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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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.


    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.

    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.


    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..

    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.

    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.

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


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

    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?

    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.


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

    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.

    Who said that about Chelsea? (none / 0) (#5)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    Was that when David (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    Schuster was suspended?

    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?


    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.

    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.


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

    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

    "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.

    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!!!

    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.

    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!!!

    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.  



    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    Great read! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by suisser on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST

    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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!

    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.


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

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


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

    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!


    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.:-)

    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.

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

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


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

    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.  


    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.

    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.


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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

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

    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.

    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.  



    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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 !!!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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...

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    Why? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    Because whatever side he endorses (none / 0) (#213)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    there will be oodles of controversy and by the successes he's had since 2000, I don't think he wants anywhere near the press with any of this at this time.

    Good for you! I complained, too. Everyone (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    here should also.

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by rnibs on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:54 PM EST
    it was intentional.  He can't resist being coy like that, what with his not so subtle flipping her off and later brushing her off his shoulder and shoe.  Just not funny.  In fact, he may get a chance to see how not funny it is if McCain does the same thing to him come Nov.

    Suggestion: Why don't all of us who are ... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM EST
    outraged about this behavior, swarm their e-mails with our condemnation of the treatment to which Hillary Clinton has been and still is being subjected?

    Our strength lies in the numbers after all. I've written to Cafferty, MSNBC, Anderson Cooper, and company, only to be completely ignored. I am sure they can not ignore a flood of e-mails denouncing this.

    As for Hillary taking issue of it a la Obama (the race thing), will probably do her more harm than good. It is up to us to do it.

    What do you all think?


    I won't forget it either. (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by suki on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    Thank you, BTD.
     I was truly depressed after 2004 and it took me several weeks to shake it off, get really angry again, and use that to work my fanny off for the Democratic party. I was convinced that was the only way to change all of the horrible things I saw happening to our country.
    I realized recently that I feel worse now than I did then. I am demoralized. To see and hear the blatant sexism from people I used to respect - and even worse, the ones who watched and said NOTHING - Well, I can't support that in any way and that includes my vote.

    There better be a graduate student somewhere (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by Foxx on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    who is compiling all of it, the TV clips, the columns and opinion pieces, the speeches, the blog comments, the nutcracker, the t shirts. Mad as Hell just touched the surface.

    We can only hope that someday will look back on this primary and see that it is one of the most vile and disgraceful in our history.

    And one of the most tragic, for what we have lost.

    Thank you for posting this, BTD. (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    "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."

    The (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by sas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    fact that Obama is unqualified always has made me wary of voting for him.

    I have decided to vote against him, however, based on the sexist, racist campaign he has run.

    I will never forget.  I will never forgive.  And I walk around ticked off.....so the first person who says something or does something sexist had better freakin watch out...I'm gonna explode!

    Semantical point, BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Oje on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    But I think BTD should say "feminist bloggers," to include the few voices like yours, Wolcott's, and others.

    The designation "women bloggers" fails to withstand scrutiny when you take into account pre-2008 primary A-list bloggers (one hopes this has changed during the course of the primaries) at Pandagon, Feministing, Feministe, dKos, and a few other places that routinely chose silence or tepid objection rather than to lead an effort to reject the outright sexism in nearly every corner of the media and the party.

    Secondarily, a few of the former A-list sites rightly claim the mantle of "feminism" for themselves, so if we regard voices like digby's or Jeralyn's as "women's voices" then potentially support for Clinton could be regards as unfeminist, essentialism ("women's candidate") and support for Obama could be regarded as enlightened feminism (as the 100 anti-war feminists for Obama attempted to cast their support for Obama).

    The "women" terminology stacks the feminist deck against Clinton supporters.

    There are a lot of men in this country (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by macwiz12 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    who are intimidated by intelligent, articulate, and aggressive women. I've seen and heard comments since I was a child. Personally, I find women of this type, including my spouse of over 37 years, particularly interesting. Many other self assured men who are confident in themselves, respond the same way.

    Perhaps my feelings in this case stem from having extremely intelligent mother and an equally intelligent father who were both leaders in their families and taught their children to respect people regardless of their gender or ethnic background.

    It was certainly enhanced by my undergraduate education at a college that never discriminated by race and became the first co-educational college in this country four years after it was founded in 1833. With young women who were the daughters of the US ambassador to Japan, the editor of the Saturday Review and the head of the Manhattan Project as classmates, one develops a different point of view.

    During my years in chemical research, I was frequently saddened by the sexist remarks of co-workers. Some of these men need to look inside themselves and learn that the problem is their attitudes not women. We must remember that the discrimination that women face is not as a minority. Those who ignore the majority do so at their own risk.

    I will not vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by lily15 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    The so called progressives, the Obama campaign and the Democratic elites, and the so called liberal media have transgressed all boundaries where sexism and honesty and principle is concerned.  They have demonstrated to me that they do not deserve my vote.  And my vote is the only thing I have to register my disgust.  I will not vote for Obama although I will probably vote down ticket Democratic.  I want the Democrats to lose the Presidency if they nominate Obama.  They have rigged this process.  They are undemocratic. No campaign has engaged in a more undemocratic, deceitful and sexist process.  They deserve to be punished by those demeaned by these narratives.  They made their bed...let them lie in it without our vote.  I will not look away from this travesty of nominating process...and I will blame the party at fault.

    True Progressives Must Take a Stand (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by lily15 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM EST
    on these issues and not support Obama.  Otherwise, we are empowering and emboldening a movement that has no regard for our particular base.  Women hopefully have had enough and are ready to walk out.  
    But to buy the BS that we have nowhere to go is the same old crap.  They need to lose big time.  And women need to deliver the knockdown and start exercising their voting power in a new way with a new coalition.  This coalition is dead to me.  Hillary should become an independent, align with someone who can support a run for the Presidency, and take on both the Republicans and Democrats.  But  fighting for the nomination at the convention is  the answer to these sexist narratives.  Women must demonstrate their clout...just as African Americans have demonstrated theirs in this so called Democratic party. Women need to toughen up and fight if they want any respect.

    Please listen to this interview of (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:30:40 PM EST
    former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder on sexism re Hillary Clinton's campaign.  It is quite thought-provoking and poignant:


    I really think... (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    ...that this comes down to Clinton's failure to connect in the minds of most people as a symbol for "women" in the same way that Obama became a symbol for blacks.

    I can't think of any bloggers who made the point as well as Kerry Howley of Reason that nepotism has been an essential part of breaking glass ceilings.  And because of that, people like Sullivan are able to continually use the nepotism charge against Clinton to diminish the import of gender to her campaign, and to excuse the sexist behavior towards her.

    Of course, Clinton hasn't helped herself much in this regard; statements like the "Zimbabwe" nonsense continue to allow people who are ideologically opposed to Clinton's candidacy (which in my opinion includes most bloggers) opportunity to attack her rather than defend her against unfair charges.

    I could keep going, but I had better quit before I alienate everyone.

    Most people not women you mean (5.00 / 9) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    Because apparently women DO see her as that type of symbol.

    Not your best effort Jay.


    Most pundits and bloggers... (1.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    ...since I have little insight into people at large, I apologize for being overly broad.

    That being said, I still think that my statement has merit.  The symbolism of Clinton's candidacy has not been received the same way as that of the Obama candidacy.  I think the statements you deride are evidence of that.


    And again (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    most bloggers not women bloggers you mean.

    That was the point of my post.

    See Digby, Shakes, Susie Madrak, Echidne and many many more.

    I do not know these women well, but I imagine they must be stunned by what they have seen from the so called progressive blogs.


    Well, I'm not a progressive... (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    ...as you know.  But it seems to me that non-progressive women bloggers I read, such as McArdle, Howley, Mangu-Ward, and Postrel, haven't had similar strong reactions.  Neither have hilzoy, Susan G, or Laura.

    Which is about as many women bloggers as you just named.


    Look (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    I think some of these women live with different concerns, if you get my drift.

    Though I think Hilzoy has been disgraceful oin this campaign and I have told her so in these very comments.


    I certainly agree... (1.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:39 PM EST
    ...that they do live with other principal concerns.

    But that is part of the reason why I highlighted Howley's op-ed.  She probably wouldn't support Clinton no matter what.  But she pushed back in an important way against a (rather sexist, IMO) meme which has been used with significant effect against Clinton.  And that op-ed's theme wasn't significantly jumped upon by others, including Clinton.


    I think you (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    yourself, are sexist and certainly are close to a wipe out here.

    You are either uneducated, too young and inexperienced or just plain revolting.

    Don't you dare talk to a board of women and sprout this idiocy.  Most women do not see HIllary as a woman?

    You a$$.


    Whatever (1.00 / 0) (#202)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    I really don't need to defend myself to you, or to anyone.

    If you don't understand the difference in talking about how candidates are perceived and what they are, then fine.  And if you think calling me names will make me feel bad, keep on thinking it.  Makes no difference to me mate.


    Yes, women can be sexist too. (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    It's cognitive dissonance that a woman can be strong on foreign policy and compassionate toward the needs of women and children, but Hillary is.

    Stretch your imagination, people!


    So "not symbolic enough"= (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by chancellor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    okay to be sexist? Pathetic.

    Perhaps because (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by suisser on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    she didn't need to run as a symbol, she is running as the real thing.

    I'm sorry but this is a load of crap.... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    ...how many women would have to tell you that Clinton connects in our minds as a symbol for women before you chose to believe it?

    Try 90% of them.... (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    ...similar percentages as the support of blacks for Obama.

    It isn't that I am dismissive of the millions of women for whom Clinton has connected in that way.  But it simply hasn't been the same, either in votes, or in the eyes of the media and bloggers.


    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    the male-dominated media and the male bloggers?

    I can't wait to see if he geets a pass when he starts making unpopular decisions, if he gets the chance that is.

    I have a feeling Obama's "day in the sun" is coming.


    Nice that you get to set the number. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    Since 90% is the bar that you set, then until Obama gets support from 90% of registered candidates, I'm not going to accept his significance as a symbol for president of the United States.

    Well, it isn't like I'm some serious person.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    ...taken seriously by many people besides perhaps BTD at times.

    And since I'm not a huge fan of Obama either, by all means, don't accept him, as far as I'm concerned.


    More blacks support Hillary in other states (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    than they do in South Carolina. Out-of-state Hillary volunteers I met in Portland last weekend bore this out.

    You identified the problem (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by santarita on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    The media and the "progressive" bloggers haven't pushed the narrative of Hillary as a symbol for women in the same way that they pushed the narrative that Obama is a symbol for blacks.  As your citation to Kerry Howley points out the "nepotism" charge was used to diminish the impact of gender and to excuse the sexism.  Who used it that way?  The media and the "progressive" bloggers used it to shape the narrative for the voters.  And to the charge of nepotism,we can add other reasons why it is ok to be sexist towards Hillary and to diminish the import of gender.  Like her vote on the AUMF.  Or that her husband was a philanderer.  Or that she and her husband are polarizing forces, or that she has been the subject of vicious right wing attacks.  Lots of excuses for sexism.  Same as it ever was.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    ....for understanding that I was trying to identify the problem, rather than suggesting that I am the problem.

    BTW (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    Anyone who takes the racist, sexist, McCarthyite Andrew Sullivan seriously get a serious demerit from me. that will be one of my summer projects.

    Hmmm. A visitation. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:02 PM EST
    To me, the Zimbabwa comparison was apropos, but, then again, I still think of this as a contested race.  

    Also, I don't sense bloggers who put down Clinton are ideologically opposed to her candidacy.  The reason I say that is so much of what the bloggers write goes so far beyond criticism of her ideology.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    Well, I come by every now and again because I can't see BTD otherwise.

    I think the ideological opposition is significantly wrapped up in the anti-DLC and anti-war sentiments of most left bloggers.  Which is a starting point, beyond which they feel justified saying a lot of things they shouldn't, because they don't like her.


    I agree with you. But, the (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    posts and comments are so full of vengence, spite, hate, with no mention of policy differences.  

    More than once (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    people have thrown up the usual suspects as smoke screens.

    Before Super Tuesday, people on DK would comment "I couldn't take the AUMF vote.".  My reply would be "Then you'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich if the AUMF is Issue One.  Dennis voted against it.".

    No.  They weren't Kucinich supporters.  The AUMF vote was just the simplest, most used excuse to Hate Hillary.  Often transparently so, since they never seemed interested in policy otherwise.


    Agreed again... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    ...but I don't know what to make of it.  Writing on politics has gotten much worse since the campaign began.

    I think an aspect of it is that people who are great writers in some areas are now well outside their expertise.  Hilzoy, for example, is a philosophy professor.  She's great at making philosophical arguments.  But not so great at campaign reporting or commentary.  But as this story has been so dominant, people are moving away from their strengths to write about what is in the news.  And as they move away from their strengths, their quality decreases.

    (This is why I don't write much about the campaign.  That, and I don't much like any of the candidates.  I have a lot more to say about Obama advisers like Goolsbee and Sustein than I do about Obama.)


    Hey (none / 0) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    You can read all about how evil I am all over the place now.

    No need to read what I actually write.


    Now? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    When couldn't I read about you all over?

    But I've always thought, as you know, a lot more of you than your critics.  And enjoyed you greatly, no matter how much we disagree.


    I have yet to hear one black person (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    refer to Obama as a symbol!! Some, vote for him because he's black, just like some vote for Hillary because she's a woman. There are many reasons to vote either way, but to simplify it down to a symbol doesn't ring true!!!

    Sounds like (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    We agree.  Clinton didn't do as good a job of exploiting her minority status as Obama did exploiting his.

    She was just too, too interested (none / 0) (#147)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    in the election, as opposed to being too, too, interest in him self.

    I don't give a rats a$$ (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by standingup on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    about her failure to connect.  Nothing excuses sexism.  It is wrong regardless of who is the victim.  

    Who is excusing it? (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    Seriously, where the hell am I excusing anything?

    Attempting to understand is not the same thing as attempting to defend.


    It was painfully obvious to me. (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:03:22 PM EST
    That neither Obama nor Clinton could afford to make their campaigns about race and gender(respectively).

    How can you represent All People if your campaign becomes focused on just one aspect of yourself - frankly one that really is not relevant to your qualifications for office?

    You can't.  It wasn't until the Wright issue surfaced that Obama became closely associated in the public mind with The Black Community.  Clinton couldn't go around pushing back against every sexist comment without becoming thought of first and foremost as A Woman, not a Candidate.

    Focusing your campaign on yourself is a bad move, in general.  You are applying for the job of representing and leading an entire nation.  The minute your campaign becomes about you instead of the job, you run the danger of being painted into a corner by how you or others define you.

    We'll probably see that with Obama if he gets the nomination.  


    Ideology? What ideology? (3.66 / 3) (#79)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    I missed Obama's. Seriously, I have read JMM for 7 years, and I can't think of ANY reason he should support Obama, based on his oeuvre. He should be a strong Clinton supporter, judging from his political philosophy.

    career (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    Josh is a careerist who didn't want to miss the boat.

    Some saw internet as a way to even out the playing field and promote democracy.  For others, it's another way to make money.  Josh is in the second category.  Despite his posture, I never doubted his web site was career and money oriented. (BTW, I never click on those vericifier? videos that the TPM site puts out.)

    My mistake was thinking he has some integrity.


    True (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    but is being a symbol for women a good thing? I would say being seen as a symbol for blacks is not a great thing. Being the "black candidate" doesn't help imo.

    Good depends on purpose... (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:21:46 PM EST
    ...you can get away with maligning an individual member of a group more than you can get away with maligning a symbol representing the group.  Is it good for Obama to be the candidate of nearly all black voters?  I dunno.  But it is good for getting pushback on racism against Obama.

    I don't think Clinton's loss can be credited mainly to sexism.  But I think they get away with the sexism because they can paint her as someone who happens to be a woman, rather than the symbol of the hopes of all women.


    The symbol of the hopes (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    of all women?!!!

    Boy, what are you drinking?

    How about she's the better candidate.  The minute he refused to debate her any more was the minute I knew he was outdone.

    Pfft.  Peddle your nonsense somewhere else.


    How could she have improved this (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    high heels? What are you getting at. She wasn't feminine enough? Long hair - would that have done it? Higher voice?

    Please spell it out, I am truly dense.


    I don't know that she could have... (1.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    ....remember, there was always a lot of reason for blogger-types to dislike her.  Iraq, Iran, trade, and so on.  She was the establishment candidate to a constituency which is by nature anti-establishment, and she always had an uphill battle to win over bloggers.

    I think it might have helped to confront the nepotism issue head-on.  Also, people like Markos care a lot about campaigns, and running a poor one didn't help her with them either.  But my point would be that bloggers and pundits had pre-existing reasons to dislike her that she didn't overcome.


    Fools. (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    She was the establishment candidate to a constituency which is by nature anti-establishment, and she always had an uphill battle to win over bloggers.

    And Obama is supported by all the establishment types that liberal bloggers have skewered, such as Tom Daschle and Harold Ford and Donna Brazile.  He's just as much part of that establishment.



    This I agree with wholeheartedly.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    ...Obama is just as much an establishment candidate as Clinton.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    So what does that say about anti-establishment bloggers and their complaints about Clinton?



    After Potomac Primaries, her campaign (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    has been pretty good IMO.

    It's the beginning part she messed up. She is running neck-and-neck for the nomination, I wouldn't say her campaign has been that bad. Unless you think far and away she is clearly the better candidate and will make the better president (which I believe) how can you say her campaign has been so bad? Do you prefer her or Obama?

    In fact, once I joined on as a volunteer I've been super impressed with the tone and flavor of the donation-solicitation emails, those have been brilliant. The calling tool has been great, the FactHub on her site has been too.


    She's gotten (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    about the same number of people to vote for her.

    She must be doing something right.


    More unforced errors... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jay Elias on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    ...put it this way: if she had never hired Mark Penn, she probably would have won.  

    Penn did turn out to be (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    a huge negative.

    Well I've seen many Obama errors (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
    that the press has let slide, but the Republicans will probably not. And these errors are weakening my resolve to vote for him, but I will (as of now, if I have to.)

    I recall Markos dissing Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    long before this campaign started.  And it wasn't on her policy stances.  He just flat out hates her.

    It's not about counting the votes (1.00 / 0) (#218)
    by Mavs4527 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    The votes have already been counted. What's left is how the delegates to the convention will be seated. I think the vast majority of the people who run this site need to dispense with the drama as if this is some epic struggle on par with the suffrage or civil rights movements. Hillary will end up with more delegates regardless of what deal is struck and the will of the people that showed up will be expressed in some form.

    The Democratic Party is the entity which sets the rules for what happens with the delegates and due to the Florida and Michigan Democratic Party's violations of the rules, they deserve to have some form of punishment levied against them. Are you guys really willing to de-legitimize our extremely likely nominee in Barack Obama by taking this to the convention and when the inevitable happens, the rules being enforced, somehow claim the nomination was stolen from Hillary and not vote for Obama in November?

    Like I said before, dispense with the drama, workout some fair compromise that respects the will of the votes in both states, but also the rules that the DNC has set, and move on to the general election and work to defeat John McCain (aka George Bush, Part III)

    Other blogs say that isn't true. Was anyone (none / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    ever able to determine if it is true? By other blogs, I mean Obama ones.

    I have looked (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    You obviously can't prove a negative, but I have never been able to find any evidence to back up that story.  I don't think it was ever anything more than an unsourced rumor in a gossip column.

    The NYPost is MSM (none / 0) (#204)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:56:03 PM EST
    I know, and the SF Chronicle reporting the Gavin Newsom snub, citing three sources, doesn't prove it to you either.

    If that wasn't what he did, (none / 0) (#132)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    why did his audience respond the way they did?

    NY Post confirmed the 99 Problems (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    song. And the SF Chronicle, citing three sources, confirmed the Gavin Newsom snub. But my Obama-loving friends say "well if I could see some proof, I might believe it."

    NYPost may lean right-wing, but it's more credible than the blogs.


    Well it was the NYPost (none / 0) (#195)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    I cited. Not sure what you're saying Obama blogs didn't confirm it was true. They don't confirm a lot of things that are true.

    On the one hand... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    it's undeniable that Clinton has been subject to misogynistic and sexist attacks from all quadrants.

    On the other hand, it's also undeniable that she has benefited from gender identity politics(and suffered from it) at least as much as Obama has from ethnic identity politics(and suffered from it).  

    But Obama(and supporters) complaining about racism in Appalachia isn't going to make that problem go away in the general, and Clinton(and supporter) complaining about sexism in the media(and to some extent in the electorate) isn't going to make that problem go away in the general either.

    When Sexism (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    Is rewarded and racism is punished, I don't see how your formulation balances out.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    Clinton won handily in rural white Appalachia, there were a half dozen news stories covering the undercurrent of racism there, but the TM barely mentioned it on national TV.  It was transformed into "Obama's problem with working class whites".

    See, it's not that racist voters have a problem by dint of being racist, it's that Obama has a problem winning over "working class whites", and decorum and "decency" prevents most of the media talking heads from even suggesting he might be having problems because some of those working class whites wouldn't vote for any black candidate.  
    That in effect is rewarding racism by giving white voters "permission" to vote race by citing "people like me just don't identify with him" or "he doesn't connect/he's elitist" etc.

    Clinton's gender gap has existed here and there, but on balance she has benefited from it more than she's suffered from it.


    I wonder (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    do you consider 80-90% support of Obama from AAs racist?

    Let's talk abourt what's acceptable. (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    And in so doing I will now conduct a litmus test.

    Are you ready to take this test.

    Here goes:

    Barack Obama is a Unity pimp.

    You see.  One of the problems with Obama supporters and their inability to understand this situation is that they've been so coddled.

    If you can imagine the statement made above showing up in the main stream media and then hearing about how there's a "real debate" about the acceptability of that kind of discourse, well....

     YOu know. I don't think you get it.

    I don't think you're capable of getting it.

    The only way I can think of for an Obama supporter to get it is to put them in the position of seeing their candidate be treated the same way.

    Only that would be unacceptable.


    Polls suggest a female candidate is more (none / 0) (#220)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST
    worrisome to voters than a black candidate. I've heard/seen plenty of racism charges in the TM.

    I think the evidence shows that Clinton's (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:41:12 PM EST
    problem with sexism is NOT with the voters, by and large.

    well put (none / 0) (#178)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    but the steady stream of sexist comments has an impact on the masses, no? I seem to recall it happening with Saddam and 9-11.

    Oh I beg to differ (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    First, talking about sexism is not the same as 'complaining' about it.  Clinton has done precious little complaining as far as I can see.

    But even if defined as 'complaining', how will it ever change if people are silent about it?  I find that a bizare notion.  Will it go away by itself if no one brings it up?  How would that work exactly?

    If Obama loses in November (assuming he's the nominee) because he's alienated a huge part of the Dems' base by being so boneheaded on sexism or because of the rabid misgyny across blogworld, but no one points out why, how will that prevent the next candidate/fanblogger combination from employing the same tactics?  Or the next 10?

    'Complaining' about sexism is what got women the vote, sex written into Title VII, Title IX, and so on.  (Ok, so I know the vote and Title VII were about a lot of other things too but part of them were due to 'complaints' about lack of equality).


    Show us the math. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    It's an interesting theory - but without actual, verifiable proof, it's all just hot air.

    You mean... (1.00 / 0) (#215)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    ...the exit polling from several states showing about 1 in 5 whites openly admitting to voting on race, and the vast majority of them voting for Clinton over Obama?

    The exit polls that get briefly mentioned every Tuesday election night since Ohio, and then promptly ignored by Clinton supporters and by most tv pundits?  

    I've never heard anyone on television say anything like, "wow, that sure is a large percentage of white democrats willing to admit to an exit pollster that they're not voting for Obama because he's black!"
    And I don't think I've ever seen a Clinton supporter online talk frankly about it, either.


    Feels like 2000 (none / 0) (#228)
    by rghojai on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:16 PM EST
    At the time, there were some things burbling around about the coverage of Gore compared to the coverage of Bush. As the current campaign ramped up, there was an article looking back at all that--with a lot to back up a contention that the media didn't like Gore so Gore got some shoddy coverage, that he got shafted, about what one would expect of 9-year-olds writing about their favorite wrestlers.

    (At the time, I hadn't chosen a candidate, simply--and naively--hoped for balanced, fair coverage.)

    "never expressed much concern" (none / 0) (#234)
    by RickTaylor on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    is too strong.

    From Kos, back in early January.