Hillary On Sexism And Misogyny In The Media

From the same John Heileman article I reference below:

. . . For months now, my e-mail box has been full of messages from women across the country, explaining what Hillary’s run meant to them, why it was so important. The reasons vary depending on age and race and region, but the one element almost all my correspondents express in common is a furious resentment at the press for what they see as blatant misogyny in the coverage of Clinton. When I mention this to Hillary, she laughs and exclaims, “I’d love to get a look at your e-mail!” And then, more soberly, she goes on, “There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”

[Emphasis supplied] More . .

Clinton is fairly worked up now, but she’s far from finished. “I didn’t think I was in a position to take it on because it would have looked like it was just about me. And I didn’t think it was just about me. So the only time we took it on was in the thing about Chelsea, which was so far beyond the bounds, I mean, what planet are we living on? But nobody said anything until I made it an issue. So I just want everybody to really think hard about the larger lesson here. I know you can’t take me out of the equation, because I’m in the center of the storm. But it’s much bigger than me. And women know that. Because if it were just about me, those who sympathize with me would say, ‘I’m so sorry.’ But instead it’s, ‘Wait a minute! This is not just about her! It’s about us! And when are we going to see somebody stand up and say, What are you doing here?’ ”

Wonder if she will qualify for an Olbermann "worst person in the world" now? Or maybe Ann Lewis:

[W]hen I ask her former staff for particular examples of sexism in the press, they exhibit less restraint. “The whole MSNBC crew,” says Lewis. “I mean, at what point in Chris Matthews’s career do we choose?

Speaking for me only

< Hillary The Icon | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I would add not Party leadership did either... (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Salt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    ...But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it.

    Party leadership remained silent when it (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    counted, Democratic pols jumped gleefully onto the bandwagon and even now when they need our votes leaders like Rahm dismiss us and relegate us to our knitting.

    Not my party any longer and I am making it known by sending back every request for funds with the message that I have left the party.


    I loved a comment that (5.00 / 18) (#19)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    Bob Somerby made that pretty well applies to this situation, in which, finally, august institutions like the New York Times and the DNC discovered that they are shocked, shocked that misogyny is going on here:

    Just in time for it not to make a difference!

    I haven't stopped chuckling mordantly ever since.


    The NYT and other newspapers (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    did one of those retrospective, navel-gazing deals after the Iraq war was well under way, and, guess what, at last the NYT concluded it didn't do a very good job of questioning the White House line.

    My Opinion? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by 1040su on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    FWIW - They need to "walk in back" so they can express outrage at everything that is about to be thrown at Mrs. Obama with a "we've seen the light" message - except I don't think most people will buy what they're selling.

    Great Point (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    and probably the REAL reason Dem leadership has SUDDENLY seen the light.

    I read, in that navel gazing NYT (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by litigatormom on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    article last week, that Howard Dean is NOW very upset about the impact of sexism in the press on the campaign.

    Has he been under anesthesia all this time?  Oh, no, he wasn't, because he was appearing on TV all the time talking about The ROOLz.

    Even those MSM outlets who admit that (other) MSM outlets may have engaged in sexist coverage or commentary invariably conclude that "it isn't the reason why she lost." No harm, no foul, in other words.  You can engage in sexist rhetoric as long as you have the nerve to say afterwards that it didn't make a difference in the outcome.  How conVEEEEEEEEENient.  And how the frak do they know, anyway?

    The hypocrisy of both the media and the DNC makes me sick.


    So blatant sexism is fine? (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    Millions of women and men who are unhappy, upset, angry, indignant, possibly even outraged because apparently The Media thinks nothing of perpetuating a series of negative stereotypes, memes and narratives about women.  And all that is "fine" simply because it didn't affect the outcome of one election?

    Ah.  That leads to two very interesting questions.

    1. Does that mean if it could be proved that The Media's blatant bias caused GWB to be elected once, or twice then that would be A Bad Thing?

    2. Does that mean that blatant sexism in the Media should never be punished unless it creates an outcome that wouldn't have happened otherwise?

    Now they need the 'nowhere else to go' vote (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    Not all the post hoc ergo ham hocks hammy hand-wringing in the world is going to mollify me about the vitriolic bigotry, though.

    I'm Indy, I'm peaceful, I'm out of that losing game.


    I have been deeply disappointed in (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow.  I understand she is trying to build a career in television and she has made a few poignant points but.....just sayin'
    I was as angry as it gets at Randi Rhodes......

     The women on the tube are trying so darned hard to NOT appear to be "using a gender card", they go in the opposite direction.  It reminds me of a friend I had in college.  Her mother was a teacher in her high school and the ONLY one who taught languages (it was a small rural district).  So my friend had to take French from her mother.  She felt her mother was so afraid of the perception of favoritism that she went too far the other way, treating her daughter unfairly (and most of her classmates saw it).  I see the few women who do have voices so afraid of being perceived as favoring women going overboard to deny racism exists or if it does, it really hasn't affected them or Hillary or whomever....

    The only voices that get heard a little are from WMC or NOW and then there are people like Paglia who give sexist ammunition to say.."see even women know she's (any woman who takes on sexism) a whiner."

    It is very frustrating.


    What is really disappointing to me is (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton is spot-on and she won't be our nominee.  Why have we permitted this to happen?

    Honestly (5.00 / 19) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    I don't think we really had a choice in the matter. Starting prior to Iowa.  The DNC had already chosen their candidate and they darned sure were going to use every means possible (including tacit ENDORSEMENT of sexism) to make it happen.

    The Democratic response to the SOTU (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    that was given by Gov. Sebelius on 1/28/08 was an almost exact clone of Obama's hope and change stump speech. IMO the writing was on the wall even back then.

    The fix was in + she didn't fold as per the script (5.00 / 13) (#21)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    The hobbling of Hillary by her own party, and increasingly ludicrous rationalizations offered (The Sanctified ROOLZ!) will be the real story of this election.

    She's more qualified, more deserving, earned more votes and delegates by a fair count and threatened to win it no matter how crooked the race became.

    This Dem process of "selection" strikes me more and more like newshour kabuki soft-focused to mask the snapping together of a Chicago based Boss-style machine with an empty hometown mascot on the prow.

    Even the misogyny as an available weapon, by its quantity and degree, was treated like a device everyone had to use to prove their membership in the exclusive club.

    How long ago was DNC move to Chicago planned. You don't just throw everything into an overnight envelope and it's done.


    Makes you wonder what the DNC (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    and the Obama camp had on their agenda for April, and May that the continued primary disrupted.

    I also wonder if the DNC realized the short attention span Obama has and that he would show himself to not have the physical, emotional, and mental stamina to stay on one path for so long.


    Rahm's dismissive 'knitting' comments (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    Feminize to trivialize not only the understandable insult to half the population, but very real concerns about what should have been a slam-dunk Dem win becoming yet another avoidable loss.

    Why as substantial a group to Dems fortunes as women, among the growing list of voters unacceptable to the snotty Nouvel Dems, would be insulted this way by Dem leadership baffles all reason.

    Nothing to see here folks

    Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a Democratic House leader who helped orchestrate the party's strategy for winning control of Congress in 2006, argues against reading too much into the holdouts. He said most of them always stay out of national politics and that the party is generally unified around Obama.

    "They're just going to stick to their knitting," he said. "It's not that they're anti-Obama."
    (Not all Democrats falling for Obama, By Ben Evans And Sam Hananel, AP)

    I'll bet that cracked up all the community organizers in Chicago.


    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    You're giving way too much credit to the DNC.  "The fix was in?" Really?  They're boneheaded, yes.  Evil geniuses, no.

    She was supposed to fold and didn't (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    The cries for her to fold were loud in media; a historically unprecedented phenomenon and niche prepared just for her.

    This unique media-wide harangue was helped along with the bellows and amplification devices employed by her own party, particularly after NC and before PA.

    I'm in partial agreement with you that the Dems aren't evil geniuses.

    They're all in for a landslide loss.


    Not Prior to Iowa (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    For months and months, prior to Iowa, Clinton was the universally anointed presumptive nominee. She touted it would be over by Super Tuesday and everyone, inside the media and outside, believed this. I certainly did. I wasn't even looking at Obama as having any chance until AFTER Iowa.

    Which is when most people in and out of the media and the party started taking his campaign seriously, and questioning Clinton's inevitability.


    I'll keep posting this from the (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:48:51 AM EST
    Daily Howler everytime someone falsely claims that Clinton was "universally anointed presumptive nominee". Somersby illustrates the falseness of this revisionist history by quoting from Chris Matthews' show in March 2007.

    ... an endless array of insider guests had said on his own programs during the spring of 2007 Obama announced his campaign in Springfield, Illinois on February 10, 2007; Matthews spent several clownish hours on the air, trying to decide if Obama reminded him more of Jack, or Bobby, or Martin. (Or was he more like Abraham Lincoln?) Three weeks later, still pimping hard, to asked a panel of housebroken guests (on The Chris Matthews Show) a question about the Dem race. This is what people were saying on The Chris Matthews Show in March of 2007:

        MATTHEWS (3/4/07): OK, let me go around the room. Will he, meaning Obama, catch Hillary by Memorial Day in the polls?

        KATHLEEN PARKER: I think so. He's going to move fast.

        MATTHEWS: David [Gregory], Democratic primaries--Democratic vote. Will he catch her in that poll, the next poll we take on Memorial Day?

        GREGORY: Yeah.

        ELISABETH BUMILLER: I think so.

        CLARENCE PAGE: So many variables, but they--within shouting distance.

    Only Page expressed any doubt; Obama would be even with Clinton in the polls by late May 2007. But then, several guests had said the same thing on Matthews' February 11 program--on the weekend Obama announced. On March 25, Matthews was still excitedly asking his question, and resident genius Patrick Healy offered the consensus view: "Both campaigns think will be a dead heat by Memorial Day."

    Obama would catch up to Clinton by May; it's what all the pundits were saying.

    Just because some pundits are trying to rewrite history, just like they tried to rewrite their own cheerleading of the Iraq War, doesn't mean we have to buy it.


    This Is An Excerpt From One Program (none / 0) (#66)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    I'll admit I didn't really start paying attention to the race until Nov-Dec, 2007, but I can find plenty of references to the coverage of Clinton and inevitability by merely googlng the two terms. True, by the way, some of the articles or websites are questioning her inevitability, but that implies that the larger discussion was rampant--which it was.

    Probably the best of these discussions is at the Media Matters site. I haven't mastered links here--either my computer or my browser are uncooperative. So all I can tell you is the article at the Media Matters web site-- published 12/15/2007 by Jamison Foser--presents an interesting perspective: Interesting for my premise, but also for exploring why and how Clinton was being so portrayed and also critiquing some of the early media criticism/slant of her and her campaign.


    So all media (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    coverage tauting inevitability was Hillary's doing?  You think Hillary controlled the media narrative?

    Well, I guess that means Hillary is to blame for the sexism too.  DARNED Hillary.


    Fair Enough (none / 0) (#103)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    I reread what I wrote and I suppose you can take that from my words--that Clinton "controlled" the media. I never meant to imply she controlled them.

     I do think she and her campaign persuaded the media and punditocracy to view her as inevitable. That 'winner' image is what a good campaign does.  And that wasn't such a reach. She had substantial advantages starting out.

    What I was responding to was the idea that Obama was always the media favorite. That's inaccurate.


    I think this is the (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    Media Matters column you were talking about. If you understand its implications, I think it ratifies my point. Clinton was only seen as "inevitable" at that point because, despite pundit prognostications of the year before, she was leading by a significant amount in the polls. Yet, as Media Matters pointed out, this "inevitability" was used as a reason for political journalists to be "spoiling for a fight", as Kornblut said, and to justify their overwhelmingly negative coverage of her. Her "inevitability" was the meme they created in order to "knock her down a peg".

    Obama was certainly a media favorite when he announced his nomination, and again during the crucial months he was treated with kid gloves. One glaring contrast between her treatment and his is on this very topic of "inevitability". When the MSM tagged her as "inevitable", they sought to "knock her down a peg", then when, in the media, HE became the "inevitable" candidate, instead of "knocking HIM down a peg", the new storyline became, why doesn't she drop out? Why is she standing in his way? Or, to quote Lambert, WDTSBQ?
    In other words, another chance for the MSM to "knock HER down a(nother) peg".

    Look at how the MSM treated Clinton's "inevitability" and Obama's "inevitability" and then tell me that he wasn't the media favorite. I don't think you honestly can.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#132)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    It is the article I referred to, and yes, I noticed how it served to buttress your point. That's one of the reasons I cited it. It serves both our points, and in fairness, I wanted to mention it since there are also many, many other media references from 2007 that come up when one googles 'Clinton' and 'inevitable'.

    However, I think we're getting at odds over the term 'media favorite' and the idea of who was inevitable. I'm fine with the notion that just because the media (and the Dem party itself) seemed to see Hillary as the inevitable nominee that doesn't mean she was also their "favorite".

    I'm not entirely sure Obama himself was a favorite at first either. I'm not sure that the media see individuals that way, but rather they are symbols and devices to further narratives and earn ratings.


    it may have beem just MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    But those pundits (Matthews especially) were discussing not IF but WHEN Obama would close her lead and catch her.  The problem for them was that when the early debates started, Clinton was performing so well, that neither Obama or Edwards was able to gain any ground on her.

    That's when Matthews and Comapny statrted to give their "on air advice" to both Obama and Edwards telling them that they needed to gang-up on her and start attacking her or they would never move up in the polls at all.

    Both Edwards and Obama started to take that advive in the Philly debate where Clinton got hung up on the drivers license for illegal immigrants issue.  After that those two spent every debate tag teaming her and that is when they started to move up in the polls.

    Another MYTH (in my opinion) that some like to put out there was that Clinton was somehow expected to WIN in Iowa.  I don't recall her ever being favored in Iowa.  My memory was that it was Edwards, who campaigned in Iowa for FOUR YEARS, who was supposed to do well there and Clinton was never expected to win there.

    But, to bolster the case that Obama was always the favorite, is the theory that I believe.  And that one is that the anti-Clinotn wing of the dem party SELECTED Obama as their candidate and convinced him to run because they knew the only way to stop Hillary from getting the nomination was to take away her support in the African American community.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
    That it was a crime of silence, but I think the DNC was between a rock and a hard place.  Start going after all the sexism and you have to go after the racism...or you're choosing sides.  Everyday, real or perceived slights would be brought to the DNC's attention and if they failed to act they'd be accused of supporting one candidate over another.  This was a uniquely difficult campaign in the sense that we had two great candidates who appealed strongly to two groups the Dems cannot afford to p**s off: Women, and AA's.  It wasn't your typical white guy v. white guy primary.  I don't think the DNC had any idea how to deal with it.

    I'd agree except DNC actively fomented sexism (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    They laughed along with it virtually daily in short- and long-pants media.

    Use the handy nutcracker:lawn jockey measure if in doubt.

    The Hillary "nutcracker" was a guffaw-inducing item even in the presence of spokespeople, and the Obama campaign wasn't shy about tossing out baldly sexist slurs.

    Ginned up stuff like the RFK faux controversy don't even begin to approach the ugliness.

    When did major news media like NBC or MSNBC trot out an Obama lawn jockey to make the news panel bust out in laughter?


    Ellen Goodman was dead on too (5.00 / 13) (#68)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    "Racist slurs end careers. Sexist slurs get a laugh."

    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    Was ginning up the RFK thing?  When?  As for the news media, they played the Rev. Wright stuff pretty much 24-7 for quite a while, and ran plenty of secret muslim stories.  For the record (and I've said this before), Clinton got it worse.  I'm not saying she didn't.  I'm just saying that Obama took his fair share of shots and that it would be an unfeasible nightmare to go after every instance of sexism or racism.

    ClubObama ginned up the RFK fake 'smear' (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    DNC spokespeople laughed along with the sexism or downplayed it as something that got only Sen Clinton and/or hypersensitive women in a bunch over it.

    Just please don't make me invoke the image of Donna Brazile offering to cook for the boiz of punditstan while the issue of Sen Clinton playing the sexism "card" came up -- in the context of responding to unprovoked attacks in progress.

    Brazile's ongoing offers to cook, to set herself apart as a good sport rather than decry the bigotry the way a "neutral" Dem should have, just makes me dry heave all over again.


    and would you like to explain HOW (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    the Rev Wright issue is a RACE issue tha was manufactured by the media?  And how is relates in any way to the kind of treatment Clinton received from the MEDIA?

    I understand there were supporters from BOTH camps that treated the other candidate poorly.

    But, we are talking about the MEDIA here.  The media NEVER treated Obama in a racist way at all.  Please find one example. But, the media certainly did treat Clinton is a sexist way over and over again.

    And, when the racism came at Obama from a non media source EVERYONE from the media jumped in to HELP Obama.  Now, show me one time where the media jumped in to HELP Clinton with any sexist treatment she received.  In moost cases if sexism was ever discussed in the media, no one could ever even come to a concensus that it occurred in any specific incident.  I recall seeing a panel of pundits discussing racism and EVERY time some ofthe women in the discussion would be able to see a POSSIBLE sexist connection.  But, there was never a MAN who could see it.  The media never had any such trouble in being able to point out perceived racism though.  They would bend over backwards to try to find a way to interpret benign statements as racist in nature.


    Ah, TimNCGuy, I've been looking for ya... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    I made a comment in a thread the other day that was intended to be funny and supportive of your comment, but I fear you may have seen it otherwise when I saw your reply later. The thread closed too quickly for me to reply there. I was joking about how the new distinction between 'playing the race card' and 'being a racist' is kind of like the distinction between 'cash' and 'money'. Of course when someone is accused of playing the race card, the implication is that they're a racist. I meant it as support of your comment there. Sorry if my snark wasn't clear!

    i was either too fast or too slow... (none / 0) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    on that as well.  it wasn't until AFTER i responded to you that it hit me that you were being supportive.

    I haven't been here long enough yet to really know the different poster's personalities.

    So, no worry, I might have been slow, but I did catch on eventually


    Dean managed (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    to find it in his heart to protest the Rev. Wright debacle, while apparently not even noticing the sexism until now, according to his own statements.  He did choose sides.

    oh c'mon (1.66 / 6) (#45)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    Why is it necessary to feed such absurd conspiracy theories? The DNC chose Obama prior to Iowa????

    That is lunatic, sorry - delete this if necessary, but at some point someone needs to stay connected to planet Earth.

    If anything, there was widespread expectation, the ol' air of inevitablity, about Hillary becoming the nominee. It was only after the people of Iowa rendered their verdict that the inside the beltway crowd even began to conceive of the possibility that Hillary would not be the nominee.

    And the DNC is hardly some coordinated body that forms, expresses, and acts on some joint decision. If you beleive that, you know nothing about how politics in America works.

    Look. There is no conspiracy. HIllary made two big mistakes - pushing experience in a year that people were looking for change, and failing to plan for the possibility that she wouldnt wrap it all up on Super Tuesday. Thats it. Thats why she lost. It wasnt the Bilderbergs, or the space aliens, or the DNC that did her in. It was the voters.

    I know we are supposed to be all warm and outreachy and all that, but you have some responsibility to stay connected to the real world too.


    The First Woman President isn't a change? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    Yeah, there's a veritable kickline of them!

    The only change Obama offers is his continually fluid positions, which is no change at all.

    Riding his Unity Pony to the right? Embracing Repugs while dismissing Dems? Pandering to hard right televangelists?

    Oooh, that's new!


    c'mon once again Ellie (1.50 / 2) (#58)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    you know what I mean.

    Hillary tried to take the safe route. Make everyone in DC, in the media, and especially the fundraisers, believe that she was inevitable, so that is how they would frame the discussion, write the stories, and scramble to climb onto her bandwagon.
    Its the same strategy that the insider candidate always runs - Gore in 00, as the sitting VP, Mondale in '84 etc. Usually it works.

    But the people out there were looking for something fresh and new, not someone who was deeply mired in the ways of Washington. Wrong message for the national zeitgeist.
    Not so complicated.

    But I sense that what you are really interested in is just spewing some more venom at Obama, so dont let me get in your way....


    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    He stole that unity pony from Bill.  And if Bill had a dem congress he'd be (just about) universally remembered as one of the greatest POTUS's of all time.  

    Of course it is a change. (none / 0) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:37:11 PM EST
    The problem is that she didn't run with that from the outset.  In fact, I think she play uber-tough - probably under Penn and McAuliffe's counsel - for a long time and not only didn't use the fact that she was a woman, but also downplayed it greatly.  It is a double edged sword as any woman knows, but there were points during the campaign prior to New Hampshire where she would have benefitted much more from being herself than Penn or McAuliffe would have ever understood.  The fact that she felt she had to "work against type" to that degree belies the level to which sexism still exists in our culture.  I imagine her war vote at least in part can be attributed to her fear that as a woman she might be discounted as "sentimental" or too "emotional" to be a tough C-in-C.  The media discussed it as such as well - which always really annoyed me because they never - never - said that it was unfair to judge her on her gender with respect to that war vote.

    But I think that if she had run the campaign she started to run from Ohio on at the outset, I think she would have taken this thing by a landslide.  I thought she really became a great candidate over the course of this primary, but I didn't think that was true at the outset and I am not so sure she would have grown in the ways she did without competition from Obama.  I think I'm most disappointed by the fact that I didn't see him grow to the degree she did.

    In any case, she's better for this primary and I think you'll see over time that even though she is not the nominee she will still make important contributions to our collective fate - we might even find that we are glad that she didn't win this down the line because of something she might do in the future that wouldn't have been possible from the White House perch - we'll see.


    I won't post it again here since I posted it (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    above, but please look at the Daily Howler's quoting of Chris Matthews and 4 widely respected newspaper news and opinion writers who all agreed in MARCH 2007 that they thought that Obama was going to catch Clinton in the polls by late May 2007.

    Why wouldn't (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Nike on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    the DNC, or coalition within the DNC, have a preference and try to rig things for their preferred candidate's favor?

    Unfortunately, those inside the party establishment are less inclined to see the election in terms of "a dem must win." WHICH dem wins affects all kinds of perks received after the election. that's the way any organization works--there are wheels within wheels, groups within groups,--and not everyone "wins" equally.

    i think what is surprising is that many of us thought that the Dem Establishment was for clinton. clearly, they were not and even aggressivley against her. they pretty much came out before super tuesday and hoped ot make her quit then. in retrospect, everything was tilted by the Dem Establishment in favor of obama. if obama wins in nov, Dean's DNC, from their perspective, did the right thing and can justify it as the "winning" strategy.  

    what i find disturbing is that obama and dean could have spoken out against sexism and made obama a better, stronger candidate. symbolically standing up against sexism would not have cost him any delegates. that he did not stand up against sexism is a real mark against his leadership possibilities, imo.


    Oh c'mon - (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM EST
    Yes they move the entire effin DNC to Chicago 15 mins after Obama clinches.

    Because you can always move gigantic organizations to a whole new physical home, with no prior notice, planning or anything.

    Give. Us. A. Break.

    This was decided a long, long time ago.

    And it explains everything, esp FL and MI and how they ran out the clock to shove him over the finish line.


    If the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    Really rigged the primary, we have nothing to worry about in the fall.  Really, if they could get all those people to vote for Obama and lead him to victory over Clinton, we'll have no trouble at all beating McCain.  

    I think the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    was planning on Obama's lead by June would be so strong that none of MI/FL delegation issues (or a variety of other problems) would matter.  They clearly did not expect they'd have to throw the race Obama's way, publicly.  MI/FL would have been seated in full in May, no controversy and no RBC meeting broadcast across the country.

    What they didn't plan on, and what may be their undoing, is Clinton to have such a strong second half (or second 4/5).

    That d*mn woman!

    Had she not had such a strong campaign, they would not have had to help him with the involuntary SD waterfall.

    And we'd be hearing even less now from Dean et al at how shocked! shocked! they were to find out there was sexism in the campaign!

    I don't think they're evil geniuses.  But sometimes the results of negligence or poor strategy as the same as the results of evil.  I certainly don't think their geniuses.  I think they took the big gamble and found themselve swinging without a net (if you'll excuse my badly mixed metaphor).


    Ah you have Wellington's eye. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    Barbarossa was a surprise attack . lol.  A whim.

    yes, and they are gonna (none / 0) (#94)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    poison your dog if you keep blabbing about it all...

    You Have Your Fairy Tale, I Have Mine (5.00 / 10) (#71)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
     There were two powerful groups in the Dem Party  -the Clinton group and the Midwest/Kennedy group. They didn't like each other.   Obama has been groomed for the run at the presidency for years by the Midwest/Kennedy group and although this year was too early for Obama to run they knew that this was the best chance for him to take the White House and to wrest power from the Clinton group.  The only narrative that Obama could win on was that of the young knight in shining armor coming to rescue the country from the dragons and the barbarians.  And to further this narrative, Clinton had to be portrayed as the Dragon.  The inevitability of Clinton theme was convenient for Obama because toppling her in the first few primaries would show her vulnerability and allow him to develop his persona as the knight in shining armor. And more importantly convince the wavering opportunistic superdelegates to go with the new power.  The DNC leadership at a minimum smoothed the way for Obama and made it more difficult for Clinton.  They certainly didn't do much to oppose the narrative of Clinton as Dragon, did they?

    Needless to say, the media loved this story line.  And they piled on.  The only problem is that many people came to see Hillary as unfairly portrayed and treated.  So she has gone from Dragon Lady to Underdog and if Obama can't figure out how to incorporate her into his campaign he will continue to look like Sir Chump to many.



    Actually, the voters (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by MonaL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    did not do her in. They voted for her in record numbers.  

    Obama may have gotten more pledged delegates (through the caucus process), but make no mistake, lots more people VOTED for her.  Of the people who went and voted at the polls, more "voted" for Hillary than Obama.  That is a fact.


    Really (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    Her comments here are excellent - sounds just like what BTD has been saying all along! Malign acceptance.... almost worse than the original perpetrators.

    I am so glad she feels she can speak out now about it. We all know that if she had spoken out during the campaign, the hatefulness would have just quadrupled. And she knew that. Sad. It must have been extraordinarily hard for her to suffer through that in silence.


    Agreed (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    She SO gets it exactly right - it isn't just about her. That is precisely whey she couldn't address it.

    James Carville told a group of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    Dems "in training" that the sad fact is that who ever has the MOST MONEY..."wins."

    That didn't ring true with McCain (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    and, on a state by state basis, it didn't really ring true with Obama.

    Not votes (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    It doesn't equal voters... it equals party backing, power and control.  For me, the parties throw the voters an occasional bone, but their function seems to be protecting corporate profit and wealth growth and keeping and growing power.

    Can she have any more class? (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by northeast73 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    I mean really.  She is just so spot-on with this.

    Her critics have blasted her for using sexism as an "excuse" that just came up at the end of the primaries.

    It was there, being noticed and discuss since January, but of course, was ignored.

    She is, of course, correct. (5.00 / 22) (#12)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    It's not about Hillary.

    It's about us.

    The noxious sexism that has pervaded the so-called left is completely unacceptable, and the Obama's camp's treatment of Clinton and Clinton's supporters is completely unacceptable.

    Someone is going to have to start paying attention to all the damage that has been done.

     The recent poll where McCain and Obama are neck and neck is not good news for those who stupidly think they can take over the Democratic party, run it any old way they want, and magically Obama will fly into the White House on angel wings.

    How long will it take for them to notice they've cut off their nose to spite their face?

    Dunno.  But it's not my problem.  It's their problem, 'cause, you know, they don't own me.

    a full debrief is in order. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    Something feel uncannily wrong about what's happening.

    It should feel wrong! (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM EST
    Normally, when one candidate loses in the primaries, you just go "Oh well" and vote for whoever remains.  

    This time, it ain't happening for a lot of people.

    I think sexism is part of it but there are other issues as well.    


    The Manipulation Was Too Obvious (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    Perhaps that is the reason that there is a sour feel to the past few months.  The media manipulation was too obvious and the manipulation by the superdelegates and Dem leadership was too obvious.  

    I have an alternative (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    This was when the DNC nearly lost control.  

    There was a rebellion that the media stamped out.


    Media and DNC were Partners (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    The RBC hearing and result convinced me that the fix was in.  The media's narrative for that hearing was essentially that Hillary was unfairly trying to change the rules.  The other narratives (disenfranchisement, spirit vs letter of the rules, etc.) got lost in the shuffle.  In the eyes of many in the media and the Dem leadership, Obama was the presumptive nominee after Iowa and Hillary was just ruining their narrative.

    It's about us. (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Not just the "us" that have experienced sexism in private or in the workplace and thought that what "we" saw in public discourse when Anita Hill testified wouldn't be repeated again.

    But the "us" who were yucking it up when people & pundits characterized Hillary in unmistakably sexist ways.

    And the "us" who repeated the sexist memes, reinforced the sexist narratives and created new ones no matter what the motives.

    It really does matter how "we" play the game.  If "we" gladly embrace sexism because "we" think it will benefit "us" then "we" should not be surprised when "we" are labeled sexist.

    That goes for all of "us".  The media & bloggers.  The left.  The right.  Americans.  I think the most amazing thing that is happening right now is that no one wants to own their own sexist behavior.  As Bob Somerby points out, few paid pundits are even willing to name names even though you can easily find documentation of who said what.

    Accountability for thee, but not for "we"?


    Wow! (5.00 / 15) (#15)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    These remarks from Hillary are really going to be made into a call to arms, however much she will be obliged to declare her full support for Obama.

    I think that this is what PUMA will be pointing to as a sign of legitimacy from a figure of authority.

    The Obama wing of the Democratic Party is going to go crazy over this, I predict, but what are they going to say? How are they going to contradict it? And, in truth, what can they possibly do to Hillary in revenge that they have not already done? If you accuse a fellow Democrat of being a racist and of wishing for your assassination, you don't have a lot of room for escalation, do you?

    I've been meaning to thank you (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by katiebird on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    for months....

    It was your comments at Political Animal (and refusal to be silenced) that made me consider what was going on in the greater-blog world.

    I can't remember what the issue was way back in January or February -- but there were 2 or 3 days in a row where you were pretty much brutalized.  With no intervention from the moderators....

    You were staunch and so clear in your responses -- it was an important time for me (Edwards was tanking) and your bravery had a lot to do with my eventual support of Hillary.

    So Thank you.


    thank you (none / 0) (#92)
    by addy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    May I add my thank you to Katiebird's? If not for you and Donald From Hawaii on the Political Animal Blog it would have degenerated much sooner. I always admired your fighting spirit.

    Thanks as well (none / 0) (#110)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    See my response to katiebird

    Many thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    for your kind words, katiebird.

    It was pretty unpleasant to speak up at Political Animal and get the sort of responses I received. It's a whole lot less fun to hold fast to what you believe when facing pretty massive opposition than it is made to seem in the movies. Among other things, it makes you lose some faith in humanity to see a mob in action. Except as a painful moral lesson to oneself, I can't see how anyone would choose to be on the wrong side of such a mob. They are, I think, things to be avoided when possible.

    I'm happy to hear that at least some readers of the comments were willing to listen to what I had to say; it makes it seem to have had a point, other than my own stubborn need not to be prevented from saying what I truly believed.


    Don't underestimate (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:00:46 PM EST
    the "creative class."

    Creative in the myriad ways they can find the most evil and nefarious meanings in the plain and even self-deprecating truth that she speaks.

    They'll call it whining. They'll say she's strong-arming for the VP nod (I do like that the article points out that she is ambivalent about being asked but feels she would have to accept). They'll say she's inciting her base (all us angry bitter racist hags) to work against O.


    so what's new.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    they have done that throughout the campaign.

    Another part of the treatment that Clinton received from the media was that they reported everything she or anyone of her surrogates or supporters said as though it had at least two if not more than two coded meanings behind it.  the Media treated this as a "matter of fact". And, they spent much analysis trying to find the worst possible interpretation for anything that was said by Hillary or any of her supporters.  They would report the "coded meaning" they came up with as though it was a FACT and not just pundit conjecture.  And if it was a Clinton supporter who said something , they would report the likelihood that Clinton had scripted it for them and told them to say it.

    But, you won't find the media treating the Obama campaign in the same way.  He was just too new and fresh and saintly to spend their time looking for "coded" meanings.  And, if a supporter said it, it didn't count.  It had to come directly from Obama's mouth.


    Nothing new but (none / 0) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    I honestly can't wait to see (but someone's going to have to report it here, because I Don't Go There) what they manage to wring out of this to prove she is teh evil.

    The creative class: unexcelled at creative destructive deconstruction.


    And those same people (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    who should have stood up are still silent or in complete denial like Olbermann.

    The Hillary Beat (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    You own it.

    the Malign Acceptance of Sexism Dep't (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    you run it.

    I think there was a lot of left-blog criticism of sexist remarks . .

    Famous last words from you.


    The Left Blogs did Criticize Media Sexism (none / 0) (#129)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    But they did keep writing about other things, too.  I guess someone has to specialize.  May you maintain for a very, very long time your stalwart, steadfast and serious focus on how Hillary was wronged.  

    Society should never forget.


    I'm sure you can give us many examples (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    then, of those writings against media sexism. Right along with all those writings against left blog sexism. I'd love to see them. I seem to have missed them all, except from a very very select few, including this blog.

     We're not talking about how Hillary was wronged. We're talking about sexism.  That you seek to belittle its importance says volumes about your own attitude. I'm  honestly not expecting you to be able to come through with a list. I don't think you'd recognize sexism if it bit you on the @ss.


    No Time for Myriad Examples (none / 0) (#136)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:47:03 AM EST
    But Digby did a pretty interesting story on the sexist ways the media, especially Tucker Carlson, interpreted the gender politics of the Democratic primary.  This was actual analysis, not just whining.

    Here's Feministing also doing an interesting job, doing actual analysis of how sexism was being used against Hillary Clinton.  This is much more than simple whining.

    Media Matters also does some non-whining reporting and analysis of sexism and how it influenced the Democratic primary. I especially like the focus on that very sick puppy, Chris Mathews.

    There's the anaysis Trapper John did in dKos.  Though it was after the fact, it did call out the media for its sexist treatment of the junior senator from New York.

    Here's more writing from Media Matters about sexism and its effect on the Democratic Primary.

    The Great Orange Satan himself on how sexism on the part of Clinton's advisers -- those who regaled us with tales of her "testicular fortitude" -- stifled the real, feminine Clinton and hobbled her campaign.

    These are just a few examples.  There could be many, many more.

    Please don't lecture me on recognizing sexism.  I have had an exquisite education in it from some very smart people, something I very much appreciate.

    The funny thing about TL is that it didn't do that much analysis of sexism and its effect on the Democratic primary. Instead, the writers here tended to simply whine about how unfair the election and its coverage was.  Not the most enlightening situation.  Instead of someone like Ellen Willis, digby, Barbara Ehrenreich or Katha Pollitt, TL featured Big Tent Democrat.  

    An interesting situation, but not one conducive to nuanced cultural analysis, especially when it comes to women's issues.


    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    Really, really good comments by Hillary.

    hillary in 2012 (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by isaac on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    it is as simple as that

    You think the DNC will have repaired (none / 0) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    itself by then? What will motivate them to do that?

    Nothing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    but if Obama loses, there's a chance the current 'new coalition' will not be around.  Or a significant chunk anyway.

    Dean's current term is over in Jan 2009.  Although I wouldn't put it past the DNC, such as it is, to re-elect him even with a loss based on putting the less electorally viable candidate forward, there IS some chance they might fall below critical mass.


    Even if Obama Wins,... (none / 0) (#75)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    the new coalition won't be around.  At some point various segments will realize that they've been had.  And the next Pres. inherits an incredible mess and incremental changes won't be sufficient.

    I'm so glad you posted this (5.00 / 11) (#26)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    as a separate post.  It really did say a lot about Hillary's campaign and the women who supported her.  

    Who did stand up for us?  No one.  Even after Hillary bowed out and the press was analyzing her campaign, some of the female news commentators were saying "The sexism was all in her head" which wasn't true at all!

    Grrrr.  Makes me mad even now.  I can't stand some of the women on CNN anymore because I can't see them as fair and impartial.  You know it's bad when you look at FOX and think that they are more fair and balanced than everyone else!      

    You suppose the female journalists (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:23 AM EST
    actually believed it, or knew they better go along or risk having their image as tarnished as Hillary's.

    Every put down she received in the media, especially the female journalists/moderators, gave the more anxious Obama supporters permission to get more destructive in their own opinions.


    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    Katie Couric said something recently but I can't remember what it was.  

    I'm still angry at Katie for throwing that softball question at Hillary in an interview:  "Do you take vitamins?" when Hillary was expecting a real question, the kind you would ask someone running for President of the USA.  (Then Katie followed it up with questions about how Hillary watched her weight and exercise and stupid stuff.  I kept waiting for Katie to ask her if she was taking hormones and how menopause was coming along but Katie skipped those questions.)  

    On the same show, a male interviewer asked Obama real questions -- nothing about his vitamin intake or what he ate for breakfast.    


    Katie's interview, such as it was, is just another (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by Radix on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    example of the different expectations we have of men and women. In other words, Katie gave of a prime example of "soft" misogyny.

    It's funny in a way though (none / 0) (#98)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    If Katie was interviewing Hillary for a fashion magazine, like Vogue or Glamour, I'd have no problem with her getting Hillary's take on what type of clothes she likes and why -- because it's topical and because women are interested in that.  It would be no different than Obama being interviewed by GQ on menswear.

    I suppose that is sexist in a way, but I view it as an acceptable form of sexism because men and women are different in certain ways.  

    I remember a magazine interviewing Madeline Albright about her jewelry (she had a big brooch collection) and it never made me feel she was less of a Secretary of State because of this.    


    Well...Judas sold Jesus out for 12pieces of silver (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radix on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    Just goes to prove, money can buy anything, including integrity.

    wasn't it 30? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    not to nitpick.  :)

    30 (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:03:21 PM EST
    Matthew 26.15  `What will you give me if I betray him to you?' They paid him thirty pieces of silver.

    She's pretty classy (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    I would have been sputtering with rage answering the (any) sexism questions.

    Her answers shows she, unlike the DNC (yes, I'm looking at you, Howard Dean) and MSM, and the blogbubbleboyz she gets it.

    Too bad she still has to play nice with all those who don't.  And while it's small consolation at this point, thank goodness I don't.  I'm happily part of the 8% of registered voters who are specifically voting for neither Obama or McCain.  (Gallup).

    I respect her more each day (5.00 / 22) (#31)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    Strength.  Purpose.  Class.  It still blows me away that this time last year I didn't really even like her.  I didn't hate her, but I just thought she was an overly ambitious pol with a lot of baggage.  Then I actually bothered to learn about her and to watch her in action.  Now I think she's one of the greatest and most important women in recent history.  I still can't quite believe that we are actually taking a pass as a country on this woman being our president.

    I hope she keeps fighting this good fight against misogyny for all of us.  I know I've been rocked to my core by what this election cycle has revealed.  I know I'm not ready to forget or make nice.  Anyway, I think she will.  I hope she uses the press' obsession with her against them.  Be in their face about this.  Make them cover it.  They clearly can't get enough of her, so I hope she shames and bullies them every step of the way.  They'll love it, even as they cut her up.

    Me too (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    I never hated her, but just wasn't attracted to her candidacy. I think she's grown a lot. Pretty impressive now.

    I love the last line of the article (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    Hillary tells me she feels just fine: "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Spoken like a true Clinton.

    Ain't that the truth?  

    Tears (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nellre on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:52 AM EST
    She's amazing.

    I still can't quite get my head around (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    the fact that we didn't nominate her.

    Or should I say the DNC didn't nominate her. Nt sure what they expected to gain but if it's fundraising it sure ain't working given the stories about how the convention is suffering.

    I hope she is aware of the fact they are trying to shut her out of the convention and moves to stop it. These issues MUST see the light of day. I want to hear about those 18 million cracks in the ceiling at the convention.

    This is just how the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Radix on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    is choosing to "fix" the problem, they're trying to bury it.

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:11:36 PM EST
    It was clear from about February that Obama would have the lead in pledged delegates at the end of the Primaries....

    Hillary and her supporters rested their strategy on having the Superdelegates erase Obama's lead.  They repeatedly said the Superdelegates were free to use their own discretion.  The Superdelegates merely validated the lead Obama had.  Many here may disagree, but I think that if Hillary had had the lead in pledged delegates, the Superdelegates would have gone her way.


    The reason being that (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    the Superdelegates would not want to take the nomination away from the first African American candidate who was in the lead.   Too high a mountain to climb.

    But, the opposite result, taking it way from Hillary as the first woman candidate had she had the lead, sounds equally implausible....


    No fix, just bad campaign (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:38:54 PM EST
    Leaving the caucus states uncontested.....Not being the populist fighter until March.  Mark Penn.  

    Obama was the disconnected, diffident egghead who was 20 points behind...and behind with African Americans in South Carolina....All Adlai--until Iowa.....

    But I know most here will disagree....

    True, sexist insults were hurled her way....But she could have won had she run a better campaign.


    I love her. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    She's scary smart.  To think how close we came to having this great leader in these troubling times.  It's a disappointment.

    Don' forget.... (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Oje on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    The one thing that Clinton identifies as the moment they could respond (the Chelsea comments by Shuster) was taken by Josh Micah Marshall at TPM as a nefarious attack on the independence of the media by a power-hungry Clibnton.

    The more things change....

    BTD, I read this article on Amtrak this morning (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    and was going to send it over. I see you got to it already!

    My favorite part, BTW, was the idea (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    that Chris Matthews became Hillary's Ken Starr. Also, Ed Rendell on on the Scranton St. Patrick's day parade.

    ...and don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:41:44 PM EST
    The urinal caps with Hillary's face on them...

    Never heard of that (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    Was this widely publicized?

    Not so much (none / 0) (#111)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    ...nor the lovely photo from a stump speech where the word COUNT from the "count the votes" banner behind her, has her head placed exactly over the 'O'....leaving the remaining 4 letters framing her face.

    When the subject of boycotting Obama (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by Jake Left on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    comes up, there is one point to be made that I don't see. Now, I supported Clinton. The more the sexism piled on, the more I supported her. I was a delegate for Clinton to the silly Texas county caucus. But I will likely vote for Obama. I really can't stand mccain.

    But unlike the handwringers and blowhards that want to condemn those who find the sexism so oppressive that they can't bring themselves to vote Democratic this year, I can understand what I see to be a legitimate form of protest here. It goes along with the MSM statement about women coming back because they have nowhere else to go.

    For years, Democrats took the African American vote for granted, used it, and did little to earn it. After all they said, what are they going to do? Vote conservative. It took many black voters ignoring Democrats and even crossing over before we got it.

    I too hate the idea of a mccain administration and his tax and health care and SC plans. But if your party ignores you and treats you badly because they don't think you have any other alternatives, it just may be legitimate to boycott. Maybe the party can "get it" in time. There are about five things they could do to prove themselves worthy. Let's see if they can figure it out.

    David Shuster was suspended, Matthews (none / 0) (#69)
    by halstoon on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    apologized, and the guy on CNN--who was a Republican talking head, not an anchor--was roundly criticized and booed.

    That there was sexism on display in the campaign is not in dispute. That it was malignly accepted I think is wrong. It was called out time and time again. Plus, when 98% of the vitriol toward the media is really about one network, I think the brush stroke is too broad. NBC should be singled out, but instead 'the media' as a whole has become the bogeyman.

    I personally don't subscribe to the Hillary as victim presentation, but I do accept that people have a right to view things through their own prism. I saw a very strong candidate who was long assumed to be a lock for the nomination get exposed to the same hypercritical process as every other candidate, ever. Kerry had his manhood questioned; was that misandry? Obama was called feminine; was that misandry, or racist? John Edwards was taunted for his hair care; misandry? Kucinich looks funny; misandry? Romney is a cardboard cut-out; misandry? Ron Paul is a weirdo; misandry?

    Hillary Clinton proved that women are just as capable of competing on the biggest stage as men are; she beat every man, save one. She ran a campaign superior to every other, save one. She raised more money than any candidate, ever, save one. That she finished second to Obama is not evidence of sexism; it's evidence against it. In a sexist world, she would have finished behind Joe Biden, or even Mike Gravel. She didn't. She finished second, and just barely at that.

    dream on. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    It was called out time and time again. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by smott on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Citations please?

    Keith Olbermann (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    declared Katie Couric Worst Person in the World for saying there was sexism in the Media.

    I do not know what you think you are proving but I know I think the worst of you for your defense of the reaction to the sexism and misogyny.

    You want to argue with those of is who followed the issue closely. Why? You tell me.

    I can not fathom why you invite people to make judgments of you, but here you are, belittling the problem.

    If your plan is to have people think less of you, it is working with me.


    That is not what Couric got the honor for. (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    You deleted my original reply, but you know--if you watched--that the worst person honor was not about sexism, it was about Couric insulting a friend and colleague of KO's b/c he admitted that Obama's campaign--particularly the huge rallies--made it hard to stay objective.

    Big name people get mocked; it's a fact of life. When a celebrity female gets mocked, it's not automatically sexism. Hillary puts herself into the public debate, and thus is subject to judgment by the masses. If Hillary Clinton nutcrackers are sexist, then George W Bush toilet paper must be, too, right?

    Meanwhile, there has been no mention here of the TX GOP racist button, the Utah monkey doll, or even the Obama/Curious George t-shirts (well, I brought that one up and it got some attention).

    Perhaps sexism is not the only thing malignly accepted.


    Did you call it out (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    or did you accept it malignly?

    Just curious.


    Many of the worst comments (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST
    came from the Right....The b*tch comments from Alex Castellanos, and the McCain supporter on how do we beat the b*tch.....

    The Right got smart and mostly praised Hillary over the last few months--but how sincere were they?  Any restraint would have evaporated had Hillary been the nominee...and may indeed evaporate if she is the VP...

    So it's ok that the Left (none / 0) (#126)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    was sexist...because at least they were sincere?

    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    But there is no reason to assume that all this recent Hillary love on the Right is real, either.

    Here's some help. (none / 0) (#135)
    by halstoon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    Salon referred to his 'feminine appeal,' calling him from Venus, the origin of femininity.

    Here's a discussion of his 'feminine' management style.

    The NY Post called him our first woman prez.

    This article questions his manhood.

    So I guess misandry is a bit of an issue as well, no?