Sexism From Howard Fineman

By Big Tent Democrat

Yes, it's me again. The PC police guy. And predictably, I have a problem with this:

FINEMAN: . . . [T]he problem that Hillary‘s got is in certain ways her whole candidacy is an act of ventriloquism from her husband. Or at least, some people view it that way. And Hillary isn‘t always known as the most authentic candidate that you‘ve ever seen that come down the pike, very calculating, very scripted and so forth.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yep, predictably, I see stating that a female candidate is merely a dummy for her ventriloquist husband is sexist.

I am predictable that way.

< Bursting the Obama Bubble | Candidates Call for Release of Political Prisoners in Cuba >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh lord! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by znosaro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    At this point, the notion of MSNBC being a "news network" is simply a joke.  Do they even pretend not to be in Obama's pocket?  Question: is Chris Matthews angling for a position as White House Press Secretary, a la Tony Snow?

    I have always admired (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    your ability to see sexism even though you are not a woman. Good work.

    It get me condemned (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    more than admired.

    It bothers me when the condemnation comes from self proclaimed feminists, as it has in this campaign season.


    I remember. You got a ton of flack (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    for it back at dKos. But not by self-proclaimed feminists.

    Perhaps there is a wide variety of definitions-by-convenience for the term "feminist"


    But now I get it (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    from "feminists." Psst, it is about Obama.

    With their eyes firmly closed (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BluestBlue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    against anything that would damage their image of Obama.  Gotta keep him shiny and bright, can't handle the reality of him being an actual person, with faults and foibles.

    Fineman (none / 0) (#135)
    by TexDem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    Howard is also pushing the meme that Obama likes the sound of his own voice, so I'm not so sure it's about supporting Obama. I think it's more about making the Dem Candidate look flawed, no matter which one.

    McCain is so flawed they have to try to make it look as tho' it's just the human side of him. See, the Dems are flawed too.


    no psst needed (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (none / 0) (#61)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    As a friend of mine has said "I have been calling that phenomenon, with Caroline and Maria, and other so called feminists for Obama Political Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy--a great way to grab national attention for a few seconds."

    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    M by proxy is where you secretly injure your own kid then sop up the sympathy that results from the kid being sick.

    So who is the kid in the story and who is the mom, and who are the sympathy-givers?


    Is that also sexist (none / 0) (#119)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    since Munchausen by Proxy sufferers are overwhelmingly female?

    This season is so wierd (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    age has become a wedge issue among women. Older vs younger-style feminism. I am sure it will pop up in a woman's studies class soon.

    So, is it sexist, in some way, (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    when we say the exact same thing about Bush and his puppetmaster, Cheney?

    Seriously now. If, for whatever reason, one were to percieve a relationship between Hillary and Bill that one thought was similar to the relationship between Bush and Cheney (and to be clear, I dont see it), what would be the PC way of expressing it?

    The Bush/Cheney example should make it rather clear that a puppet/master relationship is not in any way necessarily sexist-based.

    And, btw, what stereotypical relationship is this referring to? We obviously have not had nearly as many women in political positions as one should expect, given population numbers, but have there  ever been any that you know of in which the female officeholder has been characterized, even by her opponents, as nothing but a mouthpiece for some male behind the scenes? They might be criticized by sexists as not up to the job, in many different ways, but I dont recall any that were seen as simply puppets for some behind the scene male power figure.

    We have a female Speaker, many in the House, some very important Senators, governors - are any of them criticized as being puppets of their husband?


    Um (3.50 / 2) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    Your comment is nonsensical.

    Hint, Bush and Cheney are both men.


    duh (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    thats the point BTD.
    Are you trying to be funny or something?

    As I said above, I do not believe it is a valid analogy, on its merits. But if someone did, if they really thought that Bill would be setting the agenda the way Cheney has, then how could they express it in such a way that would get past the PC police?

    And I repeat my other question, since you ignored that too. There are many sexist stereotypical images about women in positions of power, centering on some supposed inherint incompetence. But I havent ever really heard of any being considered puppets of their husband. So why is it that you lead to assume that the comment was simply a put-down of Hillary as woman, rather than a legitimate crtique (albeit wrong, imo) that she is a Bush to Bill's Cheney?


    It is a nonpoint (3.66 / 3) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    The basis for saying that about Cheney and Bush is because of their ACTIONS and behavior.

    The basis for saying it about Clinton is she is a woman.

    Or are you saying you see similarities between the Clintons and Bush/Cheney?

    Are you really this out of it?


    gee, was it three or four times (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST
    that I said that I thought the analogy wrong?

    And so you ask me if I beleive it?

    You are making assumptions about Fineman for what I sense are illegitimate reasons. You have a meme going - MSNBC is a sexist network. I dont deny that there is some truth to that. But you seem totally taken up with what is called "confirmation bias". You have an assumption, that colors your interpretation of anything that happens, such that you can then interpret some new incident as further proof of that which you already beleive.

    Fineman was discussing the (real) extent to which Bill's presence has affected Hillary's campaign. And, if I recall, it was viewed by him and Tweety as a very negative effect - that Bill was screwing things up for Hillary. And that there seems to be no way for him to be ushered off the stage so that he can stop doing damage. And as they look ahead to a possible Hillary administration, there is the image of Bill lurking around, as a highly experienced ex-President, with his nose in everything, screwing things up some more. Or to put it another way, exercising his influence behind the scenes, as a co-president. But unlike Hillary in his administration, he would have the influence, experience and connections to do it in a very big way. Hence, the Cheney analogy.

    And just for your benefit, I'll repeat for the fifth time - I think this line falls down in many ways, and is a bad analogy. But it is not totally crazy, and it is not based on Hillary being a woman.


    This is the key: (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by blueaura on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    ...there is the image of Bill lurking around, as a highly experienced ex-President...

    The puppet comment is at least as much about Bill as it is about Hillary, in my not-so-humble opinion.  Bill was the president for eight years and there are people that may see Hillary's campaign as an attempted end-run around the constitutional term limit that kept Bill from running again. Whether it is or not isn't particularly relevant, but saying that some people believe this to be true is perfectly legitimate. One could argue that Fineman's phrasing implies that he believes it to be true, I suppose. But again, I don't see that as necessarily sexist.  

    If Margaret Thatcher's husband had run for PM after her it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear someone say the same thing about him. But then you (well, not you Tano, you BTD) would probably say they were being sexist in implying that women are manipulative or some such nonsense.

    Frankly this propensity to see an "ism" around every corner is extremely off-putting.


    lol (3.50 / 2) (#149)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    it makes sense only if we actually lived in a society where there wasn't a backdrop of sexism....which would be nice, but it ain't so

    Not among the people who (none / 0) (#21)
    by BluestBlue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:30:58 AM EST
    aren't deliberately closing their eyes to it. The realists appreciate it!

    Why? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:39 AM EST
    I should think it would be part of feminism that you could point out that uh, actually, saying "periodically" is not exactly the most sexist thing this woman's ever heard in her life.  Feminism involves marching in lockstep now?

    So disagreeing with my interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    makes condemning me acceptable?

    Yes, that makes sense.

    But not to put too fine a point on it, it is duie to their support for Barack Obama. Anything in service to that is acceptable, including posting at the racist and sexist Andrew Sullivan's site.


    Andrew Sullivan is racist? (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    I understand why you would conclude he is sexist (I don't agree, though) but racist?  How?

    The Bell Curve (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    Read about it.

    Read about Sullivan's embrace of it.

    He is a despicable character.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    He agrees with the premise that IQ is racial....Not good....But I have read him a lot lately and haven't seen anything racial at all....

    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    That makes it ALL better.

    Are you kidding me?


    I didn't say that (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    I am glad you pointed out that Sullivan likes the "Bell Curve," and it is interesting because he has got to be close to the only one who does....

    I'll read his blog more closely on that score.



    Good to hear you did not say that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    Perhaps you will condemn Sullivan now.

    Close to the only one (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    who does? The Bell Curve has been one of the hard Right's seminal texts for a while now, it's thesis considered a vital linchpin -- because of it's "scientific" veneer -- in the idelogical aspect of the Right's roll back The New Deal project.

    I see "Bell Curve (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    co-author" Murray has a blurb on the back of Jonah
    Goldberg's newest piece of crap. Not exactly marginalized.

    Sorry for the o.t.


    Thank you.....!! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    Thank you...thank you.

    Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens (none / 0) (#182)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    seem to be quite similar in several respects.

    "The Bell Curve"... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    ...has appeal to Sullivan.  Belief that ethnic differences in IQ are based on genetics is a tad on the racist side of the equation.  Especially since the methodology of that work has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

    And I say that as an Obama supporter.  Andy has some unresolved issues he needs to work out.


    "saying "periodically" " (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    Saying periodically ...when she's FEELING down... she launches attacks, is claiming emotionalism, rather than political strategy, made Clinton run ads criticizing Obama.

    The only way to excuse the remark is to mention only the word "periodically" and nothing else.


    I noticed your intuitive sense as well. (none / 0) (#29)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    However, I've yet to feel the same heat you do (I'm just not as popular as you, heh).  But then again I hang out with a bunch of feminist Clintonistas on my blogging site and they love me (probably because I was the one who drew their attention to the Robin Morgan piece).  I have another male friend who is a feminist and I brought him over to the same community and they love him, too...I pleaded him over because male feminists for Hillary are a valued (and much needed) voice in this campaign.

    The Robin Morgan piece (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    was totally picking a fight with young women. That wedge is what I have been noticing.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    because the young women whom I presented that piece to cried over it and thanked me for it.

    Sorry, allow me to clarify (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    she called out a certain type of young woman, a type that I NEVER was. I would have agreed with her at 20 (I am now 38).

    I discussed it at dKos, and there were two or three young women (not older than 22) that really hated that piece.

    So my view is definitely based on a single experience with a couple of other women only.


    I had the same reaction last night (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by BluestBlue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    when I saw that on Olbermann. I used to be a regular watcher, but I only occasionally check in to see how they are spinning a new issue (last night I wanted to see the plagiarism spin).

    Fineman took his hobby horse for a ride in a new direction, not content to just say how bad the Clintons are, he now says Hillary is not really in charge, just a ventriloquist's dummy for Bill.

    How can they not see that as sexist?

    And Olbermann approvingly nodding, saying nary a word to contradict or object. It shows he isn't any different from Matthews, he is just more subtle in his approach to sexism.

    The Frat Boy Club is still in session on MSNBC.

    I do watch Dan Abrams more often now, I don't always agree with him but I don't see the deliberate twisting of the news to make a narrative against Hillary.

    Last night he had a segment on Obama's sexist remarks. He didn't see it, but Maddow came out strongly to call it for what it is and so did the other female guest. Lawrence O'Donnell and Abrams didn't, but Abrams said tha was why he had 2 women on as guests.

    KO, like BO (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    is beyond reproach in blog circles these days.

    Someone on Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    reads dKos and reports from it, and vice-versa. It's a closed circle for some kossacks. Many of them are so convinced of their reality they are shocked when things don't go as they think they will. That's why I am here. As an Obama supporter (who likes Hil as a close second) I want to hear other points of view.

    Not to be too doting, but I really agree with your recent posts about the Dems losing FLA voters and with your warning about Obama sweeping from here on out.


    The average guy (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    does not see it and probably will never see it (or if they eventually do "get it", it would be a hard time coming for them).  If they are not in tune with womens issues, I don't see how they can.  

    Sexism is pervasive in all races as well.  Gender is not something that can be easily transcended (with exception of transgendered/transsexual people), and stereotypical gender roles are still firmly embedded in average American male minds.  


    Sex, envy & other good stuff... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Camorrista on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    BTD, Fineman's sexism (like Olberman's, or Shuster's, or Matthews', or Scarborough's, or Carlson's, or Russert's) is a given.  

    Fineman (like many of his colleagues in the press) is your typical 90-pound weakling from the old comic-book ads, the one who got sand kicked in his face and had to watch the girl trail after the good-looking guy with muscles and wavy hair.

    Look at these journalists: until they got famous (or at least, visible) they never got the girl.  So they grew up detesting three groups--the hot girls they never got (all of Clinton's conquests); the guys who did get the hot girls (Bill Clinton); and the smart girls who put them down (Hillary Clinton).

    In their heads runs this refrain, 'who the hell is Bill Clinton to get all that hot stuff--I'm as handsome as him, I'm as smart, I'm on TV!--and why did that nerdy b----h of a wife stay with him?  If I ran around like him, my wife would dump me in a New York minute..."

    What you always need to keep in mind is that these are weak, deceitful, parasitical people.  They are quick to invoke the First Amendment, but, unlike, say, I.F. Stone, or Seymour Hersh, or Jane Mayer, or Michael Manning, or Amos Oz, or Elizabeth Kolbert, they earn their living not by reporting about an urgent reality but by joking about cackling, or cleavage, or bimbo eruptions.

    (And if you're wondering why so many women reporters seem to echo these men, try to remember which girls hung around guys like this back in school.  It's the same bunch.)


    Fineman is a member of the clique (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    And therefore, an ass.

    You know when Bill Clinton was running in 1992, there was a print interview with him that I still remember.  

    Everyone was saying, he is slick, he'll say anything to be elected, and sure, even though I liked his positions on issues, he sounded like a typical politician to me.

    But there was one question that I thought this is Bill himself speaking, and that was about Hillary.  Bill was asked, "Is Hillary fair game?"

    His answer was (quoting from memory), "Well, it doesn't matter that she is or not.  Republican have decided to make her an issue."  He continued, "Look, if this was not my wife, people would be throwing accolades at her for the things she had accomplished.  But if you are somebody's wife, you are not supposed to have a mind.  I think it's crazy."  

    Say what you will about Bill Clinton's flaws.  The guy is truely liberated when it comes to respecting a woman's intellect.  He has had strong women around him all his life.  

    Perhaps that's one reason why Hillary loves him.  All she has to do is compare him to asses like Fineman who pass for intellect nowadays.  This election has shown us that although huge numbers of ordinary American men have voted for Hillary, when it comes to the so-called elites, liberated men are rare.  

    Too true. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:38 AM EST

    Say what you will about Bill Clinton's flaws.  The guy is truely liberated when it comes to respecting a woman's intellect.  He has had strong women around him all his life.  

    Perhaps that's one reason why Hillary loves him.


    I have always seen Bill and Hillary Clinton as intellectual equals and the definition of  "partnership" in marriage (Bill's affairs are irrelevant in my context here).  It seems to me like that is the greatest sin that Hillary has committed:  Becoming that gender role model of her partner's "equal", something that bucks the traditional American model of what a male/female relationship is.  Is it possible that's why some women hate her so much?  Because they're resentful that they feel unequal by their men?  I don't know.


    If you ask me.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    all the candidates are the dummies to the military industrial complex's ventriliquist.

    Military Industrial Complex (none / 0) (#76)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    I second that!

    I'd vote for anyone who could take an axe to the Pentagon budget.  One of Rumsfeld's original goals was to reign in military spending under the guise of transformation.  After the GOA did an audit of the Pentagon and TRILLIONS of dollars is unaccounted for, they threw up their hands and now everyone agrees the Pentagon is unauditable.

    I would like to see some real guts in one of the candidates.


    We had candidates with guts.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    but they're all out of it already.  Got little money and less votes.

    Talk about media bias, Kucinich and Paul face media bias Clinton can only dream about.  At least the media acknowledges her existence.


    sexist language is much more tolerated (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    than racist language.

    In some ways, it's good not to be hypersensitive, but I wish that it were less acceptable.

    Hillary Clinton is the first truly viable female candidate in the history of the USA. She represents something greater than herself. I wish this fact would be recognized more at MSNBS.

    Damn, he's a good ventriloquist (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    When she opens her mouth in a debate and does that policy wonk thing, it looks so natural.  I would have never guessed that the Big Dawg was even on the stage.  Did anyone check her back for one of those square thingies?  
    Of course, Howard is right.  She couldn't POSSIBLY be that good by herself.  She had to come by it by some occult means.  

    "This is no striking resemblance (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    of your own character, I am sure"

    (I am an Obama supporter, but I can clearly see sexism in the media)

    Congrats (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by georgiast on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    for the Pride and Prejudice reference....

    In my opinion (and as a former CNN employee) (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    the boy's club that runs our news media cannot handle a woman running for President.  They just can't deal with it.  
    Witness Chris Matthews sulking over being called out over his endless nasty comments about Senator Clinton.  Witness his buddies rallying around poor, abused Chris.  Witness Shuster and his "pimping out" remark.
    Clinton is remarkable just because she's still standing, after endless attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with her policies, but everything to do with her gender.

    oh how i do love (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    the "not authentic" pejorative, which only seems to be applicable to democratic candidates. they're all "calculating and scripted". of course, we just know that st. john of mccain is "authentic", a real "straight shooter", a "maverick". except, well, he's not.

    add the "ventriloquest's dummy" to sen. clinton, and you've got an all around "fake" person. kevin mccarthy's evil female twin pod person, "skippy" sen. clinton.

    even obama gets a pass, for the moment anyway. apparently, all of his appearances are off the cuff events; he just happens to be in the neighborhood and decides to drop in on a few hundred people who just happen to be gathered in some local school auditorium, for other, unstated reasons. probably a pta cookie sale.

    Obama could get a crowd quick (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    I don't think he needs a lot of advance work to get a crowd....

    This one is sexist (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    Yup.  No doubt about it.

    Her tears and everything, masterminded by Ole Bill.

    These network people say the most idiotic AND sexist things.

    Why can't the media (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    look at Hillary as an impressive candidate on her own merits. Her experience, her knowledge of the issues, her toughness, her tireless work ethic that has lead to change in so many people's lives. Every other line about Obama or McCain from the media is about how hope or change or straight talk and all other kinds pandering terms. Is it a sexist issue? Well certainly at least in part it has to be.

    CNN does (none / 0) (#160)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    to be fair

    At this point (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    I will no longer be surprised to find sexism anywhere in the media. The "journalists" are either demonstrating the malign acceptance of sexism that BTD refers to, or they're engaging in it themselves, or their name is Dan Abrams. That's it.

    I have grown to accept that. The part I can't accept is the excuses for these attitudes from my fellow Democrats who support Obama. This really steams me. And of course, many of the excuses are preceded by "I'm a feminist, BUT..." or "I'm a woman, but frankly I don't see (insert sexist episode here)". By tolerating the sexism they allow the media to become emboldened and do it even more. And the people who are tolerating and trying to marginalize the complaints of sexism are the Democrats!

    Indeed, my fellow Democrats, even more so than Fineman, Matthews, Shuster, Olbermann, etc., are starting to totally turn me off.

    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    Talk about tiresome.  
    In my opinion, some of the same people who leap like bullfrogs on any hint of racism are stone blind when it comes to sexism.
    You know who you are.  
    I'm a woman who will not tolerate racism.
    And I'm getting damn tired of being told I'm "too sensitive" about sexist remarks.

    This is a really offensive, (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    heinous comment.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention BTD.  An act of ventriloquism from her husband?  Meaning she has literally nothing going on for herself?  No merit whatsoever?  And I wonder WHY "some people view it that way."

    I would tend to agree (2.50 / 2) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    with you if this was generic statement about generic woman, but a huge part of her candidacy and experience is based on her husbands records as president.

    You can't claim your husbands success and then call sexism if someone points out that is what you are doing.

    Your reaction is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST

    And your rebuttal (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    ...seeing as it featured no argument to the valid point that her husband was president for eight years, and was simply a one-word dismissal, was also predictable.

    The context of that interview, if you link to it, is that Fineman's point is that trying to whittle at Obama's support by attacking his speeches may not be the best line of attack for Hillary, since "some people" consider her to be a vehicle for her husband's point of view.  His point was that she's chosen a line of attack in which she is vulnerable to attack herself.  Bill Clinton is, I think most would concede, a fairly larger-than-life figure.

     I think that's weird, I don't really consider her candidacy to be that at all, but I don't see that it's sexist necessarily, given who Bill is and the effect, for good or for not-so-good, that he can bring to a campaign.  Just a thought, maybe you could bring these kind of quotes up to be discussed on their merits?  I mean, if someone is going to make a point in good faith, and you dismiss them out of hand, it kind of makes you look like you should find a soapbox rather than a blog with a comments section.


    Also predictable (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    I see... (4.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM EST
    ...so what is predictable, is that you make a proclamation.  You get some responses from a different point of view, argued civilly and in good faith, and you say they are "predictable" again.  Well, now that I've figured out what is predictable, I agree that it's predictable.

    Yes that is predicatble too (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST
    I choose not to entertain certain arguments for reasons left best unexpressed.

    I will enjoy (none / 0) (#88)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    considering what those reasons would be.  It is predictable that you would not specify those reasons.  

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    Very predictable.

    I predict you have no idea what those reason could be. Your knowledge of this site and its rules is  quite limited.

    And now, I ask you, as a site Administrator, to stop chattering (look it up in the FAQs) in this thread.

    Remove yourself to other threads for discussion. Your further comments on THIS THREAD will be deleted.


    So is yours (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:27 AM EST
    I said so in my post (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    So do you think (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    it is sexist for a woman to run on her husbands accomplishments? or only sexist to point it out?

    your argument (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    is predicated on a fallacy.  She is not running on her husband's record.  She is running on the things she did as first lady as well as her record in the senate.

    you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    those who say she is riding her husband's coattails are simply too lazy to find out what her accomplishments are.

    Yes (1.50 / 2) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    if only we all could fail on health care.

    Better not to try (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    Your support for Obama is predicating on not trying to fix health care correct?

    Way to change the subject (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    nice dodge

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    They have said she is running on her husband's accomplishments for so long, they have actually come to believe it.

    It would just be so refreshing if Hillary Clinton's critics would actually engage her candidacy in the realm of ideas, rather than by tossing self-assured, unsubstantiated conjectures.  

    It happens, but it is rare as all get-out.  


    This comment (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    Was a response to Kathy.  

    that WOULD be (none / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    a fairy tale!

    really so what would that be? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    making speeches as first lady?  ohh but those mean nothing.  going on foreign trips with Sinbad?

    senate? voting for Iraq?


    Hillary's vote on Iran concerns me more n/t (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    yes. that is my concern with her. (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    Obama's skipping out (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    on the Iran vote and not taking a stand, even when he voted on other bills that same day, concerns me more.

    Yet another "present" for Our Vaunted Leader.


    more lazyness (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    I give, I will compensate for your laziness. (none / 0) (#132)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM EST
    Ripped from something understandable to pedestrians, good ol' Wiki:

    Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997), Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997), and Children and Adolescents (2000), and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000) and Philanthropy (1999).]

    Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time, breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks. She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

    As First Lady.  Not even going into pre- or post-First Lady.


    Link? (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    Never mind (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    A predictable comment from you (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    I choose not to respond to it.

    It is sexist (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    for a person to assume that a woman's running on her husband's accomplishments.

    It isn't (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    an assumtion she is.

    So your sexist assumption requires (none / 0) (#102)
    by my opinion on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    one to first assume that Bill Clinton is a great asset, extremely popular and liked by an overwhelming majority.  

    Oopsy (none / 0) (#174)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    Time to change the subject again.

    Pointing out the fallacy of a (none / 0) (#189)
    by my opinion on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    premise of an argument that is being debated is not changing the subject.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#196)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    Wasn't replying to you, I was mentioning the habit of changing the subject of the discussion when facts get in the way. Mea Culpa! :-)

    And (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    Calling a smart and accomplished woman a ventriloqist dummy for her husband is not sexist?

    Her experience is HER experience.  


    Why do you (4.00 / 3) (#7)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    sound more and more ignorant about Hillary Clinton as the days go by?

    People like you--people who insist that she's right now riding on Bill's coattails, or that her success is all Bill's success, or that like the OP says, is a dummy for Bill--are the very reason why there should be Political Aptitude Tests on voting cards when you go to vote.  If you don't know what the candidate's accomplishments are or where they stand, then your vote doesn't count.  

    By this time if you are unaware of what Hillary Clinton has achieved in her lifetime, then I don't know why you insist on discourse with people who do.


    Does she (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    or doesn't claim his presidency as experience?  why is it sexist/dumb to point this out?

    where? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    Nobody disputes that she worked as part of Bill's administration. Where do you think she's claimed credit for something she was not directly involved in?

    The economy (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    The good economy of the 90s is the subtext to her campaign...."It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, ...."

    Latinos in particular vote for Hillary because she is associated with the good economy of the late 90s.....


    so (none / 0) (#73)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    A throwaway quip? Really, is that all?

    She said (none / 0) (#74)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    "it took a Clinton", not "it took THE Clintons", so I don't see where she's staking her claim there.

    No, she does not. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    And if you did some real reading instead of just banking on everything the MSM tells you, then you'd know that.

    Here's an example, from Joe Wilson:

    During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.

    Nowhere does Joe say she lays claim to Bill's trip to Africa or what came of it, but her persuasion as First Lady--and her own experience--played a key role.   She was(is) his closest adviser for a lot of things and was able to gain experience as First Lady, but she was also her own person.

    But I suppose you take absolutely no issue with Obama saying that Michelle is his closest adviser, right?  Because what I'm reading about Michelle, she sure sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton (smart Ivy League lawyer, outspoken, etc.).


    why do you continue (none / 0) (#201)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    to ignore facts that are presented to you on a silver platter.  There is a long, impressive list of her many accomplishments upthread that do not even include all that she has done in the senate and yet here you are again, saying the same old thing.

    Not to Mention (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    That as, Greg Sargent has documented over and over, that's just factually wrong.  Most people 1) don't see Hillary Clinton this way and 2) most people don't have a problem with Bill Clinton.  This is just more crap.

    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    As impeachment showed manifestly, people like Bill Clinton and American media hates him.  

    Maybe that's what the pundits mean when they call Bill and Hillary Clinton polarizing.  People occupy one pole and the media occupies the opposite pole.


    All but the most Zealous (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    Obamaists at this point have long recognized the breathtaking truth that covering the Demo primary anyway, Fox News (for God's sake!!!!) has vastly outperformed MSNBC in terms of objectivity and basic fairness.

    On this thread we will likely see more zealotry, more denial that MSNBC is shilling for Obama and smearing Hillary Clinton.  They will deny that she battles open sexism in this campaign.  But this will tell us far more about them, than about the election coverage.

    NY NOW? (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    Do you agree with the NY NOW's position in this race--that Obama and Edward's criticizing Hillary in a debate was akin to a "gang rape," and that Ted Kennedy's ednorsement of Obama was a betrayal of women....

    No (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    These are hyperbolic, in my view.

    Of course, if it makes you feel more like an independent thinker to hold those up as though they are representative of the undeniably real phenomnenon that this thread hits upon, have at it.....


    It was a question (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    as I have seen many support NY NOW....

    Interesting that you would snipe away at how I feel.....

    Distancing oneself from NY NOW makes it easier to have a real discussion about this...


    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    I don't distance myself from NY NOW, only from those particular instances of hyperbole.

    It is perfectly credible to point out that Edwards and Obama, in that debate, Rhetorically "piled on" Clinton--and to ask, Why did they do so?  This is worth discussing.  Too bad NY NOW didn't frame the concerns with a more buyable metaphor.....

    Same with Ted Kennedy's endorsement.  Calling it a betrayal of women is way over the top, but at the same time, his endorsement is open to criticism.  As a Super-Delegate in a state that went decisively for Clinton, his words carry extra complexity and weight.

    Finally, what you call sniping, is more accurately described as frustration with you using these extreme examples in response to ther discussion at hand.  What, one wonders, is your purpose in doing so?  Might you be invoking a stalking horse for disparaging the core argument that she battles open sexism?


    When Hillary and Edwards (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    piled on Obama in the South Carolina debate, I didn't hear anyone say they were being racist...

    In the debate where she was criticized by both Edwards and Obama, Hillary was the front-runner, and people in that position get piled on....Hillary corrected herself and did finally say they were attacking her because she was ahead....but that was not her first response....  


    This is a right wing tactic (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    Find some supporter, any supporter, of your political enemy, who made an over-the-top comment, then demand that other supporters of your enemy condemn it or be forever branded as having said it themselves.

    It's sad to see so many of these tactics being used by Obama supporters. And this is your second offence, in this very thread, along with 'It's Bill's fault'.

    Another Obama booster in this thread also used the tried-and-true right wing tactic of saying 'get a sense of humor' to explain away sexism.

    How do Obama supporters expect to bring any credibility to their rebuttals of the coming attacks from McCain if they are so quick to resort to the very same tactics now?


    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    Since the discussion was about NBC and Howard Fineman. When did the topic change to NY NOW?

    "Second offense"? (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    A little to Orwellian for me....Disagree and show me how I am wrong....

    My position on Hillary is not what you may think....


    Now I'm (none / 0) (#181)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    Orwellian? Your credibility has evaporated. No point in engaging the likes of you again.

    Hillary's campaign is so completely (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    different from Bill's past campaigns and personal style that I just don't understand that attack.

    It's the politics of hate at work. eom (none / 0) (#31)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    What is so wrong is (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    that it is coming from the media. It's wrong from Fox and it's wrong from MSNBC (although I DO love seeing Pat Bucchanan and Rachel Maddow going at it)

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    Fox, surprisingly, is giving fairer coverage to Clinton than the other networks.  And I'd said that well before Hillary herself came out and said it (I was hesitant to believe it until some of the women on my friends list on LiveJournal said so...but on Super Tuesday I watched both CNN and Fox and found it to be credible).  But you're right, the sexism is still all over the MSM.

    The problem is Bill won't STFU (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    And Hillary relies on the good economy of the 90s to boost her campaign.....She was not elected First Lady--her husband was elected President....

    It is very hard to separate the two--especially given Bill's propensity to hog the microphone......This is also why Obama probably would refuse any VP slot....

    Oh that's the problem (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    not Fineman's sexism.

    Thanks for clearing that up.


    ''It's really Bill Clinton's fault'' (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    isn't just a game for Republicans any more.

    No indeed (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    After South Carolina (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    and that smarmy Jesse Jackson comment, I do wish Bill would exit the stage....All these finger wagging and vein popping outbursts show he would never be in the background in any Hillary administration...

    It would be helpful (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    if you could stick to the topic, Fineman's comments.

    Yeah, this is sexist (none / 0) (#43)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    I actually agree that Hillary has been running on Bill's record, but that's because she was very involved in his administrations.  In no way does tha make her "whole candidacy . . . an act of ventriloquism from her husband."

    Bill could actually help (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    if were to spell out how Hillary helped him behind the scenes, e.g.,......"When I was trying to decide what to do about Kososvo, Hillary had this great idea"...."Hillary told me to hire Bob Rubin".....etc,....

    He DOES say these things. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    But you don't hear any of it unless you scour YouTube to watch the stump speeches he gives--all you hear are the select potentially sensational soundbytes that the MSM nicks (tabloid journalism is what it is).  And I just posted a comment above regarding Joe Wilson's comments about how Hillary helped regarding the trip to Africa, which is precisely what you're asking for.

    Okay, but (none / 0) (#122)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    She can't pick and choose the parts of Bill's record she gets to run on, particularly when her involvement is not part of the public record.  Having run on her "35 years of experience," which primarily consists of her partnership with Bill, she can legitimately be attacked for things Bill did during those 35 years (eg, the Marc Rich pardon).

    She CANNOT, however, be called a pawn or a ventriloquist dummy.  That is inaccurate and completely sexist.


    You wrote: (none / 0) (#64)
    by jibeaux on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    "So disagreeing with my interpretation makes condemning me acceptable?'

    I didn't condemn you.
    I didn't say any condemnations of you were acceptable.
    I fail to see how there could be any other interpretations of this particular straw man.

    A poor choice of words... (none / 0) (#71)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    ...on Fineman's part.  Possibly sexist, yes.

    If he intended to mean that Hillary has been running somewhat on the largely favorable association with her husband's record in office, well, there's some truth in that.  
    But the "ventriloquist" imagery contains an implication that he is the one really running the show, which implication, if intended, would indeed be sexist, I agree.

    "Possibly sexist"? (none / 0) (#109)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    "If intended?"

    Sorry, mike in dc, and no offense.

    But I think I see a pattern here in the behavior
    at NBC.  

    And I think you can take sexist and intended to the bank.


    Well, you have a point... (none / 0) (#125)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    ...but I'd like to avoid guilt by association and focus on specific individuals who do these things rather than the whole organization.  
    Mika B., for example, doesn't do this stuff, nor obviously does Maddow, and for the most part Olbermann doesn't either.  It seems to relate to "six degrees of Chris Matthews"--the closer a particular staffer is to Matthews, the more likely these comments are to come out.

    The Malign Acceptance of Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    Mika B. is very guilty of that.

    Working alongside Joe Scar... (none / 0) (#138)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    ...is a tough gig for anyone, particularly a female journalist.
    She has shown a little spine there, on occasion.

    But I suspect she is there to play "colmes" to Joe's "HANNITY".


    That is an insult (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    to Colmes.

    She is terrible.


    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#153)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    ...I don't watch it often enough to draw a definitive impression.

    I still give her props for her stand on the Paris Hilton "story" thing(ripping up the copy and walking out).  Not really a stand against sexism so much as "fluff" journalism, though.


    Keep your comment ON topic please (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    You can post your anti-Hillary comments in more appropriate posts.

    Worth noting (none / 0) (#105)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    when Bill ran for president, critics said Hillary ran the show.

    What is the big whoop? What is YOUR marriage like? Mine is a partnership. If one of us were in politics, we would support each other. This "ventriliquism" charge is just an extension of some peoples' discomfort with marriages based on equality.

    Did you ever wonder (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    What kind of marriages these people have if they think the little woman just parrots her husband's words and thoughts?

    I know that at our house there are some lively altercations about stuff. I asked the man I've lived with for the last 22 years if he thought I was his ventriloquist's dummy. He asked if that was one of those "does this make me look fat questions that has no right answer." I assured him I was serious. He's still laughing.

    Anyone that thinks that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a mind of her own and will not run HER White House and HER Administration HER way doesn't know much about smart, strong women.

    And anyone that doesn't find Not-so-Fineman's remark sexist wasn't paying attention or is just looking for a reason to excuse bad behavior or pretend it doesn't exist. Just boys being boys, don't you know.


    Exactly my point (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    Is Fineman projecting the power structure of his OWN marriage here? Is that what is happening here?

    Sad but true (none / 0) (#110)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Transcendation is not happening.  It's the same stuff.  In some ways sexism is ok, if someone does it in conjunction with playing up that they are not racist.  I don't believe for a minute that we have transcended race.   It's almost like the media has unleashed their sexist inner selves, cause they can justify it by saying, heh, but look, we are not racist. (which they are)

    Clueless (none / 0) (#126)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    Enough to unblushingly deny that Hillary Clinton's gender is Open Season in the media, perhaps?

    But then, I don't think it is the case that they don't see it.  It is simply that Obama is benefitting from it, and so that makes it okay.  Ends, meet means.  

    There are a few on this site and across the blogosphere who both A)support Obama; and B) recognize and call out the sexist attacks on Clinton.  

    But these are, alas, few.  

    FWIW, I think there are many (none / 0) (#140)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    ... and none say "it's okay".

    Yes, Obamaa is benefitting from it.  But there's no need to blame either him or his supporters for it.


    To deny that (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    both the Obama campaign and Obama supporters are encouraging this is not accurate imo.

    Supporters, sure (none / 0) (#165)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    but where's the evidence his campaign his involved?

    I have written about it (none / 0) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    Don't need to encourage it, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    just need to accept it.

    Me. I do that. (none / 0) (#162)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    And I get slammed for it. People are always surprised that I voted for O.

    It is off topic (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    If you have nothing to say about Fineman's comments, please do not comment further in this thread.


    I am deleting your comment.

    ASDF (none / 0) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    Sisko came before Janeway.

    That, I think, is all one has to say about our most curious cultural landscape and how race and sex factors into it.

    As far as it's a factor, and one can argue it's not, that people are smarter and more tolerant than that, or one can have a more cynical view of people, if one chooses the second option, I think it's pretty clear America is going to accept a black man as executive sooner than a woman.

    "24" is another datapoint.

    Fineman's comment doesn't surprise me or bother me.

    I'm a Clinton supporter who's willing to be fair about this, and while I think Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama, I do not hesitate to say she is running on what I call the "Clinton Brand,"  for better or worse.

    She is embracing what Gore chose not to embrace in 2000.

    It is what it is.  Fineman is pointless.

    Shuster though can still go F- himself.

    This sounds off-topic, but I won't judge. (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    But Janeway was the far superior commanding officer.  ;)

    Yes, she defeated the Borg. n/t (none / 0) (#198)
    by splashy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    By using their own connectedness against them.

    I'm thinking that Hillary may understand the value of how to use diplomacy better, and how the connectedness can be used to defuse terrorism.


    Oops, meant to take the n/t out . n/t (none / 0) (#199)
    by splashy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    I have cleaned up the thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    removing subthreads involving jibeaux, who seems clearly to be a returned troll.

    While I appreciate the witty responses to the trolling, we have a zero tolerance to chattering trolls and thus must not reward them with responses.

    Sorry to have eliminated your comedic replies to the troll.

    does this happen often around here? (none / 0) (#159)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    yesterday aunt sombody was deleted.

    It takes some getting used to, your rapid troll patrol and thorough deletion


    More often of late (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    More trolls as traffic and attention have gone up at this site.

    This is a civil site. I do not get to attack commenters and they do not get to attack me or J.

    We do not allow personal attacks on either candidate.

    We demand on topic commenting.

    We STRICTLY police all of these things.

    This is not a "free wheeling site."

    There is plenty of that for supporters of either candidate at other sites.


    still (none / 0) (#169)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    it will take some getting used to.

    Not a bad thing, just different from what I am used to.


    jibeaux (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    still has 11 posted comments for today and it's not even noon. Please come back to the site tomorrow if you'd like and please don't chatter.

    So... (none / 0) (#170)
    by jarober on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    So then what was it when they described Gore in very similar terms - only ascribing the scripting to his advisors?

    Just how serious a candidate can Clinton be if every critique is evidence of sexism?  Gosh, replace the word "communist" with the word "sexist", and I bet I could dig up any speech by McCarthy and get you to believe it came from MSNBC...

    What a silly comment (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    I invite readers to look at jarober's archived comments.  It will explain a great deal.

    This tactic of blowing sexism off with "so is all criticism sexist?" is the most banal position you will find.  Unsurprisingly, you often find such rot emanating from Republican sympathizers.


    Major eye roll. (none / 0) (#172)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    Oh the drama

    Come on... (none / 0) (#175)
    by robertearl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    I really think the Fineman quote is really a reach. At this point, no-one can say anything about her without you guys thinking it's a slam on her womanhood.
    She's a big girl. She should stop the whining and start drawing some definitive differences between her and Obama.
    I like Hillary alot, and will vote for her in the general, but she needs to start running her campaign and stop all of this pettiness and get serious about her campaign, time is running out.

    A reach? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    You comment is beyond a reach.

    You must be kidding.


    I changed my headline (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    because, in retrospect, I think it is more fair than the original one.

    Yep (none / 0) (#183)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    You're not seeing things, imo...this time...

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    I appreciate that and thank you for your return. You were missed.

    Lurleen Wallace (none / 0) (#185)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST

    Would it have been sexism to speak the same way about Lurleen Wallace?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    Think about why that would be.

    Pretty clear (none / 0) (#197)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST

    Your opinion of Lurleen is very different from your opinion of Hillary.  

    Lurleen (none / 0) (#202)
    by tree on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    had no political background and only a high school education when she was talked into running as a surrogate for her husband. Read the wikipedia entry on her. Sad. Her husband didn't even inform her that she had cancer!