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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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 / 24) (#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.

    Of course, you're right (5.00 / 2) (#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?' :)

    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.


    BTD, I think you are my absolute (5.00 / 15) (#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 / 10) (#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.



    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.


    The MSM is either clueless about (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    Well, I have news for John-Boy.... (5.00 / 17) (#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 / 7) (#11)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    Heh. If John McCain puts... (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Or, conversely, if BO puts Sebelius (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    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.

    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.

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

    Ok, Olympia Snowe instead (4.80 / 5) (#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. . .

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    Fair minded men also belong to that community (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    Just yesterday (5.00 / 13) (#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 / 13) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    Sexism has never just been about republican men.

    If Dem men weren't sexists (5.00 / 11) (#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.


    LOL! (4.88 / 9) (#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.

    Yep, sexism is awful in academia (4.83 / 6) (#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.  

    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.)

    Men want to be (4.85 / 7) (#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.

    She would have been dismissed (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    Sexism Isn't About Just Men (5.00 / 9) (#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.


    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    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)

    Nope, they're still ignorant (5.00 / 9) (#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 / 17) (#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 / 9) (#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.

    Yes, I agree completely, and (5.00 / 7) (#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.


    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.

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Just what is your problem? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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 .


    After they used MLK and Johnson... (4.85 / 7) (#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.

    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

    For all the people who thought (5.00 / 10) (#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 / 4) (#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."


    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.


    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.


    and this is merely one reason (5.00 / 9) (#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 / 5) (#15)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    by example....he is a follower, not a leader.

    My POV is that it was a calculated risk (5.00 / 9) (#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.


    Scary to think that alot of the folks... (5.00 / 7) (#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 / 8) (#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.

    One problem with the movement and people (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    Cole et. al. (5.00 / 8) (#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 / 4) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    but one of his best nonetheless.

    The MCM has again chosen presidentials nominees (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    Exactly encapsulates it (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

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

    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 / 13) (#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 / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    I also consider the racial stuff different (5.00 / 10) (#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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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,"


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.



    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.


    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?


    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.


    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."

    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.

    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?

    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
    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.

    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 and who they supported and why, he likely would have been tarred and feathered.

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    If the issue is Identity politics, he certainly ignores an elephant in the room.

    There is a double standard there (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    But it's a problem when the only person willing to bring it up is Pat Buchanan.

    Michelle Obama (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MrPope on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    I think Michelle Obama will see the full monty  SEXISM and RACISM being a black woman.  the attacks on her will be severe.  I wonder if Hillary supporters will have sympathy seeing how poorly Hillary was treated?

    I absolutely will. (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    Actually, I should clarify - (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    - I may find myself suffering from a bit of shameful Schadenfreude while ducking and deploring the sexist/racist attacks the other side will launch against Michelle Obama, in part because I believe that Michelle Obama has herself assimilated and regurgitated and launched some sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton ('if you can't take care of your own house, you can't control the white house,' and so on), but sexism is sexism - and its not okay, whether the target is Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Michelle Obama, or Britney Spears.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by dk on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    though I also hope that at the end of it, Michelle Obama comes out of it with more respect and admiration for Hillary than she has exhibited publicly, and anonymously through reporters, up until now.

    Not sure (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    I think the bad boys will be more deferential to her. Of course I would have sympathy for her if she was subjected to what Hillary was subjected to. But I don't think it will happen.

    When Michelle was attached (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    Sen. Obama warned those attacking her. However, in his remarks he made it about "him" over her. So if she is not fair game, why was Hillary, other than as a fellow candidate.

    attacked not attached (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    I will feel sorry for her (5.00 / 11) (#138)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    but it won't get my vote for her husband.

    Now, if the Other Obama would speak out, as she ought to have done, too, about the way another woman was treated as a candidate, and especially about the way another mother saw her daughter treated -- well, then, I might fight for Michelle Obama.

    But she didn't, so she is one of the most dangerous women -- the ones co-opted by being close to male power to the point that they forget who they are.  So I feel sorry for Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter and Camille Paglia and a long list of women when they come up against sexism -- but I also don't trust them a bit, either.  


    A very good question (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    Some will not.

    Somehow I think you won't be (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    the only one highlighting it this time.

    My view is that BO08's norms ... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    ... are acquired from too much exposure to TV and reality-TV, and do not form the foundation of anything that can function as a community (reality-based or otherwise).

    But you're right, that's a most interesting read.

    Sexisim was given a free pass (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Serene1 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    during this campaign both by quite a few men and  women. When some women highlighted it they were dismissed off as some out of touch whiny still stuck in the past century old women.
    As late as yesterday Chris Mathews was more interested in knowing whether Hilalry will obey and be subservient to Obama if she is offered the veep position. Nobody raised an eyebrow even at that language. But then why blame men when women like MoDo - she of the Obama should punish Hillary and Arianna have themselves been guilty of the same against Hillary.

    BTW (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    For those wondering what this blog, or at least my posts, will be like now that the nomination contest is over, I offer this as an example.

    I would have written this post at any time during the campaign.

    And a month from now. Or a year from now.

    Have I mentioned lately? (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    That you are a fine example of a true progressive?

    Why are there so few of you?


    John Cole's subtantive response to my post (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST

    He is a jackass.

    How anyone could infer sexism from this post is simply beyond me. I was pretty clearly looking at the use of I and we-inclusive terms in the different speeches, and attempting to make a conclusion about why Clinton supporters took everything personally.

    My reply - I believe I explained, with quotes of his words how I infer the malign acceptance of sexism (as opposed to a direct act of sexism itself) in his post.

    Perhaps John did not read my post yet.


    No such comment there (anymore. . .) (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    So he deleted it (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    and now states he does no trust our legal analysis.

    As you can see, there is no substantive response to my post.


    What a load of garbage. (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    From Cole, that is.

    It just goes back to the sad truth that it is not considered politically incorrect to trash, malign and disrespect women.

    Had the media and others been forced to adhere to the same standards on gender-related issues as they managed to hold themselves to on race-related matters, I think the outcome of this primary would have been completely different.  Gender was used as both a subtle ("claws come out," "periodically, when she's down") and overt way to drag down the Clinton candidacy.

    For me, anyway, it means that this moment in our nation's history - the nomination of a person of color for the presidency - is not the watershed moment it's being proclaimed to be because there will always be questions about whether it could have happened without the systematic and concerted efforts from all quarters to relegate women to a lesser status.

    There will be more than one asterisk next to Obama's name in my history book.

    Just to add (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Btd has the sexism covered as always.  I agree with all that.  Just to add--not to subtract from that point -- my observation is how the rhetoric of movement politics is so utterly inequipped to address the concerns of the voters obama isn't reaching.

    Cole's offensive.  But he's also incompetent insofar as achieving what his goal must be at this point.

    Check (5.00 / 11) (#110)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    Let me make sure I get this.  Women (especially older ones) who support Clinton are individuals who are taking things personally.  People who support Obama are part of a community movement.  Offenses against the first group are things with which we can't possibly empathize since they are unique personal experiences but offenses against the second group are heinous acts that threaten the existence of the community.

    Or, a shorter version:

    Women Who Support Clinton = All About Themselves
    People Who Support Obama = Part of Something Bigger

    I think we've all heard this before.  Don't take it so personally, dear.  Second verse, same as the first.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    and from his follow-up post (now deleted) I see that it's really all Hillary's fault because of her communication style???  I guess if she just used 'we' a lot more, everything would be just dandy and we'd have a community instead of a number of emotional, disgruntled individuals.

    I'm really feeling the unity.


    well, that's one more deletion (none / 0) (#212)
    by otherlisa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    from my blog roll. I used to love Balloon Juice.

    Republicans, Libertarians, and Conservatives (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    That's a large part of the Obama movement, especially on-line.  Kos - former Republican. Cole - former Republican.  Andy Sullivan?  John Aravosis?  

    Feminism is a liberal value, it is not a conservative or Republican value.  The opposition to Bush has hidden the fact that a lot of folks in the blogosphere do not, in fact, have liberal/progressive values.  As Melissa McEwan has said they're "fauxgressives."

    The Progressed (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    right out of the GOP and took over the Democratic Party. Precisely at the moment when Bush exhausted his credit with the the electorate.



    Who chooses to listen to whom (none / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    what is funny is when Obama supporters criticize Clinton supporters who now are forced to watch Fox (can't stand CNN/MSNBC) as evil when they all follow and quote are so-called 'former' Repubs. I think people are being punked by the 'former' Repubs.

    Dean is being rewarded for his coup. He will (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    stay as DNC chair.

    Only if Obama wins (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    so I think Dean's days are numbered.

    They conflate objections to sexism... (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    ...with support for Clinton. This effectively dismisses our support from Clinton as bias from "bitter feminists", as if we are incapable of separting our anger about sexism from real issues about the candidate. A number of older women supported Obama. Considerably more than black people supported Clinton, but nobody would dream of dismissing black people for being biased in favor of Obama because he is black.

    Other objections to Obama can be dismissed as racism, and they are. In fact, the best evidence of racism and sexism in this campaign is the tendency of his supporter's to dismiss any criticism of his campaign as the ranting of either feminists or racists, as if white people and women cannot oppose Obama in terms of anything but race and gender.

    Honestly I think it goes beyond sexism.... (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    My generation, among other things, fought against conformity. The mindframe that Coles' post reflects to me is one that refuses to accept the validity of anything other than itself. Thus Clinton supporters feel individually attacked (and therefore are selfish?) whereas Obama supporters are permitted to have a community and thus justify their sense of outrage as altruism. So therefore I think it does go beyond sexism (although the sexism is pervasive) into the realm of groupthink. I dislike this more than anything else about the Obama Movement as reflected by the Blogger BOYZ.

    Invalidating another's POV (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    is pretty brutal.

    The narrative is:

    My/Our POV is the only valid one.  Any POV that conflicts with it is dismissed as invalid.

    That sums it up.  There is no interest at all in what the other POVs are.  There is no interest in discussing the differences and common ground in various POVs are.  I finally get now why the Stereotypical Obama Supporters don't actually listen to Clinton supporters.   Because the SOSs already know all they need to know about Clinton supporters.  "They are hurting."  "They need some time."  "They need to be reminded of why Women Need Obama."  (Got that one from DK.)

    That's where that unshakeable certainty comes from.  Their POV is the only valid one, the only one that counts, the only one that matters.  If my POV conflicts with their POV, my POV is wrong.  I am wrong.

    I could support my POV with facts, figures, studies and a life time of experience.  But none of that would matter because it is all wrong according to a SOS.


    yes (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    it is one of the two main reasons I wont vote for Obama.
    IMO it is a scary as anything I can remember in american politics.  the possibilities are absolutely frightening.  it is no different than the Bush boosters who got us into war early in the century but it is worse because we were supposed to be against and above that kind of thing.
    turns out, not so much.

    Sexism will be getting a much (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    closer look after what the country has just witnessed.

    By The Fault has posted a very clear article on what's been happening.

    When social networking becomes the norm... (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by citizen53 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    for choosing political leaders, then why not just get rid of elections and use text messaging, at 50 cent a call.

    America is in deep trouble.

    I Think The American Idol Format Is (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    perfectly suited for picking our presidential candidates and ultimately our president in this day and age. It would have several benefits since it would eliminate wasting hundreds of million of dollars on elections, would allow the media to screen and pre-select the candidates they want to allow the public to consider and would probably result in the same type of president.

    I have never watched... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by citizen53 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:13:03 PM EST
    but prefer the Top Chef method.  At least you get a meal out of it.

    you could eliminate them after debates. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    especially if there are 10 candidates.

    American Idol did tend to get rid of the non talent very quickly and left teh mediocre alone for a while.


    That's actually a good idea. (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    crazy as it sounds.  As it stands we simply elect the guy with th emost money anyway.

    Thank you, BTD (5.00 / 12) (#126)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    THE most insulting thing that many Obama-supporters do is assume that they and they alone are clear-eyed and rational. They believe this fervently even as they assign the most cartoonishly evil of motives to any of Hillary's utterances.

    I appreciate that Cole is trying, but even in reaching out he can't resist framing things in such a way that only he and his fellow travelers are the rational ones, the ones who have made the reasonable choice that benefits the entire nation.

    This despite the FACT that virtually all head-to-head polls show that Obama is going to have a harder time defeating McCain than Clinton would. This despite the FACT that the Obama campaign consciously accused both Clintons of "racial insensitivity" repeatedly (and dishonestly) immediately after New Hampshire in preparation for South Carolina and the Southern primaries. And so on. I'll stop because I'm trying to dial back my Obama-rage these days.

    But my point is that it's a pitiful thing to be accused of being irrational and emotional by folks who seem to think that Obama won in a landslide and has a great chance of becoming president, who seem to think that he has never once hit below the belt in this contest, who seem to think that when he says "change" and "hope" he's talking about exactly what they think the country needs--even though Obama doesn't specify what's to be changed or hoped for beyond glittering generalities.

    As for claiming moral or intellectual high ground by being part of a movement, successful ad campaigns actually create movements, too. Movements in themselves are not always rational and not always for the betterment of communities. Sometimes they merely create communities, not necessarily improve them. Sometimes movements are about mere tribal identification. And given the "us vs. them" stuff I've seen a lot of Obama-supporters hurl at Clinton supporters (redneck, racist, old feminist, blue-color ignoramus, Appalachian, generally uncool and a drag on the party's "brand" that needs to go), I'd say that a lot of Obama's "movement" is just that: empty "we're cool" tribalism.

    Obama has no signature policies, no real new visions, only himself. It's a "movement" based on a charismatic and symbolic figure who is the figurehead now of an effort to purge the party of those elements that make it un-hip: the old Democrats. Again, this is pure, us vs. them tribalism masquerading as "unity." But "rational" people are marching along, soldiers in the new, boutiquey, Designer-Democratic party.

    I really hope I'm wrong. I really hope that Obama does stand for something that is uniting and is not alienating to the working class that this party has stood for since the New Deal--and I'm just too ticked off to see it right now.  I am skeptical, obviously. But my mind is not totally closed to the possibility.

    Just don't tell me that people are rational because they're in some movement. Moonies and Branch Davidians and survivalists are all part of movements, too. Movements do not necessarily equal  progress, especially when what they stand for is both amorphous and dependent on a charismatic leader.

    Great insightful comment, kempis! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by tree on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    And, yes, thanks, BTD, from me as well.

    Prediction... (5.00 / 10) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    Sexism directed at Hillary simply did not happen according to most of the liberal blogs and MSM. Prediction:  any criticism directed at Michelle post-Obama-nomination will be greeted with a huge outcry of sexism by the very same people.

    It's more like (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    "It happened, but it didn't make any difference"


    "It happened, but shame on you for claiming it was the only reason Hillary lost"

    or, what they really mean to say

    "It happened, but stop whining about it"


    The excuse will (5.00 / 6) (#194)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST

    " Hillary deserved it, Michelle doesn't". And that will be the only thing they say about it.


    What a revolting pile of Laundry and Irony (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM EST
    Melissa McEwen definitely deserves a medal for keeping track of the sludge.

    I'm not amazed that the heads of the Creative Crass -- particularly middle-aged guys anxious to move forward -- are incapable of seeing that they used sexism to vilify an "obstacle" to their own and candidate's personal and career advancement.

    Women are, of course, part of Club Obama and their participation in the insanity is no less disgraceful.

    Very early on TeamObama intentionally made the divide a black/white issue to vanquish other groups that routinely experience bigotry into political and rhetorical invisibility. Ergo, if you're not FOR Obama, you can be gratuitously and egregiously be accused of racism -- you old white b!tch.

    Except Sen Clinton's supporters aren't one big multi-headed blob of typical problematic older white racist women, but aiming misogyny at Sen. Clinton was a nasty and efficient way of consolodating all of the Creative Crass's [non-sic, just sick] bigotry into one Hillary faced dart board (whith Bill and Chelsea standing as placeholders for all the other short-handed bigotries masquerading as fauxgressive takedowns.)

    IMO, this was so they and the MSM didn't have to cite individually every group of voter the Obama supporters hoped to deride with a trickle down effect of the sexism.

    That divisive, ambitious b!tch and "her supporters" ... what a hoot, what an embarrassment, what a sport for Club Obama to knock them down without being called bigots.

    If Bushies were products of the Reagan era, the Creative Crass were the fauxgressive @ssh0les who let others fight against bigotry while they slouched hiply on the sidelines snarfling about humorless "politically correct" types.

    They can eat what they've sown (not being sic here) and the female members of Club Obama can deal with the misogyny on their own.

    It's just a matter of time till the Oboiz tell them to get over to their support stations in the ladies' auxiliary, and to stop being unhelpful, angry "special interest" spoilers about Roe v. Wade and contraception just because the women are too selfish to have babies cause it might wreck your bikini figure.

    (If the turfing points from the daily Trolling Points Memo that the astro-trolls use to lay down their hilarious psycho-caca here are any indication, Oboiz' female camp followers won't much like what their post-feminist noses are being rubbed in and pardon me for not giving a delicate feminine sh!t about it.)

    This will be an interesting few weeks, all right.

    And what bizarre blindness (5.00 / 8) (#141)
    by HenryFTP on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    on Cole's part as well -- does he really think that the all the eliminationist rhetoric and use of highly-charged anti-female language and even images (e.g. the nutcracker toy) are just "normal" and that women are taking it "personally" as opposed to women and men alike being outraged by the "outright breach of community and societal norms"?

    We cannot even write or speak in any sort of polite company what the equivalents would be if directed at a person of color. Having had such epithets directed at me for being brown (and in parts of the South, black, as made no difference), and being just old enough to have seen the streetcars and theatres of our Nation's Capital when they were still segregated, it is still hard to even contemplate today. In my naïveté, I never would have dreamed that this sort of filth would be mainstreamed in the corporate media and the Democratic Party in a presidential election.

    I'm not Pollyanna -- scurrilous attacks have been part and parcel of American politics since the election of 1792. But good grief, even as much as Franklin Roosevelt drove right wing Republicans into paroxysms of rage, even a Colonel McCormick drew the line at referring to him as a "cripple".

    Obviously, our "societal and community" norms are not so advanced as John Cole or the mainstream Opinion Elite seem to think.

    The nutcracker toy (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    proves that Aravosis is not being truthful

    Yep, he sees a dichotomy and (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    doesn't get that we can both take it personally and be outraged by outright breaches of our community's norms.  

    So what he has done is made it even more clear to me that I really don't like his Obama community at all -- and that there's no "hope" that it will "change."


    been spending some time (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST
    talking to the midwestern dems this morning.
    they are angry.  angry at what has been done to Hillary.  when you hear 45-65 year old white good-ole-boys being outraged about sexism I think its fair to say something is up.
    to a person they are absolutely livid. about what has been done to the Clintons, who are heros to them, about what the party has done, about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
    Obama is toast.  take it to the bank.

    I'm out the door heading to the Texas state (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    convention.  I'll report back what I hear from all the Hillary delegates.  Big party tonight with lots of booze so the tongues should be wagging.  

    It's amazing that he is still mad over the RFK (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    remark. That he thinks it is a breach of a community just shows that the community lacks intreprtive skills.

    the other thing about cole.... (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    is that he was a lifelong republican until he belatedly saw the light on Iraq -- someone who was entirely comfortable with the GOP's use of dog-whistles and "the Southern Strategy"....

    but the minute he started supporting Obama, he noticed -- and railed about -- anything that could be considered even vaguely "racially insensitive"...

    Rest assured that if Obama picks a female VP, Cole's 'sexism' antenna will be working overtime, and anything that McCain or any of his supporters say that could be remotely construed as sexist will be the subject of multiple rants by him...

    It's worse than ... (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    even BTD suggests.

    Women are an actual group.  Clear and definable.  Women Clinton supporters, equally so.

    Obama's "movement" is not.  Nor is it a society.  Thus, it cannot have "societal norms."

    Cole is engaging in Science Fiction.  And not very good Science Fiction at that.

    And this Science Fictional bloviating is alienating to potential Obama supporters.

    Once again, Obama's Happiness Brigade demonstrates why they're his greatest liability in the GE.

    During the first go round of feminism (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    that I was alive for, in the seventies,
    women had no power.
    We have power now.
    Fasten your seat belts.
    It's going to be a bumpy year.

    I think you missed the point (3.00 / 1) (#8)
    by The Other Steve on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    John Cole teaches communications, and was commenting mainly on the difference in speech/approach between the two candidates.  The use of "I" versus "We".

    He is not commenting on whether or not something is, he is commenting on the preception within the group of supporters.

    I am sure you missed my point (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    I discuss what Cole INADVERTENTLY reveals.

    As for this being some detached analysis of what the different camps perceive, it is absurd. It is the admitted view of an fervent Obama supporter. Cole writes:

    As to how accurate the assessment is, I don't know- you tell me. It is quite possible that those on the other side may view things just the opposite- it is the Obama supporters who identify with the candidate (Obamessiah is not an unfamiliar term to you all by now), and the reverse of what I am stating is more accurate.

    No, I don't think he did (5.00 / 19) (#22)
    by eric on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    miss the point.  What you say is correct, that Cole was commenting on the "we" and "I" thing.  BTD's point was that, by so doing, he unwittingly exposed the underlying sexism of it all.

    We know that Obama has a near cult-like following of loyal supporters that will "recoil in horror" when called on to do so.  But the point is that these supporters do not do any recoiling when there are sexist things that are "outright breach of community and societal norms".


    Bingo! (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    Your statement reveals a lot about you (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    Only a Clinton hater would argue that Hillary focuses on herself ("I") rather than her supporters, the party, and the country.

    She talks about "we" all the time.


    And Hillary was talking directly to (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    her supporters using the word "you" over 70 times - Obama said "you" less than 20 times.

    Well if that's the case then he is wrong.... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    ....older women are just as capable of forming a community as anyone else.

    Wait until he sees our community united again (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    passive voice and royal we (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    Its noticable that Obama uses the a passive voice ("Change means") instead of the active voice (I believe, change means)

    And the "we" Obama uses is sometimes the royal "we" (When we transform our energy policy; We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must;  We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world) meaning the politicians not his supporters.


    Cole would argue... (none / 0) (#213)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    that the "we" Obama's referring to is the communal "we."

    Personally, I think Cole is mistaken.


    But you left out the core context of the thread. (none / 0) (#7)
    by kindness on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST

    "The question before us is how to merge the two campaigns and their supporters to beat McCain, but I would argue that while right now, tensions are hot, the fact that the Obama campaign has in large part been fueled by a movement mentality, there is a distinct possibility that it will be easy to quickly assimilate many of the Clinton supporters (and I dislike the negative connotations of the word assimilate, but I am hard-pressed to come up with another word)...It won't be easy, and it is going to take some time, but Hillary has already signaled that she is going to ramp down things on Saturday at an event for her and her supporters. She started to do that yesterday with her glowing and admirable remarks in front of AIPAC, and for now, at least, it would be smart to simply let Clinton and her supporters have some space. They are hurting, and when you factor in that for years people had just assumed Clinton would be the next President, this is an especially tough loss. Even though I don't identify as personally with Obama as many Clinton supporters do with Clinton, I know I would need some time had things gone the other way."

    John wasn't kicking sand in anyone's face in my opinion.  He was talking about the need of the Democratic Party to come together to beat John McCain.

    OMG! The Borg is coming for us all! Noooooooo! (5.00 / 16) (#14)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    Assimilate! Assimilate! You will assimilate!

    Or...terminate. Terminate! Terminate!


    Resistance (5.00 / 14) (#29)
    by eric on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    is futile.

    It will have to "come together"... (5.00 / 16) (#17)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    without a core group it used to have.  I don't think BO and Friends really understand what has happened here.

    We aren't going to take it and come "back" when HRC has brought us so far forward only to have been kicked in the gut by the party that we did so much for over the years.

    And by the way...it is BS that any of us "assumed" that HRC had the nomination.  That is just media hype about her - which was then picked up by Hillary Haters.  Any woman knows that being a woman means having to work three times as hard while still getting the s*it kicked out of you just to remain "even".


    The road to hell is paved with good intentions (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    He may think he is doing good but sometimes the best thing to do is to STFU.

    I did not kick sand in anyone's face (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    nor did I accuse anyone of doing so.

    Please reread my post. Start with the title - Perspectives On Sexism.

    NOT EVERYTHING is about Obama.


    I didn't suggest you did. (1.00 / 2) (#38)
    by kindness on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    You focused on sexism you see as evident in John's post.  I focused on what I saw as the message of the post for Democrats to work together.

    So you were DELIBERATE:Y off topic? (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    Excuse me, do not do that again. Your comment will be deleted and you will be suspended.

    Just because I linked to Cole's piece does not mean you get to pick any strand of it you want to go off topic.

    I wrote about a topic. If you have no thoughts on that topic, there is an Open Thread below.


    yeah (5.00 / 10) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    and that part was even worse in terms of the rhetoric being counter productive to the stated goal.  Don't assimilate me into movement.  Convince me obama is qualified to be president.

    I hate movements.  I value job performance.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Several Hillary fans here have talked of being part of a movement and their comments seem almost identical to yours.

    Seems to me that anyone who gets so fired up against one centrist dem for another centrist dem when both nearly identical on their job performance, ie votes and policy positions, must be part of a movement or cult.

    Hillary and Obama are both pandering Pols who represent mainstream Democratic positions. They are mere mortals each with their respective flaws, believe it or not.


    Precisely right (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    I think it did (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    evolve into a counter movement of sorts.  Which is one of the reasons why I don't like movement activism.  Over the long term too much feedback.

    Yes.  Once we realized what the obama movement was doing a group of people I never knew existed coalesced to say it must stop.


    Right On Edgar08 (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    I hate movements.  I value job performance.

    Or rather. I didn't mean to imply that you did. (none / 0) (#46)
    by kindness on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    But you missed the point of his post (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by mbuchel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM EST
    As a commenter wrote earlier, Cole's point was not saying sexism is tolerated in society.  He was talking about the interpretation of various events in the campaign within these two distinct communities - Obama's and HRC's.
    Based on the people in those communities, how they developed, the lens through which they viewed the campaign was different.
    To turn it around and say he was essentially excusing the role of sexism in society at large misses the point of his post.

    Some of you seem incapable of (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    understanding the word INADVERTENTLY.

    Speak to MY post or do not comment further in this thread.


    I feel lucky that (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    my sypathy was with edwards more and more now.

    It feels like objectivity, or something along the lines of Kantian disinterest.


    no.... (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    Cole's perspective was that Clinton supporters were "victims", but Obama supporters were a part of a community.

    And lets not forget that Cole could not acknowledge that it wasn't just those "feminists and older women" who objected to the sexism...

    The scars are still healing from my six day horrorshow over at FDL, when I tried to explain that evidence of sexism could be found by examining polling data regarding McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama matchups.  They could not even see the name "McCain".... all they could see was "sexism", "Clinton" "Obama", and they immediately assumed that I was saying that all Obama supporters were sexist.

    It was the defensive nature of that reaction -- an UNNECESSARILY defensive reaction because it had NOTHING to do with Clinton v Obama -- that clued me in to the true nature of his support....


    Good grief. (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    (and I dislike the negative connotations of the word assimilate, but I am hard-pressed to come up with another word)

    Ever hear of a thesaurus, John?

    And he teaches communications?!!!



    BTW, I think Cole's use (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by pie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    of the word was deliberate, his feeble excuses notwithstanding.

    Wrong (5.00 / 17) (#58)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    "It won't be easy, and it is going to take some time, but Hillary has already signaled that she is going to ramp down things on Saturday"

    " it would be smart to simply let Clinton and her supporters have some space."

    "They are hurting, and when you factor in that for years people had just assumed Clinton would be the next President, this is an especially tough loss."

    Each one of these charmingly demeaning, minimizing and dismissive comments is all about kicking sand. We didn't get "ramped up" we don't "need space" nor am I "hurt" and NO ONE could has "assumed" that a woman would actually win.  

    It all code for a "hysterical" women.  I'm not hysterical, I'm ANGRY.


    I Don't Know If You Are A Woman Or Not (5.00 / 8) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    but if you are, you can't be angry. Anger is unladylike. Beside more often than not, a woman is never really justifiably angry. She is overreacting or hysterical.

    You can't be completely against Obama because of any real issue. So you have to have your itty bitty feelings hurt.  


    heh (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Ok - if I get my "hysterical" uterus removed, then may I be angry? Please, pretty pleeeeaaaaassse!

    I Can't Answer That Question For You (4.42 / 7) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    You will have to get permission from a man.

    If John was concerned about Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    He wouldn't have allowed his blog to be a center of HillaryHate.

    Balloon Juice used to be my main hang-out, but I couldn't take the constant hate speech towards Bill and Hillary and all of Hillary's supporters, including myself.

    The RFK thing was only one of many over-the-top hatefests led by John Cole.

    Of course it was Hillary's fault for making him mad.  John gets angry if Hillary complains about the way the media treats her.  He says she's "playing the victim card."


    Cole is delusional if he thinks (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    a large number of people "assumed Hillary Clinton would be the next president".  I keep hearing that and have yet to see evidence.  How does that square with the 'she's divisive and has high negatives' perception?

    I know I for one never thought she had a chance of winning until the fall when the polls looked good for her.  


    This is just on example of pretending (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by nashville on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    like that some of the things Obama & his supporters did in the campaign are just "politics."  Oh, and I forgot he supposedly doesn't even do that.  Give me a break!

    "They are hurting, and when you factor in that for years people had just assumed Clinton would be the next President"

    I, for one, never assumed Clinton would be the next president.  Last summer I thought the notion was ludicrous!  But, yes, I am hurting and in disbelief that the media and some theme of "hope & change" has turned so many Clinton loyalists into Clinton haters.  I said this yesterday...I find this not only troubling, but downright scary.  

    Sorry if I am overreacting.  My husband tells me this daily.  I hope he's right. (BTW he voted for Hillary also.)


    Ironically she campaigned too hard in Iowa. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    She could have halved he spending there, instructed her Catains to back Edwards and she'd have demolished Obama before he even got started.

    Huckerbee demolished Romney --in a way that suited Mccain's long term interest.  I'm positively surprised no staffer has come forward with te tale of Iowa.  They had to have known that letting Obama win in Iowa was the kiss of death for campaign.


    glowing remarks at AIPAC, (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by kimsaw on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    the only thing she did effectively was give him cover , because she, unlike Obama, is a DEMOCRAT who understands foreign policy imperatives and his meeting without preconditions tells us exactly how much he has too learn.

    I'm not suffering from hurt, just disappointment. Stop demeaning Clinton supporters as emotional basket cases.

    As far as assimilation goes, that is even more insulting.  How about Obama inviting Clinton supporters to join by demonstrating respect for who they are instead of stereotyping us a bitter, angry, gun toting bible carriers. His antipathetic comment reflected his own racism.  Yes- many Democrats will fall in line- the elitists already are beginning that process. They think they're suggesting we all drink the kool-aid. You know those elites, devoid of moral conscience when political expediency is needed. You know who they are the ones that think the thefts of votes is okay.  

    Obama is not trusted by many of us. Stop with the consoling rhetoric. Ignoring and accepting sexism is not a way to start healing the division. Apparently Obama and his campaign are not that interested in unity. With the help of the DNC Clinton supporters have been dismissed as irrelevant. So it really doesn't matter how we vote now does it.  I'm not a Democrat so in the end I don't really care. But I do care about my country and after 8 years of GWB I'm not willing to settle for either of the two less capable. I make up my own mind by the facts presented.  I trust John McCain more then I trust Obama. I have watched and listen.  I would have gladly appreciated him as Kerry's VP. He doesn't get my vote this year because I'm voting for Clinton irregardless of her wishes. This is about our country and not what the candidates would like me to do. I'm the decider, its my vote.

    On a final note I haven't assumed Clinton would be president for years, but your group assumptions about her supporters are insulting and a reflection on you. I will not vote for the "Chosen One". Clinton's name will be written when my vote is placed.  I have done my homework and I'm not too crazy about movements they remind me of mindless children lead astray by the mesmerizing tunes of the Pied Piper. As a U.S. citizen I have a right to chose, I will not assimilate to a movement of deception. I give up my mind to no one, especially not the group think of the Obama Nation.


    Attributional bias (none / 0) (#45)
    by Averdean on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    Rather than an example of a "malign acceptance of sexism" isn't it fair to say that the article is more an example of group attribution error and outgroup homogeneity bias.

    For the record, I'm a Canadian so I don't really care that much who was the Democratic nominee (I'm too busy dealing with the nightmare of Stephen Harper running my country with a Liberal opposition leader who has the charisma of a retarded gerbil)

    But on my lunch hour I like to cruise the American Political Blogs to take my mind off of the above and from what I have seen both sides supporters seem I think it fair to say that both sides' supporters have fallen into these traps to a degree.

    No (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    it is fair to say it is a malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny.

    It may be other things as well. Perhaps even that which you suggest.

    But I do not see how you are rebutting or even addressing my point.


    Fair to Say (none / 0) (#147)
    by Averdean on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    I think it fair to say that it is quite possibly both.  Admittedly my knowledge of cognitive biases is somewhat limited, (my partner is the Phd in psychology not me) there is likely a connection between all kinds of prejudice and these biases.

    From my understanding;

    Outgroup homogeneity bias is a bias whereby individuals (in this case John Cole) see members of their ingroup (in this case Obama supporters) as being more varied than members the outgroups (in this case Hillary supporters).

    Along the same lines Group attribution error is attributional bias whereby ingroup members are more likely to attribute the decisions of their ingroup to its decision rules, while they tend to attribute the decisions of outgroups to its members' attitude.

    So when Cole says something admittedly unintelligent as 'all Hillary supporters objections were due to their "personal identification," not a reasonable view of the events' I think it is safe to say that he may be suffering (at least in part) from this bias which is unfortunately common in all people rather than something malicious.

    As to his comments that Obama supporters are legitimately outraged all the time I think this screams of ingroup bias.


    John Cole (none / 0) (#215)
    by wobbly on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    John Cole posted some raving sexist comments himself.  The one that sticks in my mind talked about "the pantsuit brigade" behind Senator Clinton...

    Or as crazy old John Knox would have said "The Monstrous Regiment of Women".

    Cole is entertaining, but he was a Republican until VERY recently, and as we Catholics used to say, "There's no Catholic like a convert."  This was not to compliment the converts.

    Worse yet, his man crush on Senator Obama is partially fueled by his disgust for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  He felt liberated that he could vote for a "black" candidate that didn't cry "racism" everytime somebody said something like "MLK needed LBJ to get things done".  When he saw his candidate DO EXACTLY THAT, he got an ear infection and blogged about beer.

    He still seems unaware that Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al are part and parcel of Senator Obama's campaign.

    I have my reservations about Reverend Sharpton, but back in the day, I campaigned for Jesse Jackson in a couple of Democratic primaries.

    He did very well, considering how little money he had, and he took it all the way to the conventions.

    And his speeches (then) make Obama's (now) sound like weak tea.

    Seriously.  Added to that, Jesse had the courage to think and speak about Israel/Palestine...

    Just sayin'.