home

On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism

Marie Cocco names names:

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White B---- Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

[MORE . . .]

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." . . .

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mockup of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

. . . Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Well said, Ms. Cocco.

Comments now closed.

< Tuesday Open Thread | WV Prediction Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for posting this. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST


    Here's a lovely example! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    Enjoy! Hey, where's your sense of humor?

    Wow, that's a two-fer. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Offensive to both candidates! Teh awesome!

    [ Parent ]
    That was well done. (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    She gets it.

    The silence from Obama is the most telling, IMHO.

    they can't admit.... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters can't admit the extent to which they have benefitted from sexism in this election.

    Whatever benefit Clinton may have gotten as a result of racism is far outweighted by the benefit that Obama has gotten from "identity politics".  Clinton has gone out of her way not to play the 'sexism' card against Obama in the way that Obama has played the racism card against Clinton.  

    Its a shame really, because while Obama talked about "transending race" while exploiting race to the hilt, Clinton has been 'transcending gender' just by going out and being a vastly superior Presidential candidate.  (Of course, if she'd run the kind of campaign that Obama has run, I would still just consider her the lesser of two evils, rather than someone I want to see in the White House...)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has been a big part of the problem... (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    1. He compared Hillary to a skittish domestic cat with the "claws come out" slur.

    2. Played into the negative stereotype that women are moody and "periodically" crazy.

    3. Compared Hillary to his wife, saying she is no more qualified to be President than his wife is to be Senator.

    4. Appeared in a SNL skit where the repeated "punchline" was that everyone was confusing Hillary with a witch.

    5. Michelle Obama has repeatedly made thinly veiled attacks about Hillary's inability to "keep her house in order."  

    6. In the first two-person debate between the two candidates, Obama pulled out the chair for Hillary at the beginning of the debate, even though he had never done this before in previous debates. It was an obvious stunt that he knew Clinton couldn't complain about and was hoping to spur conversation.

    7. Obama's mocking and making a joke about Hillary handling a gun when she learned to shoot from her grandfather and her story about going duck hunting. Can you imagine Obama mocking a male candidate?

    8. Generally speaking, Obama has played into many of the negative stereotypes of high-achieving females, including that Hillary is untrustworthy, unloyal, and will do anything to get to the top.

    9. Done nothing to curtail sexist conduct at his rallies, including the wildly popular "bros before hos" t-shirts.

    10. The entire "just quit" meme started with the Obama campaign and is incredibly sexist.  When you consider that, according to Media Matters, no other candidate in Hillary's position has been driven out of the race with such venom. This has been going on since FEBRUARY and has cost her millions of votes and dollars of support.


    [ Parent ]
    good point about the SNL sketch. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    No objections from the man who could only be himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for this most excellent summary (none / 0) (#225)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He should make a speech about it! (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    It's gonna be the greatest speech EVAH!

    He can talk about his grandma (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    You know the typical white __. Sorry I have to stop there, blog rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Dem balance: most perfect silence EVAH on sexism (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    Not even crickets to puncture it, wouldn't you know!

    Imagine hearing, easily, two dozen n* jokes in mainstream media, in the nightly news and in newspaper columns every day targeting Obama.

    And the Democrats saying NOTHING about it.

    What a travesty. I'm going to keep score. Everytime I hear an gratuitous woman-hating slam against HRC -- as opposed to a tangible critique of her record, words or deeds, directly specifying which -- I'm going to mark a notch under "Why I'm writing in Hillary Rodham Clinton as my choice for President of the United States."

    Every time I hear a senior member of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama or spokesperson, or member of the media affirmatively denounce sexist smears, I will remove a notch from above and place it under "Why I will vote for whichever candidate is formally announced at the Democratic National Convention."


    [ Parent ]

    Oh then, you'll be voting for BHO in November... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    He'll make lots of speeches denouncing sexism ... after he's the official candidate.  After all, he'll want those votes.

    [ Parent ]
    This is why (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    I've always felt sexism is a more intractable problem than racism.

    Not because there's more of one than the other, which is something I have no way to measure.

    But because, by and large, we have reached a consensus on the things you're not supposed to say where race is involved.  In fact, we tend to err on the side of calling stuff racist even where the issue is debatable.  That's not to say that there's no racism, only that racist comments are generally identified as such without difficulty.

    But there's no consensus on sexist comments, nor are they universally perceived as a problem.  It's more like "come on honey, lighten up."  That's why I think we have more work to do where issues of gender are concerned.

    [ Parent ]

    Open Ridicule (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    The overt ridicule of women, including Hillary, is acceptable.  I have no doubt that part of the Obama phenomenon is the intense male-bonding that opposition to Hillary has provided.

    All that pent-up hostility to women now directed at one, central target - and she's even seeking power!

    Obama has been content to ride atop a wave of crude sexism into the nomination.  Add to that his willingness to use his grandmother as a convenient prop for a failed moral equivalence with Wright.

    His grandmother?  Good lord.  And here's one more male candidate with a suitably educated wife who puts her career on hold for the great man.  Where have I seen that before?  Doesn't look like change to me.

    I hope that McCaskill, MoDo and their ilk enjoy their few minutes on the bus - before they're sent to the back rows or shoved underneath.

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    The Hill asked all 97 senators who are not running for president the same question: "If you were asked, would you accept an offer to be the VP nominee?"

    McKaskill said this (warning - you may throw up a bit in your mouth):

    "If I were asked, I would ask some mental health professionals to visit Barack Obama. I just think Sen. Obama is way too smart to pick me. I'm not a good pick, and he's smarter than that. That's why he's going to make such a good president."

    [ Parent ]

    she should have been ridiculing him (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    the whole time.

    It's a potent weapon that makes oppoents snap.  He'd have snapped eventually.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    I had a recent conversation about this with family members.  It's interesting although I do hate to compare "isms" they're all bad...

    My take is this:

    I always thought a woman would have a harder time being elected president than a black man.  Not that sexism is more prevalent than racism, just that it's a different type of prejudice.  Racism has more to do with defining what black people "are".  Sexism is more about defining what women "should be".  Examples - black people are all criminals, women should stay in the kitchen...  It is easier to overcome that first stereo type (i.e. Obama is clearly not a drug addicted thug).  It's hard to overcome what people think you SHOULD be.

    However, when it's not related to a presidential election, I think racism is more prevalent in day to day life.  It is harder to overcome an assumption of what you "are" if nobody knows you.  Also, I have rarely been blatantly insulted for being a woman (in this country - overseas is another issue), but I have heard many racial slurs directed at my friends, and it also shows clearly in the economic and social divide.

    All that being said, I don't think any of this should play into who you choose as your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    That's an interesting take. Have you lectured ... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    ... TeamObama on why they should direct the 90% and up black voters not to vote for Obama because he's black and they're black?

    I think that would be really cool. I hope you make your post a diary at dKos, and I'll definitely log in and rec'it.

    And I'm still voting for HRC because she's the best candidate for the position, having more experience, qualifications and character for the position than Obama has displayed.

    She earned my vote. He didn't. Being black isn't enough to be president. Given that he and he alone has not lived up to his promise of a new politics, I will not vote for Obama.

    Not only has he not bothered to even try, he's unleashed the most targeted and insidious race baiting and sexism I've ever seen in a campaign. (The upfront stuff I'm quite familiar with and it's self defeating. Obama's racism and sexism are worse to me.)

    [ Parent ]

    I think you misunderstand me (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about Obama, or Hillary.  Just hypotheticals.  And I don't go to kos.

    I also stated explicitly that I don't think race or gender should determine who you vote for.

    I was trying to make that a non-political post, just my take on the state of things in society.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's important to make clear to AA voters (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    ... too that they shouldn't, and wouldn't, be supporting Obama in those numbers if they were voting fairly.

    And to be even fairer, since you took the time to share that deep concern about women backing HRC for gender you should post the same caution as regards race on a pro-Obama blog. dKos isn't the only political blog. You can ask a neutral blog or go to OpenLeft and do it.

    Post the link when you're done. Thanks! I LOVE PROGRESS!

    [ Parent ]

    Where did I say that? (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    "deep concern about women backing HRC for gender"

    I was talking about voting for race or gender, not one explicitly more than the other.  I wasn't trying to take any one group to task. I don't think I ever mentioned women voting for Clinton once, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply it.

    Also, I consider this to be a pro-left blog, that Hillary supporters frequent.  Not a pro-Hillary blog, although there is clearly a bit of a preference.

    [ Parent ]

    that's a unique point (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Overt public sexism is more acceptable, but racism is more likely to exist silently.

    Probably true. Men snap to attention is a woman wants to take charge, but will moan about her later quite openly.  

    The racial dynamic is very different.

    [ Parent ]

    The more this continues (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    the more I am wrestling with the possibility that I will not be able to continue to support the DNC, not with my money, not with my time, and scariest of all, not with my vote. I don't think I could have imagined even a year ago that there would be circumstances that would cause me to consider not voting for the Democrat (which would mean either not voting, or writing in a candidate).

    For as long as I can remember, my basic political philosophy has been a pragmatic one -- that it may very well be necessary to vote for a person who is less than ideal, perhaps even distasteful to me, if that means defeating a far worse candidate. I argued fiercely with anyone I knew who considered voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 that it would only strengthen George Bush. Don't be silly, my friends in NY and CA and TX told me, our votes don't matter anyway, it won't change anything. On the contrary, I argued, this will be a close election and we need to build up Gore's popular vote, even if the electoral votes don't change. Do what you want in the primary, fight the good fight there, but when the GE rolls around, we need to use our votes wisely and pragmatically.

    The disdain that has been exhibited for my vote and my concerns has been so overwhelming and so astonishing that I honestly don't know if even my own arguments will work on me this time around. I'm tired of putting aside my concerns for the "greater good" because I no longer believe they can be separated. I can't stop the Democratic party from taking me for granted and tossing me aside when it serves their purposes, but I can stop supporting their behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Iphie -- I agree! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    My arguments were with siblings -- and now I'm arguing with myself.  Either way, I expect I'll feel like I lost the argument.

    [ Parent ]
    I empathize with your feelings (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    and often feel the same way, but I will vote democratic because I know that this election is about more than "my candidate", that this is a big country and other people may have a preference for another candidate, that only with a democratic as president can we hope for even a semblence of fairness for all Americans, that democratic ideals are best suited for restoring our rights and securing a future for our children.  If Gore had been elected the country would not be on this precipitous fall from decency to inhumanity and unbounded greed and that America would be infinitely, profoundly better off than it was eight years ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by ajain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    The worst is the non-reaction and silence that has come out of the Democratic Leadership - if we can call it Leadership.

    I hope these voices like these are not muted, because as much as race is an issue in this election (and who ever thought it wouldn't be one), gender is also an issue. We have talk about and if we don't Obama loses the election.

    See above (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    Wait till the GE gets underway.  They'll denounce it then, when they want your votes.  Maybe they'll even find another woman for the VP slot -- like throwing a fish to a seal.

    [ Parent ]
    Cause we all (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    know that one woman is interchangable with another. Right?

    [ Parent ]
    For some odd reason... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    I feel there's going to be chaos at the convention this year. I can't imagine why I would have such a feeling.

    What would happen (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    If they gave a convention and no one (except the Obamabots) came?

    [ Parent ]
    It would look (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hitchhiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    just like the 2004 Republican convention.  People wore purple heart bandaids to show their contempt for John Kerry.  What will they wear to show their contempt for HRC?  Little nutcracker tie pins?

    [ Parent ]
    Ironing boards and Irons (none / 0) (#200)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Believe You Are Right. And It Is Time For (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    many issues to be addressed and what better place?

    [ Parent ]
    The silence from Democratic leaders (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by BernieO on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    is the worst part. The lack of outrage makes it clear that the party cares more about African Americans than women. Aside from the lack of principle involved, the fact that women are more than half the population and vote in larger numbers than men, while AA's are only 12 to 13% makes this an example of sheer stupidity. Ditto for the dissing of baby boomers who are the largest demographic group in the country.

    And as the majority of AAs are women (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    as well, is the Dem party saying their pigmentation matters more -- and even that their gender does not matter at all?  That only one form of discrimination that they face matters?  

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent point. (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    Yet another reason to feel inclined towards quitting the Democratic Party, no? They are so blind and clueless that they think minority women are minorities FIRST and ONLY.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, here's a clue: (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Hillary is the ONLY U.S. Senator--male or female-- who has a "women's issues" page on her senate website. There are only about 9 or 10 Representatives (including a few men) who have a "women's issues" page on their congressional websites. To me, that speaks volumes about the insensitivity of both sexes to the special issues women in this country still face. Change has to start at the top in terms of defining acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

    [ Parent ]
    And BO doesn't even have one on his (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    campaign website!

    [ Parent ]
    ... care more for AAs? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jackyt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    I don't think for a minute that the Obama "coalition" cares one whit for the AA community. It has been an easy "get" to plump Obama's vote totals in states with large numbers of AAs registered as Democrats. Come the GE, Obama will be back to being "transcendent" and "transformational" and "beyond race"; and the AA voters will join the rest of us under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    On Th Bright Side (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    This is one more reason to hope for a unity ticket. The Democrats do not have to do a thing except to give the GOP enough rope for them to hang themselves, iow more of this please.  This is exactly why America is sick of the party who believes a woman's place is in the bedroom and kitchen and AA's have no business as representatives in Congress, not to mention as POTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    Yet it will not go away. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    Every time he stumbles or something goes wrong in the campaign, Hillary will be faulted.  And let's be blunt, if he was to pick her for VP the sexist comments would still be out in full force.  Just because they're quiet "now" doesn't mean they've gone away.

    And, of course, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    An unrepentant hater of women (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    is John Aravosis.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    I haven't gone there for a very long time.

    There's also a lot of anti-Semitism in the comments, I'm sorry to say.

    [ Parent ]

    It's outrageous (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    I guess I'm going to have to be a PC cop for the rest of my life, because this stuff is just so obvious, and it sickens me.

    [ Parent ]
    I have been a PC cop for a long time (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    I think folks who decry common courtesy, decency and avoidance of sexism and racism in their conversations reflect their own views. there is a commenter in this thread who generally is intelligent and reasonable but displays the most disgusting attitudes about these things. I can not respect him because of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Lots of us were taught courtesy (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    long before the term PC was invented. Just like not booing the opponent at a sporting event (or Jefferson - Jackson  dinner). I even distinctly remember my Dad teaching me that 40 years ago - cheer as loud as you want for your own guys, but don't boo the other side.  That has also gone by the wayside, as I learned to my shock at a college football game last year.

    Makes me sad.

    [ Parent ]

    The worst (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    is the new hockey tradition of booing the Canadian national anthem.  Disgraceful!

    [ Parent ]
    Oh nooo...I have not seen that. (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    Waht are people thinking? Wait, don't tell me, I don't really want to know.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by phat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    This election has been an eye-opener for me.

    [ Parent ]
    I love a man in a uniform: PC-cop, Ice-Cream Guy (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    ... any combination of Champion for Human Rights (with or without shining armor) and bringer of fine comestibles (sweet or savory) is the best kind of person to be and to be around!

    Thanks BTD -- and Jeralyn, if you're reading -- for leading on this!

    And in passing, who's being the change we want to see in the world, hmmm? ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    I just finished reading that, (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Klio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    came here and you had already blogged about it!

    Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars....  There are many reasons why Clinton is losing the nomination contest.... But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

    I don't know which I despair of more:  the silence of the Democrats [not only those Cocco writes about] or having to acknowledge the 'malign acceptance.'

    i fear ms. cocco is deluding (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by cpinva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    herself, if she truly believes the mysogony displayed during the primary will simply disappear, it won't. having been given free reign (because, after all, it's "only" hillary clinton), the "boys on the bus" now feel emboldened. it won't stop. female mysogonists like maureen dowd make it acceptable as well.

    penn jillette fancies himself a "libertarian", while displaying little to no knowledge of all that actually implies, other than him not having any responsibility for anything other than himself. guy, don't quit your day job!

    Yes, it is a good article... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    but I notice there is no solution offered. The next time any female presidential candidate runs, we should expect more of the same, apparently?

    And what if HRC wins the nomination? It won't go away then. And what if she's the President? It won't go away then either.

    Nevertheless, I'm just glad that this very specific denunciation is out there. It needs to be. There have been far too few of them in the corporate media.

    [ Parent ]

    But but but.... (5.00 / 13) (#22)
    by gmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    ...it's not hatred of WOMEN, it's just hatred of HER SPECIFICALLY! </snark>

    That's been my least favorite counter-argument from friends who used to care about these unrelenting examples of sexism.  

    I find that counter-argument even more offensive than the silence, because it looks to contort and justify sex-based hatred, provided that the person being attacked is just "getting what they deserve."  

    Using a person's gender as a means to attack them or their character, under any circumstances, is wrong.  

    I hadn't thought of that (none / 0) (#77)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    "it's not women, it's this woman in particular..." interesting how that would play out with any other interest group.  Good catch.

    [ Parent ]
    just like rape victims "ask for it" (none / 0) (#211)
    by jackyt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I am one Obama supporter who (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    absolutely positively cannot stand sexist commentary like the stuff you mention above. Sexism is no more appropriate than racism.

    I appreciate your comment (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    I have made a point of making sure that Hillary supporters here hear it from me if they even act like they are condoning racial remarks.

    Both are unacceptable.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    You may be the first person here to respond to me without vitriol since I started participating a week or two ago.

    As a boy I was raised to undertand that all people should be judged by who they are and how they behave...not by race or gender or religion, etc.

    I look for sincerity and a good heart in people. This is, after all, what is truly important.

    I sincerely regret any sexist comments made by anyone, but most especially by any Obama supporters. I have also personally witnessed racist comments from Clinton supporters. Such talk has caused a lot of hard feelings on both sides.

    [ Parent ]

    I regret that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    and take responsibility for it.

    It is hard to police the threads but I must do better.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent piece! She's far too kind to (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Roger Stone though. And what is with Mike Barnicle? He absolutely loathes HRC. Is there some history there? The sad thing is none of them even give their behavior a second thought. They are like some frat boys who never grew up.


    they've been given no (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    reason to give it a second thought.

    [ Parent ]
    True that. Our letters and petitions (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    have been ignored and their masters just encourage them. I wish Angelina Jolie would take up our cause-they would go all goo-goo for her! Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    Mike Barnicle has (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Binx on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    always been a sexist jerk. I'm just glad he hasn't been as ubiquitous in Boston since he got fired from the Globe for plagiarism. I believe he's still writing a column at the Herald

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe there think that no women will hear them (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    Roger Stone is a dirt bag anyway, but his club name is disgusting. And he is a Republican. Where is their outrage? I don't hear one.

    Mike Barancle was always good, but once again, it is the boys on the bus gang. What is with these talking heads? He apparently has been married more than once. Go figure.

    And Howard Dean, Donna, Ted, John, Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders SHOULD be protesting these insults in the name of all females in the world. Their silence only reinforces my decision in November.

    Hillary protested once on behalf of her daughter and got paid back 10 fold. So once again, I guess it is up to us ladies to start the protest against the media companies who make these outrageous remarks. As long as we ignore and let these guys get away with this cr*p, then we are not helping ourselves, our sex, or our candidate. I am getting my protest letter off to MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]

    The best way to force a change (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    is to organize a letter writing campaign to the sponsors of the news shows.  It's only when you threaten their income stream that they respond.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you BTD for posting this (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    . . . Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

    I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

    Thank you Ms. Cocco, well put.

    Here's how bad it is. (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    My Republican father e-mailed me an Obama rant this morning.  He's discovered internet and e-mail in retirement!  So I wrote him back and said hate away because I was too heartsick over the sexism directed at HRC to argue with him and provide him his daily entertainment.  He wrote back and said that he never believed that he could ever feel anything but loathing for Hillary Clinton, but that she had earned his begrudging respect given the honorable and courageous way she has comported herself throughout this campaign and that he feels chastened about his own attitudes having seen the treatment of her from the media.  He of course ended on a triumphant note about the hypocrisy of Dems, how they are even more racist and sexist than Republicans because they live in denial and refuse to admit their own human failings.  I didn't bother to argue.  What could I say?

    I hear the same nearly every day (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    from Republican co-workers. Some say they would have a tough time choosing between Hillary and McCain.  Obama, not so much.  Slam dunk McCain.

    I live in FL, in case I haven't mentioned that recently ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Well my dad ain't voting for HRC in any event (none / 0) (#82)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    But he has consistently said he was rooting for her to get through the primary, because at least she was competent and pro-America.  She is the fallback Dem of his choice by a country mile.  And no doubt as a sop to me, he's also consistently added that it wouldn't hurt to elect a woman in this country at long last.

    [ Parent ]
    Hats off to Cokie Roberts (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    who on This Week this past Sunday called out the MSM for "blatant sexism" in their Hillary coverage. She said it was bad enough on TV and she dared not even look at the blogs.

    Then Sam Donaldson abrubtly changed the subject. How many times has that happened to you ladies?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    My neighbor friend talks about it all the time. You will be talking about your subject and one guy who is not interested will just throw in another thought and change the subject. We have gotten good at being able to say, excuse me, and get back to what we were talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    go cokie! (none / 0) (#94)
    by proudliberaldem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Cokies was silent, however, for how many months (none / 0) (#217)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    about the rampant mysognyy?

    I'm glad she's saying something now, but it might have done more good earlier.

    [ Parent ]

    This Is Why I'm Questioning (5.00 / 14) (#62)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    whether to stay registered as a democrat.  It's not just that the party's likely nominee was willing to make sexist dogwhistles, it's that so many in the party have stayed silent against the widespread misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton.  I don't think a party willing to sit silent in the face of overwhelming hatred of half its members is really for me.  Not to mention its willingness to allow a movement within the party to leverage that hatred to win.

    My wavering from voting democratic in November is not about Obama.  It's about not wanting to be part of a party that thinks hatred of women is okay.

    by many folks. And of course by THIS WEB SITE.

    [ Parent ]
    My Other Favorite Defense of Misogyny (5.00 / 12) (#97)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    It doesn't matter because the Clintons are racists.  IOW, b!tch deserved it.  Very nice.

    [ Parent ]
    That's sure how I read what you said. (5.00 / 9) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Then what exactly did you say? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    Please enlighten us as to your original point.

    [ Parent ]
    "Plenty of blame to go around." (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    That was your narrative.

    It doesn't answer the sexism, it just conveniently changes the subject.

    [ Parent ]

    But yet (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    the Democrats are the party of women's rights!  LOL.

    Obviously, they're actually charletans on that matter.

    [ Parent ]

    And that has to do with sexism how? (5.00 / 7) (#138)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    You know what I won't miss? The response to every comment and question in life being "but the Clinton camp did..."

    Broaden your view just a little bit my friend. There are women who have suffered and will continue to suffer from sexism and misogyny. "Clinton camp did xyz" will in no way alter that.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't have one correct (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    fact.  Billy Shaheen didn't suggest that Obama was a drug dealer, no one suggested that.  Bob Johnson, in response to the criticism of the Clintons as racists because of her remark about MLK said, "...Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."

    Bob Kerry did not suggest that Obama went to a Madrassa, in fact, he said that Obama should not be afraid to use his middle name, "It's probably not something that would appeal to him but I think the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and that his father was Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim there are a billion Muslims on this planet and I think that experience is a big deal."

    Bill Clinton didn't suggest that the only reason Obama won SC is because he is black, that is what you inferred from his comment.  

    I am disgusted with the "dog whistling" comment, it implies that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a dog incapable or reasoned thought.

    [ Parent ]

    Shaheen & Kerrey (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    were not part of Hillary's campaign, but I believe she apologized for their remarks.
    All of your points begin with "suggested" - but people seeking racist motives will find them. And it was clearly Obama's strategy to "find them" and depict the "first Black president" and his wife as racists.

    Not a word from Obama for:
    "Hillary ain't never been called a N----r!" - Rev. Wright, from the pulpit,
    Jan. 08

    "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina victims." - Jesse Jackson, NH primary


    [ Parent ]

    I don't know about Kerrey, (none / 0) (#186)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    but Shaheen was her NH campaign director, and he resigned shortly after making the remark--undoubtedly at her request.

    [ Parent ]
    Amused, Billy Shaheen raised the prospect of (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    the Republicans using that attack against Obama, based on Obama writing about his minor use of cocaine and marijuana in his autobiography.

    He did not say Obama was a dealer.

    Among his concerns about Obama as the nominee, he said in an interview here today, is that his background is so relatively unknown and that the Republicans would do their best to unearth negative aspects of it, or concoct mistruths about it. Shaheen, a lawyer and influential state power broker, mentioned as an example Obama's use of cocaine and marijuana as a young man, which Obama has been open about in his memoir and on the trail.

    "The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

    Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." (Bolding mine)

    I don't see Shaheen charging that Obama was a drug dealer -- do you?

    Bill Clinton never said Obama won SC "only because he was black"; many in the MCM and elsewhere, however, did say he overwhelmingly won the black vote. Clinton said it was not unexpected and that Jesse Jackson had done well there in two primaries.

    Attack phrases may feel good to you now, but they also may mean you have missed actual facts or nuance.

    [ Parent ]

    Got party? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    Will women have to go looking or will someone step up?
    I'll bet on looking cause it's hard work risking political capital. Besides it's unity baby, there's no place for anything but unity.
    Get in line, d*mnit!

    Thank you (5.00 / 10) (#79)
    by proudliberaldem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    so much for posting this.  The staggering, pervasive sexism surrounding this campaign is depressing beyond belief.  It exists on so many levels, its hard to know where to start, but much of it amounts to the fact that many of the qualities necessary in running for office -- fortitude, aggressiveness, political calculation -- are, in a woman, hysterical evil ball-busting b***hiness.  As a Clinton supporter, I want to thank the Obama supporters who speak out against it.  But, as Cocco so aptly notes, the silence from our party has been heartbreaking.

    The Silence of the Lambs (5.00 / 12) (#91)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    A feminist blogger recently commented that the misogyny exists because the Dem party believes we have nowhere else to go, and added "You know what?
    They're right."  Sorry if I am not quoting completely accurately.
    Well, as we have seen on Talk Left, that may be a miscalculation.
    Speaking for myself, this election cycle has left me heartsick and angry.
    If women voters feel a tenth of what I feel, the Party may be in for a surprise come November.

    Yes. (5.00 / 8) (#191)
    by fiver2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    Another commenter talked of feeling as though she'd been abused during this election cycle.  It rang true for me because unlike previous elections in which we've witnessed sexism in the media, or the Anita Hill fiasco, or Clinton's impeachment, etc., here so much awfulness came from within our own party -- from other Democrats.  We're taking it from people who are supposed to share our philosophy and decry sexism and stand up for women's rights as among their most important priorities.  But instead, they pile on or laugh at the worst offenders, pretend it doesn't exist, take glee in HRC's defeat, and argue that sexist remarks are HRC's fault because the hate is HRC-specific and isn't directed at all women even though it's expressed in gendered terms.  I feel a sense of betrayal and violation that I don't feel when Republicans spew it.

    This may sound ridiculously dramatic, but watching Keith Olbermann these days feels like running into that married senior partner at my old white-shoe corporate lawfirm who tried to get me into bed and then stopped staffing me on his cases after I turned him down.  Or like running into that ex who told me when we broke up after 3 years that "he owed it to his future children" to hold out for a wife who would "be a good mother" by quitting her job.  

    I usually take pride in caring about issues exclusively, and in refusing to identify with political candidates personally, but the sexist attacks on HRC -- from fellow so-called progressives -- have shaken me up in a surprisingly personal way.

    [ Parent ]

    "fellow so-called progressives" (5.00 / 5) (#223)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    that's been a huge disappointment for me. I've seen some amazing (not in a good way) true colors being exposed.

    [ Parent ]
    Sexism plus (5.00 / 8) (#104)
    by pavaoh on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    It isn't just about sexism.  There isn't anything you can't say about the Clintons.  There are no limits.  With every snide and rotten remark there are chuckles and more declarations on how low they are.  That is why the republicans are so good at portraying the democrats as elitists.  How many democrats have stepped up to the plate and defended her?  I don't care who you support in this primary, every democrat should be defended.  I wasn't for Clinton when this started because I knew this would happen.  I was just stupid to think it would be from the republicans.  Now I need a reason to vote for Obama other than a vote against McCain.  I am sorry to say I don't trust him and its not because of his race.  It is one of my biggest resentments that it is used as an excuse to explain why he is not getting white working class.  We connnect with Hillary because we have all at one time been treated like her.  We reject people who act like they have more class or that we don't know what we are doing.

    And Obama (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    supporters think that they can tell us McCain is horrible? It seems that when it comes to this kind of stuff, the Dems are no worse than the GOP. It's why lots of us are probably going to sit home or vote McCain in Nov.

    It is true that McCain is worse (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    Who do you think Roger Stone is? Why do you think he's doing what he's doing?

    [ Parent ]
    Great (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    Obama is a horrible misogynist but McCain is just as bad if not slightly worse. That's a real motivator I would say.

    [ Parent ]
    His policies would be leagues worse (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    I don't think any reasonable person could question that.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    but who knows what Obama's policies are? I want him to tell me not to have to go to his website. Besides, I think he's too afraid of offending someone to state them.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's just put it this way (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    So? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    He has shown a history of rolling over. If the GOP fillibusters none of his appointments will see the light of day.

    [ Parent ]
    Even if you believed that (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    It would not be a good enough reason to abstain for vote for McCain, who is GUARANTEED to appoint bad judges.

    You think Congress will stand up to him? Ha!

    [ Parent ]

    Really (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    I think the supreme court is already gone. It's no longer a salient issue with me and the fact that Obama plans to hit me over the head with it to "get me in line" ticks me off more than anything. I don't like totalitarianism from the left any more than I like it from the right. Obama acts just like George W. Bush. If you didn't vote for W. you were with the terrorists and hated america Right? With Obama it's vote for me or you're a racist. Or vote for me because of Roe v. Wade etc. I'm sick of this. Frankly, maybe divided government is a good thing.

    And I agree with you about the Dems in congress. And they are all the ones who think Obama is so great. Does failure attract failure or something? Obama is just more of the same losers.

    [ Parent ]

    Well I'm sorry (none / 0) (#187)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    but this is just politically stupid.

    Feel free to do whatever you want, but I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong. Politically stupid is remaining silent (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    while it's a free for all against over half the electorate.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me ask you (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    this? If you had to go back to 1976 would it have been better to let Ford have another term or elect Carter? Having a bad President for a term can be worse in the long run than losing.

    [ Parent ]
    The Republican party of 1976 (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    was not the same as it is today. Ford was Pro Choice as widely regarded as a moderate.

    McCain has to stake his political fortunes on the religious right, and it is  imperative to get them out of the White House ASAP.

    [ Parent ]

    I know (none / 0) (#222)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    it's not the same but McCain is from the wing of the party that is more goldwater than falwell.

    Anyway, you could say the same thing about Obama. He's too far left for the country. Or at least that's the perception out there no matter how much he spouts right wing talking points.

    [ Parent ]

    Carter brought his religion into the race (none / 0) (#215)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    and I was deeply troubled by it.  I very nearly voted for Ford whose only serious flaw was pardoning Nixon (at least that's all I remember at this point)  Carter also seemed very self-satisfied (still does) and I didn't particularly like that either.

    Looking back, I probably would have voted for Carter even without my sister's intervention -- because I was a Democrat.

    Technically, I guess I still am.

    [ Parent ]