How the MSM Treats Hillary: One Video Shows It All

By Shut the Freud Up Productions, hat tip to KatieBird at The Confluence.

For Hillary supporters watching this, you know what to do.

< "No Longer In Doubt?" Then It Is Time For Obama To Unify | George Bush Not The Worst President Ever? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for posting that Jeralyn! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    Yeah, I gave her another $50.  

    Thanks for the post (none / 0) (#10)
    by suisser on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    I gave again, (wish it could have been more)

    I would (none / 0) (#16)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    but I just found out last week that I'm maxed out.

    Must see. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by DaytonDem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    Watch this video and weep for our national discourse.

    I weep for the daughters of this nation (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    especially after all that their foremothers for generations have done for a woman to run for president -- but not for every woman to be disrespected, as we are whenever the candidate is.

    I weep for the daughters of this nation... (none / 0) (#153)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    Just got through watching this with my 18 yr. old daughter and frankly, I was crying like a baby. Incomprehensible Demoralization..... That's about all I can say. Hoped it would be different for her when I brought her home from the hospital 18 yrs. ago. Some things changs, but sadly some things don't. Thanks for the post.

    Isn't that a bit unfair? (none / 0) (#182)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    I mean, I don't think all blacks are disrespected every time Obama is. Why would all women be disrespected whenever Hillary is?

    Sen. Clinton in my opinion has crossed a threshhold in terms of being representative of all women. I know lots of women who simply don't care for her. Are they misogynist?

    And how does a campaign and its supporters make an issue of sexism when "Women for Hillary" is one of the most prominent taglines and factions of her campaign? Don't people acccuse Obama of doing the same with black people? If it's not right to do it for blacks, then why women?

    Sen. Clinton is a great example of a woman's equality with men. She is a harbinger of progress, and a beacon of hope, but I don't think all women are comfortable wrapping themselves in Sen. Clinton's successes or failures. They also are not the targets of criticism aimed at her.


    I am n/t (none / 0) (#19)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    Thank you, Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    I just posted this on my LJ community.  This campaign has been like a living lesson in Women's Studies: Misogyny and the Media.  In fact, I'm going to suggest the topic to my daughter if she has to write a paper for her Women's Studies class.  She'll have plenty of material to choose from, thanks to the coverage of this campaign season.

    an unfair election totally (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    for Sen. Clinton, the sexist pig media never even gave her a chance....which is one of many reasons why I shall never consider this to be a just and legit election....My heart bleeds because of the Democratic party  condoning this behavior...This ole Democrat is done. :-(

    Please don't give up, athyrio! (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    Senator Clinton is still hanging in there fighting hard for us--and the counters say she's only 130 delegates away at worst, 9 at best (if they seat FL/MI.) We have some primaries left, including ours, and she can make up that difference if we help. The Democratic Party is making some mistakes right now, but I truly believe we'll do right by those states and those committed Democratic voters soon. We're Democrats, we count votes! :)

    bring eveyone to vote (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    come election time, if you haven't voted consider bringing all the women and carpool to the polling place.

    MLK said, we shall overcome ! theres more of us too ;)

    Obama had a fundraiser in and SF raised unheard of sums of $ in 7 hrs. You know it wasn't from the little people.


    I won't Eleanora yet....I am still holding my (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    breath and praying alot for our nation....Where are you located in Montana?? Would be nice to exchange email addys since we are both from Montana....

    Prayers always help! (none / 0) (#34)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    My mom's been signing Hillary people up for a group novena to start nine days before PA. I'm smack in the middle, between Helena and Great Falls. I'd love to exchange emails, even though I'm terrible about reading mine regularly--check my userinfo here at TL for my address. :)

    Unfair Treatment of Hillary (none / 0) (#36)
    by STLDeb on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    Again, mistreatment of Hillary by media.  Has anyone seen this vile interview quote from Spike Lee: http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/culture/45772/ "Does this mean you're down on the Clintons?
    The Clintons, man, they would lie on a stack of Bibles. Snipers? That's not misspeaking; that's some pure bullxxxx. I voted for Clinton twice, but that's over with. These old black politicians say, "Ooh, Massuh Clinton was good to us, massuh hired a lot of us, massuh was good!" Hoo! Charlie Rangel, David Dinkins--they have to understand this is a new day. People ain't feelin' that stuff. It's like a tide, and the people who get in the way are just gonna get swept out into the ocean.

    If a supporter of Hillary's said something derogatory like that ... oh wait Geraldine Ferraro was taken to the woodshed for her non-racist statements.  

    Statements like these that Spike Lee made should be roundly condemned.  Why the double standard?


    This type of thinking is ridiculous (none / 0) (#59)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    What is he talking about?  This is a new day for what?  We should be voting for who we think is the best president, not who we think is the best civil rights leader or who has the brownest skin.  It's just as stupid as saying that we should vote for Hillary because feminism has entered a new era and any woman who votes for Barack is yielding to false male dominance.

    Ridiculous.  This type of brain dead thinking (from Spike Lee, of all people, and John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill and whoever made that lame video featured on Obama's website and now Noquarter) is exactly why this country is in such a mess.  It's just why other countries hate our guts.  We're too superficial.

    Go ahead, and take Barack.  Yeah, Hillary should drop out, and we should all rally around Barack because racial sensitivity trumps gender sensitivity.  That's a great way to run an election!  Don't talk about issues, just make Hillary look bad because of her gender and let's build Barack up because of his skin color.  </sarcasm>

    I know that there are substantive reasons to vote for Barack, but my God, why is it that his loudest and most prominent fans say such stupid things about his candidacy?


    when I read that type of comment from (none / 0) (#72)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    black folks, it screams: now its our turn.

    and a woman aint stopping us now. Seems ungrateful.

    In the Clinton admin. the infusion of blacks into their administration was unprecedented. Look at Maggie Williams who took over her campaign.

    Spike Lee is one angry guy. As if he didn't get ahead in the Clinton years.


    When I read that type of comment... (none / 0) (#155)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    I agree. SEXISM effects more than 1/2 the population of the planet no matter what the race or class. The richest woman in Saudi Arabia is not ALLOWED to drive a vehicle.

    That was exemplary (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    I loved this video. Yep, we women are multi-dimensional. Get used to it, boys.

    Pretty clever having that insert of Strathairn-as-Murrow giving his speech about the fatuousness of the media while Olbermann drones on and on with his usual, tiresome pedantry. KO's voiceover in the Network clip actually makes him sound like a mouthpiece for authoritarianism, 1984 style.

    And those striped jeans Hillary wore in college? I had those same jeans in 6th grade (1971) and let me tell you, I thought I was hipper than s*** wearing 'em to school.

    Hillary rocks.

    We must all have had those jeans! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:29:56 PM EST
    I was a senior in high school, though...lol.

    The "Murrow" v. KO just showed what a complete blowhard KO has become.

    I feel more and more like Howard Beale every day - "mad as hell" is right.


    {raises hand} Jr High. n/t (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:05:02 PM EST
    What an incredible video. (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    Another donation for Hillary Clinton from me.

    Universal health care hangs by a thread. The economy crashes into recession. The war in Iraq grinds on. And this is the press and the Democratic Party we have to help us out of it.

    I don't care what her chances are. Every dollar I send to her campaign is worth much more than a dollar sent to any other candidate running under the Democratic Party banner.

    This is exactly, EXACTLY (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by BevD on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    the same tactics that were used on Al Gore.  He was accused of having multiple personalities, being a serial liar, being a nag, acting like a girl, and so on and so on and so on...

    This is exactly, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    The New Democrats exemplified by the Clinton/Gore administration and the candidacy of Sen. Clinton did more for the democratic party than anyone since New Deal/Great Society.
    It's unfathomable the "collectve insanity" that has taken hold of the party leadership It's one thing to have another candidate for change and to have a good race, but the DNC is shooting themselves in the foot.

    if it makes you feel any better, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    for Sen. Clinton, the sexist pig media never even gave her a chance

    should sen. obama be the eventual dem. nominee (an issue yet in doubt, regardless of what BTD thinks to the contrary! :)), the media will turn on him in a heartbeat. i guarantee it.

    at that point, we'll all get to see if sen. obama is made of sterner stuff than he's shown so far.

    i'm not putting my money on it.

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by flashman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    I don't feel better.

    You're so right. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marco21 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    There's only one person the media loves more than Obama and that's McCain. If it's a race between the two, you'll see Obama constantly feeling like he did in Texas after getting grilled by a few reporters. What was it? Someone said he looked like a man whose own dog bit his hand?

    The sad thing is this -- (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    If Obama wins, the media wins. This ugliness wins.

    If only his campaign at some point had come out powerfully and sincerely against this.

    I can't vote for the man now without voting against every principle that matters to me.

    Start listing all advertisers in each of these (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    TV stations, and send them a link to the video via email, explaining why you will no longer buy their product(s) so long as they advertise in these stations. At least do so for companies that place their ads around the offending programs.

    Also, send it to the stations, just so they know the impact of what they have been doing and how it will cost them.


    Especially if they are products (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM EST
    women typically buy. Women are a very strong consumer group, so, if they want us to buy their food, household products etc, they may want to think about their ad placement.

    Pretty soon all of these shows will only have the same advertisers as sports programing. Beer, Viagra, etc  ;)


    The effect of compressing just a portion (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    of the nasty and mean-spirited media commentary and headlines into a few minutes was mind-blowing; we've had the daily drip-drip-drip of this for so long now that maybe we didn't realize just how bad it is.

    And it is bad.  

    I hope the Obama supporters are paying attention, because if he is the nominee, this is the treatment your guy is going to get.  There is no way on earth that the McCain-Obama reporting/commentary is going to magically elevate to serious and thoughtful discussions of the issues - no.  

    And when your guy gets hit with this kind of sewage like it was being blasted out of a firehose, you may regret cheering it on when it was directed at Hillary.  You may regret that if he wins the nomination, he will have won it, in part, with the help of these people.  You may regret not holding the Olbermanns and Becks and Hannitys and Matthewses and Russerts - not to mention the blogs - to a higher standard, but it will be too late, and regret is sad and painful place to be.

    Thanks for the inspiration, Jeralyn - Hillary just got another $50 from me.

    Powerful video. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    Kind of discouraging that the rabid sexism in this race doesn't seem to matter to so many liberals. I worry about how much the MSM has focused on Senator Obama and seem to always cast him in the best light. Hillary got great coverage for her visits here in Montana, but they always seem to mention Senator Obama first and focus more on him. Feels like the reporters and editors are pushing his candidacy instead of just reporting.

    I was disappointed in the spin, too. One article was headlined, "Firefighter Sees Little Difference Between The Two Democrats", but when you read further, what he actually said was:

    "Dan Cotrell, a Billings firefighter, said he thought Obama was a very dynamic speaker, but believes that Clinton's speech dealt with more real-life, Montana-specific issues."

    Sounds like he saw a difference to me. I added another $50 to my monthly donation because of your posting this video today, wish it could be more.

    She does gets mentioned first . . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    when they want to smear her. Otherwise, she's second fiddle.

    I'll never forget (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    Tweety and KO are now Patrick Bateman in my mind.  Which I think is a perfect fit for them.

    But I do think Sexism is a smaller part of this compared to something else.

    They couldn't tear down Clinton when he was president.

    So this gives them a chance to tear down his legacy.

    But I could be wrong.  Maybe it is just sexism.  I think it's sad that the primary can be distilled down to a competition of victimhood, but I can't escape the fact that Imus was fired for being insulting towards blacks.

    He wasn't fired for being insulting towards women.

    It's a combination (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    of sexism and Clinton-hatred, IMO. And both are a means to an end, to nullify the Clinton contingent and gain control of the Democratic Party.  

    I tried but I (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    couldn't even watch all if it. I am nauseus. I am outraged. And I am deeply, terribly sad that I have 7 granddaughters living in this misogynistic world.

    One would think that we were watching some underground video. But it was all right out in the open. And acceptable.

    Just a few words for the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, on the very best day you live, neither one of you would qualify as a man. On the very best day of your life you wouldn't be half the men that she is a woman.  

    I can't forgive "progressives" (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:08:10 PM EST
    who refuse to condemn this sort of thing out of partisan loyalty to their candidate. What principles do progressives and liberals stand for if they don't stand for equality in terms of political participation and respresentation? Is bigotry only to be condemned when it is a matter of your own self-interest? Is that what Obama stands for?

    No, of course not (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    Much of the video has comments from Republicans not Democrats....And, yes, there have been very hateful and sexist things said about Hillary....

    huh? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    Did you miss Olbermann, Tweety, Tucker, Shuster, Mike Barnicle and the Fox News people? The bias shown is media driven.

    The worst came from Tucker and (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:44:16 PM EST
    FOX--those are Republicans....

    As to Tweety, he has disliked the Clintons for a very long time and since at least Impeachment.  He has gone off on Bill over Ricky Ray Rector more than once....Yes, I agree, he has dropped a couple of sexist doozeys....

    As to Olbermann, he did criticize Hillary for tearing up in New Hampshire, but then so did John Edwards.  And Edwards's criticism was among the worst, saying in effect that Hillary was not qualified to be CINC if she were going to lose it during times of stress.  Otherwise, Olbermann has been biased against Hillary but not sexist...


    Nice spin (none / 0) (#55)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    But Chris Matthews has been as nasty as any of the Republicans.

    Olbermann is a sportscaster who, despite all evidence to the contrary, actually believes himself to be the new Murrow.


    Does the source of the bigotry matter? (none / 0) (#57)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    Who cares whether the people indulging in this sort of thing are Republicans or Democrats? Progressives should feel a responsibility to condemn bigotry wherever and whenever it rears its head. You appear to be confused about the difference between principle and partisanship.

    Okay (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    But the context of this video is to support her candidacy against Obama....

    No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    It's point is to expose the sexism and bigotry of the media. That is something which should be of concerned to everyone who counts themselves as a progressive -- no matter who they support for the Democratic nomination.

    Once again, you don't seem to understand the difference between partisanship and principle.

    I would hope that an Obama supporter would feel just as incensed about this, and would be as likely to make a video like this, as any other Democrat or liberal.

    If the only people who had ever found racisim objectionable were African Americans, African Americans in this country might still be living under Jim Crow.


    No, no. The roolz for this primary season state: (none / 0) (#90)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    Giving Hillary fair treatment is the same as being pro-Hillary and anti-Obama.

    The sexist comments (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    are not excusable....However, not every criticism of Hillary is sexist.  She brings a lot of things on herself....

    She brings it on (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    herself?! Are you serious?

    However (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    she deserves it?  Did you even watch the video?  Women deserve to be portrayed this way?   Mocked for having emotions?  Women deserve to be told their work means nothing?  

    But, however, on the other hand... all mean exactly the same thing...  ignore what I just said, now I'm going to tell you what I really think.


    You have just said that I deserve it (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    and my daughter and mother deserve it for asserting ourselves.  Oh, and every woman you know who also attempts to do any damn thing different deserves it, too.  Your mother deserves to be turned into a ball-busting nutcracker toy, your sister deserves to have a group organized against her with a nickname for her vagina.  And your wife is only worthy of ironing shirts.

    And your daughter?  Well, if she ever speaks up proudly about you in public, you're pimping here out, MKS.

    Do you get, at all, that every time any woman is treated this way for getting this far, it is every one of us that is treated this way for trying to get anywhere at all?  

    And do you get that every one of us, when smacked down, was told that we brought it on ourselves for trying at all?

    I bet you get that every time an African American who is a hard-working citizen, maybe with a degree or three, is stopped on the street or in the airport owing to profiling, that is dissing every AA -- and every one of them has gotten the message that they brought it on themselves, you bet.

    Tell you what.  Go to an Obama rally, hold up a big sign saying "pick my cotton," and then come on back and tell us how it goes, huh?  


    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    I struggled with a response and found it difficult to do without a lot of anger, expletives, and a few nasty names, so I gave it up.

      Thanks for doing what I couldn't do, and responding perfectly.


    I thought this might (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    become unclear....

    I said that the "sexist comments are not excusable."  

    I also said there was non-sexist criticism of Hillary.  As to that criticism, I do believe some of it is justified and that Hillary brings it on herself.  I could give you a list of reasons or non-sexist examples, but it would probably be deemed off topic....

    The point is that not all critism of her is sexist.....

    And I have said elsewhere on this thread I agree the video has sexist comments....


    I thought you might (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    try to pretend you didn't say the rest of what you said.  But you did.  Now, address it and support it or apologize for it.  There is no in-between, there is no "wiggle room" with us anymore.  

    You are messing with women of a certain age.  We're the mean girls now.  As the video sad, we're mad, and we're not gonna take it anymore.  

    Back it up -- or back away.  But for goddess' sake, don't be such a wuss and try to back off what you said.  That's dissing us again, expecting us to kiss and make up and pretend you weren't bad boyz who said what you said.  Or worse, that we must be the crazy ones and made it all up.

    Uh uh.  We've all dated guys that do that.  Some of us dumped guys like that.  And this time, it's here on the blog, it's here for posterity, so you better cover your posterior fast.


    AMEN CREAM!!!!! (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    off topic (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:33:25 PM EST
    don't let them hijack the thread, the topic is media treatment of Hillary, not her campaign strategy. Off topic comments will be deleted.

    I'm sorry, Jeralyn :( (none / 0) (#53)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    A politician is a politician? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    When I see what Hillary has had to endure during this campaign, it makes me believe in her. Selfishness, greed, pride--all the qualities people attach to her with unceasing, unabated hate--they were not enough to cause her to run, and they are not enough to keep her in a contest that was ALWAYS against her. The adversity, the sexism, the vitriol are more than any person should ever have to face; its acceptance should dishearten anyone, and it crushes me. Yet, Hillary has remained standing--not just for herself but for every human being. Her courage, her strength and her intellect remain untarnished, even as the media, the blogosphere, the public hurl every vile sentiment and word against her. In the noise of their ravings, she continues pushing UNIVERSAL health care, environmental protection and a "boldly progressive" agenda.

    She is an inspirational figure--maybe not in words, but in spirit.

    Donations may not be enough, though. I think we should start a project: we need to start lobbying the superdelegates, getting them to see this Hillary--our Hillary. A superdelegate email bank, if you will. A constant wave of (politely) firm letters asking them to endorse Hillary.

    Also, does anyone have a link to the photo at 7:31? It's such an amazing image, and I would love a copy.

    The odds were... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    ...always against Senator Clinton?

     I fail to see that.  She was being touted as the inevitable nominee.  It was only an Obama surge that prevented super tuesday from being definitive.  

     Not all of us who voted for Obama did so out of sexism, just as I suspect not all who voted for Clinton did so out of racism.  In fact, I would say for the vast majority neither was much of a consideration as a negative, or else Edwards would still be in the race.  Show some respect, please.


    Don't twist my words. (none / 0) (#58)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    My comment had nothing to do with Sen. Obama. Sexism is a cultural phenomenon, and it permeates every facet of our society. Pointing out that fact is not equivalent to saying everyone who supports Obama is sexist. Don't make that claim; I certainly didn't. You're obscuring the real tragedy of how much presence sexism has in America by acting as though I'm throwing around the term sexist whimsically to describe the other side. I turn around your command: show some respect, please.

    The odds were always against her because she is a woman. She was being touted as the inevitable nominee, yes. That's different from being the nominee, that's different from the coverage of the contest, that's different than the actuality of reaching the nomination.

    Also, I question the basis of this inevitability claim. Did the media make the claim because Bill is her husband? Because her last name is Clinton? I don't think you can claim that it was solely because of her status as First Lady. Indeed, I remember so much of the early coverage around the time of her announcement focusing on her "most powerful trait": Bill. That's a bit sexist, so the very claim to inevitability the media created may be rooted in sexism. You'll excuse me for being skeptical, but invisible norms govern so very much of our society that I think it's quite accurate to say that sexism was always by her side.


    It isn't sexist... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    ...to say that she is where she is because of her relationship with President Clinton.  Do you honestly believe that Senator Clinton would be in the race today if she had not been married to him?  



    Who knows, she might have (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    already been elected President if she hadn't married Bill and let her political aspirations take a back seat to his. Bill's actually said as much.

    Some one with her capabilities would have at the very least have been a multiterm Senator by now and I think she would have been a formidable force even without Bill. And she wouldn't have to carry some of his negative baggage.

    Frankly, I think its demeaning to suppose that she couldn't have achieved all this without the Clinton name. She's got way more smarts and skills than most male politicians out there.


    Who knows (none / 0) (#77)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    Bill might never have been president without her. Don't be so quick to assume she wasn't anything before she met Bill. If you really believe that, then you need to read about the commencement speech she gave during her college graduation....

    Uh, yes, Alex -- it is sexist to say so (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    and entirely ignore her own career of 35 years.

    But you go right ahead and try that line dissing women as anything but appendages to men, and I recommend you try it at a bar on some woman who really, really would be impressed by what a SNAG you are.  

    And then report back to us from the ER, okay?


    Believe what you will... (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    ...I'm not saying that she couldn't have gotten where she is on her own, but denying the allure of the Clinton years is just putting your head in the sand.  Hell, she's been running on it.  

    Do you know anything about her resume (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    before 1992?  If so, say so.  If not . . . uh huh.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    ...in point of fact I do.  She was long considered a candidate for political office.  She considered a run in Arkansas for governor.  But she runs on Bill's resume along with her own (i.e., it took a Clinton to clean up the first Bush white house, it will take a clinton to clean up the second).  

    No, Alex, I'm talking accomplishments (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    by her for decades -- not what others wanted her to do.  So, in point of fact, tell me what you know of her accomplishments?

    first you say (none / 0) (#99)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    Do you honestly believe that Senator Clinton would be in the race today if she had not been married to him?

    And then you say:

    ..I'm not saying that she couldn't have gotten where she is on her own,

    Yeah, right. Make sure you scan your rear-view mirror before backpedaling.


    Entirely consistent... (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    ...she probably could have.  But she didn't.  He even campaigned on two for the price of one.  They're a power couple. Just a fact.  

    no (none / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    If you imply that she couldn't have gotten here with out being Bill's wife(and that's what your question implied) you can't turn around and say, oh yeah, she probably could have,and be consistent. That's the contradiction that you caught yourself in. Am I surprised that you don't see it or won't admit it? No.

    Yeah, you can do that (none / 0) (#151)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    She is certainly smart and capable.  But she didn't do it without Bill.  He didn't do it without her, either.   But to suggest that she is here completely on her own is absurd.

    Who knows? Maybe she would have been (none / 0) (#81)
    by katiebird on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    in 10 years ago if she hadn't been married to him.

    What has Obama done that makes him MORE qualified on his own merits than she is?

    I'm really curious?  I just got a letter from someone asking me.  What has Obama done that qualifies him for the office of President of the USA?


    A woman shouldn't be defined (none / 0) (#87)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    by who she's married to.  Or at least not when we're talking about her merits as a senator or a leader.  Whether it helps her or not.  In any regard, I think she makes a good senator and a formidable candidate and I don't see why it matters how she got the position.  When someone points out that she's only here because of the man in her life, it's kind of like saying she's unworthy to even compete because she got it the easy way.  Jeez.  I'm not buying it.

    You really don't know that (none / 0) (#97)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    She certainly is smarter than him ....and Obama for that matter.

    So you think a woman needs a man to be famous and successful?

    And in re to bill Clinton, she knew there would be people like you making these statements but she obviously is in there fighting because she is the best candidate and she knows it.


    Would Bill have become President (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    without Hillary?

    Dunno... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:34:11 PM EST
    ...but if I had to speculate, probably not.  She was pretty prominent.  

    I abhor this comment (none / 0) (#175)
    by angie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    I've heard it before and that comment (that she wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't married to Bill) is in and of itself is sexist.  Did it ever enter your head that Bill wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't  married to HER?  The fact of the matter is that no person who is married can become president of the United States of America or even the CEO of a big corporation without the complete and total support of his (or HER) spouse.  To think otherwise totally diminishes the sacrifices and work that the (in most cases) wife has to make and do in order to enable her husband to reach his goals at work or in the public sector. Sure, those acts might not be as flashy or as easy to quantify as those of the husband in the "work world," but they are there, they are serious and they are vital to his "success."  Furthermore, this comment minimizes "the little woman's" own intelligent and ambition and it is an insult to every woman who has her own brain, thoughts, and goals.    

    No it doesn't... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    ...because it simply isn't sexist to be aware of the political ambitions of the Clintons.  They are something new to U.S. politics.  

     It isn't limited to women, either.  The Huffingtons were an example on the right, although a schizophrenic one.  She's certainly outshined him.  Asif Ali Zardari would almost certainly not be leading the PPP in Pakistan, with his son, if Benazir Bhutto had not been such an esteemed political pioneer in Pakistan. Hell, he wouldn't have been in politics without her.

     Just because you see sexism somewhere does not make it so.  This is the lesson you seek to teach Obama's supporters about race, I thought.


    And the same media that built her up (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    and has been delirious over trying to tear her down, is the media that will do the same thing to Obama if he is the nominee.  They will do it as if it were the most natural thing in the world, will not find anything strange about the abrupt 180 - they are just not going to turn on McCain.

    It will not be pretty.


    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    There was a very funny Samantha Bee segment on the Daily Show a while back making fun of the media tearing her down.

     We will see some very ugly, very vicious racial campaigning.  


    This explains my passion for HRC's candidacy (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    To see what is systematically being done to her by the press/blogosphere/public at large just fills me with such rage and such despair.  The Network clip is so apt.  I've been flashing to it in my own mind for weeks now.  

    What is so surreal about it all is that I used to be an HRC detractor back in the day.  I always thought she was smart and capable, but I thought she lacked humility and that'd she sell her soul to the devil for a vote, oh and steal the White House china on the way out the door too.  In short, she was an ordinary corrupt pol.  But the more I saw of her the more I came to respect her incredible guts and admire her smarts and her skill.

    All this is just warm-up to say that I was once one of those who would say, "I would vote for a woman - just not that woman."  But now I see right through that line.  Because it is just a line.  It's a line meant to excuse the glass ceiling that we can all see bearing down on us but don't want to face because isn't it past time not to have to?  And a line to make us all feel better about the gleeful demonstrations of misogyny that are everywhere this election cycle, that we just can't bear to believe with our own eyes.  It's a line to reassure us that the boys can just be boys, because it is after all Hillary Clinton we are talking about.  That they wouldn't behave that way if it was any another woman making this run.  Right.  Sure.  

    Oh and yeah the guy running against her hasn't done anything yet and can't compete with her on the merits, but you know "he's the one! he's the healer! he's America's future not its past!" and it is just her bad luck to be running against him.  We'd pick her if it was anybody else but this once in a lifetime leader running.  Yup.  That's it.  

    Say it enough times and maybe you'll believe it.  Maybe you'll get a shiny unity pony for your trouble.  But not me.   Because you know what, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!

    Sexism and Misogyny (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    This is my first post.  My husband posts here on and off, but this topic made me sign up since this has been bothering me for a while. I hope this is not too long.

    The sexism and misogyny by the MSM is only a reflection of society in general.  I say reflection because even in this thread you have people such as MKS and Marvin42 making excuses for it.  Let me make this perfectly clear: There is no excuse for misogyny and sexism.  What the MSM has managed to do with their constant "drip, drip, drip" of sexist and misogynist reports is trivialize a female candidate.  This trivialization permits the public and  fellow Democrats to personally attack and demean Sen. Clinton without "dirtying their hands."  The MSM's actions are not new.  In fact this attitude has been around for a long time, before broadcast media.  Just because women in the MSM use it also does not make it right or excuse it.  I suggest that all those confused by this read "The Second Sex" by Simone De Beauvoir concerning some women's attitudes towards other women.   Further, a review of the life of Susan B. Anthony would be helpful in understanding how women have been pushed aside in favor of advancements for AA men.  In particular Ms. Anthony's disagreements with Mr. Frederick Douglas concerning the 14th Amendment since it did not include women only AA men.  It is time that equal rights stop being just a slogan, but a way of life.  It must start now with the Democratic Party, and if Sen. Obama wishes to lead the Democratic Party, he must acknowledge it and stop using it to his advantage.  The Democratic Party's and Sen. Obama's refusal to acknowledge the ubiquitous use of misogyny and sexism only encourages the continued denigration women, which is a perversion of the Democratic values.

    Wow. Welcome and kudos (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    for your references to women's history, spot on.

    I look forward to seeing more of you here!


    Thanks. I did study a bit of feminist history in (none / 0) (#119)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    college and just see all of this as more of the same.

    Aha. I teach women's history (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:37:10 PM EST
    among other topics.  I know a good student when I see one. :-)

    A quick correction (none / 0) (#105)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    I have NEVER made any excuses for it. I am one of the people foaming at the mouth I am so angry about the whole thing. I would have never believed the degree of misogyny and sexism that exists in the DEMOCRATIC party even six months ago. I am simply shocked, depressed, and really speechless.

    So please don't lump me in with others who make excuses for this kind of thing. Thanks.


    Sorry Marvin42 I did mean Alex. (none / 0) (#117)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    Love the comment , but (none / 0) (#110)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    I think you mixed up Marvin42 with Alec82. I think you own him an apology for that. Marvin's a good guy. You comments apply to Alec82,not Marvin.

    I said (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    "The sexist comments are not excusable."

    I did not make "excuses for it."


    MKS making a statement like this and then stating (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    that she has brought it on herself is contradictory.  

    Please look at the middle (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    sentence of my post.....I said there is non-sexist criticism of Hillary....That seems to be where the disconnect has occurred.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
    When did I make excuses for sexism in the media? Or racism, for that matter?  I may not see it everywhere, but I am aware of its existence.

     But do I think Obama, his supporters or his voters are responsible or partaking in it? No.

     BTW, whenever you say that women have been pushed aside for AA men, you lose credibility with me and with, you know, the majority of Americans. The 14th amendment as interpreted includes women, and women effectively received the right to vote before blacks.  

     You sound more like Marilyn Frye than a supporter of a centrist Democrat.


    Messing with the facts again? (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    You've obviously never read the text of the fourteenth amendment. It does not, in any form, establish the right of women to vote.

    Here's a little gift for you -- it's section 2. of the fourteenth amendment:

    Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Please don't bother trying to wiggle your way out of this one. I'm a longtime, active member of the League of Women Voters and I darn well know the differences between the fourteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth amendments. The Seneca Falls Convention was held in 1848 -- and from that moment forward women had to wait 52 years to gain the constitutional right to vote.


    This is OT and was already debated in posts that.. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    ...Jeralyn deleted.  I am not going to retype everything that I typed before, explaining the amendments and the history of minority and female suffrage.  Jeralyn, please delete.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#184)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:45:00 AM EST
    You brought it up. But since it's been refuted now you cry "off topic!".

    Here -- have a handkerchief.


    Fine... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:11:24 AM EST
    ...here you have it:

     The Fourteenth Amendment would almost certainly invalidate any state-based discriminatory structure based on gender supported by state law, at least as it has been interpreted in the modern era.  As it was interpreted following the Reconstruction era, it was not even capable of protecting African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries, from state-sanctioned discrimination.  As I understand it, the dispute over suffrage involved the 15th amendment, not the 14th.  Additionally, when the 19th amendment was passed, there were laws that had been in place for roughly forty years that effectively eliminated the AA vote in the South.  These laws would not be eradicated until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, using its 15th amendment enforcement power.  

     In sum, any claim that women received the vote after AA (male or female) voters is specious.  There was an intense campaign in the South (then containing a large majority of potential AA voters) following Reconstruction and the removal of federal troops by President Hayes to disenfranchise AA voters through what we would today call terrorism.  Not that the South was any better for women; Mississippi approved the women's suffrage amendment in the 1980s.  But there was an effective amendment in place well before there was any effective amendment in place in the South, where, again, AA voters were concentrated, before they would migrate (along with whites) to the North to find jobs in the industrial states.  

     Perhaps if Jeralyn disagrees with my summary she will respond, or perhaps she will delete all these comments as OT.    


    Wasn't Obama . . . (none / 0) (#188)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    offering kisses to women at a rally in exchange for a vote?  That was demeaning.

    New poster here -- refugee (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Corella on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    from other sites.  My husband I used to be regular Olbermann watchers, and convinced a number of our friends to watch him too, based on his regular opposition to George Bush.  But about 6 weeks ago he went too far in his criticism of Hillary and his outspoken admiration of Obama.  I tried to like Obama -- I read his first book, my husband read his second.  We both tried really hard, but unfortunately we can find nothing but raw ambition there. To say that spending four childhood years in a country gives him foreign affairs credentials is simply ludicrous.  By those lights, my daughter who was raised in a foreign service family and spent many years living in foreign countries is incredibly well-qualified to be president.

    What is being done to Hillary Clinton is wickedly cruel, and I am having much difficulty in comprehending it--is this coming only from Democrats?  Is this part of a concerted attack by both the right and the left?  What the hell is going on?

    But, for a moment back to Keith Olbermann.  Keith, you are NOT Edward R. Murrow. Your rants are only that -- rants. They are not measured and discerning criticism.

    To use Reverend Wright's own words, (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    when those roosters come home to roost, it will be ugly...You cannot treat half of the democratic party this way, and not expect to pay in some way...and pay you will...either in losing the election or if you somehow luck out, you will find out that Obama is one of the least prepared and spineless presidents that ever existed as he has never stood on principle for anything that I know of....and he will be subjected to the GOP's next chapter of Whitewater investigations and it will be sad...Sad for the entire Democratic party, that half wouldn't vote for the most qualified candidate and managed to defeat her thru sexist attacks that should be roundly condemned by our entire party...

    I suggest you read "The Second Sex". (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by FLVoter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:36:10 PM EST
    This is what Simone De Beauvoir discusses. The women's  movement is not about special treatment, but about equal treatment. If would not vote for Sen. Clinton based on her policies or her political accomplishments. That's fine. (Isn't that what we should be basing our vote on?) Instead you criticize her personal choices. Her choices do not need to be explained or validated.  You do not need to personally attack another woman in order to support your candidate.  And by the way it is disingenuous to say that you made it on your own.  In a way all women in careers have benefited by all those other women that have come before us. Do not vote for Sen. Clinton, but do show her respect.

    thank you so much (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    When I watched this, I teared up because finally, here is some acknowledgment of the truth in this Orwellian primary season where so many so-called progressives have remained silent during the vile misogynistic public lynching of Hillary Clinton.

    When I began reading the comments - especially those of athyrio, eleanora, cream city, esmense, tree, and so many others - I was laughing and crying at the same time. Thank you so much for your voices.

    But then... along comes the usual suspects, trying to tear down these voices of reality again. We all know who they are. It's just so necessary to point out that some criticisms of Hillary are not sexist, even though the point of this post is about all the sexism that HAS happened. It's just so necessary to imply that she deserves at least some of what she's been given. So much for those good feelings.

    I will never, ever forget what I've learned this primary season - sexism is no less prevalent on the left than the right. It is NOT part of the democratic progressive platform. Not only will many many progressives go along complicitly with the most egregious sexism, they will backpedal away from any indignation against it as fast as they can. If you point out Olbermann's pigginess, you get impassioned defenses of him as a liberal savior. Same for so many others. It just does not matter to most progressives.

    Anyway, thank you so much to Jeralyn, and all of you, who are keeping the truth up front - you know who you are. And please stop engaging the deniers - does no good.

    I agree . . (none / 0) (#189)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    the sexism coming from the left has personally hurt me deeply, and I now see that they are really no different from the right-wing ranters.  I thought we progressives were better than that, but obviously it is not true. I will never view the Democratic Party in the same way again.

    Great video (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by 1jpb on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    But, this kind of thing isn't a reason to vote for someone.  I say that as someone who is made uncomfortable when I see this kind of admiration for my candidate of choice, BO.  For me it's about judgment, self understanding, and team building.  This is what works in the corporate world, and it works in government too.  History, tells us that age and time in DC don't result in great leadership.

    PS: I love Carmina Burana, can't get enough of that.

    You don't get the (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    video.  You really don't.

    Youth and inexperience has hardly ever amounted to (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    leadership either.

    History tells there are many reasons to vote (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    for someone, jane.  My reasons are just fine with me.  Your reasons . . . well, I don't know what your reasoning is in this comment, but maybe the video just had as little impact on you as each of those slurs did when they occurred.  So it goes.

    I do hope you understand that every time any woman in leadership is treated this way, every one of us is dissed, too -- and so are you.  So every time anyone stands by and say nothing about it, that's dissing you, too.  

    But please don't thank us for standing up for women's rights as human rights.  We would do it, anyway . . . because it's not about you or your vote.  It's about so much, much more, jane.


    But 1jbp... (none / 0) (#31)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    You can see the value of the video as a response to the "Quit Already You Stupid Beyotch" chanting, right? (every time someone tells her to quit, I have to give her campaign money. I just broke down and give her $200 chunks as it makes it easier to keep track.)

    For me it's about judgment, self understanding, and team building.

    And brains. And guts. And tenacity.

    That's why I'm supporting Sen. Clinton. heh---see how I did that. C'mon now, if turn my words to your advantge, I'd give you credit.

    History, tells us that age and time in DC don't result in great leadership.

    History also tells us that inexperience doesn't do so hot, either.

    See, I could say: FDR was in Washington for like, 6,000 years. He did okay. You could say Lincoln was an unknown dark horse who beat out Seward and Chase, and he was arguably the greatest of them all.

    I'd agree with that. But I'd also say, though, that Sen. Obama is no Mr. Lincoln.

    Okay, I just strawmanned you here but my point is that I don't think playing dueling presidents is going to help anybody come to any understanding.

    I'd agree that we rarely elect senators as presidents, but Sen. Obama is a senator as well. So that's not a fruitful avenue to explore.

    If you're saying his approximately 2 years in the Senate makes him a Washington outsider, I'd argue his seven years in the Illinois State Senate makes him a Chicago insider--and that's not a good thing. That is, in fact, rather a condemnation.

    You could argue that since the Illinois State Senate meets for only 55 days a year, he's not a Chicago insider. Though that means he has even less experience than his campaign touts. Again, not something good.

    I'm sorry---I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Perhaps the point here is that Sen. Clinton's experience may extend beyond DC. That it's about fighting back. Taking a stand. Knowing what you're talking about.

    At minimum, can we agree that the video may present insight regarding the mainstream media's attacks on the junior senator from New York and her career?


    It might not be a good reason but (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    it certainly did make me want to. I wonder if the backlash from the disrespectful treatment she got actually helped her in some states.

    I'm expecting Obama will get the same treatment if and when he becomes the nominee. We're already seeing signs of the press being protective of McCain.


    Yep (none / 0) (#38)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    And for those of you who think that the media won't be racist, they'll just dogwhistle for the entire second half of the year, and when called on it, will say 'you're just reading into things'. And the more people scream racism, the more turned off many voters will get, especially those who aren't tuned into what the process of dogwhistling is.

    Dogwhistling past the cemetary, Obama supporters, does not make a good campaign strategy.


    Grat Video! (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by hwebb54 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    I am a straight white male that supports Hillary Clinton (rare) I just had to comment on this video. I must say that I'm an ex ALL-State football player and fashion myself a tough guy but after seeing how the media has treated Hillary Clinton and Bill then watching this video, I'll just say I usually am not a crier but that video got to me. Hillary should use that as a TV ad and I don't think any woman or open-minded man would watch that and not vote for her. Amazing job on that video.

    Amazing! (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    I love this video.  It says it all for me.  I hope Obama supporters understand why they need to ask Clinton to be on the ticket. If she says no, then she says no.  But if he does not ask her it will be a big mistake.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    If he's the nominee, I don't want her on his ticket.  It would be insulting.  I doubt he'd ask her anyway, so it probably won't be an issue.

    I'd turn it down if I were her (none / 0) (#74)
    by goldberry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    No unity ticket unless she gets top billing.  Otherwise, she is just another woman who does her boss's job and gets no credit.  

    It's insulting.  


    WooHoo! (none / 0) (#30)
    by jillian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    Excellent video!!

    But there should be a warning that it starts out with Obamamann.  

    I will spread this far and wide!

    Olberman (none / 0) (#91)
    by flashman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    I thought the opening to this video was very interesting.  I remember the segment well.  It was during the final days of the New Hampshire campaign.  That was the very moment I knew KO was turning his guns on Hillary.  I remember thinking, "What 'attacks' is he talking about?  Did I miss something?"  In fact, I didn't miss anything.  He was making that part up.

    Great video... (none / 0) (#54)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    Except I think the maker got Hillary confused with Pelosi at 6:14.  Although it was at the very same moment the singer sang "I'm your hell," showing both Bush and Pelosi, so I can see how that could be completely accurate.  Bush and Pelosi are my hell!

    I think sexism is only a convenient tool (none / 0) (#112)
    by WillBFair on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    for the msm. They don't want knowledgeable, accomplished people like the Clintons in office. The msm will use anything available, but sexism is only one tactic. Haven't you noticed the shallow insults, name calling, nonstop sneers and negative spin?
    What gets me is the completeness of the assault. And I wonder how many puff pieces on Obama can The New Yorker do before the next primary. Maybe one a week, unless they double up. More than anything, puff pieces on Obama in The New Yorker shows the reach of the war and oil industry's strangling tentacles.
    Last week's read more as a love letter, with worshipful phrases every other word. This week they're making excuses for Wright. They tell us he's a college grad, as if that's important, when we know that dingbats graduate from Harvard on the hour. And he's generous, which is also beside the point. It's that asking god to damn anyone is a very odd type of Christianity. I don't know about Obama and his friends, but I was taught to bless my enemies, not curse my friends. They're really just playing the victim card again, which doesn't work for me because my people have their own problems, and probably won't work in the ge, there being so many people who despise minorities.

    Use her child?! OY. n/t (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:12:38 PM EST

    Wow (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    that was just nasty.

    Funniest line of the day. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST
    Yeh, that's gonna happen.

    Gee... (none / 0) (#146)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    what a reflective and thought provoking piece.  Can't wait for an encore.

    Of course... (none / 0) (#148)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    if any one as doubts, I was being quite snarky to a very ugly comment.

    Why don't you wait for an open thread here (none / 0) (#150)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST

    exactly (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:31:37 PM EST
    this thread is about the video. I'm not thrilled that it's taking me a half-hour so far to read through long off topic comments and sniping. Stop it please. If you have something to say about the video and its subjects, feel free. Otherwise, take it to an open thread.

    I only meant to imply.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    she is a corporate player that scares me as much as her male counterparts Obama and McCain.  She is establishment status quo business as usual, like Obama and McCain.

    Maybe why we keep coming back to sex and race is because it's the only way to tell the 3 stooges apart.  They all support foreign occupation and unsound fiscal policies that will lead to the ruination of our republic.  I take no solace in whether an old white man, black man, or white woman is leading us on the road to a bloodstained bankruptcy...the end result is the same.

    While you guys worry about the state of sexism and racism as expressed by entertainers on television whose sole purpose is to sell commercials, I'll worry about how not one candidate has sound policy ideas.

    Crazy (none / 0) (#165)
    by Sunshine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:06:20 PM EST
    Having a woman candidate for president drives some men crazy.. This has been the strangest election on record.. I guess that some men feel threatened and go to pieces, after all this is the no. 1 job in the country... The things that have been said about Hillary is completely off the wall and at the same time, if anything that comes anywhere near the same is said about Obama, it is racist... Well, what about sexist?  Then too, I think some of the women in the media are afraid to oppose the views of the men they work around, it wasn't easy to break the glass ceiling..  

    Great (none / 0) (#173)
    by Sunshine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    This video should be sent to every news station on the air and it should be sent to all of the people that are in the video....  I hope it gets some publicity..  If anybody knows how to do this it would  be great...   This is powerful..  Thanks

    It's time for action (none / 0) (#177)
    by IKE on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    Lets stop this non-sense now by making our voices heard.

    Hillary 2008

    Instant classic! (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:47:46 AM EST
    If success is measured by the obstacles you overcome to succeed, she's won the POTUS a million times over.

    Too much discourse (none / 0) (#187)
    by Texpatriate on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    Acknowledging sincere concerns for the state of our public discourse, I have to say that this video is way too wordy.

    ...and why is Hillary not accountable-? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Dwight on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:14:56 AM EST
    I agree with, "Isn't that a bit unfair?" (#182).  

    There are plenty of strong, capable American women prepared to take on anything in public life.  

    Hillary, with the decidedly non-feminist way she has built her (non-existent) résumé, isn't one of them.

    It's too bad when commitment to identity politics blinds otherwise intelligent people to a pragmatic assessment of a candidate's strengths and weaknesses to assume office.