home

Perspectives On Sexism

John Cole of Balloon Juice is a a fervent Obama supporter. One of the most fervent in my estimation.

He writes a post today that is interesting in terms of its Rashomon-like quality about things political. But most importantly to me, it also is telling evidence of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny that pervades our society. John writes:

. . . I think it is not an unreasonable claim to state that many people who found themselves to be die-hard Clinton supporters identified personally with Clinton. For many of the feminists and older women who made up Hillary’s unwavering core of support, a rejection of Hillary was a rejection of themselves- they saw Hillary being subjected to the kind of abuse that they themselves have suffered, they identified with the concept of the glass ceiling and identified with much of the real and perceived sexism. . . . [T]hey saw things that I simply would not see, because of who they are and what they personally have experienced. In short, when Hillary lost, or they listened to some jackass on CNN debate whether it was appropriate to call Hillary a bitch, it was a personal loss or as if they had personally been called a bitch.

For Obama, many of the supporters identify with a movement, a need for something different, a need for change, and a sense of community. The Obama campaign recognized this difference, and masterfully used social networking to build a vibrant community. When Clinton made her fateful “white people” or “RFK assassination” remarks, it was an outright breach of community and societal norms . . . which would help to explain why Obama supporters recoiled in horror at the remarks. When Republicans tried the hackneyed old “appeaser” nonsense, it was like the folks in the community who opposed the war in 2003 and beyond were being called traitors or in league with the terrorists again. When Hillary seized upon the “bitter” remarks for political advantage, it was as if the entire community was under assault for being “elitist.”

(Emphasis supplied.) It is funny to see the double standard expressed so clearly. Whatever it was that Clinton supporters objected to was due to their "personal identification," not a reasonable view of the events. Whatever it was that Obama supporters objected to was due to an "outright breach of community and societal norms."

Whenever Clinton exploited an Obama gaffe for political gain, an "entire community was under assault." Of course in this worldview, Obama NEVER exploited anything said by Clinton in an unseemly way. The funny thing is Cole really believes this. He became a true believer. My own view is that these were two politicians, doing what pols do. None was better than the other in their behavior.

But that is off the beaten path to my point - which is the confirmation of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny. I do like one thing John inadvertently admits, that the shocking sexism and misogyny that was displayed by the Media and others, including bloggers, did NOT constitute "outright breach of community and societal norms." John cites one of Melissa McEwan's many examples of sexism and misogyny she posted (she was the unofficial keeper of the sexism and misogyny roundup this campaign season) and, as he admits - he did not see a pattern of behavior there that "breach[ed] community and societal norms."

This to me is the very essence of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny. That what McEwan documents is NOT considered a "breach of community and societal norms." Cole unwittingly makes my point on this subject.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Khalid Sheik Mohammed: Sings in Court, Welcomes Death Penalty | TX to Address Problem of Wrongful Convictions >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I've quoted this before in other context (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    but it is appropriate here:

    O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!
    It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
    An' foolish notion:
    What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
    An' ev'n devotion!



    If a white person can see racism (5.00 / 25) (#2)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Than a man can see sexism.

    If they don't, it's because they are choosing not to.

    You might think a woman ... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    ...probably see's it too.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, you're right (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    I was talking about Cole though - I'm so tired of the feigned innocence 'what sexism?' :)

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's harder sometimes (4.80 / 5) (#173)
    by cloudy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    for women to see it, especially younger women.  We've been brought up to think the gender wars are done.  We're all equal now!  We weren't raised in a climate of activism and I think, sometimes, that's to our detriment.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought so, too (5.00 / 10) (#206)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    -- and I was raised by an ardent feminist and activist in the rise of the modern women's movement in the '60s and '70s.  So I thought it all was won, and I saw how much it took out of my mother, so I got co-opted to cop out, too. . . .

    It seems to take until the late 20s or early 30s for women to wake up.  That's when they start to get stopped, by one or both of the major causal factors:  They hit the glass ceiling at work, and/or they get divorced -- and then get radicalized by their treatment in the so-called justice system.  (And if they get into a child custody battle, the 10% of cases in which both parents want the children, women really see how the courts still are so stacked against them -- and they're really radicalized.)

    That is, they think it's something in the past or something that happens to other women until it happens to them.  And . . . it will.  Some won't deal with it and will internalize it -- and deal with depression, instead.  But some will begin to see that it's not about them but that it's societal -- and even that first inkling can never be reversed.  For those who continue the inquiry past that inkling, the Coles of this world had better watch their backs.

    We're the ones who even are way past the "don't get mad, get even" mantra.  We get mad and we get even -- even if it takes years, while we're having the fun of being freed from the norms to which Cole subscribes so  doesn't even see.  Those men are the easiest marks.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, I think you are my absolute (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    favorite Obama supporter.  You have a huge heart and a great mind.  

    I hate "me too" comments... (5.00 / 11) (#76)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    but "me too"...

    and what I like best about BTD is that he does see stuff that I miss because I'm focussing on other stuff....

    I focussed on Cole's continued efforts to spin Clinton's "white people" comment as racist (she was talking exit polling and demographic groups), and continuing to push the RFK assassination nonsense (when even the politico admits that the whole thing was BS).

    But BTD caught the obvious sexism of the piece -- and that's the kind of thing that I really aprreciate.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Me three (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by otherlisa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    And BTD, thanks for being man enough to see misogyny clearly and call it for what it is. And I don't even mean that ironically.

    Real men speak the truth about how women are treated in this society.

    [ Parent ]

    The MSM is either clueless about (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by jpete on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    how sexism works OR they are busily rewriting history.  It is hard to imagine the sexism's getting worse, at least as long as she wasn't physically attacked.  But one after all on TV, in newspapers, etc, they are downplaying it.

    This must not be forgotten.  Perhaps when we hit a potically more calm period in Dec or in the spring, there could be a series  of posts/articles, on what really went on.

    I do think that everyone here with some access to a public stage would do the country a big favor by keeping the MSM honest.

    And I'm grateful that there have been a few places, like this blog, where sanity won the day.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I have news for John-Boy.... (5.00 / 18) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    this "feminist and older woman" belongs to a community, too.  A community that is strong and getting stronger in their commitment NEVER to vote for Obama.

    AMEN, SISTER! (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh. If John McCain puts... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cosbo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    someone like Christie Todd Whitman on his ticket.. the repubs would have a wipeout.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh, CTW is not well liked by some (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    re: 9/11 air quality and safety. I don't want to derail the thread, so do a bit of checking on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok, Olympia Snowe instead (4.83 / 6) (#78)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    Or any number of strong Republican women.  I think that if Hillary is not successful this time or in 2012, the first female President will be a Republican.  The GOP is every bit as sexist as the Dems, but it has been my experience that the sexism is more paternalistic.  I can see the old white guys standing around and applauding, "Look at our little girl go!" The Dems sexism is of a baser variety. Just speaking for myself only. . .

    [ Parent ]
    I really like Olympia Snowe (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    Don't like McCain, but I could vote for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto. And may I say (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    that much of my community of women, from several other listservs I'm on, would agree about Snowe and some other moderate Republican women.  And since I'm no longer a Dem, it's even easier to look favorably upon them.  It's downright freeing for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Senator Snowe - (none / 0) (#195)
    by noholib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    I disagree about voting for Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe looks benign, rational and moderate compared to most of the Republican Senators who are truly radical right-wing extremists.  BUT, did she ever stray from the Republican camp when it came to critical votes in the Senate, especially with regard to judicial appointments and constitutional issues?  I don't think so.  Though sorry I don't have time to check it out now.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not necessarily defending Snowe here (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by tree on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    ... but when it came to judicial appointments and,  especially, constitutional issues, there all way too many Democrats who have disappointed repeatedly.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes She Has (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    And would be a liability for McCain. He does not need anyone on his ticket that a democrat would consider voting for, that would end any chance he has for winning in November.

    Think Giuliani.

    [ Parent ]

    If they can find a hardcore politico Maggie (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    They will win hands down.

    I'm surprised they haven't groomed someone like Ingraham to do it.  They have a huge untapped resourse in their TV punditocracy.

    [ Parent ]

    True. But she's still a lot less toxic... (none / 0) (#56)
    by cosbo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    than let's say Condoliar Rice.

    [ Parent ]
    Or, conversely, if BO puts Sebelius (4.42 / 7) (#41)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    or McCaskill on his ticket...same wipe out!

    I mean, Sebelius will put people to sleep...and McCaskill will have to check with her children to see if it's OK.

    [ Parent ]

    Sebelius Would Ensure That I Would Not (4.66 / 3) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    vote Obama. McCaskill would have me considering voting for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about Sebelius (none / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    but I'm pretty sure McCaskill isn't even pro-choice.

    [ Parent ]
    They both are (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Fair minded men also belong to that community (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by mexboy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    I am offended by sexism and the misogynist way Congresswoman Hillary Clinton was treated.

    [ Parent ]
    Just yesterday (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by eric on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    Atrios linked to John Cole (indirectly, though Pandagon) and wrote, John Cole Is Making Sense.
    "It is funny how things change in the blogosphere."

    Yes, it is funny.  Has this campaign changed these people or has he exposed these people?

    Exposed (5.00 / 14) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    Sexism has never just been about republican men.

    [ Parent ]
    If Dem men weren't sexists (5.00 / 12) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    we would have won, when they were in power, the ERA and much more.  We wouldn't have lost so much when they were in power -- as we have lost, over and over.

    Yeh, you bet many Dem men are sexists, too.  I'm a daughter of one of them, a sister to several of them, and I married another of them.  I divorced that one, too, but there's only so much a woman can do to get away from sexist Dem men -- I'm not one for a desert island, and the Amazon is just too humid for me.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (4.90 / 10) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST
    A big awakening for me on this issue was entering academia - a bastion of liberal educated people, and the sexism is really no different than walking through a construction site. Just hidden a little better.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, sexism is awful in academia (4.85 / 7) (#112)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    if oh-so-polite.  Cole is correct on one thing:  My experiences in academe do help me to connect to Clinton's experience, you bet.  But the same experiences with sexism from so-called liberals also makes it easy for me to disconnect from the Dems, at last.  They have proved themselves no better on these and too many other issues -- and more corrupt in their party practices.  

    [ Parent ]
    women's colleges (none / 0) (#203)
    by noholib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    I have never been prouder to teach at a women's liberal arts college.  I have sometimes found too much PC-ness for my taste, but at least I've gained a sensitive radar and an allergy to sexism and misogyny. (That said, not everyone here is immune to these diseases and not everyone supported Senator Clinton, but at least many who supported Senator Obama were also appalled by the out-of-control sexism and misogyny.)

    [ Parent ]
    Men want to be (4.87 / 8) (#95)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    men and they don't want women around messin' it up. If Pelosi had come out openly for Hillary, she would have been ostrisized.Every woman who's been mentioned for vp, except Hillary, is weak, quiet, and a not-in-your face sort. That is why the media would accept and masogonists wouldn't view her as a threat.

    [ Parent ]
    She would have been dismissed (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    If Pelosi had endorsed Clinton, it would have been dismissed as simply another woman endorsing a woman candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    by some, sure -- many Dem men (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    and some Dem women.  Instead, by being co-opted by the male power structure of the party, Pelosi has lost the support of some Dem men and a lot of Dem women . . . whom she just might need someday soon.

    [ Parent ]
    Sexism Isn't About Just Men (5.00 / 10) (#93)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:34:14 PM EST
    Many women identify their values with anti-progressive ideas. Think Phyllis Schlafly.

    Many men promote pro-women policies. Look at BTD.

    [ Parent ]

    Very true (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    One of my favorite quotes (4.87 / 8) (#96)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    Fortune does not change men, it unmasks them.
         -Suzanne Necker, author (1739-1794)

    [ Parent ]
    Nope, they're still ignorant (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    You would have figured as soon as Hillary said "Ok, I'm out" that they would be very 'Oh, we're SO sorry about all the rampant Misogyny... water under the bridge and all that.'

    Maybe it's too early, who knows?

    But there is now NO sexual equality topic these people can address with any integrity. NEVER.

    Thanks for the link to Shakesister... handy to have this for friends who cry foul when the sexism issue comes up.

    Listening to the memorial discussions about RFK, (5.00 / 18) (#9)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    and there are many on radio at least, I have begun to feel an intense anger that the Obama campaign chose to use RFK as a weapon against Hillary Clinton. It may have been something the Kennedys might have done in their early days, but by the time Bobby was campaigning for the nomination he simply would not have stooped to that. He identifed with and wanted to work to improve the lot of any who were not among the favored groups in our society.

    How dare the Obama camp defile the memory of Bobby Kennedy in the way they did. And there's John Cole bringing it up again and rubbing it in.

    Leading edge Boomer men could be real sexist pigs, back in the day and some still are. I don't know Cole's age bracket, but he would fit right in. Grrrrr.


    That's the irony, isn't it (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    that Hillary is in so many ways far more like RFK.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I agree completely, and (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    the sad thing is that his agenda
    He identifed with and wanted to work to improve the lot of any who were not among the favored groups in our society.

    has always been Hillary's agenda too. Obama's agenda, not so much. He seems to be about himself, not other people. That is really going to hurt him.

    And as an O/T aside, McCain is already starting to go after Hillary's voters on the Lifetime channel, and other channels that carry "Army Wives", he has taped a message asking for people to support the vets coming back from Iraq and the families of people who are there still. Not saying that all the people who watch that show are Hillary supporters, but I watch "Frasier" on Lifetime after morning horse chores and I was surprised to see McCain doing a message in the middle of it since they don't run campaign blurbs on Lifetime. At least, I haven't seen any.

    [ Parent ]

    Um no (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    there was no conceivable political gain for Hillary in invoking RFK there. Obviously.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Just make this poster go away.

    He has yet to make a single worthwhile comment on anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Just what is your problem? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    You have been here just a couple of days and all you do is slam Clinton.  Get over it already.  

    You're over your limit of comments for the day.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama campaign's responsibility (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by tree on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    From Joan Walsh, Editor in Chief at Salon

    I did check e-mail briefly on Friday, and I learned then about Clinton's unfortunate reference to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination -- from an Obama campaign e-mail from spokesman Bill Burton. I took some time to look around at the coverage, and I followed a link to Clinton's actual interview with the Argus-Leader, and I had to say: Wow. I couldn't believe this became the weekend's hottest political issue. I couldn't believe Keith Olbermann did a special comment on it (which I really couldn't believe was also widely circulated via e-mail by the Obama campaign).

    If Walsh isn't enough for you, here's Bob Somersby  in the Daily Howler .

    [ Parent ]

    After they used MLK and Johnson... (4.87 / 8) (#136)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    ...this was not surprising. It's amazing how many people were deeply offended at the idea that Clinton said that Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, turning MLK's work into law. It should have been an obvious comment about a proud moment in Democratic history, but they spun it as an attack on King. That was shameful. Now, they are spinning an innocent comment about a historical fact into a wish that Obama will be assassinated. It should have ended when the context of the comment was made clear, but it is still widely believed by many.

    [ Parent ]
    Kennedys under the bus (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    OT but thanks for the link to the Honorary Kennedy piece.  Axelrod's statements were saddening.  Obama took advantage and must now discard them and what they stood for (fighting for the people) will be set aside.  tactical mistake  h/t jawbone

    [ Parent ]
    For all the people who thought (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    Obama and his minions didn't make this about a woman vs a man, need to check their gonads.Having a woman running the country is an insult and deemed not to be acceptable. After all, aren't we all weened from our mothers? Food for thought,one of the reasons bantied about after roe v wade was enacted was a concerted effort to get women out of the workplace. Keep 'em pregnant and home. Men wanted to beat their chests and didn't want to compete. Even the aa culture (of which I am not so knowledgable) is a "man first" culture.

    Agreed! (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by marianne on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    As some might have wished to say during this intense campaign cycle:

    "People with only metaphorical balls need not apply."

    [ Parent ]

    There certainly were mysogonistic comments but (2.50 / 2) (#190)
    by cpa1 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    most of that came from scumbags like Matthews, Cafferty, Russert and Toobin.  

    I blame Hillary for her loss.  While Bill was out there being pissed off, and he had every right to be, she ignored every horrible thing Obama did.  She needed to nail him to a wall for what he did with Ferraro and what he did by lying about South Carolina which is still the Obama campaign's cause celebre that they invented.  All throughout the campaign she should have reminded voters how Obama lied bout Reagan, compared Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, called Charlie Rangel and Andrew Young racists and bashed the hell out of the baby boomers.  She was weak and didn't go after him.  

    She should have said, despite what they wanted to hear NBC and CNN that Obama doesn't deserve to be president and the only way he can get enough votes is by lying to the children, the same way Nader did.  She should have said that you can judge people by the friends they keep and Obama's cadre of close friends are not the kind of people we want running around the White House.  With all the crap she took about sniper fire, she could have hit back with all the Obama lies like Selma and Reagan was what the country needed.  And even what he did about Iraq, she let Bill attack him and then everyone backed off making Bill look like an idiot drowning out the very good points he was making.  Obama beat her up, as a candidate, not as a woman, and she did nothing to fight back.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    Who won more primaries between March and June?

    Who chickened out of debates (using the excuse that there had already been too many), because he got trounced during the one in PA?

    Yeah, he beat her up.  Right.

    [ Parent ]

    and this is merely one reason (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    i can't support obama in nov. the blindness of his supporters has to be a reflection, in some measure, of the candidate himself. he made no effort to restrain these people. this tells me he either agrees with them or just doesn't care.

    it's also why he's going to be trounced in nov. by sen. mccain, he's totally oblivious. well, it isn't august yet, there's still hope.

    It tells me he doesn't lead (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    by example....he is a follower, not a leader.

    [ Parent ]
    My POV is that it was a calculated risk (5.00 / 10) (#116)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    Doing the ol' nudge-nudge wink-wink and looking the other way while various parties and his own campaign used sexist attacks against Clinton could possibly backfire on Obama, but it would hurt Clinton first and hardest.  Only time will tell if it was a short term gain, long term loss.

    One thing Obama could have done that could have changed the media & blogosphere attitude would have been to support Clinton when she defended her daughter from the "pimped out" statement.  It was the perfect battle for Hillary to fight because she wasn't defending herself, but her daughter.  (If Hillary went on the attack for every sexist statement the media figures made - she'd have a full time job AND be portrayed as a whiner who couldn't take it.)  It would have sent a message that at least that one event was wrong and went too far.

    [ Parent ]

    Scary to think that alot of the folks... (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    are fathers and have to raise daughters. That alone has outraged me. How do they react when some a-hole treats their daughter, or wife, or mother that way?

    Oh, that's an easy one (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Hypocrisy. You see, that treatment is OK for some women.

    [ Parent ]
    One problem with the movement and people (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    like Cole is that they never think that the sexism will ever be applied to them or the people they love.  They never realize that once an "ism" is released on anyone, it can and will strike at everyone without regards to what side you're on or movement you belong to.  I hate having to armor my daughter for the next many years of her life.

    [ Parent ]
    Cole et. al. (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    have truly helped me relocate the whole political party "thing" to a place that makes more sense for me.

    I'm the "little lady" who should speak only when spoken to, get the coffee for the menfolk, and polish up that ankle chain--the one attached to the stove--for when my honey comes home from a long hard day pushing papers.

    See also (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    Possibly his shortest post... (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    but one of his best nonetheless.

    [ Parent ]
    The MCM has again chosen presidentials nominees (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    and is about to choose our president. Again.

    Bloggers and scholars, some op-ed writers, write about what the MCM has done and does, but it makes no difference. The MCM has the money, the microphones, the control.

    Reading Krugman's short comment was very depressing.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly encapsulates it (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    In software development most of us strive to do the most with the least amount of code.  Krugman would make a great software engineer.

    [ Parent ]
    A fellow Cassandra Liberal with a perfect record (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    I wouldn't have been as kind or evolved, or put it as succinctly. Krugman's the best.

    [ Parent ]
    Which post? Where? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry - I went in through the NYT (none / 0) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    site and couldn't see what you wanted.  Got it now.

    [ Parent ]
    Please keep your comments on topic (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    this is addressed to Mr. Pope whose comment, while in no way offensive, was off topic.

    I am going to be very strict about this and indeed I will be deleting any "I will not vote for Obama stuff" as this is NOT about that at all.


    Excellent post, BTD but (5.00 / 14) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    but I do disagree with you respectfully but very strongly when you say, "None was better than the other in their behavior."

    What drove many of us away from Obama when we had been reasonably favorably inclined to him was the campaign to paint the Clintons and a whole raft of other good Dems (Bob Kerrey, for God's sake?) as race-baiters, if not outright racists.

    If that isn't "breach of community and societal norms," especially within the Democratic Party, then I honestly don't know what is.

    Much as I loathe the misogyny, the race-baiting slime is the original sin here and one I find far, far more unforgiveable.


    Pols are pols (3.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I also consider the racial stuff different (5.00 / 11) (#100)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    You may not.  That's fine.  Maybe I'm oversensitive because of my background, but when you reward people for pulling that stuff, it never ends.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem with this argument (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    It is hard to tell someone "that isn't a racist statement" when it doesn't affect you.  While you may not have been offended by the statements the Clinton's made, a lot of people were.   Claiming that they are "race-baiting" because they are sensitive to comments made about race is like saying Clinton is "gender-baiting" for calling out things that they find offensive.  Just because those statements weren't offensive to YOU doesn't mean they weren't offensive to others.

    Now, I don't think the Clinton's are racist by any stretch of the imagination.  But they said some things that could be offensive to some people, and that's a fact that you can't blame on Obama.  I do think Clinton highlighted her advantage among white americans to help her with that demographic.  Because she is a politician.  The same way Obama used those comments to help him shore up the black vote.  I agree with BTD, pols are pols, but lets not be hypocritical about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 14) (#103)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina" is the sort of race-baiting that's pretty indefensible.

    [ Parent ]
    My point is (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    I think they are BOTH guilty of race-baiting.

    Also, Obama didn't say that, his campaign chair did.  And frankly it doesn't sound any worse than "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position".

    Now in fairness to Hillary, Ferraro stepped down after that comment.  But it still stuck, and had it's affect in the campaign, because it played into the "affirmative action candidate" meme.  

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    Let's compare a statement made by Obama's campaign co-chair on national TV to a statement made by someone loosely affiliated with the Clinton campaign to an obscure local newspaper.

    Clearly, both were equally part of an intentional campaign strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Ferraor wasn't even her campaign chair... (5.00 / 9) (#164)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    , just someone who raised money for her, and the calls for Clinton to denounce her were deafening.  Obama never denounced that comment, and Jackson remained his campaign chair. It can be assumed that his lack of response meant that he endorsed the comment.

    As Axelrod said: "The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes,"

    [ Parent ]

    But CST... (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    Obama said the same thing himself about why he was in such a privileged position at a young age.

    And John Kerry said we should vote for Obama because he is black.

    It's pretty clear to me, anyway, that Hillary's campaign was never about being racist.

    [ Parent ]

    Very different (none / 0) (#191)
    by CST on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    Regardless if it's true or not, it TOTALLY matters who says it.  For example, we have no idea if Hillary cried over Katrina or not.  Maybe she didn't.  Even if it's true it's still an offensive statement for the implication.

    John Kerry is a complete arse.

    I don't think Hillary's campaign was about being racist at all.  I do think she occasionally used race to her advantage in highlighting her strengths with white-working class americans.  I also think Obama did this.  I don't think it makes them racist, just politicians.

    This is my last post on this, cuz it's off-topic and I know I will just get 90 replies.  I just think people should be more sensitive to the other side with this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Please identify the Clintons' "racist" (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    statements and explain why they are offensive.

    MLK - "fairy tale" - Jesse Jackson, etc., were neither racist nor offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because they weren't offensive to you (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    Doesn't mean people didn't find them offensive.  Myself, I don't think they were racist, just insensitive.  But I guess what I am saying is, I think we need to be careful before we judge how others might react to something we can't relate to.

    Also, I am not suggesting you need to be african american to get it, or that all african americans feel that way.  I am saying that some do, and you can't ignore it just because you don't see it.  Plenty of people don't see sexism where others may.  Just because they don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't affect others.

    [ Parent ]

    The thing is (5.00 / 13) (#169)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    even if people are honestly offended by a remark, when you yourself know nothing was meant by it, it is race-baiting to play it up for political gain as though it had been intentionally offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    People found them offensive... (5.00 / 14) (#170)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    ...because the media and Obama's campaign told them they were offensive. They did not find the sexism in this campaign offensive because the media and Obama's campaign condoned it, and dismissed any complaints by Clinton's supporters or her camapaign as biased and invalid claims of victimhood.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 9) (#139)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:52:45 PM EST
    It is hard to tell someone "that isn't a racist statement" when it doesn't affect you.

    True, but this all started when Bill Clinton made his Jesse Jackson comment, which, by the way, Jesse Jackson said wasn't racist, so I would argue that it DID affect him.  By your theory, no one else (especially the media) should have been offended by it and the Obama camp shouldn't have prepared a 4-page memo discussing how they could exploit such statements.

    [ Parent ]

    actually, it started the day after the NH primary (5.00 / 11) (#168)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    with Jesse Jackson Jr's bizarre remarks about how Hillary cried for her "appearance" (?) but not for the "victims of Katrina."

    Hillary's campaign should have raised holy hell about that, like the Obama campaign did about EVERYTHING that could remotely be construed as "racially insensitive" from the Clinton campaign.

    Jesse Jr's remarks were vicious. And to my knowledge, Obama never expressed his disapproval of them. Yet since history is written by the victors, all we'll hear about race being injected into the campaign are Gerry Ferraro's clumsy remarks about how Obama has benefited from his race in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Please read the S Carolina memo (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    and tell me you do not believe it is race-baiting.

    Memo

    Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]


    [ Parent ]
    Stronger than Mandela? (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    A man trusting his wife and someone he has known intimately for decades more than a friend is racist? He could have easily chosen some other famous figure, but he chose the most powerful and courageous man he could think of to make the comparison. Calling Mandela one of the "greatest figures of the last hundred years" is racist? Please. You may not agree with this statement, but it is not race-baiting. It may even be overblown, but it it not race-baiting. Oddly, if a woman said this about her husband, it would pass as simple pride. But claiming that a woman is courageous is hyperbole.

    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod's strategy (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Axelrod is an astroturfer.  That's what his corporation does.  He used plants at a meeting to come in early and force citizens out in the hall.  Guess who showed up in the hallway to do his part? Fr. Pfleger.  I might feel that it had been done on both sides if I didn't know that this is a strategy Axelrod has used before when representing his clients and has been successful with.

    [ Parent ]
    people weren't offended... (5.00 / 9) (#176)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    so much as they were TOLD to be, and encouraged to be, offended.

    Instead of this campaign being 'an honest dialogue about race' every 'racially insensitive' statement was characterized as a deliberate, dog-whistle attack.

    [ Parent ]

    To me, one of the single most telling (5.00 / 16) (#31)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    markers between the Obama side and the Clinton side is the ability to see the warts in their own candidate.

    There aren't many Clinton supporters who don't see that she often does things because politics demands, and not because it's the principled thing to do. We are OK with that, mostly; we just don't want to much of it.

    But Obama supporters really are made of a different cloth. And this is what makes them so many of them so very creepy -- certainly to me. The inability to see and acknowledge the obviously purely political things the man does requires a blindness in their devotion that just does resemble cult-like behavior.

    I've never seen a movement so perfectly comprehending those individuals who are constitutionally incapable of seeing the mote in their own eye. And this is a trait exhibited as well in their leader.

    You can't build a lasting political movement out of such people. There are simply too many normal people in America to abide by it for any real length of time.

    Perhaps Obama will ride the Democratic surge -- entirely NOT of his making -- and be able to capture the WH. But success will only aggravate, not diminish, his very worst traits: his dismissiveness, his elitism, his sense that he is some kind of Messiah, his utter inability to handle any criticism with grace. All the evidence suggests that he simply lacks the character to survive success. He pretty clearly embodies the hubris of which downfalls are made.

    frankly0 (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Brookhaven on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    So, well said.  Thank you for eloquently verbalizing what, I think, many of us HRC supporters feel is the essential difference generally, not absolutely, between those who support Obama and those who support HRC.

    [ Parent ]
    it drives the Obama supporters nuts... (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    when I say this, but the fact is that Obama's core support comes from people who simply took him on faith, while Clinton supporters went in with their eyes wide open about her flaws.

    And faith is a dangerous thing in politics -- it was "faith" that our leaders would not betray us that got us into Iraq, for example.  

    Obama supporters project their own agenda and priorities onto Obama -- and thus, any criticism of Obama is a criticism of them personally, and any flaw in Obama is dealt with in the same way that people usually deal with their own flaws -- denial, justification, rationalization, and transference.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget that the Obamabots posting (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    all over the internet DO NOT represent the millions of Obama supporters who are older, wiser and more experienced, both socially and politically.

    Many of us are even feminists.

     

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    Excellent post.

    It is funny to see the double standard expressed so clearly.

    Why yes, yes it is.

    People like Cole have made themselves laughingstocks. Intellectual honesty is the only currency that matters in the end.

    That's why I'm here and heart TalkLeft - I love the honesty. :-)

    From my perspective, (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    John Cole is dead wrong about reasons many people supported Hillary.  My husband and I both considered her years of experience and her depth of knowldege to be very important reasns for our choice.

    I have little respect for his opinions.  I remember his over-the-top support of the Iraq War and remember his attacks on anyone who disagreed with him, much the same tactics employed by some Obama supporters.

    Of course, once it turned into a cluster***k, he flip-flopped and joined those of us who predicted the mess from the beginning.  But it wasonly because of that that he changed.  The immorality of the war and the death and destruction didn't seem to bother him.  

    John Cole: wrong then.

    Wrong now.

    What BTD said (5.00 / 13) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    is exactly right.

    I can only add that it seems to me that Cole and others are implicitly saying that the adopted norms of their "community" are correct and their outrage is justifiable when they sense the norms have been breached.  So anyone is free to present any statement as a supposed insult to this community.  They decide that the norm of their community is that  any mention of MLK not couched in 10 minutes of glowing prose is an insult, and it so becomes one.

    Whereas sexism and misogyny are perceived only in the mind of the individual woman who periodically gets upset.  Oldest line of attack in the book.


    You got that right (5.00 / 14) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    "Oldest line of attack in the book."

    This primary season has been shocking in it's retro approach to women's issues. Even the slightest sniff of racism was charged at by 'progressives' whereas, anytime the blatant misogyny was mentioned, it was all 'stop being a victim'. This IS the oldest line of attack in the book - it's why women don't speak up at work against harassment, etc. I just can't believe it's still here and, more than that, that it's what progressives are OK with. That's why I'm not a democrat anymore. Sexism is OK with them, not part of the progressive platform to speak out against it.

    [ Parent ]

    Claiming an alternative, superior, culture.. (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    is not the way to win elections in America. Some may call it.... "Elitist".

    If we need a handbook to explain which innocent remarks from our culture will outrage the natives in this alternative culture, then why should we embrace  it's leader?

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, is this on target. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    The condescension and elitism of the Obama cult bloggers can hardly be overstated.

    First line of attack: You're female and hysterical.

    Second line of attack: You're a Republican.

    Third line of attack: You're a Bubba.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    [ Parent ]

    The other one (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    "I know you're hurrrrt" then "but if you were more mature, you'd get over it."

    [ Parent ]
    Every time they "sympathize"... (5.00 / 8) (#151)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    ...I feel like screaming "I'm not grieving, I'm sad, but not grief-stricken". The implication is that Clinton's female supporter's are simply emotional women who will recover from their grief and "do the right thing". I believe I am doing the right thing by staying home and not supporting the race-baiting and tolerance of sexism in this campaign. Emotions have little to do with it. I made a rational decision and I'm sticking to it. I wonder how many other women feel the same way? A lot on the web, but it's hard to know how many other women will do the same thing until the dust has settled after the primaries and they have a chance to really thing about other choices besides Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    What's that little memory (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by eliz0414 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    that keeps waving at me from waaaay back in my memory?
    "The personal is political"? From Consciousness Raising 101? c 1969?

    [ Parent ]
    That is an excellent catch... (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Oje on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    And the final paragraph, Cole very dearly wants pronouns to be the measure of "identified personally." He waffles for a second considering the messianic message of Obama.

    Most importantly, Obama supporters very much want to define the narrative of Clinton supporters as solipsistic, personal, out of fear that their "personal identification" with Obama may become threatened by a feminist social movement in opposition to the new left authoritatianism.

    My brother, who is not politically (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    active in any sense of the word, was "discussing" why my vote this year will be what it is. To him, not paying attention, not knowing all the atrocities that have occurred, he remains unaffected by it all. Just vote dem. that's all (he voted Hillary). He, too, brought up the SCOTUS. He didn't see, hear, or smell racism or sexism. Just doesn't care. I imagine that's probably pretty much the norm.

    not deep thoughts (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by mary kate on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    Shorter John Cole: I don't want to go too deep in the psycho-babble, I prefer the shallow end.

    Cole meant to say... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by OxyCon on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    "When Clinton made her fateful 'white people' or 'RFK assassination' remarks, it was an outright breach of 'the Collective's' mission to assimilate. We are Borg."

    I was a regular at his blog, and I was there at the time he was assimilated. He went from a semi-rational non-partisan to being a rabid Obamaton in the blink of an eye. Then he lost all since of judgment and decency and began to see everything through the prism of "The Obama Collective".

    Just listen to the rantings of his that BTD posted. He sounds like he thinks he belongs to some kind of Jim Jones Cult. The poor thing needs an intervention and doesn't even realize it. He doesn't even realize that one major reason sentient beings supported Hillary is because of the frightening way Obama's supporters behave like cult members when they join the collective.

    And who's throwing salt in the wounds? (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    The shrill one:

    There may have been some sexism during this campaign, but it wasn't significant and it didn't impact the race


    Chris Matthews agrees with him (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If your goal is to be a TV pundit (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:26:46 PM EST
    do as the villagers do.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta admit your right about this one BTD. (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    In fact, that John could only write about white people and who they supported and why further strengthens your case. Had he written about AA's