home

Demanding Respect

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:31:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ellen Goodman writes:

It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks - "Life's a B - -, Don't Elect One." Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, "it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful." Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Left blogs used to see themselves as watchdogs against the Media. They abdicated that role in this campaign, blinded by their hatred of Hillary Clinton. Instead of denouncing the sexism and misogyny, they were silent. They malignly accepted the sexism and misogyny. They have been stained by their silence. More . .

An ironic result is that Barack Obama, acting as a politician does when his opponent is being unfairly attacked (I really do not hold Obama responsible at all unlike some of you) - said nothing, is paying the price to some degree for the actions of his Media supporters and blog supporters. It is not fair. But politics is not fair. Goodman suggests:

. . . Obama needs to talk directly to women in this fragile, slip-sliding, backsliding economy. Getting even requires winning respect.

"It would break my heart," said Clinton, "if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours." Well, I'll hold the half-full cup lightly in my hand. But let's remember how good women are supposed to be at multi-tasking. It's not so hard to root for Obama and work on leveling the field for the next women.

This is good advice - for Obama and for folks who care about women's rights and who were rightly outraged by the sexism and misogyny on display in this campaign.

Speaking for me only

< NBC On Sexism And Unfair Media Coverage: Who, Me? | Responding To Criticism >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demanding Respect | 201 comments (201 topical)
    It should be easy (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    for Obama to convince us he cares about our concerns.

    After all, we're low-hanging fruit, right?

    Fruit, yets (I prefer to be thought of as (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    a peach).

    Low-hanging....nahhhhh.  We're not going to be easy to get picked off!

    [ Parent ]

    I swear, (5.00 / 20) (#10)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    every time some media jack@$$ like Matthews opens his mouth and garbage like this comes out, I get more and more angry.

    The silence from Obama, and the Democratic Party in general, is deafening.

    I partially blame Obama, but mostly, I blame the party "leaders." They should have stood up for Hillary, but had they done so, she might have actually beaten the fix.

    And you know, we couldn't take the risk of Hillary actually winning, now, could we?

    [ Parent ]

    self-preservation (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST
    All Dems should speak out against this kind of media, not only because it's the right thing, but because it will eventually turn on YOUR side.

    [ Parent ]
    It Would Be (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:29 AM EST
    if, indeed, Obama actually does care about those concerns.  But the growing body of evidence seems to indicate that his only real and continuing concern is the cultivation of the image and power of Barack Obama, movement leader and politician.  I have yet to see him really follow through or demonstrate true leadership qualities in anything on the nationalstage, so why now would he make the concerns of anyone else a priority?

    [ Parent ]
    that's because he is currently (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    running for president.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't blame Obama directly. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    But after the way his campaign handled l'affaire McClurkin, I don't always give him the benefit of the doubt when he remains silent.

    what is l'affaire McClurki? (none / 0) (#34)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:11:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama did fundraisers (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    with a howling homophobe named Donnie McClurkin.

    [ Parent ]
    I looked for info (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    I couldn't find what this guy said.  I know he said something but can I get the story?

    [ Parent ]
    See also (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    here Notice where he said what he said.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks what a wing nut (none / 0) (#101)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    There is nothing worse then using yourself(or often allowing yourself to be used), to attack a group you belong to.  In my mind it is the definiton of a sell out (see Connerly).  As an Obama supporter, I can say that having such a man ay one of your events, is shameful.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am far more interested in (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    what Obama does going forward.  for example the faithfest at the convention.
    it better not include Donnie or anyone remotely like  him.
    and I expect that it will.

    [ Parent ]
    Donnie McClurkin. (5.00 / 17) (#45)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    Obama did not disavow the statements of a homophobic African-American preacher and gospel singer that he invited to headline a big South Carolina fundraiser.  He was warned in advance, repeatedly.

    Basically, my view is that he allowed homophobic remarks to stand, for fear of depressing African American support in South Carolina.

    It's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to possible use of sexism for political ends, more to the point, remaining silent about sexism that tends to help his campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama claimed at the time (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    that he didn't know McClurkin's views when he invited him to be part ofthe gospel tour.

    But, upon finding out, he REFUSED to remove him from the tour.  At the time Obama said McClurkin would only be there as an entertainer and would not be there to express his anti-gay views which Obama said he personally didn't agree with.

    When the event actually happened, McClurkin did his anti-gay rant anyway despite Obama's promises that it would NOT happen.

    This issue drove me away from ever being able to vote for him.  You know if this McClurkin had been revealed as having racist views, Obama would NOT have said...well he's just there to sing, so let's not worry about his views.  He would have been thrown under the bus immediately.

    What it showed to me is that Obama's view is that racial bigotry is more of a problem than anti-gay bigotry.  And, that since anti-gay bigotry MIGHT be rooted in religious beliefs, then we have to be tolerant of the people who hold those views.  But, we certainly wouldn't ever have to be tolerant of someone who holds racists views.  

    It's pure hypocrisy

    [ Parent ]

    I don't remember Obama saying "he (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    never knew" in advance.  In any event, it is clear he was warned before McClurkin took the stage, well in advance.

    [ Parent ]
    his campaign's response (none / 0) (#194)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    was that they hadn't "vetted" (sound familiar) McClurkin enough and had they known, they wouldn't have invited him.  Now, I'm not saying I believe them.  I actually think they invited him because as a very popular gospel singer he could assist in bringing the SC black religious voters on board.  And, they wouild have invited him even if they KNEW his anti-gay opinion because the majority of the audience they were goimg after shares that opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    An interesting postsript to the McClurkin (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    fiasco is Obama's non-response on Rev. Wright's statements that the federal government may have invented AIDS to destroy African Americans.

    Obama's response to the Wright debacle was not immediately to refute Wright, but to give a speech on racism, as if only white people were offended by Wright, and as if Wright never made a statement that spat in the face of every gay man who died early in the AIDS epidemic.

    [ Parent ]

    I am quite sure (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    obama made himself a participant.

    MLK had a dream.

    Who was it who said "in dreams begin responsibilities."?

    It's not ironic that Obama... (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    is paying the price.  He should!  And he will!

    He reaped the benefits (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    Of course he should pay the price.  I don't see any irony in that.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not think he did reap benefits (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    I felt that by February, his Media supporters and blog supporters were doing him serious harm.

    [ Parent ]
    he won (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    he reaped the benefits

    [ Parent ]
    correlation does not equal (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    causation.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think there were political benefits (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    to the sexism and misogyny on display in the media.  Assuming it was done with the intention to give Obama an advantage (a pretty big assumption), IMO it was counterproductive.  It hardened support for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    White male vote (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    I noticed he did his 'kitchen sink' etc. statements when he was going in to states when he was trying to improve his white male vote.  The tactic changed according to the demographic he was going after.

    [ Parent ]
    if you are referring to the kitchen sink (none / 0) (#172)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    strategy that description originated in the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    Attributed to one anonymous aide, and not only does everyone take it as gospel, but they decide it's now fair game to use it as the official label.  Nice media we have.

    [ Parent ]
    No, I am referring to the Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    strategy.  Before crucial states, where Obama was behind in the white male vote, he would stand on a podium and make his statements, claws come out, throwing the kitchen sink etc.  Not the phrase, the strategy.... media went along with it also.  They would note how Obama was weak in the white male vote and then run clips.

    [ Parent ]
    benefits? (none / 0) (#91)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    serious question here - not trying to be provacative.

    But why is it assumed that the sexism and misogyny actually hurt Clinton electorally?

    Did anyone who might possibly have voted for HIllary decide not to because they heard these slurs and turned away from her?

    Are not these slurs merely an expression of the ugliness of some people who would never have supported her in any case?

    I think the REACTION to these things however, were a very big help to Hillary. One could argue that without the rallying response to the "crying" episode in NH, perhaps she would have lost NH - and that might have ended things back in Jan. AS the campaign went on, there seemed to be quite a large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts that probably was a big electoral benefit.

    So is it really true that all this nastiness hurt her chances in any way - or did they, ironically, actually help her. Were there people who may not have been thrilled at her as a candidate but who wanted to support her as an exemplar of a credible woman candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    First, ask yourself if you think any of the racism in the campaign could have possibly hurt Obama electorally.

    If so, then try to think through why you believe that.

    Then, see if you can transfer the reasoning over to the realm of sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    trying to convince people that (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    America was "not ready" for a woman or an African-American candidate is the harm as I see it. Since Dems are less bigoted, in general, but that gets trumped by wanting to win the general.

    My thoughts on this are evolving.

    [ Parent ]

    Inferences (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    Tben, I also refrain from provocation.  However, would you stand by your inferences if the word "racist" replaced "sexist," and the word "racism" replaced "misogyny.  Of course, we would have to replace "Obama" for "Clinton."

    The crying thing ---- if you remember, there were no tears.  Emotions?  Yes, but that topic for another day.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah, thats (none / 0) (#135)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    why I put "crying" in quotes. Its referred to that way, even though there wasnt any real crying.

    As for the racism - I dont really know. On the surface I must say - no. I find it hard to see how racist statements actually cost Obama votes.

    Maybe some statements - like Obama being compared to a preacher, as opposed to a potential president, or being referred to as akin to a symbolic rather than a real candidate - maybe some of these comments could work to support a frame under which Obama is not to be taken seriously. And comments to Hillary like "iron my shirts" could do the same in that direction.

    But there does seem to be (thank goodness) vigorous pushback from a lot of these incidendents, and pushback against a lot of other incidents that seem less problematical (electorally  - they may still be problematical morally). And all this pushback probably does actually help the target of the original statement.

    I dont know if it is just ranting, or whether there is a credible case to be made, but I do see a fair number of Clinton supporters trying to push a "we wuz robbed" line, and the sexism discussion seesm to enter into that. Frankly, I dont see that at all. I dont think you can blame sexism for her loss, or anything else beyond choosing (at least originally) a bad message given the zeitgeist, and bailing on all those caucus states.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    the same can be said about the opposite effect.  What about the possibility the outright sexism reinforced the idea that it was acceptable and allowed people to feel justified in not considering her for reasons that should not even be considered?  Do you really expect us to believe that it only helped her and there was no negative impact on her electorally?  Do you understand the basic underlying concepts of bigotry?  


    [ Parent ]
    why exaggerate my argument (none / 0) (#148)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    I didnt say there was no effect. I wondered what the NET effect was. THere was undoubtedly a rather larger positive effect from the pushback. And there may well have been some negative - I am not sure how much, I just see lots of people assuming it was somehow determinative, and I cant quite see why.
    Add up whatever the negative was, and the positive effect from the pushback, and what is the bottom line? I dont know. But I could see that it may well have been a net positive in terms of the number of votes she recieved in the end.

    [ Parent ]
    I did not exaggerate (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    these are your words with my emphasis added:

    I think the REACTION to these things however, were a very big help to Hillary. One could argue that without the rallying response to the "crying" episode in NH, perhaps she would have lost NH - and that might have ended things back in Jan. AS the campaign went on, there seemed to be quite a large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts that probably was a big electoral benefit.

    So is it really true that all this nastiness hurt her chances in any way - or did they, ironically, actually help her. Were there people who may not have been thrilled at her as a candidate but who wanted to support her as an exemplar of a credible woman candidate?

    I think your argument is weak.  She did receive support from those offended by the sexist treatment.  Do you provide anything quantifiable to support that the "large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts" transferred into a "big electoral benefit?"  No and further, you did not even allow for any possibility of the negative impact it had on her electorally.  

    Personally, I think there has been a large outcry about the sexism in the campaign by people who recognize it was wrong.  The media has been promoting the idea that Hillary and her supporters are using it as an excuse for her loss.  I think the media is unwilling to accept their own sexist behavior and not so ironically, are trying to blame the victims instead.  It is reprehensible  but not surprising.    


    [ Parent ]

    He encouraged that bigotry and fed it soundbytes (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM EST
    His message was that he wouldn't be one of those politically correct new BFFs -- he couldn't stand the old racist b!tch either, thus cloaking the attacks in virtue.

    Gosh, where to even start -- flinging the china? Describing her campaign as a workout or spring training when the candidates were actually tied?

    [ Parent ]

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#71)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    Are you talking about this grandmother thing?  

    He didn't encourage bigotry, why would that help him?

    [ Parent ]

    He benefited by the "bigotry". (4.42 / 7) (#168)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    He set the stage so that anyone - any one - who says something he doesn't like, they call racist and no one challenges them on it.

    I mean - they tarred and feathered the only 2-term Dem POTUS in 40 years as a racist (which was a HUGE lie) and from that point on, they sailed along leaving everyone who questioned anything about Obama in their wake...labeled, forever, as a racist.

    Obama and friends have set race relations back 50 years.  Some uniter!

    [ Parent ]

    simply not true (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    show me one time that Obama, or anyone in his campaign called Bill a racist.

    There was a charge that he played the race card, which I think he did, but that is enormously different than calling someone a racist.

    And so you not only exaggerate absurdly the charges made against Bill, you then try to pretend, yes, pretend, that such ridiculous charges have been leveled agaisnt everyone in the world who criticizes Obama.

    This is absurd nonsense.

    [ Parent ]

    thats sexism, or bigotry??? (none / 0) (#139)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    ARe you equating any criticism of Hillary with sexism? People cant criticize her now? OR make fun of her and her campaign? without being labeled a bigot?

    [ Parent ]
    No, and stop bringing up (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    this strawman argument.

    It's a poor argument in any case, but particularly on this site where people know what they are talking about and have the resources to back up their arguments, it's just baiting.

    [ Parent ]

    i dont understand your comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    you seem to agree with me that it is not bigotry, and a charge like that would be a strawman.

    But I was responding to someone who made just that charge - it wasnt me that brought it up. So why are you criticizing me?
    What is your point exactly?

    [ Parent ]

    Benefits: the race for SDs (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    I think that Obama reaped subtle benefits from the CDS, sexism, and misogyny in the media in the race for SuperDelegates, if nothing else.  Had the media been more evenhanded, more open to self-examination regarding its own sexism, and less outrageous in its anti-Clinton diatribes, she might have had a better shot at influencing the Super Delegates in her favor.  Perhaps it wouldn't have put her over the top, but with a more favorable decision regarding Michigan by the RBC, she would've had a better shot with them.  

    It's so remarkable to me that Clinton won the contests from March forward pretty overwhelmingly, while losing the fight for SDs pretty overwhelmingly during that period.  If the DNC more concerned about HRC's constituencies, and especially women voters, I think she would've had at least a more fair hearing by the Village insiders, and a better shot at making her case.

    [ Parent ]

    Reap the benefits? (4.81 / 22) (#26)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    Sexism is what made him the media darling.  It's what got MSNObama and CNN and all their little minions on his side.  Sexism is what made Donna Brazile a "credible" commentator.  Sexism got all her supporters, Carville and Begala, kicked off of CNN while his supporters were given free rein even AFTER tipping their bias by saying things like "uncommitted but not undecided".  Sexism is what allowed Obama to get away with calling her divisive and catty and mendacious while SHE got raked over the coals for suggesting he doesn't have the experience to be CIC.  Sexism is what got the DNC and all their buddies out in force to oppose Hillary through the nearest weapon they could find.  Sexism is what makes the RBC result both unremarked upon and even the tiniest little bit credible.

    Every time the conversation was about "the roolz" and how she was cheating and whining it was REALLY about sexism because it was really about WWTSBQ.  Sexism didn't benefit him?  It made him a credible candidate for president and it made him the nominee of the party.  That people fought back against it and that Hillary achieved some success against doesn't make it not true.  It just means we lost the battle.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. I agree with you. (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    100%

    [ Parent ]
    I am sorry (none / 0) (#30)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    But Obama was the target of aweful racism in this campaign.  He tried to deal with it.  In fact, he lost many votes for it, and Hillary gained votes for it.  Hillary lost votes because she was a woman, and he gained votes because of it.  Neither of them spoke out to stop this.  Stop with this this notion of purity of a candidate.  They are politicians period.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is this comment directed to me? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    I love both Hil and Obama. I think they both have flaws, as do I.


    [ Parent ]
    No (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    I am just tired of this notion purity made by many at TL.  Of course the come back is, look at the Obama people.  Okay, I looked, saw some stupidity.  That doesn't excuse some of the comments made here.

    Doesn't this discussion of sexism need to be started by someone who experienced it.  I really wish Hillary had done that.  Unfortunately she did not.  Maybe the push should be to have Michelle Obama start this discussion?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please (5.00 / 14) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    If Hillary had discussed sexist, there would have been the largest outcry in history of 'victim', 'whiner', 'trying to silence the media', etc etc.

    She was screwed no matter what she did. That's how the sexism game is played.

    [ Parent ]

    exactly (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    it was a trap
    ironically I think McCain watching and learning from this will not step into the angry old man trap they are now attempting to set for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton did call out sexism in the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    And at least in comments that I read, she was ridiculed as being a sore loser.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary did (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    start the dicussion, by running, and she also contributed to it greatly with her concession speech.

    [ Parent ]
    Respecfully (none / 0) (#114)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    Certainly she mentioned it.  But she needs to have a sex/ gender speech like Obama's race speech (which I really wish he could do more about).   What was good about this speech was that it was a good starting point for more discussion.  It talked about the distrust and the many layers of racism and how it divides us.  I think for many us(and certainly not all of us), it made us feel that we as a nation had a place at the table to discuss racism (and it just wasn't a black thing).  This is what we need from her or someone to take this NEEDED discssion in a constructive way forward.  I feel personally, like the gender discussion has no rutter and no leader to help guide it forward right now.   I really think Michelle Obama should be pushed into this role.

    [ Parent ]
    This is SUCH a dishonest (5.00 / 12) (#127)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    post.

    Look, do you really imagine that Hillary would not have been pilloried by the very critics who were savaging her throughout the primaries for "playing the victim card" and "whining" about sexism, if she were to have brought up the issue in the primaries?

    These critics won't accept that there was sexism NOW, after the fact, when nothing is at stake in the nomination selection. It is simply unimaginable that they would have stood for it during that process.

    Really, blaming Hillary -- Hillary! -- for not speaking up against sexism is simply disgusting.

    What everybody with even a smallish amount of honesty will realize is that, when one is involved in a contest like this, it is ALWAYS outside, more disinterested parties who have the real clout to call out unfair tactics. They are the ones who have that responsibility, precisely because those who are the victims of the unfair treatment can be so easily dismissed as simply grinding an axe.

    That is why it is despicable that no leader in the Democratic Party spoke up, and virtually no one in the supposedly "objective" media.

    [ Parent ]

    It was not a dishonest post (none / 0) (#134)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    Sorry.  I am not blaming anyone.  It is a comment with no fault, it is just a hope of what we can have in the future.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the old double bind (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    When Hillary complained about unfair treatment she was roundly excoriated.  Remember the SNL skit and the raking over the coals she got for objecing to her treatment during a debate.  Remember her objecting to Shuster saying she was pimping. out. her. kid. and the way the NBC boys viciously attacked her in a debate.

    She brought NONE of this on herself.  NONE of it.  Yet, the burden is on HER to have "the speech" about gender.  Yet every time she even alluded to the sexism in this race, she was excoriated.  But it's her fault because she couldn't effectively talk about the sexism.

    Yet, Obama belongs to a Church which attacks Clinton on the basis of her sex and her race, a Church which uses the word "whitey", and when people object to that, that's racism. But it's fixed by the. best. speech. evah. about race.  Obama put himself in the position to have to defend people around him who said racist and sexist things.  THAT was the impetus for the. best. speech. evah.  And by doing so, by defending his association with Jeremiah Wright he somehow takes the high ground?

    Hillary is victimized by sexism.  She is attacked and vilified through her gender.  But it's HER fault for not giving the best. speech. evah. on gender.  She defends herself against not doing anything wrong and it's HER fault.  It's HER fault for bringing it up.  It's HER fault for not defending herself against sexism better.  It's HER fault for daring to female while running for President.

    [ Parent ]

    During the race (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    if Hillary had delivered such a speech, it would've been percieved as piggybacking onto what Obama did.  It would have been recieved as part of a sexism v racism competition.

    Obama's race speech emerged out of a very particular set of circumstances.  Clinton has no gender version of Reverend Wright.

    Clinton's comments on sexism were delivered at a very important juncture (transferring her support to Obama) and delivered without view to immediate personal political gain (unless she was trying to be VP, I suppose).  The timing was right and her credibility was optimized.  Now I wonder if she gave a speech would anyone listen...and she is not famous for her speech making as Obama is.

    The Michelle Obama chapter of Sexism 08 will be a different one but still quite interesting.  I don't think she can just take the baton from Hillary.  But I'm sure she will have something interesting to say about being a successful black woman and the expectations and stereotypes she faces in communicating to the American people.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you realize just (5.00 / 11) (#119)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    how rich it is to suggest that Michelle Obama, who didn't say boo about the sexism from which her husband benefited, should "lead the discussion" against sexism?

    Trust me, coming out of her mouth, such criticism of sexism is only going to infuriate Hillary supporters more.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't this the same as what many say about clinton (none / 0) (#173)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    I hear, "she stood by her cheating man, she is not a feminist".  I don't see why Michelle Obama would not be a good voice to bring both race and gender together.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't seriously (4.20 / 5) (#174)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    be comparing the two.

    Michele Obama is no feminist because she not only stood by an watched her husband benefit from sexism, she  participated in it herself. "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

    Feminism has nothing to do with Hillary standing by Bill, except in the sense that it was HER CHOICE to do so, and feminism is about choice (in more ways than abortion, of course - it's about having choices in how you live your life).

    [ Parent ]

    I think I just did seriously compare the 2 (3.00 / 1) (#175)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    Michelle Obama I am guessing would define herself as a feminist.  But you can go ahead and be the authority.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever (3.66 / 3) (#192)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    Obama also calls himself a new kind of politician.

    He's obviously not - so that makes two of them who are not what they say they are. Or what you imagine they would say they are.

    I can back up my dismissal of MO as a feminist with proof. You and Michelle? Not so much.

    Saying so doe not make it so. Actions speak louder than words.

    [ Parent ]

    Michelle Obama (4.20 / 5) (#176)
    by tnjen on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    ...referenced the very thinking you criticized ("she stood by her cheating man, she is not a feminist") and used sexist tropes and stereotypes as a weapon against Clinton very early on when she said, "If you can't take care of your own house, how can you take care of the White House."

    Michelle Obama needs to stay far and away from leading any timely conversations on gender/sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#178)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    I wasn't saying that this line of thinking is right, I was just responding to a comment about Michelle, and I personally still think the logic holds.  That being said, I offered up someone who could try to bridge this discussion and make race and gender a common discussion point.  Who do you recommend?  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama could have. But it's too late now. n/t (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What notion of purity? Address the instances (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    ... on encountering them. It's a false pretense that major media and fauxgressive blogs assaulted Obama with the number and degree of bigoted attacks leveled at Sen. Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I have no desire to get into (none / 0) (#137)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    A bigotry match.  I certainly respect your view that she was attacked, and take it seriouslly.  It is a fight that I will join you in in a heart beat.  Tell me what to do and where to sign up.

    [ Parent ]
    I just did n/t (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what does n/t mean? (none / 0) (#171)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    n/t means 'no text' (none / 0) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    so people don't think you made a mistake when a post is all title.

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody Here Has EVER Claimed (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    that Obama was not the target of racism.  But the people who displayed that racism were called on it...everyone except Obama himself, who used it quite effectively against Bill Clinton.

    You're using the racism aimed at Obama to justify the sexism aimed at Clinton.  

    Lousy argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Further... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    The racism leveled at Obama did NOT come from members of his own party, as did the sexism aimed at Clinton.  

    We expect bigotry from the wingnuts.  To see it coming from fellow Democrats is more than many of us can bear.

    As soon as I can get to the City Clerk's office they won't be my fellow Democrats any longer.  

    [ Parent ]

    OT, but (none / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    But Obama was the target of aweful racism in this campaign.  

    This is demonstrably untrue.

    [ Parent ]

    The left blogs (5.00 / 27) (#6)
    by wasabi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:55 AM EST
    "The Left blogs... Instead of denouncing the sexism and misogyny, they were silent. They malignly accepted the sexism and misogyny. They have been stained by their silence."

    I could have accepted the silence of the Left blogs, but there WAS NO SILENCE.  They piled on, and for that I can never forgive them. I do not know how they can possibly claim to be progressives.

    Ick. You aren't kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 20) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    And so the left can no longer claim the high road in any of these matters. And THAT is the horrible, high price that will be paid now.

    For example, the attempts to drum up outrage amongst women against McCain because he supposedly called his former wife the c-word (still haven't seen the evidence for this, but let's assume he did it), kind of fall flat when we have heard that word and much more levelled at Hillary and other women BY DEMOCRATS. How are we supposed to care anymore? They all do it. (Not defending McCain, can't stand him, but you get my larger point I hope.)

    [ Parent ]

    I for one (5.00 / 12) (#44)
    by talex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    will never go to dkos or Josh Marshall, or Atrios ever again.

    First off they don't deserve my or our clicks that bring money to their sites. To even go their to lurk is to help fill their coffers and they do not deserve that ever. If they could care less about knowingly rejecting and insulting 1/2 of the Progressive blogosphere then they don't deserve our traffic and the money that comes with it in any form.

    And lastly they have nothing original to say. It's not like one cannot find the same news or commentary on that news in other friendlier environs. And what does Kos or Atrios or Josh have to say anyway? None are great visionaries or political astute anyway. If they were politically astute they would have not knowingly divided the Party.

    I hope others here take the same view. In the past we have denied the MSM our eyeball because of their antics. Now it is time to deny those blogs who insulted us and tossed us aside our eyeballs also. They deserve to lose traffic and the money that comes with it.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    but some of the diarists are good.

    [ Parent ]
    we will (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    take your word for that

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:37:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If they were (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by talex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    worth reading they would be somewhere other than dkos IMO. All that are left are the Clinton bashers and the cool-aide drinkers so what is worthy of reading?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah I'm not sure what left blogs (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    BTD was reading.

    I left HuffPost because of the sexism, which was especially apparent in the comments but hardly absent from the columns.

    And, not being particularly hip, I'd never heard of DKos until this campaign, and I was on that site not 45 seconds before I realized it was worse than HuffPost.

    They were also bad for other reasons -- not well written, badly reasoned, steeped in Kool Aid, but silent?

    I love the phrase 'malign acceptance of sexism' because it addresses the behavior of the DNC and other Democratic leaders, but elsewhere I think it should be the 'malign endorsement of sexism.'

    [ Parent ]

    Or even (5.00 / 8) (#113)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    the 'enthusiastic expression of sexism'.  Some of the stuff the so-called Left blogs published looked like it was lifted straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with a few nouns changed.

    [ Parent ]
    Finally, a mini-backlash (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    against all the sexist crap. It is a little late and not pervasive enough, imo.  But I am glad to see any kind of backlash.

    Saying that his daughters would benefit 'someday' (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    ... from the lessons learned through his own campaign's opportunistic benefit of the sexist onslaught they encouraged against Sen Clinton defies credulity.

    This is the minefield the Obama campaign now stands in: all those unexploded bomblets can be set off at a distance by Obama's real opponents without blowback on themselves, or the ordnance will go off as he walks towards the Repugs to offer them free rides on the Unity Pony.

    I think it's a bit simplistic to say (2.00 / 4) (#14)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    that he benefited from the media sexism. He probably did sometimes, but there was a HUGE cry of support for Hillary when Chris Matthews and dKos posters were such pigs after Hillary got emotional...and her campaign really took off after that. It humanized her and they looked mean. Also, I think Hillary herself was galvanized by the experience and her campaign became sharp and it became obvious that it was about more than her. So, I think the jury is out about who the sexism benefitted.  

    [ Parent ]
    Simplistic: the target 'benefits' were a gift (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    This is an idiotic stance on the issue, but you have minimized what actually went on and trivialized it, so sophistry points for you there.

    Otherwise it's like claiming the target of a mugging really came out ahead because s/he got an ambulance ride out of it.

    [ Parent ]

    That wasn't what I was saying (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    your misrepresentation of my stance is indeed an idiotic "straw man".

    You don't know me at all. I defended Clinton over at dKos all the time. Here I defend Obama. I hope you don't mind the mirror.

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares what you do at the Cheetoh blog? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    Or the "valuable" service you provide to protect Obama here? (And btw, he doesn't need it.)

    The historically unprecedented barrage of bigotry aimed at Sen Clinton unfairly achieved such a pitch that it created a media chorus for her to withdraw, ultimately, and unfairly driving her from the race.

    You are unqualified to serve as high and mighty defender of Clinton at the Cheetoh place or Obama here.

    Don't quit your day job.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree, (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    Can you please show examples of the "HUGE cry of support"  that followed the NH show of emotion??? I did not see anything but negative coverage then and later in the rehash.
    I also think you are failing to get the order of things right, HRC showed more emotion to the public, but that act or the coverage of that act, did not galvanize her. It simply gave those willing to look honesty at her an insight into her existing commitment.

    [ Parent ]
    and that is what she needed (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    because after that, she was no longer considered as stiff and calculating. The narrative changed, IMO.

    It simply gave those willing to look honesty at her an insight into her existing commitment.


    [ Parent ]
    Revealing language (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Coigue,  your language is so revealing.  "It is what she needed" ??????   Is it like a good whupping was needed to get her into better shape?

    Reminds me of the Olberman quote about taking her into a back room and only [he] comes out.

    [ Parent ]

    no. it doesn't actually reveal anything about me (none / 0) (#197)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    you have a bad case of confirmational observation skills. That is, you remember and make note of what confirms your own worldview.

    And you misunderstood me, besides. I was speaking specifically about the quote that I listed.

    [ Parent ]

    at dKos (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    many people spoke out against the sexism and were hammered. They left galvanized. I spoke out against it there too.

    I also think it hurt Obama among women, and what hurt Obama, helped Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Just to be clear (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    the, 'HUGE cry of support' to which you refer was in actuality some posters at one website?  

    [ Parent ]
    Ask me about the Cindy McCain (5.00 / 11) (#115)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    diaries.

    There's a diary up right now cheerleading Michelle Obama, spouse of a Dem candidate.  Two top of the rec list Cindy McCain diaries earlier(March IIRC) were of an entirely different type.  I don't think anyone claimed in those that "any attack on Cindy McCain is an attack on all women".  That might have been because they were attacking Cindy.

    It's not misogyny, it's Hillary.  It's not misogyny, it's Cindy.  If it's Michelle?  Then it's misogyny.

    I need a score card to keep this all straight.

    [ Parent ]

    I hate Cindy (none / 0) (#162)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    but it's because she is a republican. How's that for bias?

    [ Parent ]
    There has to more than that for me. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    I couldn't go around randomly hating every Republican.  Ridiculous!

    [ Parent ]
    you're right (none / 0) (#195)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    I hate her because she is running for first lady as a Republican. That should narrow it down some.

    [ Parent ]
    one examplewithin my experience (none / 0) (#104)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    and people need to make up their mind: is it important what the blogosphere does or isn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    It is. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    Lazy "journalists" who watch the blogs.  That's one.

    The echo chamber effect that causes people to assert unverifiable BS as Known Truths.

    The silencing effect of abusive commenters.

    The worst effect IMO is that instead of broadening the information presented, the Obamafication of blogs has narrowed it.  Increasing bias and information suppression is never good for a democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    yup. (none / 0) (#160)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    And it has created pockets of Hillary support that do the same thing. But this isn't as damaging, since she is no longer running.

    Overall, it's a social pathology.

    [ Parent ]

    It is. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    Lazy "journalists" who watch the blogs.  That's one.

    The echo chamber effect that causes people to assert unverifiable BS as Known Truths.

    The silencing effect of abusive commenters.

    The worst effect IMO is that instead of broadening the information presented, the Obamafication of blogs has narrowed it.  Increasing bias and information suppression is never good for a democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 13) (#49)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    'the jury is out about who the sexism benefitted.' Good grief. Well it sure didn't benefit her, nor any other woman.

    The sexism did what it always does - gave license to hating her, demeaning her, and making a laughingstock out of her.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess what I meant was (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    that her reaction and the reaction of those who recognized the sexism benefitted her because I felt she (and they) became galvanized and pissed off. It was more of the way people reacted to it that benefitted her.

    THose that took the license to hate her, probably hated her from the beginning.

    [ Parent ]

    it seems to me (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    the outcome of the primary makes it pretty clear who was hurt and who was helped.

    [ Parent ]
    not really. (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    correlation does not equal causation. This hurt Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    on one level (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    I agree with you. it hurt him.  I dont think you or him or  his campaign know just how much it hurt him yet.
    but
    I hate to keep saying it but he WON.
    so clearly the short term goals were met.

    [ Parent ]
    It can be argued (none / 0) (#103)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:48 AM EST
    that he would have won sooner if the sexism had not been so rampant.

    IOW, there are other hypotheses here.

    [ Parent ]