to play the sexism card whenever anybody criticized her for just the type of behaviors you described. This was very disappointing to me, since I had a very positive view of Sen Clinton and President Clinton when the primary season began.
In fact, I was quite torn. I would LOVE to see a woman become President. But, it became clear to me that THIS woman--as accomplished as she is--was not our best choice in this time and place.
I am reminded of a line from the movie "Chariots of Fire". Ben Cross's character has just lost a race to Eric Liddle and he is crushed. His girlfriend finds him weeping in a dark corner and reminds him, "You were both wonderful, just wonderful. He was a just a little more wonderful".
In many ways, I feel this way about this race. Both are wonderful and are qualified to lead this country. Sen Obama is just a little more wonderful. And, I think, a better choice for this time and place.
June 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has dedicated her entire life to public service. She's a rock star in that regard, and I doubt if anyone can match her record of accomplishment for the public good. She will continue to work for the public good (and that includes all you trash-talkers out there) no matter what the next chapter is in her life. YOUR life has been improved due to the existence and hard work of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, eat your heart out! GO McCain.
June 14, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a sincere (no snark) question. If you supported Hillary because of her stance on policies and issues, how/why can you support McCain when (aside from gas tax holiday) Hillary's and his platforms are polar opposites?
I'm really interested. Thanks.
June 14, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam - you will NOT get an answer to your question. I've tried for weeks to get an answer to the same questions on multiple blog sites. I've never been disrespectful or snarky, either. The best I've managed to get is a deflection to a totally unrelated point. It's sad, I want to have this conversation.
June 14, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your avatar! I know I've been trying to have dialogue too. Answer why not happening may possibly be they are simply trolls as reported and not 'real'.
June 14, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crock of sheet post..
Mercy..
Vote McShame?
I don't know a person, Hillary or Obama supporters who will be voting for that senile old man in Nov.
Not one person.
Truly glad I don't either.
Truly glad.
June 14, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also know no such freaks. And I'm personally glad every single such wacko can be rightfully ignored after Obama wins.
June 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Franklin Roosevelt?
Um, Lyndon Johnson?
Um, General George Marshall in his role in foreign policy?
Um, Chief Justice Earl Warren?
Um, Edward Kennedy?
Um, Chief Judge Robert Stephens of Kentucky, whose incisive ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education transformed Kentucky school funding and accountability, and set a precedent that is changing state after state across the country?
Um, President Bill Clinton?
June 15, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Barack Obama's life in public service? He has spent his entire adult life in public service, despite what other campaigns want you to believe.
June 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade: This is the best summation of Hillary's actual campaign -- versus claims of causal sexism for her loss -- that I have read, anywhere. Thank you.
June 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, I agree with you assessment. I hope Dijamo will not feel I am being assacious for saying so.
Can we move on to other topics NOW?
June 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No she did not. If anything, she went too far in tryingto run as a "man's man." I'm a woman, and I was not amused or pleased with the guns, the boilermakers, and the bullshit.
It wasn't sexism- it's Hillary. She would be a terrible president - but people dijamo just cannot admit that so it has to have some kind of nefarious factor involved - sexism. It's a fucking bad joke.
It had nothing to do with it for any of the women who support Obama. And we are many. And we aren't sexists. Get over it ladies, really.
You are making us look bad. Jesus - quit it. You are acting like all the worst cliches about women. I hate this.
June 14, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true. Some only support 'equality' when it's convenient and serves their own purposes. And, I thought the Hillary Nutcrackers were (excuse the term) HILLarious! And if they were sexist, it was aimed against males as not being strong enough to stand up to her!
June 14, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think the nutcrackers were hilarious, but Hillary could have made them so, just as you say. She could have exposed them and exploited them, but she didn't.
June 15, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing as usual, Jade. Thank you for being so detailed and unequivocal.
June 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade -- thank you. You did an excellent job putting it in perspective. I hope some of the people thinking that the only way to stand up for women's rights is to vote for John McCain (???????????????) will read your comments and reconsider.
June 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade-
I agree with wwstaebler! this is the best summation of the failure of HRC & Co. I have read.
Awesome! This should go viral for all the HRC fans who can't or rather won't see beyond the moment.
Now is the time to start winning the race for the White House.
June 14, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh shut up, you stupid woman. What do you know?
June 14, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?!? That's the best you can do? Sad.
June 14, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an utterly ridiculous post. The writer JUSTIFIES the use of the term "pimping out" with regard to Chelsea Clinton, when any number of male children of male candidates have worked the campaign trail on behalf of their fathers! Anyone oblivious to the utter MISOGYNY of that usage has no credit in assessing anything to do with the question of sexism.
Hillary Clinton came very close to winning the nomination, garnering nearly half the delegates and some 17-18 million votes, no matter how you count them. In a race that close, any single factor can contribute to coming out with a narrow defeat rather than a narrow victory. The idea that sexism was one such factor cannot be merely wished away, especially not by someone who DEFENDS the sexist language of the likes of Shuster. Not someone who thinks Senator Clinton should have said she would gladly iron those guys' shirts-- another ridiculous endorsement of misogyny. Senator Clinton is under no obligation to be subservient to MALE STRANGERS. Would Jade advise Barack Obama to shine someone's shoes, in order to celebrate the menial work black people have done over the centuries? It is unthinkable.
I suppose when Chris Matthews said male supporters of Hillary Clinton were "castratos in a eunuch chorus" he was merely using a phrase used hundreds of times with respect to supporters of male candidates? Point to one such instance. I suppose when Tucker Carlson said hearing Senator Clinton's voice caused him to instinctively cross his legs, he was complimenting her female power? Jade's reference to Senator Clinton's "unbearable cackle," betrays the extent to which Jade is totally oblivious to sexist and misogynistic language. No wonder this post reads like such a self-parody of Hillary hatred.
June 14, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when in the name of all that is normal is "ironing shirts" MISOGYNY???
Ironing shirts is not a put down. And neither is shining shoes. Ever walk by shoeshine stand in the airport or at the barbershop? Take your clothes to the dry cleaners or the laundry? Or do you think the menial hot sweaty work gets done by little magic elves who come out at night?
How about the hotel maid who makes your bed and cleans your toilet? The busboy who hauls your dirty dishes?
June 14, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a cleaner in a hotel is not paid for his or her services, but forced to work anyway, it is a degradation.
Ironing shirts is not degrading in any way. Neither is shining shoes. What is degrading is for a stranger to demand that someone iron his shirts for him without paying for the service. The demand was based on the implicit understanding that ALL MEN have the right to demand service by ALL WOMEN, including Senators and presidential candidates.
June 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is sexist about the ironing shirts incident is that it was a U.S. Senator who was running for President of the United States. That would be like a sign telling Obama to shine their shoes. I agree that it was sexist, and intentionally so, but also sophomoric to the extreme. So I also agree that it could have been deflected and ignored and marginalized until it was meaningless, instead of becoming part of a larger context of real damage.
There were terrible, sexist comments by the MSM, and they were deplorable. But I still agree with Jade that they did not lose the race for Hillary Clinton. Her own campaign contributed to that, along with the fact that she was going up against a brilliant, inspiring and far more politically-savvy-than-anyone-gave-him-credit-for opponent.
Here's where Hillary lost me. When she claimed that the votes in Michigan should count for her, when her only remaining opponent was not on the ballot. If she had claimed that from day one, and refused to go along with the DNC's ruling, that would be one thing, and I would believe that she really meant that every vote should count. But she only took that position when she was losing. There's absolutely no integrity in claiming an unfair contest for yourself. It was beneath her, and it was beneath the Democratic Party's values (though thoroughly consistent with Rove and his ilk).
So, Hillary lost for various reasons, sexism being among the least likely. But sexism was there, and it needs to be addressed. Don't sweep it under the rug. Fix it, so that the next woman who runs for office can thank Hillary Clinton for paving the way, just as so many heroes of civil rights paved the way for Obama, and they won't have to deal with it like she did. But while you do that, don't claim it was why she lost. It wasn't.
June 15, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on you Jade. Shame on you.
June 15, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo's core point that there was sexism in the campaign is right, Jade's that it didn't lose the election is right. Your comment is better than both posts and is the best in either thread.
Too much shouty.
June 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tucker Carlson?
Mercy what do you expect from that guy, he's been saying ridiculous crap for years.
June 15, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
JADE - This is the best of the best. Honest. Valid. Excellent. THANK YOU!
June 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Jade, really? You have no idea? Really? You're gonna go with that?
Do you understand what this one means?
June 14, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allsburg, I don't know why two young men would ask a woman old enough to be their mom to "iron their shirts." I -- at 50 something, nor my mother at nearly 80 -- had ever heard that as a "slur" before. Iron my shirt... ok...
However, I think I showed you how someone who claimed to be angered by it, could have turned the tables. Had you or anyone else said "Shine My Shoes" to me -- thinking to make some "Chattanooga Shoeshine Boy" type slur because psssssst I'm Black.... I would have turned the tables on you... Yeah, I got your shoeshine right here! But that is beside the point. Which is... Hillary -- all revisionist history to the contrary -- was not defeated by sexism (hell, I don't even think she was the target of sexixm) but rather a very sloppy, elementary campaign.
June 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sloppy indeedy.
Can you say Mark Green?
Yikes!
June 15, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn was whom I meant.
Whoops!
June 15, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the larger point: sexism is not the reason Hillary lost. But come on - just because you might be able to "turn the tables" on someone who told you to shine their shoes, doesn't mean you haven't just experienced racism. Same goes for Hillary - those jackasses with their signs were trying to put the woman in her place. (Well, actually they were trying to get a few minutes of scandalous fame for their local radio station, but they were trying to do it through faux sexism, which, like faux racism, can be just as distasteful as the real thing.)
I'm fine with saying that Clinton suffered from overt sexism in her campaign. Like I say, it's not "the reason" she lost. It's not even that big a reason. A much bigger reason is that she's married to Bill Clinton. Plus, Obama suffered from plenty of racism - but it wasn't as overt.
June 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you don't count the vandalism that has been occurring at his campaign offices - I would call that covert, but the campaign doesn't want to call attention to the problem
June 15, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This awesome point is getting buried in all of this hubbub over whether or not there was sexism and whether it can be blaimed for Hillary's loss. Hillary - overtly - used race as a wedge issue against Obama in the campaign, over and over again. How did Obama respond? He didn't. Why? Because he doesn't want this campaign to be out his race. He wants it to be about his ability to lead this country. There are many things that set these two former candidates apart, but this one really stood out for me.
June 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Former "competitors"
June 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sexism most certainly played not only A role in HRC's candidacy, it played THEE role. But in a different manner than most would think.
Were she NOT a female, she would never have been considered Presidential timber in the first place; would never have been considered a legit candidate for Senator of NY either.
She was the above because, and ONLY because, she was/is the wife of William Jefferson Clinton.
The next female contender will not have to play the Eva Peron role: she'll run because of who SHE is, just as Thatcher, Mier, and Merkel did.
My(non-sexist)Blog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
[Note: This is a copy/paste of my reply to dijamo's post.]
June 14, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And John Quincy Adams was president only because of his father John Adams. And FDR was president only because of his cousin Teddy Roosevelt. And Ted Kennedy is a senator only because of his brother John F Kennedy. And Patrick Kenndy is a Representative only because of his father Ted Kennedy. And George W Bush is president only because of his father George HW Bush. Funny these family connections are all between males.Too bad Eleanor Roosevelt never became president. The Civil Rights Movement would have been decades ahead by now. But she was only the wife of the greatest President of the twentieth century, and even though she was intimately involved in every aspect of the Roosevelt Administration, she was after all only a woman.
June 14, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're seriously comparing HRC to Eleanor Roosevelt?
June 14, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am comparing the sexism that Eleanor Roosevelt faced to the sexism that Hillary Clinton faces. In a classic double standard, men rise in politics via family connections but a woman who attempts to do so is compared to the fascist Eva Peron. In other words what is considered legitimate for a male is cast as illegitimate for a female.
June 14, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. Hillary was given a golden ticket to the finalist tier of the primary that was denied to Biden and Dodd who have been more accomplished in their leadership almost solely because prior to the primary campaign all loved the Clintons and knew how much the Repubs despised her. But she blew it, and Obama cashed his in, when he showed he was a much better, and inspirational, leader. Thats what won him the election. He had more racism to deal with than Hillary had sexism. You can pretend all you want that its not true, but the reality is we are a much more racist, than sexist, country. How many women were lynched as they marched for the vote. None. Not a one. How many women were lynched for flirting with a black man. None. Not a one. How many women were lynched for not bowing down to a white man. Well, maybe a few in private homes, but blacks were in public. So quit the fucking crying already about sexism. If a white man had won you would have an argument. But a member of a class of Americans that have suffered the most extreme hatred, racism and prejudice beat her. And why. Because he's a better person and a better candidate. Much better in fact.
June 15, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will not quit "crying" about sexism. Why should anyone stop complaining about injustice? How tragic that Obama's triumph should be accompanied by some of his supporters telling people concerned with gender equality to shut up.
June 15, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Example: "Obama sock monkey" - we all know about it by now. Contrast THAT to "iron my shirt".
June 15, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you saw my post above about the 'dividing line' between sexism and use of sexist (or sex-related) terminology, there is no difference. Neither the sock monkey nor the 'iron my shirt' bear any relation to anything about Obama and Clinton, respectively, except their race and sex,respectively. They are racist and sexist, again respectively. -------- However, I'd point out that neither of the candidates themselves made a big stink about it although their supporters went off the deep end. Why? Because they weren't even motivated by the -ism but by a desire for profit and playing on the public's wilingness to either buy into or get indignant about racial and sexual stereotypes. Just two more in a long line of idiotic things people do for $$$ or their 15 minutes of fame. (I would have been more impressed, however, if Clinton has said "Ah, I see stupidity is still alive and well" rather than sexism. In this day and age, thankfully, to imply that all women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen is far more stupid than it is sexist.)
June 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! and there's no violence against women.
Violence against women is so widespread and pervasive it's not even news, but that doesn't excuse your ignorant claim that women have not been victimized because of sexism.
What is rape? What is wife-battering? My God, people where t-shirts called wifebeaters. What planet are you on?
June 15, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Oregon Activist. My valid points that racism has been and remains a bigger issue than sexism, with more violence against blacks who didn't know "their place" than against similarly situated women, means, voila, there is no sexism. Are you really that stupid, or do you just play it here. Blacks face more prejudice than women. And the fundamentals of racism hurt Obama more than the fundamentals of sexism hurt Hillary. So for her and her supporters to play the victim "ism" card as it relates to Obama is as absurd as it gets.
June 15, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Applause! Facts are indeed good and you are absolutely correct. All prejudice based on non-individual characterists is bad (personally, I'm prejudiced against mean people and make no apology), and all prejudice can lead to actions that are harmful and ugly to the despised class. And all of it should be fought against. But to claim that a woman in America has as difficult a time of it as a black is simply ludicrous. Even when society was sexist in an institutionalized way, most women were also protected, sometimes very strongly, by many members of the same group that abused them (fathers, brothers, etc.). Who was protecting the blacks? And they were allowed by society to protect themselves: for decades no woman who shot her husband in Miss. ever saw the inside of a jail, while in the same state a bright young 14 year old boy (and many others) was killed for daring to whistle or look inappropriately at a white woman. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
June 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you object to that? I don't understand.
June 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am seriously comparing her to Eleanor Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt would have been proud to have Clinton compared to her.
June 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
DemD:
You make a good case for the nepotism that has permeated American government since its inception.
But the thought of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton for 28 years would have been a tad much, no?
We may as well be ruled by Kings, Emirs, Sultans and the like.
But I forgot, you like family dynasties.
FB
PS-And Yes! Ted is Sen. because of JFK, Patrick because of Ted, George W because of George HW, of course...what do you think? These guys are any better than you or me? You think Al Gore would have been Sen. or VP if his father wasn't a Senator? Man or Woman, open your eyes! Wake up!
June 14, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like or dislike family dynasties. I merely point out that they exist. Sometimes they've been great (Teddy Roosevelt and FDR) and sometimes they've been awful (George HW Bush and George W Bush). Is Ted Kennedy a fascist because his political career was launched on the strength of a family name? No.
June 14, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And John Quincy Adams was president only because of his father John Adams. And FDR was president only because of his cousin Teddy Roosevelt. And Ted Kennedy is a senator only because of his brother John F Kennedy. And Patrick Kenndy is a Representative only because of his father Ted Kennedy. And George W Bush is president only because of his father George HW Bush. Funny these family connections are all between males.Too bad Eleanor Roosevelt never became president. The Civil Rights Movement would have been decades ahead by now. But she was only the wife of the greatest President of the twentieth century, and even though she was intimately involved in every aspect of the Roosevelt Administration, she was after all only a woman.
June 14, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't the "Iron my shirt" incident raced back to a shock radio stunt?
I'm certainly not going to deny there was bouts of sexism during the campaign, but will once again make the point that none of it came from the Obama campaign. Obama has never said anything near the effect of "Wanna know why Chelsea is so ugly - Janet Reno is her father" like John McCain did back in the 1990's when Chelsea was in her awkward teenager stage.
However the fact of the matter is is that Hillary entered the primary as the presumptive nominee and with over 100 super-delegates already endorsing her. Where was the sexism that pushed Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich off the stage as also-rans to the Clinton storyline? Why was the junior senator from New York considered the presumptive candidate from the get-go?
Where was the sexism when comedian Sinbad had to expose Hillary's bosnia lie eventhough it was admitted that reporters knew Hillary was "misspeaking" from the first time she exaggerated the story?
June 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
June 14, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You set up straw man arguments and then defeat them.
If shock jocks created the "Iron my shirts" incident, it should be universally condemned as something akin to Imus calling the women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos." Instead we have people claiming not to understand the inherent misogyny of such a "prank."
The junior Senator from NY was the presumptive front runner simply because she was the most well known of all the candidates. She remained a front-runner because of her talents, doing well in every debate. Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, became a front-runner because of his talents. Beside the two of them, the others withered away. That had nothing to do with sexism, and no one claimed it did. You seem to imply her prominence was somehow due to reverse sexism. I refer you to my comments about family dynasties above.
There is no way of knowing for sure if the sexism of the media contributed to Clinton's ultimate defeat. Questions like that don't have definitive answers. But Jade argues definitively that there was no sexism saying "hell, I don't even think she was the target of sexism." I think her analysis is ridiculous.
June 15, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well argued, and well written.
There may be Clinton supporters who will never get past her losing the nomination, and that's sad. Because, if nothing else, it was a competition, and in a competition there is one winner and one or more losers. This doesn't devalue the people who lose. It simply makes what the winner offered better for those who voted for him.
I just would hope that the emotional investment in the presidential campaign would have more to do with what is best for the country and for the majority of the people in the country than for the candidate running for president. In poker, a sore loser is annoying. In national elections, a sore loser can let people die.
June 14, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "real" woman puts up her dukes and fights for herself.
Jade,
You must know one or all of my six Aunts. They would've kick some ass!
June 14, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post Jade.
My better half and I are in total agreement.
June 15, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely Tena.
Hillary did not do feminism any favors with her campaign. She missed a golden opportunity to show what women can do for politics. We don't have to act like men to get elected.
Even her own supporters referred to her "testicular fortitude" and "cojones"; some in her presence at fundraisers. She didn't deride these supporters for making such comments.
(Didn't she consider them sexist?)
She embraced the hawkish, aggressive style of so many male politicians in an effort to be seen as tough enough for the job.
Meanwhile, the guy that won chose to talk about unity, finding common ground and negotiating.
He offered a vision with plenty of room for the inclusion of the American people in the process.
To my mind, some of those attributes tend to be more feminine. Perhaps that is why some have accused him of weakness. Yet, since the primaries have ended, I don't believe anyone can call him a weak leader.
Hillary's campaign is solely to blame. She had the ultimate say in any and every decision. So I don't buy into blaming those who surrounded her. Nor do I believe that sexism cost her the nomination in any way shape or form. She lost. Period.
But even more important: Barack WON.
He was a better candidate and a better leader. His campaign was magnificent.
Did sexism exist? Yes. Does racism exist? Yes.
Neither of these things had a game changing effect.
June 15, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction
I agree Tena and JADE!
June 15, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect comment in my opinion.
Clinton lost, but she lost because Obama won.
That's all there is to it.
June 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that she did well in every debate, I know that the pundits declared that she won every debate. I seem to recall that both Edwards and Obama invariably were deemed to have won by focus groups.
Furthermore, how could Biden or Dodd have gained any traction when Clinton, Edwards and Obama were sucking all the oxygen, and in Clinton's case, the big money out of the system?
The Big Three were there because of their celebrity, and in my opinion, only two of them got their celebrity because of their past deeds not because of their family connections. This doesn't mean that Hillary wasn't capable or worthy of acclaim, but like other beneficiaries of nepotism, she was able to use it to further her ambitions.
June 15, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You convict yourself with your own words. " Hillary didn't mind showing off her ability to memorize facts and rattle off twenty-point proposals, but she couldn't be bothered being a real woman." You said that.
Wow! You define and set the parameters for what is and is not a real woman? Who are you?
One of the great idea of feminism that you have missed is that you don't have to be a stereotype to be a real woman, but you judge her based on a bizarre stereotype that has nothing to do with real women anywhere. Under your freakish view of what is and is not a real woman, I guess your answer to Sojourner Truth would be that she was not.
June 15, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't really equating Hillary Clinton to Sojourner Truth are you?
June 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
Nobody would equate anybody with Sojourner Truth. But women like Hillary and Michelle Obama and other modern women who care about women walk her path, don't they?
June 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read her Ain't I a Woman speech. She lists some of examples of "unwomanly" behavior very similar to the ones Jade lists. To name one such as "I could work as much and eat as much as a man." Certainly, if Clinton isn't a "real woman" by the limited definition of womanhood from Jade, neither is Sojourner Truth. Most women would fail her definition.
June 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, womenfolk ain't supposed to be good with details!
Thanks for pointing this out.
Jade's a smart commenter and not a mysognist but I think that this post got a little carried away.
June 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC lost because of the Iraq war.
Was there sexism? Sure. But ask yourself how many voters were actually swayed by the two idiots with the "iron my shirts" sign. I doubt anyone smacked themselves in the head after that and said "Doggone! I can't vote for her! She's female!" I doubt any votes were changed by the media's obsession with what she was wearing on any particular day.
Votes were changed by her support of the Iraq War Resolution, and the invasion of Iraq. Lots of them.
June 15, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is true. Had Hillary not voted for the war, she'd have run virtually unopposed.
June 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent point. I've heard it argued that Clinton ran a campaign for four years designed to get her elected in the general. Obama ran a campaign designed to win the nomination. I guess the question is does he have to change his campaign now to get elected?
June 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the major reason I didn't support her. She's an unrepentant hawk.
June 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
the dreaded off- threaded: 001002003 or HD
June 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite moment during the iron my shirt incident was when Hillary asked her staff to turn the lights on because "it's awfully dark in here".
"It's awfully dark in here--can we bring up the lights? Oh, gosh. A pair of well-lighted sexist protesters, just as all of you had your cameras ready! What a lucky coincidence!"
A good director must always be aware of the lighting.
It was so obviously a staged campaign stunt. But it was done so ham-handedly that I was shocked when the press didn't take her to task for it.
June 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry bun
I'd heard the fun
That you were down with Tools
Now I know
you're not a Pro
And just hang out with Fools
June 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever the fuck that means.
June 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo again.
And these guys were at the front, not the back of the crowd. Security, and Hillary's security especially, would not have allowed them so close if they weren't previously aware of exactly what the purpose was. That was a managed bit of theatrics, arranged perhaps by Billy Shaheen.
But none of this compares to the racism of the Clinton campaign, racism that contributed to a 15 percent headwind in Ohio. This talk of sexism is to cover their shame.
June 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 15% headwind for Obama, to clarify.
The Clinton's racism during the primary was so far beyond the pale that they have no moral standing to complain about anything. Indeed, having contributed to racial division, they are morally in debt to Obama and must support him for any shot at redemption. Likewise for prominent white feminists.
"Hard-working Americans, white Americans" came from her mouth.
June 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton didn't run a bad campaign at all. She lost because she ran into Barack Obama, and Obama was better.
June 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
'
Instead of looking at this constantly as "Clinton lost," the correct way to look at it is that Obama won.
His campaign is far better run, he's a better candidate, and he won.
June 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. I'm sick of Hillary's apologists coming out of the woodwork now that it is over, and now that Obama's people are trying to mend hurt feelings, and taking advantage of that goodwill to accuse Obama or the media or the Democratic Party of being sexist and blaming Obama's supporters for this or that, and just trying to rewrite history in general. You see a lot of that on Daily Kos and it is a bit annoying because it is still not true, yet most people don't want to antagonize Hillary's supporters by arguing the facts with them anymore, so they get a free ride.
But yes, screw that. It wasn't sexism, not at all. Obama faced MUCH more racism than she faced sexism, and he overcame all of that any NEVER blamed racism for any loses or disadvantages, even when he was OBIVIOUSLY losing states (like WV, KY) because of racism. Never complained, never blamed anyone else, nothing. Anyway, I'm glad someone is still willing to push back against the revisionism because if we accept the fake facts and explanations about what happened in this election we'll learn nothing for the future, and it will have the effect of making Obama's victory look less impressive, look like he won because of sexism, when he actually won because he was the best candidate, and won fair and square.
June 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't sexism. What is was was the overwhelming desire on the part of voters to get the fuck out of this backwash we've been stuck in since Bill Clinton's second administration.
It has evolved into an internecine battle in D.C. for power and we were all just around to cast votes - they never cared about us.
And people know it and feel it and more than anything we want out of the Clinton-Bush Era.
That's why she didn't make it - she's more of the same we've already had and we've been there now for over 16 years and people want to move the fuck on now.
June 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've all seen the list of sexist statements and slights that in some cases were very real, some imagined, some way overblown against Clinton that came almost wholly from members of the media or Republican troublemakers.
The question you have to ask yourself is did any of them cost Hillary votes? I didn't see any groundswell of sexism from primary voters. I haven't even seen any polling that shows it. If anything the outrage from her supporters over these comments probably gained her votes. If there is polling that shows sexism costing her votes I'd like to see a link.
June 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed Tena!
Also, Jade you continue to post things that in my opinion are so accurate and to the heart of matters, not to mention its almost as if your writting everything Im thinking or have thought!
To add, I find it incredible that she somehow moved the dialogue past her Iraq war vote in the media during the campaign. I think of how she was able to do that, and it was the good ole Rev Factors for Obama that helped, so I give her an A+ in the good ole fashion game of politics. Whats true of the people I know that dont like her is the thing they could never get over most which was her war vote. Thats just being real, not playing politics with it! The people I know never forgave her for that, and it was worse when she didnt own it, really own it, not parse it! If John Edwards didnt own it, he would have been put to the same fire when you ask most people even though some are still upset with his original stance, but respected his ownership.
I understand there is an argument that is wink wink that alot of people say she had to vote that way because she is a woman and there are different standards. My take on that is yes, I understand that in some ways that is true. However, it was still her choice. She chose politics over what I pray was what she knew was right and wrong because she is to smart to fall for that lie. She didn't read the NIE yeah, yeah I know that has its own problems as far as judgement too.... Point Im trying to make is if your saying she had to behave as the quote- unquote Hawk on the war, you parse it and say wink wink she had to portray toughness (blaaahhh), doesn't that mean that she is not woman enough to be able to make a decision based off the merits of arguments, and you are in that way being sexists in what your expectations of her are? She should be able to make decisions without having to appear to be something else. She chose to play that game, it would have been only the republicans who would have used her vote against her as to whether or not she was tough enough. To me that says something about her thoughts at the time. She made that bed, knowone made it for her.
Anyhow, I find myself ranting again when I promised myself Im done (sorry). Jade excellent post in my opinion.
June 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am fatigued by the discussion of sexism in the manner in which it is being fought. It is being fought in a fraudulent and ultimately unproductive manner. Partisans, particularly those who loathe Hillary Clinton as well as the MSM and creative class in the "progressive blogosphere", are committed to falsely defining the issue to be whether Hillary lost because of sexism. A strawperson argument indeed. The real issue is whether and to what extent sexism exists and influenced this campaign.
It's really too bad that so many folks who have in the long-haul been committed to Obama seem to be on a mission to erase any doubt about whether sexism was at all an issue in the campaign. We have a well-respected poster on this thread promoting the success of Obama, but he forgets that even he called Hillary Clinton a bitch and reminded us that Hillary should not be elected simply because she has ovaries. Does such an unrepentant commenter, as an example, really have standing to assess the presence of sexism in this campaign at this point? I don't think so.
I think we need for the dust to settle still before we really consider the issue of sexism in this year's campaign. It will be a long discussion, and a needed one, and it will take place whether folks who call themselves progressives like it or not.
In the meantime, threads like these prey on open wounds, and cause people to write stupid things (present company excluded of course).
June 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, although I would have preferred the Shelley Winters avatar.
This post is so filled with misplaced bile it's hard to know even where to begin. I also recall Jade7243 referring to Hillary as a "great white hope, women's edition," putting her candidacy on par with those of Bella Abzug and Carole Moseley Braun. The only insight to be gleaned from this post is that the poster is contemptuous of Hillary Clinton and his/her contempt justifies even the most extreme manifestations of sexism in Clinton's treatment.
Did sexism cost HRC the nomination? I would say probably not. Her gender probably won her as many votes as it lost her, though it's hard to say. Was it a factor? Obviously, it was. That reactions to Hillary Clinton from the media, her detractors and supporters were colored by her gender is undeniable. Also undeniable is that shamelessly misogynistic comments were tolerated and laughed off. By contrast, even innocuous invocations of Obama's race were jumped on and magnified as some sort of racist conspiracy. The upshot is that our country is still very uncomfortable talking about either race or gender and any discussion of these issues seems destined to produce more heat than light.
June 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the continuing attacks are motivated by fear that Clinton will be selected as the VP candidate. Once it becomes clear that that won't happen, maybe the attacks will ease off. In the meantime, the simplest thing to do is not give occasion for anyone to attack Clinton. She's on vacation, isn't she? Why not let her rest?
June 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
because then they would have nothing to talk about.
June 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree - and I'm really tired of it, too.
It's totally faked-up outrage. Sexism is not the problem it once was - I see women working every fucking kind of job there is these days - road crews, line crews, construction, medicine, law, engineering, finance - we are everywhere for the love of god and what disparity there is is not so great that it cannot be remedied. The glass ceiling is gone, IMO. I know more women who are partners in law firms these days than I know women who never had that opportunity. I know women who boss hard hats around. There are women in positions of great power in all the major investment banking firms, which used to be bastions of the Old Boy's Club.
This is not the issue that women need to be looking at - being held back from success - I don't think that's very true anymore.
And in this context, sexism is a major red herring. My god, the Speaker of the House - who is number 3 in line to the presidency is a woman.
June 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of absolute selfishness that makes progress in this country impossible and makes power a zero sum game. It didn't happen to you so it must not be happening to other women. You know women who are law partners so other women must not be suffering from sexual discrimination. You have no idea of what's going on in the world, how other people are suffering, because you haven't personally experienced it. Blind to anyone but yourself, no empathy, no compassion, no sympathy and if anyone is victimized it must be a character flaw.
June 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not totally sure of that, AG. The talk is going to produce heat, no doubt about it, but in talking we learn something of the positions others are coming from and gain a little wisdom. No one who has posted here is 'supporting' sexism or racism - which is a pretty good start. We're arguing about what IS sexist and racist (rather than stupidity or language reflecting past realities) ...... and that aids everyone here to combat it and to intelligently pick the fights worth fighting. That latter is something that feminists can learn from those who have been involved in the movement for racial equality. We should listen to people like John Lewis and Jim Clyburn and even Barack Obama .... they, and blacks in general, learned long ago when you need to fight and when you need to let it just roll over you so that you can stay sane and not become embittered. Prejudice is prejudice, and the more we can look at it and talk about it, the more we learn how to combat it, in all forms.
June 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people are just talking past each other and seem unwilling to admit the middle ground which lots of posters are offering.
There was sexism, racism, xenophobia, ageism and religious bigotry in the primary. No, sexism didn't cause Clinton's loss. Is sexism tolerated and used by some, yes? So are all the other isms tolerated and used by some.
Identity politics is used to both castigate and embolden.
But I have a major issue with being told that the Democratic Party or Obama supporters have no moral authority to speak out about sexism. It's insulting and condescending and it's just a conversation blocker.
Dijamo, if you truly want folks to acknowledge their own sexism or you want to help people understand it, it is really not helpful to come out with such condemnation every time someone attempts to discuss it. Why are you always beating people over the head?
If folks really want to explore the sexism and racism that is being leveled at Michelle Obama, it is really not helpful to accuse white women or feminists of hypocrisy. Why begin with the premise that that there was no sexism or that feminists are full of shit?
These extremist reactions and declarations will not and cannot move the conversation forward or help us learn and grow.
June 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
It's beyond me how many self-described progressives or liberals I have seen using the right wing framing of the 80's and 90's in the last few months. How did that happen? Were they all secretly agreeing with those arguments all along?
June 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a real pattern - and it is unbelievable to me that fellow progressives and liberals would be so crudely critical of a movement that has done so much for women and all people who are second class citizens in this country.
June 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will say it again and leave it alone. If you give Hillary Clinton a pass for supporting this illegal war and either outwardly or not saying she had to vote for the war because she is a woman and needed to portray strength, then YOU are the one who is being sexist!!! Look at your selves and truly hold everyone accountable just as you expect Obama to deny any negative feelings he may have about race. We expect him to not be the rev wright, or others that have hard feelings from their up bringing. Well I particularly dont give Hillary passes on whether or not she should have to show fake strenght by supporting dumb wars!!!
June 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, congratulations on thoroughly demolishing a straw man (or woman). Agree or disagree with her thesis, dijamo's post did not blame Clinton's loss on sexism. Not only did you misread her post, you ignored her repeated disclaimers underscoring that.
While I have seen many angry diatribes from dijamo in the past, she did do any Obama-slamming in her post. She seems to be moving on. Your post, by contrast, is an angry, anachronistic Hillary-mauling, which explains why her post generated a much more thoughtful and interesting discussion thread than this one has.
June 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
Insofar as sexism exists in our society, then of course it was a factor in the primary, just like race, age, you name it. But to harp constantly on this one thing and blame it for Clinton's loss isn't correct -that's not what happened. And do not see what this furthers to continue this argument.
Look, when I got out of law school in 1981, the atmosphere was so changed that over half my graduation class were women. I got plenty of bullshit from male lawyers and judges; I've sexually harassed to within an inch of my life - but I refuse to see myself as some kind of victim. I don't identify that way - I don't see myself as gender first and any men who didn't get that I was a professional - I always figured that was not my problem - it was theirs.
I really hate all of this - I think it cheapens the very real achievements women have garnered and I think it cheapens any real discussion of actual sexism.
June 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been sexually harassed...
I want a preview button! If we don't get one, it's just sexism!
June 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, what a ridiculous post! Sorry, but if you actually believe what you've written, Jade7243, you must be really stupid. I mean spectacularly stupid! Bottom of the TPM barrel, and that's bad, btw. I would say so if you were male or female, and I've thought it many times before. Thought I should finally say it now since you insist on airing your stupidity in public.
I hope you stop writing posts, Jade7243. I'm really tired of your moronic, trollish, divisive drivel.
June 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the "Iron my shirt!" incident. It was clearly staged. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jsocCWiLh3s&feature=related
Watch HRC's reaction. Look at the mock frustration, the exaggerated body language.
First of all, don't you think a misogynistic heckler would choose something 1. a little less innocuous and 2. a little less "dated." It reminds me of the "whitey tape" hoax. You know it's bunk from the start because who on earth uses the term "whitey" anymore with any sincerity?
When I canvassed for Obama in NH, I witnessed more than a few misogynistic anti-HRC hecklers. But nothing as G-rated as "Iron My Shirt." (No, not even a "finish my casserole"!) Mostly, it went like this:
"Hillary's a dyke!"
"Hillary's a c**t!"
"Hillary's a lesbo!"
Pretty gross stuff. But "Iron My Shirt" works perfectly well for the campaign. There's nothing obscene in the statement, nothing to shock, nothing to keep the video off the news cycle (unlike the McCain "c**nt" incident) but plenty to rally her base.
June 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena said,"I've sexually harassed to within an inch of my life - but I refuse to see myself as some kind of victim. I don't identify that way - I don't see myself as gender first and any men who didn't get that I was a professional - I always figured that was not my problem - it was theirs."
Tena......Will you marry me
June 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know your married...Im taken too..Im just saying posts like that are why I luv you...:0
June 15, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great idea! I was just thinking: You guys are two peas in a pod.
June 15, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL....Thank you....Im taking that as a compliment even if not meant as one.
I'll leave you with, hold both Candidates to the same standards. Barrack can't talk about all the racists things about this Country we know to be true and even your most ardent equal opportunity, non affirmative action blatherer will say yes, the Country still has an issue with race. Funny how they are allways telling you or me that this or that wasnt racist we are just being to sensitive or get over it. Yet Hillary gets to go around saying she was a victim of sexism, still excusing all of that which SHE did wrong like Mark Penn, Bill Clinton, Campaign finance and Iraq War support, and the people crying for her are her enablers. Double Standards for the two, however if anyone can handle it, I know Obama will.
Face it, the Country is Sexist and Racist, however I look at how Indiana tried to beat that back, Iowa did, and how posters on TPM keep it real when commenting on race and this past primary race, and I believe there is alot to be hopeful about......and the one's I dont agree with are entitled to their own beliefs!
P.s. Hussein Tena is a gangsta...She is a Woman who speaks her mind, and doesn't really give a dam. Thats the kind of woman I'd like to marry, even If at times I disagree with her.....Thats also the woman I know wouldnt have listened to people tell her to play it safe on such things as important as an Iraq War Vote when more than half the Democratic Party or Country for that matter was counting on her!
Peace Gasket!
June 15, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if I were a woman, would you want to marry me, Sean? I'm pretty outspoken.
Hillary's Iraq vote was based on her constituency (both senators and 20 representatives from NY voted Yea):
June 15, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, last paragraph is not supposed to be part of the block quote.
June 15, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not worth a response Gasket....
It's tired....
Peace Out.
June 16, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another blog from a faux feminist talking trash about Clinton supporters. Isn't that shocking?
Although Obama campaigned as the "candidate for change," his success is due largely to garden-variety attack politics. Dijamo well represented the facts about the sexism directed at Clinton. Jade simply doesn't see anything wrong with the "whatever it takes to win" mentality -- because she was on the winning side.
Obama won by means of a well-played campaign copied from the playbook of George Bush: stay "above the fray" while letting your "Swiftboat" teams savage the opposition with any and every kind of contemptible maneuver possible.
Now, the challenge for the Obama campaign is one of muzzling these attack dogs, whose focus on savaging Clinton supporters is counterproductive at a time when every vote will be needed to win the general election. (Clearly, Jade didn't get that memo.)
Obama gets my vote once he becomes the Democratic Party candidate. He doesn't get my money nor my time on the phone banks. Jade and her holier-than-thou fellow-travellers can have those tasks to themselves. I'm frankly tired of being shat on by twits. Twits who don't know when shut up and get with the program are just intolerable.
Thanks.
mp
June 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You used the term "faux feminist" to describe a woman who dislikes Clinton and her tactics. So is this to say that any woman who does not support HRC is either 1. not a real woman or 2. a fake feminist? Wow, what a foolish thing to say. Let me ask: are you by any chance...a man?
Now onto these ridiculous "Swiftboating" charges: Between Obama and HRC's campaign...you're really going to go out there and say it was Obama who "swiftboated" Clinton?
...
Dude, were you even paying attention?
Yeah, they both lobbed some nasty attacks at each other, but good lord, I saw nothing from Obama's side that was even close to the crap the HRC campaign slung.
Do you understand "triangulation"? Are you familiar with "positive polarization"? Have you read much about Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Were you in a coma throughout Bill Clinton's "publically trash Obama" campaign? Did you nod out every time HRC said she and McCain were qualified to be president...but not Obama?
So when the HRC campaign sends the photo of Obama in Somali-garb to Drudge, you think "A-okay! Classy, HRC!"? I really want to know.
Do you read things like this: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html
In which Rep. Andrews says that it was official HRC campaign policy to exploit tensions between African American and Jewish voters and think "Fair game! Fair game!"?
I really want to know.
Dude, I'm glad Bill Clinton wrestled the presidency away from the Republicans for eight years. I'm glad you Boomers pumped up the Fleetwood Mac and got yourselves a president to prove that you weren't ALL Nixonians/Reaganites. But that doesn't mean the Clintons are not sleazy. That doesn't make them "progressives." For God's sake, take an objective look at the Clintons.
You know, I'm sure one day 20 years from now, the post-Millennial generation will be fed up with our Obama-affection in the same way that Millennials can't stand Boomers's blind-loyalty to the Clintons.
June 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification - it was not Hillary's campaign sending photos of Barack in Somali garb - that's a lie. And as someone of 1/2 Somali heritage who also has pictures in Somali garb, why would I be ashamed of those pictures coming out as a freaking attack? Do you really want the votes of people who won't vote for you simply because they think you're muslim? That's why he was shouting up and down I'm a Christian! I belong to Trinity Church! And then when Rev Wright blows up in his face he bemoans the fact that the media is so focused on his church even though he attracted attention to it.
Thanks for reminding me, a Clinton supporter who has already decided to support Obama, why I've rown to dislike him so much in the course of this campaign. You guys are making excellent progess with the unification through attacking Hillary and her supporters strategy.
June 16, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You used the term "faux feminist" to describe a woman who dislikes Clinton and her tactics. So is this to say that any woman who does not support HRC is either 1. not a real woman or 2. a fake feminist? Wow, what a foolish thing to say. Let me ask: are you by any chance...a man?
Now onto these ridiculous "Swiftboating" charges: Between Obama and HRC's campaign...you're really going to go out there and say it was Obama who "swiftboated" Clinton?
...
Dude, were you even paying attention?
Yeah, they both lobbed some nasty attacks at each other, but good lord, I saw nothing from Obama's side that was even close to the crap the HRC campaign slung.
Do you understand "triangulation"? Are you familiar with "positive polarization"? Have you read much about Nixon's "Southern Strategy"? Were you in a coma throughout Bill Clinton's "publically trash Obama" campaign? Did you nod out every time HRC said she and McCain were qualified to be president...but not Obama?
So when the HRC campaign sends the photo of Obama in Somali-garb to Drudge, you think "A-okay! Classy, HRC!"? I really want to know.
Do you read things like this: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html
In which Rep. Andrews says that it was official HRC campaign policy to exploit tensions between African American and Jewish voters and think "Fair game! Fair game!"?
I really want to know.
Dude, I'm glad Bill Clinton wrestled the presidency away from the Republicans for eight years. I'm glad you Boomers pumped up the Fleetwood Mac and got yourselves a president to prove that you weren't ALL Nixonians/Reaganites. But that doesn't mean the Clintons are not sleazy. That doesn't make them "progressives." For God's sake, take an objective look at the Clintons.
You know, I'm sure one day 20 years from now, the post-Millennial generation will be fed up with our Obama-affection in the same way that Millennials can't stand Boomers's blind-loyalty to the Clintons.
June 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
And be uppity enough to win.
And be low enough to race-pimp...
June 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you link to The New Republic you've lost the argument.
June 15, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got something against facts?
June 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indie,
Back when that article came out, it grabbed my attention. Wary of any one perspective, I went back through all the incidences of the "race-card," including accusations and perceptions. Originally, I was going to post it as a blog on here, but by the time I waded through all of it, it seemed the time had passed and I didn't want to stir it up again.
I think both sides of this argument would be surprised at the result, and it was a worthwhile task, but what became evident in the course of it was that Wilentz is by no means an impartial observer and was prone to using only the incidences that suited his argument.
June 15, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could explain the incidences that you're referring to that Wilentz didn't mention? I'm not aware of them. Thanks.
June 15, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade7243, why do you insist on only addressing strawman arguments? It's a sincere question. I've read some of your comments, and you're definitely intelligent enough to engage in a real argument. So why don't you?
Also, do you really believe that prejudice is not a problem in an election if it doesn't effect the result? That does seem to be the logical conclusion of your thinking.
And I'd love to hear David Shuster talk about Romney pimping out his sons.
June 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she knows she can't engage on the real issue at hand and win the argument because it is so faulty. That's why she creates false stories and strawman arguments. She's not stupid. She just doesn't want to come to terms with her own hypocrisy.
June 16, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment