Clinton May Have Lost, But Sexism Remains Rampant

Balloon Juice and Oliver Willis enjoyed this nasty bit of sexism - Hillary Clinton: Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Of The Democratic Party.

Is there any self awareness left in the blogs? Or do these folks really want to alienate every Clinton supporter in the country?

P.S. The blogger who wrote that post's ironic slogan? "Don't be a d*ck!" Try it some time dude.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< Edwards: I Just Voted For... | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess they're still not (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    100% sure he's going to be the nominee, so the ad hominems must continue.

    What immature little boys they are.

    I don't think thats it..... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    ...they just can't stop.

    It's who they are hiding it serves no real purpose (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    Women will act and vote in their interest, they are the largest block in the electorate. If I was a women who had a DNC card I would burn it, but I am not and I don't vote Party I vote my interest, my community's interest.  

    I tore up & mailed my (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    voter's registration card (DEM) to the DNC yesterday along with a nice note to Dr. Dean specifically telling him that unless he seats FL & MI in a meaningful way not to count on my vote again. (Meanwhile, I re-registered as an IND). I also told him to good luck with winning in Nov. without the women, latinos and blue collar workers that Donna B. says you don't "need" and that if he was any kind of leader he would stand up and restore the values of equality, social justice and inclusion to the party. I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer.

    I cancelled my Nation (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    subscription this week.  That felt good!  We can also vote with our dollars.

    OUCH! (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    I have been thinking about it...  I have been a Dem for 24 years and feel very disgusted with part of the party right now.

    Independence (5.00 / 6) (#222)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    I've been a registered dem for almost 30 years.  I'm going to declare my independence from the party by changing my registration.  I will send something to the DNC as well.  

    Heck, Independents get more consideration anyway, from all parties.


    boy this victory lap they are taking.... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    ...around the net is quite a thing to behold, isn't it? You know what, I think that the reason that Obama has a certain affinity for Ronald Reagan is that he is a bit like Reagan himself. He makes his supporters feel like they are special, just the way they are. They don't need to change, everyone else does.

    As evidence by the fawning, bowing, and (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    scraping in the House of Representatives yesterday.  

    BIngo. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    If that's what takes to get into their club, I don't want to join.

    If he's already won (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    then why is it that he's not the winner?

    I mean-seriously.  Have you seen the latest polls for WVA and KY?  

    She's going to close the delegate gap pretty swiftly.  If she gets to within a hundred, and gets the popular vote lead, then what?


    I Keep Asking That Same Question...They Have (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:27 PM EST
    this false bravado while they are cowering inside, because at some level they must know their guy doesn't have it in the bag.  There has to be at least a few smart supporters on the obama side that can figure this out.

    Exactly Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    please stop buying the meme people -- GOTV in WV.

    obama, the audacity of hope, change and (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    kumbaya, has some of the most vicious supporters I have ever come across.  He revels in the fact that he never has to get his hands dirty, when he has so many lemmings that will do it for him.  I do not trust this guy one whit.

    I went to the websites yesterday. (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    Compared these two pages.  
    Hillary's blew me away
    compared to Obama's.

    I was specifically looking for Women's Issues.  Neither site lists that specific phrase.  Hillary's lists nice broad, cohesive policies.  Obama's lists a laundry list of Issues - including children, seniors, the disabled but not women.  Obama's reads like a lists of "special interests" while Hillary's reads like a list of "common concerns".

    Points to whoever created Clinton's website.  Great job!  Obama?  Not so much.  And for the long laundry list of Issues, I still can't believe he (his advisors) included so many but still managed to leave out Women.

    I do encourage people to look for themselves.  It was very interesting.  (Should I check out McCain?)


    Here is McCain (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    From his website:

    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

    However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need.

    Code language... services to pregnant mothers means 'we care about your health in the womb, once your born... eh, not so much.  Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.'  


    Really? "Psycho ex-girlfriend" is more (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by so tired on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    vicious than "Thug Politics" which is the current top post at Hillaryis44? Regardless of whether you agree with the substantive portion of that post, "thug" is code  for "dangerous black man."

    Besides, in the piece that sparked the outrage, the theoretical ex-boyfriend left Hillary for Obama, so the gender politics at play are a little more complicated than "we don't take women seriously." Really the message is "poorly written comedy pieces based on metaphors that can't support the premise aren't funny." I could rally behind that. But "vicious" is giving it more power than it deserves.


    You joined to say (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    "dangerous black man."?  I can feel the unity now. We've been told we are racist so many times it has no effect, in fact, it is tiring.

    Well, I didn't call anyone racist (none / 0) (#223)
    by so tired on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    I said one person who wrote one post on a completely different blog used an inflammatory word. I try not to make globalizing statements like the one you're suggesting I made as I find it counterproductive, logically unsound, and kind of mean. If anyone here took it as a shot at Clinton herself or her supporters across the board or even at the person who wrote that post on Hillaryis44 (this is an important distinction to me; I take umbrage with the word choice and the post but I would never suggest that I'm in a position to judge the person behind it), I apologize.

    My point: supporters of neither candidate are blameless in the truly awful tone of this campaign. Focusing on the negativity accomplishes nothing. Focusing on it selectively and angrily accomplishes worse than nothing.

    Incidentally I didn't register to say "dangerous black man" -- I registered last night after months of lurking just in case I ever felt moved to speak. I didn't think the spirit would get to me so fast, but hey, it's lively here.


    gimme a break (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    Regardless of whether you agree with the substantive portion of that post, "thug" is code  for "dangerous black man."

    Thug isn't a racially coded word.


    I Guess My Eyesight Has Deteriorated More (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    than I thought. I never realized that Bush's more obnoxious and threatening supporters were"dangerous black men." I have been calling them thugs for 7+ years.

    And Obama is like your ex sweetheart's (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    jack*** new boyfriend who you know isn't good enough for her.

    I heard a female caller (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    say this same thing very smugly on Bill Press's XM radio show yesterday morning.  They think they are being very funny and clever. Reading too much Maureen Dowd.

    Say it with me: self-loathing, wanna-be (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    cool with the boys types.

    Sooo true (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    Most of the women I know who do not like Clinton on that vicious personal level are exactly that type.

    I know anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant, but it is interesting nonetheless.


    Yes, yes, YES! (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    That is the case with the ones I know... (many also voted for Bush the last time they cast a vote for POTUS!  How about that!)

    It'll be HI-Larious when the psycho ex-girlfriend (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    takes her millions of other girlfriends with her to the couch in November! I can't wait.

    How funny will it be... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:17 PM EST
    When McCain appoints two more SC justices and tips the Supreme Court hard to the right for a couple of decades?

    Remember, Clarence Thomas got in with a Democratic majority in the legislature.  Any reason to expect it wouldn't happen again (probably twice?).  Not that I can see.


    That said... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    Oliver Willis has the mentality of a three year old and the class of...well, I really can't think of anything equivalently low at the moment.

    I will laugh and say "I told you so." (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    So... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    You'll laugh as worker protections are lost, Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, the Imperial Executive is further legitimized?  Oh, and likely another 4-8 years of more of the same in Iraq.

    Nice to know you consider being proved right more important than those things.


    Yes. Yes, I will. (5.00 / 9) (#169)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    Because Obama decided long ago he didn't care about those things as he attacked the last great Democratic president and has cut Hillary in every way possible even though she is more qualified, more intelligent, and appeals to more people than he does.  So when he loses, yes, I will laugh. And when he reaps what he sows I will laugh.  I will laugh at the Democratic establishment that wanted a golden goose at the expense of every Democratic ideal that I've ever held.

    The party has left me. So I will leave the party.  And let them implode unto themselves.


    The DNP kicked workers to the curb (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    The memo from the New Democratic Party is out with the bubbas and in with the creative class.  Donna Brazile announced the party is no longer dependent on the working class.

    Dear Adept (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    You are correct. Obviously, no one wants what you suggest. But when we have Obama shoved down our throat by a majority of bloggers and pundits, we want to go into attack mode. The whole ex-girlfriend line just exacerbates the problem.

    Personally, I think Obama will lose the GE. Just as Gore and Kerry had before him. So, my reaction is to make sure we win. And the way to do that is to nominate Hillary. And I will fight in any way I can to make sure that happens. You and Willis and the rest of the bloggers and MSM are just getting in my way. Nothing personal.


    Well now, Supreme Court Justices (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    have to be approved don't they???

    Sandra Day O'Connor was the BEST thing to ever happen to the Supreme Court and a Republican nominated her.  Her influence and legacy are still there.

    I love these fear tactics.


    Obama Wanted To Confirm Roberts (5.00 / 8) (#163)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    Because he "admired his intellect".  The only reason he didn't was because an aide told him it would be bad for his political future.  Once he's President, what's to stop him from appointing more Roberts?  He'd probably be glad to do so, in the spirit of the new "transcendence" and everything.

    Then, maybe the left (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    will say, "Gee, maybe we shoulda voted for the woman -- the one who actually supports women's rights rather than waffles on them".  Then maybe she would have been elected, and we wouldn't have had McCain.

    And from the couch they can watch and laugh (none / 0) (#131)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    when McCain gets to nominated 1, 2, maybe 3 to the Supreme Court.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "would serve as the model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me,"


    Try another one..... (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    ....like all the other charges leveled at people who don't support Obama, that one too has lost its sting. I have no intention of voting for John McCain but I am still on the fence about Obama. I have been told by Brazile and others that I don't matter so pardon me if I am having a hard time swallowing that the composition of the Supreme Court rests on my shoulders.

    Obama was going to vote FOR (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    Roberts before he was clued in it would not look good for his political future.

    Now, I should vote for Obama why? I'm leaving the "Rights Fight" to the younger generation. It's time they stepped up and got a taste of it. Maybe, just maybe, they'll 'get it'.


    If you all believe (none / 0) (#191)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    There will be no difference between McCain's nominees and (if he gets the nomination) Obama's, I don't see it, but your results may differ.  

    As for me, my overwhelming interest is, and has been, keeping the court from going hard right for the next generation.  IMO, those are the stakes.



    Obama stated that ideology should not (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    be a factor in confirming a Supreme. I really have no idea who he would appoint. If you do, please share.

    When I Hear From Obama Exactly What Types (5.00 / 5) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    of people he will nominate (with examples), I will take the SCOTUS into consideration when I vote. So far his rhetoric about choice has not convinced me that his nominations will protect those things that I care about.

    Exactly.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face, IMO.

    I'll be pulling that lever whomever is on the ticket.  Why?  I don't want a hard-right Supreme Court for the next generation.


    Oliver Willis used to call himself (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:12 AM EST
    "Kryptonite to stupid".
    I think he has become "Dumberer to dumber"

    Who is Oliver Willis? (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    and why does he matter?

    I Often Wonder The Same Thing n/t (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    wonder no more (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    you don't!

    I just visited your website (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    You seem like a sincere Obama supporter. I certainly respect your rights as a blogger. However, as people tell Hillary "You're dividing the party with Racism", I wonder how you are helping the Democratic party, by trashing Hillary. You certainly won't keep me from voting for Obama if he's the nominee, but you are doing no one in the party any favors.

    If you switched to just attacking McCain and supporting your candidate rather than dragging down the other, I'd love to visit your blog more often than once in my life.


    At least you're not an (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    ex-Republican or ex-Naderite or ex-Independent as so many Obama supporters are.  

    Bravo.. (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:42 PM EST
    No Sense (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    Not only does that make no sense, my slogan is still the same.

    Sensitive, much? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    If you want sensitive (none / 0) (#55)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    look up up up this thread

    Technorati never cases to amaze me. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    So quick.

    Misogyny replaced racism? (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    Do Americans have a deep seated hatred of women? I know, this sounds crazy. 6 months ago I would not have asked this question. But... when I think about it, there are telling signs. I recall a recent ad for a movie in which a black man was dominating an attractive woman in chains. If the situation had been reversed, I have no doubt it would have led to a national scandal. Message: Women in chains = ok.

    People in America seem ignorant of women's place in history, while they are hyper-aware of black history. Women's history is mocked. Women are perceived to have been a privileged class, free from the oppression that black's were subject to. The truth is quite different. In many states, women were considerd property, functionally, if not legally, to be transferred from the care of their father to the care of their husbands. Women were not allowed to own property, vote, or travel without supervision. They had no reproductive freedom, and their husbands could beat them, or even sometimes kill them, without fear of repercussion. They were generally treated better than slaves, but not always, and not all slaves were mistreated. They were considered valuable property and most of their owners felt an obligation to take good care of them. Does that make it right to deny people basic rights? Some women were granted more freedom by their caretakers, but they were not considered equal under the eyes of the law.

    I'm not whining. Really. I believe that it is our responsibility to make the best of life. Everybody is handed challenges, and it's our job to deal with them and make a success out of life. Everybody faces prejudices of some type or other: poverty, race, gender, physical appearance. Even white men face challenges. But it makes me sad that it is socially permissible to make sexist remarks about a respected woman. In a hundred years they will look back on this race and wonder at how primitive we were, if they remember it at all.

    I Agree (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    Except that turning it into a competition between sexism and racism weakens your argument. It is not a competition, both are blights in our society and need to be called out whenever they rise their ugly heads.

    I am amazed that Oliver Willis and Balloon Juice posted this kind of crap, and that it was not roundly condemned by their readers.


    It's not a contest (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    I hope I didn't imply "my group's suffering is worse than yours".  I simply meant to point out that the suffering of black in our history is widely acknowledges, while women's suffering is not acknowledged. All oppression is wrong. Any time a person is held back from being what they want to be by social factors, it is wrong.

    You Misunderstand My Point (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    I simply meant to point out that the suffering of black in our history is widely acknowledges, while women's suffering is not acknowledged.

    Making this kind of statement turns racism and sexism into a competition. Speaking in generalities like this seems ill informed, and helps to perpetuate discrimination by suggesting you have special information to know that one type of oppression is more virulent than another, imo.

    Why make any comparison at all, many of your potential allies will be estranged by this kind of talk.


    Why we have marriage licenses (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    Proof of ownership at one time. That is why I commented yesterday that this election is very personal for women. It wasn't always, but it is now.

    Childish (1.00 / 8) (#77)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    Please don't compare women's history in the United States to that of African Americans. While there was and is sexism, it pales in comparison to the millions of African Americans who died during the years of slavery and Jim Crow. Remember, some white women owend slaves but not the other way around.

    Oh, for the love of god (5.00 / 13) (#92)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    Go back to the freakin' cavemen and tell me how women were treated.  Do you know how many women are being raped right now in the world?  Do you know how many women are having their genitals sliced off with Coke bottles right now?  Do you know how many are being burned alive, beaten, tortured and thrown out into the streets?

    Blacks owned slaves, too.  If that is your argument, you need to look at history.  


    That is also not a helpful comment. (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    And you clearly don't know much about women's history. If we enter into a competition to assign levels of heinousness to oppression what of the Jews or the Indians? And is the competition open to groups outside of our shores? Or is it just Americans.

    I got news for you (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    There ar women STILL dying because of men who believe they have the right to put their hands on women and treeat them like property. You might wnt to do some research on domestic violence.

    Hell, our country just sanctioned putting womens lives at risk because they get queasy over the idea that a fetus might be harmed after it has become viable(nevemind that women don't terminate after months of mouring sicknes and swelling for no darned reason). Don't go telling me about history.


    Feel free to educate yourself (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST

    Stalkers aren't funny and intimating someone is one for continuing a legitimate process that is available to her is less than humorous from were I'm sitting. Then again, I watched my father beat the crap out of my mother for the first twelve or so odd years of my life.


    I guess no women were slaves then? (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    Give it up.

    We have seen during this primary that America has made a lot of strides towards reducing the effects of racism, while misogyny is alive, well, and such a part of our society that most people are still in denial about it.

    We need to realize the problem before we can resolve it. We know all about racism, but misogyny is still the hatred that dare not speak its name.


    Au contraire (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by miriam on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    In fact, there were a rather large number of blacks in pre-Civil War South Carolina who owned slaves.  There have been several books written on this, including one titled Black Masters.  And let us not forget that the foremost slavers in Africa were black.  Trying to pit the nasty "accomplishments" of one race against the other is not only racist, it is self-defeating.

    That's the problem (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    How many women died in childbirth because their husband's demanded one more child and birth control was unavailable to them? How many women died of starvation or abuse because their caretakers didn't care for them? White women did not own slaves, but black men had wives, and, like white men, sometimes they cared for them and sometimes they didn't. Why is women's suffering less important than black suffering? Becasue fewer women suffered? How many is acceptable? Did fewer women suffer? I don't have answers for that. There was no women's "Roots". Is it better to die in childbirthy than due to slavery?

    Black men had the vote before white women, but women were more widely allowed to vote. But what is the difference if you can't vote because your husband forbids it or because some people don't want those of your race to vote?


    It is Counterproductive To Argue (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    What kind of discrimination is worse. It is much more effective to argue that discrimination based on sex, skin color, religion is wrong period and there is a long history of it still in the making.

    You forgot (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    And age.

    Read up on white slavery (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    or p!mps for that matter

    last i checked, about 100% of reported (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    rapes today of black women in america are by black males.

    Now you have to provide a link for that.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    ...because I don't believe it.

    According to U.S. DOJ's (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases.

    Thanks. I still find it hard to believe. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    i don't. black women have long been (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    pressured to keep quiet about wrongs inflicted on them by males in the aa community for the good of so-called racial progress.  it's nothing new; it's just a relatively well-kept secret.

    Is This The Movie You're Referring To? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    Black Snake Moan?

    No, the image isn't OK, but the movie itself isn't bad.  The "woman in chains" was thrown in there for the BO.  Let's face it, as Mike Nelson said; "captive women" gets audiences excited."


    "Hierarchy of Discrimination" (none / 0) (#197)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    Spare me the "Hierarchy of Discrimination". It is a "divide and conquer" technique that weakens human rights.

    We have seen its devastating effects when one group claims more entitlement to human rights than another, including in this campaign.


    Purging the party of all things Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    Ain't it grand? Pretty soon we will have the same rift that the GOP has between conservatives and the religious factions(You know the rift we used to laugh about and see as our opportunity). Then we will fulfill our destiny by losing yet again. It's what Democrats seem to love to do(bangig my head againt a desk). Can we please have a thrd choice? Pretty please.

    You'd think all these people... (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    ... are trying to tick off all the Clinton voters.

    You think you can call our candidate racist, arrogant, psycho, etc. and then ask for our votes? All of you can go straight to [somewhere].

    Obama needs to tell these people to rein it in, if only in his own self-interest.

    Since There Is No Doubt In Their Minds That (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    Obama will be the nominee, wouldn't it be better for them to devote their bandwidth to McCain? Makes me wonder if they will spend the run up to the GE still bashing Hillary and ignoring McCain.

    Of course! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    That's what makes this continued behavior so repugnant, so immature, so harmful.

    Wouldn't it be better to (none / 0) (#133)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    devote their bandwidth to sucking up to disgruntled Clinton supporters?

    Wouldn't it be better if they (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    just stopped creating more "disgruntled Clinton supporters"?  

    BTD, i'm thankful as always (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    for your pointing out the misogyny in this campaign, but i wish you wouldn't frame it as "may have lost"--by doing so it piles onto the manufactured narrative and i think ultimately encourages even more TSBL from these guys...

    I don't think this is the place (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    for your post.


    Oh lordy, now that's a helpful response. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:32 PM EST

    Psycho ex-girlfriends sometimes become (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    suicidal.  Didn't you know??



    LOL, I don't plan to kill myself.... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    ....no matter who I choose to vote for. I'm going to live, live, live until I die. Much to the chagrin of some, I guess.

    I keep thinking of Misty, who (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    I believe, ended up "stuffed" by the author.  

    "suicide mission"? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:21 PM EST
    Nice meme.
    Who are you going to vote for?

    These guys need to take some lessons (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:29 PM EST
    from Jonathan Capehart for the Wash Post.  He is one of the best talking heads around, very objective and respectful.

    I am so over these Obama creeps, especially at Huffpost and Dailykos.  They are beating me down and making me reconsider my decision to vote for BO in november, they really are....

    You've got to be a (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    republican mole.  Certainly no democrat who's riding the unity pony would make such an asinine comment.

    Obama may lose, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    But Racism remains rampant

    Oh my (5.00 / 11) (#58)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    Well, the value of any experience is what I can learn from it.  Until this election cycle began, I was tripping merrily along, thinking to myself, you've come a long way, baby!
    When the feminist movement began, I was in high school.  The day I bought my first MS. magazine, my Mom said, "Don't read that stuff, it will only make you unhappy."  Translation:  You can't fight the power.
    This year has really opened my eyes.

    As a good friend wrote to me (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    recently, "They have to completely crush her.  B***h dared to want a man's job."

    She's the more qualified candidate and had te potential and the work ethic and intelligence to have been a great president.  Instead we're looking at a newbie, and some of his advisors and supporters are the very politicians that the left blogs have been criticizing for years.

    I knew it would be bad, but I never dreamed it would be this bad.


    The sexism is blatant. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by wurman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    Shirley Chisolm, Member of Congress, New York--12th District (b. 11/30/1924, d. 1/1/2005).

    -Of my two "handicaps" being female put more obstacles in my path than being black
    -I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black.

    Sen. Clinton has both destroyed many barriers & at the same time produced an environment in which frightened little men feel it's legitimate to speak & write in ways that they would not do in front of their mother, sister(s), or wife (wives).

    Sometimes I think if I stopped reading blogs (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    [actually this is the only one I read except for the posts at Huff Po to see what's up], I wouldn't have such a negative view of Obama's supporters and pundits' assessment of the candidates.  But then the NYT starts in, so, what's the use.  

    MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    is one of the chief self-loathers and she "writes" for the Times.

    Of course, if you wanna be "in," you gotta play the game.

    No woman is ever good enough.


    I stopped reading her, although her (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    "electable suit" phrase was pretty good.

    You would have to stop watching (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    tv too!

    I don't except for MLB and (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    election results.

    Then (none / 0) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    you'd have

    Jon Stewart
    Katie Couric

    Nah, you'd still have problems with 'em


    I May Be a Girl, But I Can Do Math (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    Obama will need a very heavy turnout among democratic women to even have a chance this November.  For some reason, I don't think he's going to get it.  Hey, the Republicans may want to take away all my rights, but they would never allow a Republican woman to be treated the way the media and fellow democrats treat Clinton.  

    I believe it was a commenter named Janis on another blog who said there are two parties if you're a woman one that hates you and one that doesn't and which party your in has nothing to do with whether there is a D or R after your name.  Truer words were never spoken.

    If a vote for Obama means a vote for misogyny, a vote to empower the sexist wing of the Democratic party, I won't do it.  Because sexism and misogyny are not political issues for me, they're human rights issues and I don't generally support candidates who themselves (through sexist dogwhistles) and their supporters demean my human rights.  If I were willing to do that, I'd be a Republican.

    I can do the math, too (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    and the math says he hasn't won the nomination.

    What is the Obama world going to look like when Clinton gets a 30-40% win in WVA?


    We can not vote for either (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    We do have other choices ya know. And I would say many of us are more of a Democrat than Obama will ever be.

    Sorry, but threats and bullying just won't work anymore. I think many have moved beyond hold your nose and vote.

    I think I'll go work on my "Told ya so." T-shirts now. I have a feeling they will be a big hit in the not so distant future.

    People who demonize exes. (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    There is a kind of man and woman, who describes all their ex girlfriends, wives, etc as psyho or nuts.  Any person who diminishes ex lovers and spouses to some venomous hate bucket for me is not to be trusted.  First, you loved this person at one time.  Heh, it did not work out.  How does it honor you if you paint your ex as the psycho?  It always takes two.  This is the kind of cultural simplification, generality that is destructive and comes out of the: we only know how to hate contingent.  

    There's a new description of us (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by miriam on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    by the ever-unifying Donna Brazile.  No Quarter has an email exchange between her and a rather innocent blogger who simply asked DB a question.

    In her highly diplomatic reply, Donna calls us Hillary supporters (without even the qualifiers such as "some of", or "a few of"): uncivil, repugnant and vile."  

    Way to go, Donna!  That surely is going to change a lot of our hearts and minds.

    Oi, so I guess I have to go to No Quarter... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    ...to read that. Or do I? If I pretend Donna Brazile doesn't exist, will she go away?

    we can only hope (none / 0) (#196)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    Donna Brazille (none / 0) (#202)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    I grew up listening to the Voice of America.  Donna is the new Voice of America: dismissive, lacking in ethics and diplomacy, disregards issues of fairness and seeks power just for winning.  

    If a woman prez wasn't in (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by zfran on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    the stars for this cycle, I believe we, most of us, women would have accepted it. To be belittled, insulted, told we don't manner, been called names, saddled with inuendos and all the other negativities to which we've been subjected to as if we were still considered "chattel" cuts us to the quick. I for one am tired of being told to keep walking a step behind, or, so what if it's not your turn..from what I hear, Sen. Obama checked with Mrs. Obama for agreement to run this cycle. If she had said no, even tho' he wanted to, does anyone think he would have run anyway???
    To have him run as the new JFK is the past most young people do not know...to run him belittling the politics of the 90's and utilizing the team Bill Clinton put together in the 90's is
    deceiving. This woman is not voting for President this cycle.

    Well, how can they be blamed? (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Radix on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    After all, women only make up some 50% of the voting population. With such clearly insignificant representation, amongst the electorate, Obama can afford to lose them. /heavy snark here

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Bleh (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by spit on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
    most of the political blogs have had a longstanding problem with just this kind of BS; they have largely remained the boys' club, and usually have about zero willingness for self-examination on this front. Next will be the charge that those of us who find this sort of thing offensive are simply humorless.

    Because there's nothing wrong with yucking it up over comparing a powerful US senator and former first lady with, why, those typical hysterical clingy ex-girlfriends, of course! And on top of mocking Clinton based on her gender and mocking women based on supposed hysteria, we can also now assume, I suppose, that the Democratic Party has a penis like all normal people should. Ha, so funny!

    Props, BTD, for calling it what it is. Something you've been doing for a long time, if I recall the Larry Summers thing correctly.

    I always taught my children that (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by zfran on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Dems were the party of the people (all the people!) and the Reps were the party of big business. Apparently that's not true anymore. We have become the party of mean and non-inclusive behavior and that is somehow rewarded. We have to decide what kind of nation we want..as women and men. We are now being divided that way (or politics is trying to divide us anyway). It used to be rich or poor, black or white. Now it seems to be men and women, over $45K and under 45K, college educated or not, everything is broken down into pieces instead of fitting all the pieces together and weaving what this country used to be. Please don't insult me and my sex and then want my vote. Sad, but true.

    Along Those Lines... (4.83 / 6) (#37)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    I just wrote something abt this on my blog - the incessant calls for Clinton to drop out when NO MAN has been pressured like this - NONE!!  Clinton has won MILLIONS of votes, and had FL and MI not been disenfranchised, SHE would have had the major momentum this Spring.  

    As this coronation of the lesser qualified candidate continues by the Dem elite, they can guarantee that Clinton and her millions of girlfriends will not vote for Obama (personally, I intend to write her name in, if the SDs don't come to their senses).  I will not santion their sexism, even misogyny, with my vote.

    I remember Dean competing in Oregon. (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    I don't remember any calls for him to drop out. It was clearly over for him and yet, no one considered it imperative that he leave the race. I think a lot of the people who are demanding Clinton drop out would have been thrilled to death to see Dean somehow or the other pull a miracle out of the bag and take the nomination.

    These are not terribly thoughtful boys pissed that they may have to share the clubhouse with the girls. I really think that a lot of 'em think sex will never be fun again if Clinton wins. What else could drive this psychosis affecting the Democratic party?


    Um, choosing Obama is the seppuku (4.00 / 4) (#50)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:08 PM EST

    Moving target (1.00 / 10) (#52)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    Clinton has no problem yelling girl power, yet link to a joke that references her gender and you're a member of the he-man woman hater's club.

    Suppose someone said (5.00 / 10) (#62)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    Obama has no problem yelling black power, yet link to a joke that references his race and you're a member of the KKK.

    Not so funny, is it?


    Grow up (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    A woman has never been president, she is breaking barriers and setting the pace for other women that will follow.  Referencing your gender does not mean people can mock you for it.  What kind of reasoning is that!

    It Appears So (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    I am surprised that it went over your head, but too much kool aid seems to result in blindness.

    If you are happy with youir link (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:58 PM EST
    Then stand by it.

    Psycho ex-girlfriend strikes you as something fair to say about Hillary Clinton, then go for it.

    I find it repugnant myself.


    you vividly illustrate why obama has (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:01 PM EST
    lost my vote for good.  good luck winning the GE.

    Now That Is Poor (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    How can some idiotic comment by a Obama supporter make you not want to vote for Obama. If what you are saying is really what you are basing your decision it is sad to see that you are so caught up in petty schoolyard behavior when the stakes are high.

    Cold shower may help or something like it so that you can regain perspective.


    Obama lost my vote for him. (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    The boyz just helped make me feel better about it.

    You're being idiotic. (4.76 / 13) (#60)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    Being a strong WOMAN and proclaiming that is a GREAT thing that more women should do.  A nasty, misogynistic joke BECAUSE she is a woman is SEXISM.

    Are you really this dumb?

    Obama, strong black man. Make a joke about his race. I dare ya.  

    Again, are you really this dumb?


    So (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    when I refer to my ex-girlfriend as a psycho I am being sexist?  

    Yes (5.00 / 10) (#110)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    But that's beside the point.  Hillary Clinton is not an ex-girlfriend.  She's a United States Senator who is running for President.  What this kind of language does is to reduce her power and her humanity by making her nothing but some overemotional, irrational girl you used to date.  

    I'm tired of having to explain over and over again obviously sexist and demeaning language that is so often found these days among fauxgressives.  


    Right (1.00 / 2) (#174)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:27 PM EST
    So knowing absolutely nothing about me or any of my girlfriends you can say that I am sexist because I may call an ex-girlfriend psycho?

    No (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    It's not about you. It's about a grotesque caricature of an important democrat who happens to be a woman and is being framed as your "psycho ex-girlfriend."

    Well said. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is not the Democrats' girlfriend (5.00 / 9) (#111)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    She's a high-ranking member of the party and a candidate for the presidency.

    Your ex-girlfriend was your girlfriend. And if she's psycho, then I guess the "psycho ex-girlfriend" formulation would be cliche but not necessarily sexist.

    What's sexist is that Hillary Clinton is not the Democrat's girlfriend, so why the analogy? It's obvious.


    It's called humor (1.16 / 6) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    You may not find it funny.  That's fine.

    John Cole tries to find a snarky joke out of just about everything.  That's what he does.  

    Of course she isn't our girlfriend.  But this notion that anytime someone references her gender in a negative way is somehow sexist is being sexist is just plain silly.

    This illusion that men and women should see each other through gender neutral glasses it is utterly ridiculous.  We should TREAT each other equally.  But we will ALWAYS view each other based on our gender.  It is part of being human.


    It's called sexism (5.00 / 9) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    And that seems to be the kind of humor you enjoy.

    Drop the shovel.


    Right (none / 0) (#210)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    It's sexism because you say so.

    Here at TL race-baiting is a myth but sexism is lurking around every corner.


    I Am Amazed (none / 0) (#219)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    Your comments are usually intelligent, why so unintelligent when it comes to blatant sexism? Is it the kool aid, or are there gaps in your self awareness when it comes to gender politics.

    Humor? (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    John Cole tries to find a snarky joke out of just about everything.  That's what he does.  

    I'll bet he thought the Iraq war was really funny, too, when he would make the rounds in the blogosphere in his cheerleading skirt and megaphone vocally supporting it.  He was for it before he was against it.

    You see a lot of people here who are not laughing, so how "funny" is it really?  


    John Cole (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    a pro-Bush Republican who suddenly became disenchanted with Bush just in time to support Obama, just like Andy Sullivan

    Why oh why, should Democrats listen to Republicans, Naderites and Independents ?


    I dunno (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    if I called your mother "psycho," how would you feel about that?

    I wouldn't be happy... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    ...but it would have little to do with me getting upset about sexism, I think. I wouldn't be happy if you called my dad, my brother, or my cat psycho either.

    All of which is an obvious digression since I have stated that the "psycho ex-girlfriend" comment being discussed is definitely sexist.


    Welllllll (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    If you refer to all of your girl friends that way, it says something about you, not them.

    If you constantly talk about your psycho ex, then it says something about you.

    No one really needs to know about your pyscho ex, unless you are applying for a restraining order.  Then really, only the judge and law enforcement needs to know.


    I expected this from you (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    I think you do yourself no good when you comment in these threads.

    Clearly a hypothetical (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST

    LOL, please tell me you don't do that. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    Are you saying (none / 0) (#183)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    that you dated Hillary?

    Wil Wheaton? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Nasarius on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    As in Wesley Crusher? Why is he using a Typepad blog when he has his own site?

    Oh, I see..he broke wilwheaton.net. Ha-ha.

    The Creative Class. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    Some of these males (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:46:38 AM EST
    have mommy issues.

    I try to avoid internet psychoanalysis (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    Believe me, I've seen it for awhile. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    Not here, but on another blog.



    Only because you're ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    awwwwww (none / 0) (#76)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    I love internet psychoanalysis.

    I actually know these people, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    as they've bared their souls in happier days.

    So kindly keep your ill-formed opinion to yourself.


    what is my opinion? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    I like psychology. Is there something wrong with that?

    But many of them probably have.... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    ...very fine mommies and they should know better.

    Is this sexism?.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    I mean if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama wouldn't get out of the way, would it be sexist to call him a stalker ex-boyfriend?  I don't think so...

    I kinda feel like I'm trapped in the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"....all these cries of sexism and racism in this never-ending pointless primamry will leave people uninterested and ignoring your opinions when a true case of racism or sexism pops up.

    the sexism comes from the fact that (5.00 / 13) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    no one WOULD call a man who stayed in a political race a "stalker ex-boyfriend." You make the point nicely.

    You kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    Ronald Reagan got called that all the time! heh.

    Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    there are some commenters here who call Obama far worse.

    Are they all racists?  Or man-haters?  Or, as I surmise, simply expressing an opinion about an individual who happens to be black and male.


    But no one would never call him that (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST
    They'd call him tough and tenacious.  That is the point.

    Here's the problem with your question.... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    ...first of all it's a strawman: nobody called Obama a stalker, ex-boyfriend. Second of all, the race is extremely close despite the spin and you'll never convince me that Obama would be getting the same treatment as Hillary if the positions were reversed.

    Eric Boehlert, Media Matters Had (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    a great article about the fact that the press and party members have never screamed for someone to drop out of the race even in contests where the opposing candidate was much, much further behind. You might want to google it.

    MO....Not Even When Jerry Brown Had Less (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    than 600 delegates going into the convention against Bill Clinton, did they call for him to drop out.  1980, Kennedy, only 750 delegates, 1988, Jackson 1400 delegates behind, they also took it all the way to the convention.  Double standard?  Ya think?

    YES. It is sexism. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    He called her a "psycho ex-girlfriend" as in your typical crazy, hysterical WOMAN.

    They did not call kennedy psycho ex-boyfriend when he was 600+ delegates behind.

    They did not call Jesse Jackson psycho ex-boyfriend when he was 1000 behind.

    Did they? NO. They did not. They WOULDN'T.  


    I don't care what he was referring to. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    The intent is one and the same. Was he disagreeing with it? NO.

    Actually, MISOGYNY. (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    It goes beyond average sexism actually. It reflects a hatred for women.  ALL women. Directed at this ONE woman.

    I miss the restrained style of (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    Jeff Goldstein.

    Naw, Ann Coulter. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    Now there was a writer.  No blow too low, no straw man too flimsy.  I think she did draw the line at using the N-word though.  

    Nah, but her editor would though. (n/t) (none / 0) (#82)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    obama's supporters must be comprised of (none / 0) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:17 AM EST
    all the schoolyard bullies fashioned through the years.  These are the tactics they employ.  And, I have asked time and again, if obama is so great and so in the bag for the nomination...WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY AFRAID OF?  Obviously they are afraid of the candidate who is head and shoulders above theirs!

    I think it's just the opposite (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:50:35 AM EST
    They are past bully victims who are now brave keyboard warriors.

    Put them in a room with Hillary, and I suspect they'd find out what kind of warriors they AREN'T.


    yeah once again (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    lets stop with the lumping everyone together please.

    Some of his supporters have (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    caused irreparable damage, although Obama has also done his share.

    just like some (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    of Hillary's supporters have done damage and are hurting her.

    hence my point of stop lumping groups of people together.

    I mean is it really that hard to believe that the term Obama supporter is not some monolithic bloc?


    What is the definition (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    of "some"?  I used to teach English, so I think I've got it right.

    The leader sets the tone. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    Obama's refusal to say one word about Wright's podium humping screed on Bill Clinton, Monica and blacks is the glaring omission which exhibits his misogyny for all to see.

    He has rejected Wright completely at this point. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    Lets be fair here. NOTHING Obama does with regard to Wright will satisfy you. Nothing.

    Because Wright was right. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    He did it only when it was politically necessary. he didn't denounce his pulpit-humping insults when they surfaced.

    You don't find it at all odd that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    has not said one word to condemn Wright for his attacks on Hillary? In fact, I don't believe Obama has ever criticized ANYONE for sexism displayed towards Hillary, but just a few weeks ago, he went out of his way to lambast a radio talk show host who said something insulting about McCain.

    Lets see here (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    He rejected Wright's comments in his first speech. He has rejected and condemed and been outraged and done everything he could do to say that he finds Wright's "comments" to be unacceptable.

    Yes it is true that he has not specifically singled out each comment and given it a full and individual treatment about HOW he distances himself from it on a case by case basis. He has lumped them all together as unacceptable.


    We can speculate. But to suggest that because he has not pulled out a specific statement that belongs to a group of statements that he has categorically rejected as a group and then say that he has not rejected it is simply dishonest about what has transpired.

    In any case I shouldn't have responded intially as it's off topic and I'll refrain from commenting further.


    No remember? He couldn't (none / 0) (#177)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    any less distance himself from him than he could his typical white grandmother. Real denunciation there.

    I don't believe him. (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    ...when you are looking at bloggers/op-ed journalists -- a thin slice of the millions and millions of Obama supporters -- and when BTD quotes only the negative, sexist, idiotic remarks (which I don't have a problem with, this is TalkLeft after all), it's easy to write what you've written. It's easy to believe it, and really think that Obama's supporters are really bullies, or victims of bullying, etc. And that belief makes a lot of things -- notably generalizing and insulting Obama supporters -- in turn easier.

    Obviously comments like BTD has posted, whether the comment is insultingly anti-Clinton or a clueless attempt to be pro-Obama are unhelpful. No, not unhelpful: abhorrent, insulting, and generally obscene. But when you respond with a mirror-image version of those comments, all of you, while thinking you have the high ground. I don't know, it makes me think that BTD's statement,

    Is there any self awareness left in the blogs? Or do these folks really want to alienate every Clinton supporter in the country?

    ...was a bit one-sided in it's scope.

    Obviously Obama supporters have far, far, far more of the responsibility now that he is likely to be the nominee. Obviously there's a lot more ability to be calm and pleasant and build bridges when you're ahead than when your candidate will likely lose. And Obama supporters are doing a bad job of corralling the idiots who are still in blood-feud mode for psychological or just plain dumb reasons.

    But why even call for respect from Obama supporters when you know you would dismiss and forget it immediately when the next superlative idiot Obama supporter bashes Hillary and is quoted here, or consistently characterize it as an exception; that is if you were at a place that ever posted or acknowledged such reasoned, respectful comments. Why call for respect when that's your reaction, when you hold the Obama group in general in such insurmountable disdain? It's nonsensical.


    Because the OTHER Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    pretty much ignore it.  Or they link to it.

    What they do NOT do, in general, is discuss how inappropriate and harmful and damaging it is.

    If every blogger who used blatant sexism or misogyny was immediately met with a chorus of boos and general disapproval by Obama supporters, then TalkLeft and other blogs wouldn't have to do a thing.

    Mostly, this kind of attack is either ignored or given the ol' nudgenudge, winkwink treatment, not condemnation.


    Just a note... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    ...when I write, "this is TalkLeft, after all," I merely mean that to be an indication that this is a pro-Hillary site, it's policy states that it is NOT a neutral site. So of course there are going to be statements -- even from a tepid Obama supporter like BTD -- that reinforce the viewpoint of TalkLeft.

    I am not talking about quality of content or editorship, general fairness, or anything like that to any degree whatsoever.


    I always did wonder (none / 0) (#98)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    where Wesley Crusher ran off to. I guess now I know.

    If you want to have any hope (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    Of any Clinton supporter voting for Obama, the best bet here is to condemn mister Willis as the divisive fool he is, hope he he shuts up, and then hope people can move on.

    The other option is to keep up with the ultimatum attitude.

    See how that works.

    "But"? (none / 0) (#211)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Don't you mean "And"?

    Racism v. misogyny: not a contest (none / 0) (#214)
    by Binx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    Hello all- I have been reading here for awhile but this is my first comment. For context I also read the other political sites as well.

    I just want to say that just as Hillary is not a racist, Obama is not a misogynist. To say otherwise is to ratchet up the rhetoric most of us claim to dislike. A new reader of the comments here at TalkLeft could be forgiven for thinking them just as inflammatory regarding Obama as those posting above me believe the comments at Kos and HuffPo to be against Hillary.

    It's a difficult time for passionate Hillary supporters as the momentum for a Obama candidacy seems to be becoming insurmountable. Though, truth be told, I have supported Obama since Edwards dropped out, my wife is and has been supporting Hillary since the beginning. Despite every single documentable slight, every solid, justifiable argument either side has for the utter depravity of the other candidate, we cannot at this point take our eyes off the prize. We must elect a Democrat president. We MUST. Everyone is bruised and indignant and hurt but the thing that is best for America is that the Democratic candidate, whoever that ultimately is, is elected president. Everything else is secondary.


    I bet Obama and Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Pootsteen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    actually get along better than their supporters do!

    And I also think that the biggest problem everyone is having is with the other side's passionate supporters, not really the candidate.

    It is only human to want to win and because the attacks on each other have gotten so bad, I think we can't deal with each other's SUPPORTERS getting the "win."

    There are a lot of hurt feelings and anger built up on the blogs, and that will be hard for people to let go of.


    Personally (none / 0) (#231)
    by spit on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    I don't think Obama is a misogynist. But some of his online supporters, different story. Now, of course there are dumba$$ supporters of every stripe and for every candidate, but what's so disturbing about that to me is the degree of back-patting and snickering over these sort of "jokes" that have come to dominate the "left" blogosphere.

    I will support the nominee, and I'm not particularly a supporter of either candidate in the primary. But the level of sexism on the blogs has been flat-out revolting to me in this cycle, and should be revolting to all progressives no matter how they vote. That it is often "progressives" crafting and spreading it is certainly not helpful for creating the kind of party unity we're going to need in the general for what I agree is the hugely important task of avoiding President McCain.


    BTD, Obama-wing is making it easier (none / 0) (#232)
    by BigB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    for us to leave en masse this fall!

    We won't have second thoughts or moral quandries. We will leave with our heads held high.

    The effect will be clear this fall both for the Congress and for the Presidency.

    I am now an unaffiliated voter who supports Hillary.

    It's sophmoric (none / 0) (#234)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    and written quite poorly, why give the guy space here?  He doesn't speak for Obama or a fraction of his supporters.  

    I don't disagree that sexism exists and that it played a part in this campaign as it would have in the GE, but so will race as indicated by the exit polls of late.

    It's like the old joke, one transexual says to the other, "why don't you go all the way and have a sex change operation"  "I can't afford the paycut".

    BTD, (none / 0) (#235)
    by cpinva on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    Is there any self awareness left in the blogs? Or do these folks really want to alienate every Clinton supporter in the country?

    are these trick questions?