REM in South Africa:

This is an open thread.

Digby wrote this on Saturday:

I have written before that I don't believe Obama's win is attributed to [sexism], carrying a heavy historical burden of his own. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Acknowledging that doesn't create a "toxic legacy" and neither is it just the sad lament of "lonely people" (translation: lonely old women.) But I'm sure those memes will catch on and we'll all be told that we imagined it all. (Youtube is our new best friend.)

Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

As a card carrying internet scold, I will not be shut up about this, or anything else, including Keith Olbermann's unprofessionalism.

Speaking for me only

Courtesy of Al Hunt:

[S]ome Clintonistas persist in the whiny complaint that it was all about sexism. . . . Clinton herself complained of the "deeply offensive" sexual discrimination she faced particularly in the media . . .

Here's my question, is discussing the pervasive sexism in the Media now whining? Really? You sure you want to put it that way Al Hunt?

This is the "it's only sexism" version of the malign acceptance of sexism. I wonder if it too is acceptable. Sadly, it probably is.

Speaking for me only

Right wing bloggers are talking about a post on TalkLeft in which I supposedly called Keith Olbermann "a shameless hack." Unfortunately, they didn't read correctly and I didn't call Olbermann that. TalkLeft and I do not engage in name-calling.

I checked the link, and Big Tent Democrat had added an update to one of my April posts, using his initials BTD to clearly indicate it was written by him, calling Olbermann a "“the most shameless ridiculous hack on TV.”

Since it was my post, and the right wing blogs are attributing it to me rather than BTD or even TalkLeft, I deleted BTD's update from my post.

So if you are looking for me calling KO "a shameless hack" you aren't going to find it because I never said it.

Delay in ETA of Clinton speech.

Ok, I am watching the coverage and well, it is pretty blah blah blah. I just find it banal, not even offensive.

I'll update this piece as more thoughts come to me. Add your thoughts on the Media coverage below.

Zfran points us to this column by the LATimes media critic Howard Rosenberg that takes Keith Olbermann to task. So far today, Olbermann has been quite understated, for him. I wonder if he read it?

Oh, and Democrats and Barack Obama should have made a DIFFERENT Democrat than Donna Brazile available to CNN this morning. Just looking at her on TV hurts unity. Indeed, I think one of the things the Obama campaign MAY want to consider is asking Ms. Brazile to stay away from TV during the Fall campaign.

More . . .

Sexism:

Now that a would-be first female president is ending her quest for the White House, the race is more about women than ever before. . . . Even the Democratic National Committee chairman is avidly trying to make up for accusations that he allowed sexism in the race to pass unchallenged. “The wounds of sexism need to be the subject of a national discussion,” the chairman, Howard Dean, said in an interview. “Many of the most prominent people on TV behaved like middle schoolers” toward Mrs. Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is true Mr. Chairman. The discussion COULD have come a little earlier. But, better late than never.

BTW, I highly recommend the entire article. Some of our readers are going to enjoy the sudden onslaught of wooing you are going to receive.

By Big Tent Democrat

There is no point to this post other than to point out how bad the so called political punditry can be. For years, Amy Sullivan, has been one of the worst imo. And that probably explains why she is a Time columnist now. And she continues to be bad. Look at this column. It may have a point to it but the obtuseness of the analysis just irks me. Sullivan writes:

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two. And while both Senators boasted historic candidacies, Obama's seemed to resonate more deeply, translating into 70%, 80% and even 90% of the black vote in primary contests. No one expected Clinton to sweep 90% of Democratic women voters, but 60% wouldn't have been an unreasonable accomplishment for the first woman to have a serious chance of winning the presidency. Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes. . . .[W]omen themselves cost her the nod. The reasons more women haven't voted for Clinton tell us something about the evolution of feminism and what the future may hold for female politicians.

What is wrong with this picture? Hint: some African Americans are women. Psst, Amy, if African American women were, say 25% of the female vote in the primaries and Obama won 90% of them, then it becomes hard to win 60% of the TOTAL women's vote. Sheesh. More . . .

Digby wrote this a few days ago:

Whatever happens, Bill Clinton will still be the 42nd president of the United States and the first two term Democrat since Roosevelt. That's never going to change. Democrats should ask themselves, once the smoke has cleared, if it's really a good idea to discredit his accomplishments. However you personally may feel about him, there is value in a popular ex-president remaining popular. Political value. (See: Reagan legacy project.) The question is what they are valued for.

I see the Clintons as warrior chiefs against the hardcore conservative movement machine that nearly crippled this country (but which may have just run its course after drifting into decadence and hubris.) But, at the time of the movement's greatest power and influence, no one took more crap or was more deft at beating them back. I, for one, am grateful to both of them for taking a nearly unbelievable amount of heat from both the media and the Republicans during that era --- and surviving.

More . . .

Over at TAPPED, Christopher Hayes, the Editor of The Nation, writes:

What was most striking about her campaign was the sexist venom directed at her from so many corners of the establishment, and the steely resolve with which she faced it down. That dynamic is what, I think, helped her win New Hampshire, avoid an early demise, and inspire the passionate support she gained from white women of her generation. These women are the backbone of the Democratic coalition, and they live life within the chaffing confines of a culture that feels as if it has, depressingly, outrageously, grown more sexist over the last several decades. As a male writer, I can say this lived reality is probably too easy for me to brush aside. But as Dana Goldstein pointed out, the presence of these sentiments, in all their vulgarity, presented progressive men with ample occasion for introspection on the ways in which progressive politics, and the discourse we all engage in sometimes explicitly, and more often tacitly, reinforces this power imbalance. This will, I hope, I believe, have a profound lasting positive and progressive effect.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me Mr. Hayes, too many so-called progressive men and, some women, say it is irrelevant. I am still waiting for that "profound lasting positive and progressive effect."

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

For those who do not wonder why sexism and misogyny are not an outright breach of community and societal norms. For those to whom the sexism in this campaign was irrelevant. For everyone.

Katha Pollit:

Clinton's run has put to rest the myth that we are living in a postfeminist wonderland in which all that stands in women's path is women themselves. Like a magnet--was it the pantsuit?--Clinton drew out the nation's misogyny in all its jeering glory and put it where we could all get a good look at it. . . . Vats of sexist nastiness splattered across the Comments section of hundreds of blogs and websites. . . . As for the . . . pundits, thank you, Hillary, for showing us the snickering belittling of women that passes for media commentary . . .

What Hillary can't say Saturday, but I wish she would:

And I'll fight for the right to go over that hill
I will not be persuaded
I wont be still
...I'll be around
If you'll wait for me

This is an open thread.

Comments now closed.

That's what AmericaBlog says. Bill Cinton was too I guess.

As readers of this blog know, I thought Obama the better choice to be the nominee BECAUSE he was a Media Darling and because the Media hated Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I believe events have borne out my 2007 assessment, certainly as to who would be the Media's darling and demon. I respectfully disagree with AmericaBlog's assessment.

Comments closed