home

More On the Malign Acceptance of Sexism

While the Obama blogs are having a conniption because Hillary Clinton is talking about counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, it remains striking to me that these same blogs have never expressed much concern about the Media's disgraceful behavior in this campaign. Indeed, any mention of the sexism and misogyny in the Media and elsewhere makes them look down at their shoes, or worse, even defend the perpetrators. I think it is no coincidence that it has been almost exclusively women bloggers who have discussed these issues. Take Digby for instance: [More...]

It's been quite amusing reading and watching the media absolve itself of sexism over the past few days but I think it's getting a little bit out of hand when Republican "analysts" blithely assert during election coverage on national television that Senator Clinton can accurately be described as a "white bitch" --- and everyone calmly sits around discussing whether it's true or not. In fact, it's mind boggling . . .

Earlier in the day I saw Tim Russert complaining on MSNBC about how wrong it is for Clinton to suggest that the media has been sexist, when the problem is "the math." You don't get much more lunk-headed than that. . . . The juvenile, demeaning behavior [David] Shuster [a Josh Marshall favorite] and his cohorts have displayed during this campaign has taken their credibility further into the sewer. . . . We all know about Chris Matthews' ongoing insanity, the endless stuff about the psycho female "Fatal Attraction" archetype and all the rest. This isn't just a few offhand comments. It has been a campaign narrative.

A-List bloggers, this is Digby talking. Not a crazy hothead like me. Are you listening? Because she means you when she writes:

[Obama and] Clinton are fighting hard campaigns for the most important job in the world and they are not obligated to defend their rivals while the battle rages. (It might have behooved the progressive movement to have done so, however.)

. . . I would have thought that all decent people would be appalled that the media in this country thinks it's ok for their commentators to identify a female candidate for president as a bitch on national TV or sell sickening "jokes" like Hillary Nutcrackers [the one John Aravosis was hawking at his site] in the CNBC stores in airports all over the country. . . . Is it really too much to ask that the media show more respect than that?

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby is too polite to ask what is really on her mind. I am not -- is it too much to ask that so called PROGRESSIVE BLOGS show more respect than that? That they decry sexism and misogyny in the Media?

For all the talk of disgraceful behavior in this campaign, no group has disgraced itself more than the so called progressive blogosphere. I for one, will never forget what they have revealed about themselves.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Gloria Borger on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    yesterday said she wears 2 hats on the sexism in the media. Her woman's hat says that there has been some evidence of sexism, but equally racism and that it really didn't matter in the end. Her reporters hat says so what, it's a campaign!

    Then Katrina Vandenhuval was sexist (none / 0) (#25)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    when she said sexism made Hillary vote for the Iraq War Resolution because Hillary's a woman, wanted to some day run for president, and voted that way to prove she was tough enough.

    If anybody can find contact info for Vandenhuvel, please reply to this comment.

    [ Parent ]

    How many times did Obama speak out (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:01:19 PM EST
    after he became a U.S. Sen. about stopping the war. He voted identical to Hillary!!! I made speeches to, I wasn't in the Sen. either. Big deal.

    [ Parent ]
    Was Schumer, Feinstein motivated (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    by trying to prove they were tough because of their gender? Was Kerry?

    THis happens all the time. Clinton will be like Thatcher because she's a woman trying to prove she is tough.

    She IS tough, she has nothing to prove. She is solid.

    I worry more about Obama being caught off guard, then overreacting in trying to prove he is tough.

    [ Parent ]

    Vandenheuval also smiled and (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    said isn't it wonderful that this election season so many young women have come out and participated and are voting. Yes, isn't it wonderful for all those young women to hear and see what is so disgracfully sexist and not object to it. People like Vandenheuval helped to obtain women's rights so I don't understand why she doesn't object to the sexism..

    [ Parent ]
    She's a longtime, bigtime Bill Bradley (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    backer.  That's starting to be a marker, it seems -- they're part of the Kennedy/Kerry set (she's also a supporter of Kathleen Kennedy and others in the clan) that is dooming the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    I think her comment was crap... (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    ...I have had a lot of respect for Katrina over the years but apparently she isn't immune to this new powerful strain of Stockholm Syndrome that's going around.

    [ Parent ]
    KV is a knob (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by DFLer on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've cancelled The Nation, Salon and Air America (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    ... for propagating the sexism and diminishing gender discrimination as a form of bigotry. A new [fill in the designation] BFF is no license to foment persecution.

    It's disgusting.

    And Dems should be denouncing this in media and on the floors of congress.

    Imagine of the same media real estate and time was dedicated to skewing BO's statements and actions into [stereotypical] n* motivations, voices and behaviors.

    Dems would be all over that, the fauxgressive blogs would be bouncing off walls in rage and even "news" media -- such as they are -- would have breaking stories on the developments.

    F-ck it, I still believe that election day is one day when even egregiously bigoted people themselves -- if they're en route to the ballot box -- stop and think long enough for some measure of conscience to kick in.

    It might even be THAT bat's squeak of a gate opening that might keep it open to progress.

    [ Parent ]

    Katrina Is Editor of The Nation Magazine (none / 0) (#229)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:11:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But Gloria never said anything at the time (none / 0) (#82)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    And I can't totally blame her, though it is disappointing. But look at what happened at TPM - that woman's writing privileges were revoked back in January. What was her name?

    [ Parent ]
    Catfish,I'd like to hear more about that. (none / 0) (#115)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:23:25 PM EST
    what happened at TPM?

    [ Parent ]
    Her name was Linda Hirshman (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    She has many years of journalism experience. Linda Hirshman booted from TPM:
    Hi there. Linda Hirshman here. I just got the boot from TPM Café, where I have been blogging for more than a year. Back story: I published a piece on the cover of the Outlook section of the Washington Post last Sunday, March 2, on the class divide in Hillary Clinton's female supporters. Since I criticized the scribbling females of the blogosphere, the article elicited the predictable onslaught of response from them. But when I sent Andrew Golis, my normal contact at TPM Café, my response to post, I got an email telling me TPM had pulled my posting privileges (I don't normally publish email exchanges, but I have no personal relationship with any of the people at TPM, including Golis, and this seems like a fairly straightforward public business communication with no personal material involved.): "For the time being, we're cycling our regular contributers [sic] at the Coffee house and trying to cut down the number of folks with at will posting privileges. If you occasionally have a piece I'd of course love to check it out. But unfortunately we're limiting the number of people who post regularly."

    I must admit I was a little surprised. I have not been fired in a long time (decades, really), and I think I'm having a pretty good run in the crowded precincts of political commentary. True, my last few postings at TPM Café were not in keeping with the overwhelming majority of their articles, making and making the case for Senator Barack Obama. I questioned the value of an Idaho caucus victory. I criticized Maureen Dowd's column suggesting that when a perfect female candidate came along, the media would be delighted to support her. I suggested that "Josh" might have waited to get more survey results before he posted his video embracing the ultimately erroneous Zogby predictions for the California primary the afternoon before the primary.

    So who knows, maybe because she questioned Josh he gave her the boot.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#198)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Spread it if you can (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    The talk of sexism is finally surfacing.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by NJDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    what will they have to say about her until something is done about this!  I thought implying Chelsea was a wh*re would do it, but it's only gotten worse...

    Great work today BTD!

    Don't (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    forget the bros before hos t shirts either.

    [ Parent ]
    Who said that about Chelsea? (none / 0) (#5)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Was that when David (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    Schuster was suspended?

    [ Parent ]
    David Schuster, msnbc (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by NJDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
    Hillary was "pimping out" her daughter, remember?

    But of course they said the same thing about Kerry's daughters and Romney's son, right?

    [ Parent ]

    David Shuster (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    When he said he thought Chelsea was being "pimped out."  Google it - there are a billion links.

    [ Parent ]
    I love Digby (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Faust on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    My favorite blogger.

    I'm just sayin.

    The nutcracker thing really sent ME (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    into a conniption. But it was justified. The latest WWTSBQ from the Obama bloggers remains a bunch of red herring laced hot air.

    No kidding. (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    I can't believe the Nutcracker.  I live in LA, and you can imagine how horrified I was to walk into the ArcLight Cinemas main lobby and see a huge display of them in my own backyard!  I mean, are you KIDDING ME?  I was seething with rage...

    If that doesn't speak to the widespread blatant acceptability of sexism against Clinton, I don't know what does.

    [ Parent ]

    indeed (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:01:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I commented about this yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    but I dont think it is just sexism.  it is a much broader problem of civility.  when you have a nationally syndicated radio host talking about Ted Kennedy while playing the Dead Kennedys and the clip of Arnold saying "its not a tumor" you have a big, broader problem.
    granted there is and has been for years "special rulz" for Bill and Hillary, but it doesnt stop there.

    [ Parent ]
    Can someone please tell me where (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by NJDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    they have seen racism in the media?  I'm asking specifically about the MSM, not from surrogates, etc.  

    On CNN, MSNBC, FOX?  In the NYT, WashPost?  

    here are the links... (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    [ Parent ]
    "will never forget" (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    you are not alone.  
    once you have seen what people really stand for it can not be unseen.


    And people (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    wonder why women are going to walk out on Obama en masse. I agree that it's not his responsbility to defend Clinton but he has even encouraged this type of behavior. Add the race baiting to that and it has been beyond disgusting.

    Q poll says 25-35% of us are gone. No one should question why. All the sudden pleas for "unity" are going to fall on deaf ears.

    I don't think all is lost (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    but it is not helpful when Markos dismisses those polls by calling Hillary supporters crybabies or whatever. There was a time when I would have thought that sort of thing beneath him.

    [ Parent ]
    David Cook (26) on Idol last (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    night cried, Sen. Byrd (90 something) cried when speaking about Ted Kennedy....Hillary had tears in her eyes when she talked about this country!!I am so outraged!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Nothing (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    is beneath them or Obama. I'm not a crybaby and that is just more condescension making us even more determined not to vote for Obama. Heck, they've even given us the ultimate out: they said they don't need our vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Defend her??? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    He's been using the sexism himself, except when it comes to Michelle....hands off!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Even THAT is problematic. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    What, she can't defend herself?  She's the poor damsel in distress?  

    What a chivalrous guy, tending after his wife so attentively.  

    UGH.

    [ Parent ]

    she doesnt really seem (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    like a shy flower who need protecting to me.

    [ Parent ]
    she doesnt really seem (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    like a shy flower who needs protecting to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Reaching out Obama style? (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    Stay classy!

    [ Parent ]
    Quit (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:10 PM EST
    blaming Hillary. We have a problem with Obama. Do you get it? Obama is the problem not Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    We most certainly will know who (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    Great read! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by suisser on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    Thanks!

    [ Parent ]
    I actually disagree about the responsibility (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    From an ethical standpoint, I would like both presidential nominees to speak out against racism and sexism from wherever it comes, even if it's from their own supporters.

    From a practical standpoint (totally eschewing ethics now), it was a major blunder not to speak out against all the sexism, when what? 60% of your party is female?  I just don't get it, why would you be so myopic, hell, even if a politician IS totally sexist, it's not in his/her best interests to not speak out.  It's 2008 for pete's sake, not 1908.

    [ Parent ]

    Another Obama supporter... (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST

     sounds like he/she is throwing in the towel.

    "It's Hillary's fault Barack didn't win the GE."

    Seriously, they should be embarrassed giving up in May.

    [ Parent ]

    It's his responsibility... (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    ...to show that he does not support sexism, regardless of the gender of his opponent. Clinton was in an impossible situation. Every time she complained about the way the press was treating her she was attacked as a whiner who needed to toughen up. Obama didn't need to defend her - but he could have included sexism in his speeches when he talked about hope and unity. Now, he is talking about women - about how his "single mother" raised him and his grandmother influenced his life. Then... crickets.

    [ Parent ]
    Because it's only about him. (none / 0) (#179)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That Republican was on (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    the liberal CNN 'news' station, he was the only repub on a panel of 5, he was sitting next to friggin' Obama supporters.  Friggin' Fox, on the other hand, had a panel that recognized the sexism and had a discussion (how could liberal media and the Dems do this to one of their own, gasp) and played clips of Obama's statements.... periodically, claws come out, kitchen sink.. friggin' Fox brought up his tea party comments and were very down on the 'you're likeable enough' comment.  "Was that NH? yeah, that one was really bad"

    Fox!  

    All cable "news" channels (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    are really just talk shows. They just pretend otherwise. . .sometimes.

    [ Parent ]
    Puts (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    it all in perspective doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't look at the June issue of Vanity Fair (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    And to be fair (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    it was an outraged kossack that brought attention to it.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't know who they think their readership (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    is but I think it's mostly older women. They are not going to be happy about that awful piece. Wolff is a hack anyway. I cancelled my subscription this week and cancelled Obamaweek last week. Freed up lots of time and felt good to complain!

    [ Parent ]
    you only (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    have yourself to blame for that one. Huge swaths of the party is going to walk because of Obama's supporters alone. Threats no longer work. We've been called everything in the book already.

    You succeed (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    in making my point.

    I again thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#180)
    by Salo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    lol.

    yeah. It think, it's all out of our hands at this moment.  

    The Superdels are going to make their move. There's something profoundly uninteresting about it all now. We know with almost forensic exactness where obama and Clinton run well and where they run badly.  And after that fascinating hard science we are now going to be subjected the corps of amateur theatrical Hamlets called superdelegates.

    My goodness, these chumps have to make a decsion!
    Even wehn their constituency could not quite break one way or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    Since when are we responsible for Senator Obama's (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by lisadawn82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    campaign?  His voter outreach is his responsibility.  IF he becomes the nominee it would be HIS job to unify the party not Senator Clinton's.  

    He and his supporters just keep saying that we sill automatically vote for him because he's young and attractive.  Yeah, right.  Because you know, we women don't have a brain in our heads and are totally blown over by looks alone.  He won't have to ask for our votes because we are just going to come running.  As far as he is concerned he doesn't have to make his case to us.

    But you're right, it'll be the women's fault that he'll loose the election.  What a cop out.

    [ Parent ]

    I want him to lose. (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    And I want it to be perfectly clear that he lost because of the women.  I want to have that power. We'll need it for 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Fail in Nov? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    Is that what you're planning?

    [ Parent ]
    why does no one notice when Obama can win... (5.00 / 14) (#26)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    only in states with severe levels of male sexism and or identity politics.

    this was especially glaring in oregon, he won women by 4 points, and men by 33 points.  

    So many stripclubs there, but granola (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    I wanted to sock those women saying "I'm a woman for Obama" all of 23 years old penning newspaper editorials.

    I almost think Republicans respect women more than "progressives." The liberals in that state thing black people are so much more oppressed. They also think strong women are offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    The west is quite sexist as a rule.... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    everywhere is (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by coigue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    as a rule

    [ Parent ]
    We didn't get the memo. (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by oldpro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:27 PM EST
    Just sayin'....what with my female governor, both US Senators, Majority Leaders of the State House and Senate, most of the Dem. Committee Chairs of important committees in the legislature...

    Reminds me of the Time Mag photo of Patty, Maria and Chris with the headline:  GIRLS' STATE!

    [ Parent ]

    Wisconsin -- last state with a woman (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    in Congress.  Not until 1999.  And from Madison, which isn't really of Wisconsin, just in it.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    I'd also like to know (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    why the exit polls never ask if gender is a factor in this election.

    [ Parent ]
    they do... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    virtually every poll has asked if gender was an issue.  The men lie about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Since the media never talks about it, (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    I assume they didn't ask. Thanks for the correction.

    By the way, I would answer yes to both of those questions. I do think race and sex are important in this election. I guess that makes me a racist and a sexist according to the MCM interpretation.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I love this comment (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    Makes my point wonderfully.

    This is a microcosm of the attitude I am decrying.

    Thanks for making my point so well.

    What a politically unsophisticated (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:04:15 PM EST
    rube you are. Low information, I might even say.

    [ Parent ]
    low information? don't elevate this commentor (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You do it again (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:04:16 PM EST
    Thank you very much.

    I do enjoy it as you continue to make my point comment after comment.

    Keep going please. Here is a hint for you, look at the title of my post.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you new here? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    which is why you're so mistaken about who supports whom.

    Hint: You don't have to support a certain candidate to point out the injustice against him or her. One would think that a democrat could rightfully speak out against sexism and misogyny irrespective of the candidate of their choice.

    [ Parent ]

    And getting (none / 0) (#65)
    by suisser on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    old fast!

    [ Parent ]
    Oops. I should have cited the Digby (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    blog I'm referring to above.  

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-can-believe-us-by-digby.html

    Read it and weep.


    I disagree with Digby (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    I think that Obama himself has said and done sexist things.  "When Hillary is feeling down periodically" was just the start.  I also hold him accountable for not reining in his supporters or at least trying.  I'm not letting the media off the hook, but Obama gets no free ride.

    [ Parent ]
    Remember (5.00 / 14) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    Kos said he'd address the sexism issue when the time comes.

    Just like Obama is now addressing FL and MI.

    the ONLY way to make it known that this was not acceptable is to make sure no one profits by it.  That INCLUDES Obama.

    They knew what they were doing.  They knew it was wrong.

    Chiding them now, in a way, only gives them an opportunity to absolve themselves by addressing it now.  Now that the time has come.  

    If Obama wins the General Election, the strategy, and make no mistake, IT WAS AN F-ING STRATEGY, is ratified.

    Am I angry?  Sure I am.

    I don't know what anyeone can do to make it right, because the rewards are already being passed.  The backs are being patted.

    Now they're going to smile and say "sorry."

    Everyone knows what I think.

    Thank you for this (5.00 / 11) (#74)
    by dianem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:58 PM EST
     "the ONLY way to make it known that this was not acceptable is to make sure no one profits by it.  That INCLUDES Obama."

    You just expressed how I feel in a nutshell. I didn't know how to say it, but I will not let Obama profit through sexism and race-baiting. Much of it isn't his fault, but he certainly has not tried to counter it. It's not enough to stand by silently while people insult your opponent. I'm willing to be that if anybody had referred to Obama with the kind of derogatory language being used by his supporter's against Clinton, she would have clearly and explicitly denounced them and made it clear that Obama was not what they said he was.

    I've said it before: All Obama had to do to keep my respect was to stand up and tell people that the Clintons were not racists, nor was Cuomo or Ferraro, and he would appreciate his supporter's not implying otherwise. It might have impacted his vote totals negatively - or it might have been so classy that he gained votes. As it is, I think a lot of people have got a bad feeling about Obama, and it has nothing to do with his skin color.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    All Obama had to do to keep my respect was to stand up and tell people that the Clintons were not racists, nor was Cuomo or Ferraro

    Well, wasn't it Obama himself that levied those charges against Clinton and Ferraro? Or was it just a "member of his staff"

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you, Edgar08! (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Are you actively trying... (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    ... to bait people on the fence into opposing Obama? If so, nice work.

    Media Matters (5.00 / 15) (#40)
    by AmyinSC on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    Is doing a political action on this very thing - Alex Castellanos' comment regarding Senator Clinton.

    Can you IMAGINE the hew and cry had he, or ANYONE, made a comparable racist comment?  He would have (justifiably) lost his job.  But sexism?  Go right ahead!  No problem!  Just go ahead and denigrate over half th population!!

    Grrrr.

    And here's the thing - despite it all - despite the rampant, blatant sexism, despite the CLEAR MSM bias, despite the attacks by her opponents, Clinton is stronger than ever.  I don't know abt you, but that is EXACTLY what I want in a president - someone who does not withdraw from the fight, but goes toe to toe, with grace, humor,a commitment to the American people, and to the importance of the will of the people.

    And Here's a Link (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by The Maven on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    to the Media Matters online forms to contact CNN about the Castellanos abomination.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Clinton should come out and talk about it. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ajain on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    This is something she could really make into a national conversation.

    I think she should come out and talk about this.

    When she does, she gets ridiculed (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    because they claim she is blaming her entire loss on sexism.  Boo to Rachel Maddow for pushing that line.

    [ Parent ]
    Rachel Maddow is a disgrace (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Her day will come and when she looks for support from women she may be surprised.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by gmo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    I'm completely disappointed with Rachel Maddow.

    [ Parent ]
    No like (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    when she wants a promotion at work and some less qualified guy gets it instead.

    [ Parent ]
    Your list.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    ...of "disgraced" pundits and bloggers is getting pretty crowded.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sure is. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    CDS does that to people.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she'd rather talk about (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    Proper issues.


    [ Parent ]
    I won't forget either (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    I know the apologists claim it was just that woman, Hillary Clinton, that brings out the worst in people.  Doesn't matter, in fact it is even worse if that is the case.  If the preogrssive blogs come out and stick up for some other woman they like better, it makes it more obvious they are willing to use sexism to win.

    All that is water under the bridge now (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    The only thing left to discuss is if the Obama movement will be allowed to profit by it.

    I think they should not.

    I think voting for Obama in the General Election is a statement that says "It's ok."


    What is the purpose of this post? (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    If this ain't trolling, what is?  Are you speaking of BTD, who has consistently stated that he will support Senator Obama with vigor in November?  Shame.  You have to wonder about a poster who comes here to make a feeble attemt to ridicule, notwithstanding the fact that by all accounts his candidate has clinched the nomination.

    And when he brushed her off as dirt (5.00 / 13) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    on his shoulder and shoe a la that Jay-Z song, "Dirt on My Shoulder."

    At 46 years old, Obama displays an immaturity that simply is astonishing.  And it's an automatic disqualifier for president.  Period.

    When McCain loses anyway... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    ...is anyone going to go back and apologize to everyone who dared say something non-supportive of a Democratic candidate?

    I'm sorry, but the fact that any of these politicians puts a (D) after their name doesn't mean I lose my right to a contrary opinion.  

    Yeah well.... (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but the fact that any of these politicians puts a (D) after their name doesn't mean I lose my right to a contrary opinion.  

    likewise.

    [ Parent ]

    The Chicago Tribune (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    had a great article on it in last Sunday's paper, I tried to link it here but was having difficulty. If anyone has it, it is worth the read. Most of the quotes from the article have been discussed here but it is telling to see them all in one spot especially since it is only a fraction of what has been said by the MSM.

    Harold Ford, DLC, and Dailykos (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    Someone reminded me today of how Markos bashed Harold Ford in 2006 every opportunity he got, because of Ford's 'DLC' ways, and playing a moderate.

    Markos was yelling day in and day out that he is appeasing the other side, and you have to fight them, not hold hands with them.

    Not to mention doing it even more when Ford became chair of DLC.

    Now, do you hear anything of Markos holding Obama to same standards?

    As much it would have hurt me to admit (it doesn't anymore), that means Markos and Josh are sellouts for better careers and better prospects.  Nothing more, Nothing less.

    What Markos was doing by critizing DLC is just making it a scapegoat target for himself to get ahead, and get a foot in the door.  Now, I am sure him and Josh see themselves as having roles in the next Admin (or at least plenty of access), and selling good deal of books.

    As I have said before, I have put both of them in the Chris Matthews/KO/Russert category.  Egocentric hacks with no principles whatsoever.
     

    None of this (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    Is news to some of us.

    "The war for the soul of the Democratic Party" is a war for consultant money.  And Kos is a con-artist.

    Really.  An ex-republican trying to sell a war to Democrats would of course say the war is between Democrats.


    [ Parent ]

    BTD, you continue to be my hero. (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Teresa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    This situation bothers me a great deal. Even if Hillary had done about as well, or not, as Edwards or Richardson, the progressive blogs should have been loudly protesting this. I sometimes wonder if she hadn't stayed close and was clearly out of the race, could they then see what is before their own eyes?

    Because they deny it now, I'll never give them any credit when it is their chosen female that it happens to. They don't care about the future of female candidates right now...it might interfere with their mission. What is happening to Hillary will make any good female candidate hesitate to run in the future and that is our loss.

    Incorrect characterization, I think... (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    As to this,
    ...it remains striking to me that these same blogs have never expressed much concern about the Media's disgraceful behavior in this campaign. Indeed, any mention of the sexism and misogyny in the Media and elsewhere makes them look down at their shoes, or worse, even defend the perpetrators.

    They don't look down at their shoes or (usually) defend the media.

    What they/we do is bring up racism. That's the get-out-of-jail-free card. It allows them/us to dismiss the claims of sexism as merely Hillary's version of the racism Obama has to deal with (in other words, the victimization balances out, so stop whining) AND lets them/us talk about something progressive to fill in the vacuum where they/we should've been talking about the media's bizarre behavior re: Hillary Clinton.

    I think I follow you (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    but I disagree with you.

    I think they talked about racism, or rather accusations of racism from the Clinton campaign because they hate Hillary,not because they care about racism.

    This was all a game for them. My team vs. your team.

    And Hating Hillary was the winning team. Anything that served that purpose was worth it.

    [ Parent ]

    A difference without a distinction, in my view... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    ...their/our reasoning for wanting to talk about racism could easily include your theory re: contextual motivation for doing so.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Chris Matthews summed it up (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    pretty well when he said "Look at Obama and Michelle, they are such an attractive couple, stunning, wow" It isn't only what they are saying about her, but what they are implying about Barack and what they are not saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Tweety gets that tingle up (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    his leg at the mere sound of Obama...imagine what Michelle does for him !!!

    [ Parent ]
    There is definitely some truth to this (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    Every time Digby posts about the sexism issue, she is inundated by commenters accusing her of being a racist. A strange phenomenon.

    [ Parent ]
    I have stopped reading Digby. (5.00 / 4) (#221)
    by honora on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    I find her concern about sexism, a pound short and a month late.  She is one of the leading female bloggers and I have not found her to be on the forefront of this issue.  Now, maybe that is her right to be a 'blogger' and not a 'female blogger', but don't expect me to get a tingle up my leg over her comments at this late date.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    You'd have to look at how they respond to claims of sexism outside the context of this campaign.  In other contexts, where the dodge of bringing up racism isn't available.

    My impression is that the media generally reacts this way to all criticism of the media.  They are among the least self-aware institutions in existence.

    [ Parent ]

    P.S. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by rottenart on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:25:52 PM EST
    This was the first political blog I started reading in earnest and I have throughout the past years, even as I added others (including th Great Orange Satan) to my "must-read" list.

    I always remained a lurker, give or take a few comments, but I value the writing here and consider it an invaluable source of reporting. It's too bad the progressive blogosphere has become so divided. It's one reason I'll be happy in August, when the real fun of the GE gets going...

    Fun? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    Oh, brother.  You're in for a big surprise.

    [ Parent ]
    I meant (none / 0) (#138)
    by rottenart on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    focusing on the real enemy: Mssr. Mccain...

    [ Parent ]
    There are so many reasons not to be a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by FLVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    and sexism is just one more.  It is not only the progressive blogs that have disgraced themselves but also the dems in general. Why can Donna Brazile speak out on racism but not sexism?  Why does Sen. Obama take advantage and play up sexism?  Don't defend Sen. Clinton, but don't use sexist language either.  I am so disappointed in him, his supporters, the progressives blogs, the msm, and the democratic party in general.  It was truly disheartening the day that I changed my voter registration to "No Party Affiliation."

    You're right, BTD. (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by TomP on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    The so-called progressive blogosphere has not sufficiently stood up to sexism.

    That ain't progressive.

    I saw the Digby post (5.00 / 12) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    and I also saw the (majority) wretched comments of denial that accompanied it. She has fought the good fight multiple times on this issue over the last few months and, each and every time, she has been accosted for it by... wait for it.... progressive men.

    Let's finally get real about what women have learned during this primary. Approximately 90% of liberal men in the blogosphere and the MSM have either:  a) participated in the sexist commentary; b) made lame excuses for it; c) remained silent about it; or d) denied it.

    For me, b c and d are just as bad as a.

    Digby never went far enough (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    in the fight against media misogyny and sexism - esp. since she is an award winning female blogger (whatever that means but one expects more from her) ...

    and especially not in her fight against the nasty sexism on the Blogs. That is where she failed totally because there was no fight. She did not hold the feet of the Obama bloggers to the fire. Because simply she prefers to be part of the club.

    I could give numerous examples when she kept mum (one example is the Randi Rhodes Clinton hating rant). She never mentioned it. She should have. Her commenters begged her. She ignored. Silence all the way.

    Digby's loyalty to the Obama blogs is one reason that I stopped reading her blog a couple months ago. She turned out to be a huge disappointment to me - in this matter esp.

    Digby has posted about Hillary Clinton sexism in the past and often used it as an excuse when nec. But she should have done so much more.

    P.S. re the Randi Rhodes thing
    I just remembered that digby is a frequent guest on Sam Seder's show on AirAmerica.

    [ Parent ]

    Its why its important that she wins popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    She will almost certainly lose the nomination, but its important that history asks why the first serious female lost the nomination despite losing the polular vote.

    why should she lose the nomination? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    I think she's in a great position to make her case.  The race will end virtually tied with one leading in popular votes and the other in pledged delegates.  Then we see who can win in the swing states.

    I think it is reasonable for her supporters to start dropping the notion that she will "almost certainly" lose this nomination because her case is only being strenghtened in recent weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    While we're having that discussion... (none / 0) (#152)
    by rottenart on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    Let's ask Al Gore.

    [ Parent ]
    He may be the smartest one (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    keeping far away from this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]