home

A Hole In Our Culture

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:22:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Digby wrote this on Saturday:

I have written before that I don't believe Obama's win is attributed to [sexism], carrying a heavy historical burden of his own. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Acknowledging that doesn't create a "toxic legacy" and neither is it just the sad lament of "lonely people" (translation: lonely old women.) But I'm sure those memes will catch on and we'll all be told that we imagined it all. (Youtube is our new best friend.)

Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

As a card carrying internet scold, I will not be shut up about this, or anything else, including Keith Olbermann's unprofessionalism.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Plans Major Outreach to Young Evangelicals and Catholics | Late Night: Losing My Religion >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Hole In Our Culture | 233 comments (233 topical)
    Digby: Not a Shameless Hack (5.00 / 17) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:29:17 PM EST


    Correction... (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:53:08 PM EST
    Digby--Soooooooo not a shameless hack.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 17) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    that Obama's passive acceptance of sexism as long as it benefitted him is a problem. I mean, my gosh, his own supporter compared Hillary to the Glenn CLose character in Fatal attraction. No one in the party should have let that stand.

    What's worse is (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    said supporter (Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis) introduced Sen. Claire McCaskill at the TN State Party fundraiser May 31. Who gave a great Obama-promoting speech, apparently...in contrast to nobody present from the Clinton side.  This before the race was over, in a state Clinton won by 14 points, a couple hours after the Rules Committee debacle.

    Nobody better try to tell ME the deck wasn't stacked  during this election.  I expect this nonsense from Republicans, but behavior of some Dems this year has truly taken the cake.

    [ Parent ]

    (should add (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:39:51 PM EST
    this is the BIG yearly state fundraiser.  Nobody announced McCaskill would be the headliner beforehand....but they cheerfully sold plenty of tickets to Hillary supporters, many of whom I understand are now livid.)

    [ Parent ]
    I will work... (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Cal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST
    ...hard for the defeat of McCaskill next time she's up for re-election.  

    [ Parent ]
    You Will Not Be Alone In That Effort n/t (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK look (3.00 / 10) (#156)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
    I'm only going to say this once, because I think that the sexism in our media and in our culture is real and obvious.

    It was not up to Obama to deal with the way Clinton was treated.

    Obama had and has his own issues to deal with, one just as pervasive and just as ugly and I know you're all tired of the comparison, but racism is just as real a phenomenon as sexism.

    And when he saw people attacking him because of his race, he hit it head on.  The speech he gave in Philadelphia (and I know you're all tired of hearing this, too) was groundbreaking.  Maybe it shouldn't have been.  Maybe we all should have acknowledged from the start that both sides of the racism issue have valid points.  But he was, to my knowledge, the first national figure in decades to face it head on.

    I respect Clinton a lot, I really do.  I would have proudly voted for her in a general election, and I don't think what was done to her in the media was unfair, but when she was confronted with it, it was up to her to face it head on, and she didn't.  

    And now all I hear is how Obama didn't decry how she was treated, which, maybe he should have.  But really, as the one being attacked in that manner, Clinton needed to step up.  But she didn't.  Not the way he did.  I'm sorry, but in the end, she's a strong, competent and capable woman.  If she was really the fighter she claimed to be, she should have fought back.  (And if she did in some speech or action somewhere, and I missed it, please let me know.  That would mean that this post is completely off base.  But I never saw her tackle this issue, directly.)

    In the end, there's racism and sexism all throughout this country and the world.  And both attitudes need to be confronted repeatedly and unflinchingly.  Obama faced his challenge. Clinton didn't.  That is not his fault.

    I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this post.  I'm not interested in fighting.  If you think I'm wrong, please explain civilly and I'll reply in kind.

    And before anyone says I'm accusing the Clinton's of being racist, I'll say now, that no, I don't think they are, in their hearts.  I think they did seem to exploit racism in order to gain leverage in this contest however, just as Obama seemed to take advantage of people's sexist attitudes.  In fact, I'm not particularly proud of either side for their behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's speech (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by suisser on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    in Philadelphia was not given because HE was being attacked for his race!  For cryin' out loud. Simply not true, and I think you know better.

    [ Parent ]
    You think the Wright attack (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:13:21 PM EST
    Wasn't about his race?  Really?

    Wow.  OK, I guess we'll just agree to disagree.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm going to agree (5.00 / 14) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
    it was not about race. I was furious when he got away with giving that speech and the media claiming he had solved that problem.

    The problem with Rev Wright was that many, if not most, people were so taken back by those clips that we wanted to know exactly who Obama was and how much of that hatred he subscribed to. We wanted to know how deep his relationship was with the preacher, and what was this church all about.

    It really was not about race. Obama took it there because he wanted to play the whole deck while he was holding all those cards.

    [ Parent ]

    It was about his (5.00 / 10) (#207)
    by suisser on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    judgement- not his race.

    He did not choose to give that speech, he was forced to give it to save his a**.  And where's all that "National Dialogue" hooey now??

    [ Parent ]

    you're missing the point (5.00 / 18) (#209)
    by fiver2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    He gave the Philly speech because he had no choice; he had to explain how he could listen to Rev. Wright for 20 years and then still name a book after him and put him on a faith advisory committee.  Obama didn't give the Philly speech in order to deal with racist attacks and to show us all that he would make an admirable professor-in-chief.  He did it to try to defuse a toxic situation that was affecting his electability -- namely, his 20-year association with someone on video saying "God Damn America" and that the U.S. government infected people with HIV.  Obama would never have given that speech otherwise, and he gave it solely because his hand was forced -- he had to come up with some sort of explanation.  And frankly, given how circumstances later changed (Wright's reappearance and strange behavior), it might have been a lot better for his campaign if he hadn't given that speech at all.  It's more than ridiculous to suggest that HRC should have given a similar speech on gender.  She wasn't campaigning to be our professor, helping to create some cultural critique that we could all discuss at dinner parties after losing the election.  She was running to be commander in chief.

    [ Parent ]
    And any attempt (5.00 / 10) (#223)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    by Hillary to bring up gender or sexism was met with criticism and more sexism.  She was not allowed to bring up the subject while Obama was applauded and showered with praise.  Talk about adding insult to injury.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it was. (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:12:33 PM EST
    It was not up to Obama to deal with the way Clinton was treated.

    He's (supposedly) a Democrat. Democrats stand for equal treatment and against ALL FORMS of bigotry.

    Ergo, he needed to address the way she was treated.

    Period.

    [ Parent ]

    And Clinton stood up for Obama when? (3.00 / 6) (#191)
    by Y Knot on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:16:47 PM EST
    I'll wait for examples.

    Actually, no, I won't.  I disagree with your point.  In the end, while it would have been a nice thing for him to do, maybe even the right thing, if Clinton wanted to convince people she should be President, she needed to tackle it herself.  Obama bailing her out would have made her look weak.

    [ Parent ]

    When was he attacked? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    " I will not be shut up about this"... (5.00 / 24) (#3)
    by Cal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    And that's why we love you and Digby.

    Hear, hear....sophomoric....how appropos (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    There have been so many juvenile posts regarding this campaign, so much misogyny, veiled threats, so much ugliness...where does one begin?  It is nice to see that there are some who understand what has been transpiring.

    The sad thing is (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    many Obama supporters do not believe it.  Or if they do, they claim "the racism exhibited by the Clintons was worse".  (Pardon me if discussing the racism-as-smear concept is now against the rules at TL and I missed the memo...not trying to cause trouble on this, honest.)

    [ Parent ]
    This Obama supporter (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    agrees with you.

    I couldn't vote for Hil for her war vote, that's all. But I secretly hoped she would win and now I want her as VP.

    Anyhow, I am sure I am not alone in that I have personally experienced the same sort of sophmoric smears that saw light this season.

    [ Parent ]

    Saying (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Blue Jean on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    "I won't vote for HRC because of her war vote." (when she had a NY Senate seat to protect, unlike Himself, who has never voted against the war, only made a speech about it) reminds me of the Nader folks who said "Oh, I can't vote for someone who's pro-death penalty like Gore."--and then ended up electing Shrub who was not only pro-death penalty, but mocked death row inmates' dying pleas.  

    Way to go, folks.  NOT.

    [ Parent ]

    It was close. (none / 0) (#189)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:14:12 PM EST
    and the IWR vote helped me decide.

    Your comparison with Nader voters is over the top, especially since we are not now stuck with shrub, we have Obama, who is a great choice too.

    [ Parent ]

    war (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    I too jumped on that antiwar movement, then I' d' noticed flaws Obama had spoken of that IMo, struck a cord with me.  Soon after I'd realized the site, I used to frequently (huffpo)visit were hiding or neglecting to report the truth about Hillary. I started to research things on my own to realize Obama will not end this war.  Read any article from socialistworker.org about Obama ending this war.  The author points out Obama's hypocrisy( own words) how he plans to turn our focus to afhganistan and increasing troops.  It's going to be a wake up call for those radical left Hugo Chavez supporters,  I mean Obama supporters

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry - you don't get her now... (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST
    ...now that you "need" her - either as Obama's VP or having her trying the herd her supporters into the slaughter house.

    Not going to happen.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't think that's what this post was about (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    I don't think s/he was trying to coopt Clinton. I think the post was a recognition of HRC's strengths and a repudiation of the sexism directed toward her.

    coigue, thanks for sharing your perspective. it's nice to know that some obama supporters "get" it.

    [ Parent ]

    S/he doesn't get it! (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:14:00 PM EST
    "But I secretly hoped she would win and now I want her as VP."

    What?????????????????????????????

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'm not a mind reader (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:27:02 PM EST
    and perhaps coigue will chime back in, but how interpreted this remark was that coigue could not, in good conscience, vote for someone who voted for the AUMF. That pretty much left you with Obama (who had no opportunity to vote for it, though I suspect he would have, but I digress..) or Kucinich. Not much of a choice (sorry, Kucinich fans).

    However, on balance, coigue thought Hillary was the better candidate, recognizes the value of putting her on the ticket, and deplores the sexism of the campaign.

    Coigue is hardly the only single-issue voter in this campaign, and there is no doubt that this hurt HRC among anti-war voters. At least this one has not descended into the dark circle of delusion whereby voting for the AUMF is the moral equivalent to mass murder.

    That's all I meant.

    [ Parent ]

    ITA, (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    plus coigue was one of the valiant Obama supporters who called out the massive sexism and unfairness aimed at Hillary at DK and ended up leaving that site because of it. Just supporting Obama doesn't mean someone is hates her and can't see her good qualities, although it seems that way sometimes on the Internets.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a sinle issue voter (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:16:46 PM EST
    it just put Obama over the edge. I already said it was close between the two of them....and I like them both enthusiastically. My decision was one of the hardest I even have made at the polls.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why did s/he "secretly wish" (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:34:39 PM EST
    ...HRC would win but do nothing about it?

    That doesn't make any sense.  Why secretly wish for something when you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

    [ Parent ]

    Please stop this (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    If you are not certain what coigue meant by the statement, can you at least ask for clarification?  I don't agree with your interpretation either.  There is more than enough acrimony here without adding more if it is not deserved.  

    [ Parent ]
    easy (3.00 / 1) (#143)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:49:16 PM EST
    People do things ALL THE TIME that they hope other people will undo for them (or don't do them, knowing someone else will), because they can't make themselves do it. Voting is a great example. Ever heard of a protest vote for a cause/candidate you don't want, just to send a message. It's not always rational, but it's sometimes how people maintain a sense of moral rectitude. Coigue couldn't vote for a pro-war-vote candidate, no matter what.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally Iunderstand it perfectly (3.00 / 2) (#187)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:13:04 PM EST
    It's exactly like the protest vote I'm going to cast in November.  We all do what we have to do in oder to maintain our own sense of integrity.  


    [ Parent ]
    because I want both of them? (none / 0) (#194)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    Have you ever had a mixed emotion in your life?

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#184)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    I always wanted her on the ticket.

    For me, it was all about the IWR. If it had been her against Edwards, I would have voted her.

    [ Parent ]

    Two of the leaders in this (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:42:02 PM EST
    PUMA organizing were on Cavuto's "news" program on FOX this afternoon. They attempted to point out the sexism against Hillary, while Cavuto promptly shut them down.

    They also said the DNC is trying to force Hillary to give up her delegates and not put her name on the August ballot at the convention.

    Never before in the history of the party has anything like this been done. If it isn't because she's a woman, then what is it?

    [ Parent ]

    anything official or in writing on this? (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:46:12 PM EST
    It would be SO WRONG if this is true.

    [ Parent ]
    No delegates. We need unity, says Dean. (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    No floor vote, says Dean:
    When Mr. Dean reached out to Cynthia Ruccia, who started an organization of female Clinton swing-state voters threatening to vote for Mr. McCain, Ms. Ruccia asked that the Democratic convention include a symbolic first ballot for Mrs. Clinton's delegates. Mr. Dean discouraged the idea on the grounds of unity.


    [ Parent ]
    then I will throw down another marker (5.00 / 9) (#128)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:40:36 PM EST
    no floor vote at the convention, then no Obama vote for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry but $%^& him and unity. (5.00 / 7) (#137)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    he can only discourage it right?

    If she doesn't get the vote or gets convinced to back away for "the food of the party" . . . . Dog these people are clueless (and that's being kind so I don't get banned)

    [ Parent ]

    puma, puma, puma! (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    take her delegates and we take our votes away. got that, dean!

    [ Parent ]
    O/T obama is ramping up his search for (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:38 PM EST
    a VP; and look at the list of the usual suspects...don't know which one is keyser sose (sp)...

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. He has his search committee out (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:16:52 PM EST
    consulting with Pelosi, Durbin, and Reid.  Looking, looking.  Who shall I pick?  

    [ Parent ]
    That's the first I heard it (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    The clip of the program is on the front page of NoQuarter (I know, but the clip is real).

    Cavuto did not correct her when she said it.

    [ Parent ]

    Double Indemnity... (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    she's a Clinton AND a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    I reject "she's a Clinton". (4.73 / 15) (#29)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    My god, Clinton is the ONLY Democrat in the last 40 years to win back to back elections.  I am so sick and tired of hearing Bill Clinton get slammed as if he is a f*cking idiot.

    Bill Clinton is 10 times smarter and more experienced than Barack Obama will EVER be.  And Hillary is 20 times smarter.

    I am so through with the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I reject both (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
    but I was answering the question....not agreeing with the reasoning of those who rejected the Clintons for a beginner who needs job training.

    [ Parent ]
    Because she's a Clinton, more likely (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    Two strikes, ya know.

    [ Parent ]
    yep. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by coigue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    As ugly as it was, sunlight is the best disinfectant

    This might be off topic (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    But I'm suddenly reminded of one of Lyle Lovett's best albums, named after books in a bible, as they appear in the bible, in consecutive order.

    Joshua Judges Ruth.

    I think this might be on topic afterall.  We'll have to see.

    Edgar... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST
    ...I promise if there were a porch and some beer we'd get that past thread's argument settled before those first two cans were empty.

    And, to the topic of this thread, both racism and sexism have been brought out in the open during this campaign. But the racism bit of it has been resolved (and anti-racist forces vindicated, to some degree), to the extent possible in a presidential election (which is rather small, but significant). A black man can be the nominee.

    The sexism festers, mostly unresolved. It's a clear, documented problem. I hope it's documented more.


    [ Parent ]

    A hollow moral victory (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:59:23 PM EST
    Plenty of people think "a black man can be the nominee" because he stacked the deck in various ways, including invoking various sexist tropes.  

    You really think this is a moral victory?  I'm just asking.

    [ Parent ]

    MOSTLY unresolved? (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM EST
    You are kidding, aren't you?  It goes on - the Hillary Hatred is still the "topic" of the day with Obamaphiles and the MSM.


    [ Parent ]
    To make sure this stays on topic (5.00 / 10) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    I still think Obama made himself complicit in the sexism being discussed here when he said the attacks on Clinton from the 90s polarized Clinton and thus made it more difficult for her to unite the country the way he could.

    Because those attacks were primarily sexist attacks, I infer a simple statement:  Obama believes only men can unite the country because when a man is president, the country won't be bogged down with divisive sexist attacks all the time.


    [ Parent ]

    "Racism bit of it resolved?" (5.00 / 21) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:36:31 PM EST
    Speaking for myself, I'd offer that tarring and feathering Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists in the grand tradition of the KKK was a most peculiar way to resolve such an intractible issue.

    Call me foolish and naive, but I consider the unfounded charges of racism in this primary campaign, which were clearly leveled with malice aforethought to simultaneously impugn Mrs. Clinton's character and insult the integrity of her supporters, to be an act of racism that's every bit as vile as waving the Confederate flag publicly at the tomb of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    That members of my own party would so heartily condone this 3ullS4!+ for the sake of short-term political expediency is something that I'll neither forgive nor forget for a long, long time.

    [ Parent ]

    One lasting image (5.00 / 12) (#208)
    by djork on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:29:34 PM EST
    I will never forget from this campaign was Michelle Obama in front of a large crowd saying "they called us a fairy tale", deliberately and cynically twisting what Bill Clinton said referring to the media's coverage of Obama's voting record on the war to make Bill Clinton look like a racist. That was out of the bounds of decency in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh joy...now we will have videos of.. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    Obama supporters and fundies swaying in unison with their eyes closed and hands raised to the heavens praising God and Barack Obama.

    I will blow lunch.  And breakfast.  And dinner.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you see that Oprah intro for Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:09:17 PM EST
    His speech... she was 'intoning', not speaking to the attendees. It was really sickening.

    [ Parent ]
    as a wise man wisely noted (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    They are not your friends.

    You shouldn't shut up about it (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    It's atrocious. Although I agree with Digby -- it's difficult to ascribe causation to sexism for Hillary's loss.

    And causation (5.00 / 19) (#23)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:50:28 PM EST
    is being misused by the media as a way to avoid a discussion of their own sexist behavior.  I would bet 90% of the discussions or interviews I have heard begin with the premise that Hillary or her supporters are blaming her loss on sexism.  Nothing is further from the truth.  It may have hurt her campaign but it hurt more to see how easily and common it came up as part of the accepted coverage.  

    [ Parent ]
    this is a very good point (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    in some ways (e.g., voter anger) the sexism displayed in the media may have actually benefited HRC's campaign in some small ways (I don't necessarily believe this, but it is TECHNICALLY possible). Similarly, Obama may have benefited in the same way from the racist comments/muslim smears directed at him. I don't know, and that's not the point.

    The point is that whether it affected the voters or not, it's not all right. Or excusable.

    However, when dealing with organisms who lack capacity for shame, this is clearly a Sisyphean task.

    [ Parent ]

    while most in the media (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by lizzie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    are avoiding the discussion of their own bad behavior, James Wolcott, addresses straight on when he says, "The garrulous MSNBC host and Gatling gun Chris Matthews was so egregious in his anti-Hillary slant that he apologized after receiving a coast-battering storm of critical backlash, and colleague David Shuster was put in the penalty box after asking if Hillary had "pimped out" daughter Chelsea." He then goes on to properly tear into KO for his "special comment" against Hillary villifying her for race baiting. Wolcott leaves very few rocks unturned and names names (both in print and online).

    I had read this when it was first posted, and then again today as I was belatedly reading the June issue of VF.

    [ Parent ]
    related to naming names (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    Somerby today is a must-read.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. Today on his dumb f**k radio show (5.00 / 12) (#62)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    Ed Schultz was railing on about how all the women's support for Clinton was a "sister" thing and had nothing to do with ability, policies or issues.

    If anybody deserves to have a beer thrown in his face it's Schultz. And I'd love to be the one to throw it.

    [ Parent ]

    i'll buy a ticket (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:13:19 PM EST
    and the beer.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll spring for a keg (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Radical Faith on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:39:20 PM EST
    if you'll throw the whole thing at him.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a deal. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stand in line! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ed so needs to have some (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:04:41 PM EST
    training in how to deal with people of (well,hmm) both sexes. he needs to take the cotton out of his ears and put it his mouth in my humble opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't waste a beer (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:24:18 PM EST
    on Ed, he's not worth it.  He may be a Democrat but many of his Republican tendencies are still showing.    

    I find it interesting that we have so many reformed Republicans - Markos, Aravosis, Ariana, and Cenk Uygur - that were front and center in pushing the Clinton hate this year.  I can't say I am happy with what they are bringing to the party.  

    [ Parent ]

    Gloria Steinem today said on CNN (5.00 / 14) (#73)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    when asked what has Hillary learned and what can a woman do differently next time,

    "that is like BLAMING THE VICTIM for the crime  instead of asking what the media should do differently"

    (I love Gloria Steinem.  She gets it.)

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't she endorse Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    Which begs the question, does she think sexism is ok to use as a political weapon, and if not, why is she endorsing the man who did?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I'm a little put out with Gloria (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    right now, although she was spectacular in that clip, esp. handling those two idiots interviewing her.  You could see in their faces that neither of them had the least idea what she was talking about.

    I think Gloria only endorsed Obama after Hillary suspended though.  Anyone know for sure?

    [ Parent ]

    it doesn't matter (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    Clinton didn't need Steinhem's support.  Luckily 18 million others STOOD by her.

    [ Parent ]
    True enough. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:04 PM EST
    I was just curious because if Hillary did ask her to help, I'm a bit less put out with her.

    I did notice that she tagged that 'and vote for Barack Obama' on at the end in a big rush (or whatever she said exactly).  And that she didn't really endorse him, she said feminists will vote for him.

    Which is what I'm put out about but I did notice she hasn't said anything particularly positive about him.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:57:05 PM EST
    I believe she was at the Saturday speech, near the front.

    I trust she's doing what Hillary asked. I just don't know how she can say "we had an embarrassment of talent" with a straight face.


    [ Parent ]

    compared to the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM EST
    we did.

    Our worst candidate would have been their best.

    [ Parent ]

    how do you explain the hatred then? (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    why all the hatred? they hypocrisy? the lies? the distortions?
    the character assassinations? the absolute desire to shame senator clinton? how do  you explain that?

    [ Parent ]
    Envy. Class warfare. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    It would not be nearly so vicious if she had divorced Bill Clinton.  That she didn't, invites the most scathing, belittling and vicious of lies and putdowns.

    They hurt him by hurting her...and vice versa...and kill two birds with one stone.

    [ Parent ]

    but... (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:30:47 PM EST
    she couldn't divorce Bill Clinton! Because then she would never have been the Senator from NY, which she only got because her husband cheated on her!

    I know it's true, I heard Chris Matthews say it on MSNBC.

    If she had left him, she would have been anti-family and either a) an affirmed lesbian, or b) a sleeping around whore. Or both.

    Why? Because people are afraid of smart, powerful women. It's really that simple.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to disagree (5.00 / 11) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    Had she divorced Bill Clinton, they would have just pivoted to different sexist themes.  Because directly below married women are divorced women.  Remember whatshisname's statement (and the laughter and celebration that surrounded it) about her looking like every man's first wife standing outside probate court?

    Michelle Obama's statement about not being able to run her family would be expanded and run with -- she can't hold onto her man, she's such a b*tch she drove even Bill Clinton away, geez, I can't even think of them but they'd come as fast and as furious and be no less vicious.

    There are some reasons not to like Hillary, and then there are the excuses.  Not divorcing Bill is an excuse.

    [ Parent ]

    That's kind of a deflection, (4.85 / 20) (#39)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:57:44 PM EST
    because no one is saying that sexism itself stole the nomination from her, especially Hillary. We're saying that sexism and misogyny were very very ugly in this campaign, used against her and her supporters every single day and in most of the media. And we're angry that people we thought were allies not only didn't speak out against it, but used sexist stereotypes and speech themselves.

    And now those same people are either belittling our experiences and telling us to stop whining and grow up OR saying, "OMG, will you look at that! We never saw the misogyny before this week-- what a shame, tsk tsk :("

    [ Parent ]

    It's the same thing (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:01:14 PM EST
    they did to folks convinced Republicans stole the 2000 election.  Minimize, pathologize, invalidate.  If they can convince everyone we're just insane with bitterness, it means nothing we say is valid.

    We're just gonna have to be patient.  And hope it takes people less time to realize the truth on this than it did on the Florida debacle.

    [ Parent ]

    (Oh, and (none / 0) (#51)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    sorry on the username.  I didn't realize it was more or less taken till I'd been here a while.  Would be open to changing mine if you'd like.  Email me at
    e l e a n o r a _ 2 0 0 8 @ y a h o o . c o m
    if you care to discuss...)

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, no problem! (none / 0) (#53)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    I did a doubletake every time I saw you for awhile there! But I always like the things you say, so I'm happy to be twins ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto! So it's official (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    Glad to hear it.  Drop me a line anytime anyway if you like.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    I would suggest that it's (4.77 / 9) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    one of the things.

    There are others...including a couple bad weeks after NH.

    But the sexism thing did play a part...
    The nasty reaction to her choke up was beyond bizarre. I mean here they were all up in arms about her being the Ice Queen...she shows a smidge of emotion...the next thing you know she's a Weeping Willow.

    As a coworker pointed out...she was da*ned coming and going.

    [ Parent ]

    Once Again, The Media Gets Away With It (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    they smirk and make their sexists remarks, looking straight into the camera, as though they were looking into our eyes.  Ratings soar, and they go on to bigger and better things.  Anyone who dares is criticize them is smeared on the same medium that allowed their disgusting behavior in the first place.  They are off the rails.

    I hope this is not true, are the ratings (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:51:53 PM EST
    of MSNBC up or down? I hope they are down. I have to believe they are down as a result of Olbermann and Matthews.

    OT - I am developing a list of my own VP choices that would be deal breakers for my Obama vote- any Republican, Sam Nunn, Bill Richardson, Claire McCaskill, Katherine Sebilius, and maybe a couple of others.  

    [ Parent ]

    MSNBC's are up (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:56:32 PM EST
    Depressingly.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't tell you how much that saddens me (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:57:41 PM EST
    Beyond belief

    [ Parent ]
    And what makes this even worse is.. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST
    that they (especially Olbermann) are doing the best with the young demographic, which is the best demographic for advertising. They are getting rewarded for being the most propagandized news channel since the beginning of the Iraq War.

    [ Parent ]
    my guess is they won't be hanging (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    around after november watching ko.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Richardson makes me so mad..... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    wheneve he is on TV I hit the mute button.

    What a snake in the grass...self-serving @##.

    [ Parent ]

    how long did it take you to earn that card? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    is there a certification process? I want to be an internet scold, too!

    Sexism for a lifetime...I've had enough. (5.00 / 10) (#19)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    Unforunately, Howard Dean, Wexler, Reid, Obama supporters, and others have no understanding of the intense anger that women have from living with decades of sexism.  I am sick of being in the underclass.  I am sick of being categorized as low income and uneducated.  (The opposie is true.)  I am sick of being taken for granted.  

    I never dreamed that I could vote Republican, but I can and will, if Hillary is not offered the VP.   My vote will be a PROTEST vote...about disrspect of Hillary, distortions about Hillary, trying to force Hillary out of election, and on and on.   My vote is all I have left to voice my opinion.

    I have called and emailed every Democratic Senator,  many members of the House,  the DNC, and mass media repeatedly during the Primary about treating Hillary fairly.

    My grievances are many.   And, no, I can not be patted on the head,  called chilish, insulted, called not a true Democrat and a liar on Kos when I stated that I have voted a straight Democratic Ticket for over 30 years.  Obama GET MY VOTE NOW???    The Democratic Party tell me to step up now.   What hurts the most is to be dissed now by a Party that I have worked for diligently fo 30 plus years.  

    If Hillary is offered the VP will I vote for Obama.

    If Obama is not smart enough to choose the winning ticket then I can question if HE really has the best interet of the country at heart.  And my guilt for a McCain vote will be gone.


    I agree - 1000% EXCEPT (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:04:09 PM EST
    ...I won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.  And I pray that if asked, HRC will not accept the VP slot.  AND, I have the same prayer about Wes Clark.

    Amen.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm on your Nonvote Boat (5.00 / 11) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST
    I can't vote for a person who savagely exploited the very thing I've worked all my life against, and which was aimed as much at me as at Hillary.

    Long before the delegate-stealing at the RBC (and all the caucus and primary and RBC manipultions that preceded that show trial), I'd decided that I just couldn't do it. To support him in any way says it was ok, it was within the rules of the game.

    My only regret when watching the RBC meeting was that I can only withold my vote once.

    [ Parent ]

    The RBC was o foolish (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:21:30 PM EST
    and short sided.   Had all votes for FL/MI been counted and Hillary given all her votes as cast, I could be forgiving.   That was the straw.   I was mad before but that day I was enraged at Obama.    The DNC knew what they were doing in the beginning to punish FL/MI.   They knew that Clinton would have won the nomination.

    Dirty tricks.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama could (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by sas on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:48:24 PM EST
    have been a great leader, but his quiet acceptance of sexism, has shown that he is just another guy, in it for himself.

    There were several times during the campaign where he could have shown leadership ....

    1.  allowing a revote in Florida and Michigan, instead of him and his campaign setting up roadblocks

    2.  calling the press out on sexism...showing that America was truly a land of equality for all in his eyes...

    3.  disavowing Wright the first time, quitting the Trinity church very early on, denouncing Pfleger , denouncing Rezko, Ayers

    4.  Saying that Bill Clinton, especially was not a racist early on

    Of course, any of these might have meant he might not win...

    No great leader here, no visionary, .....just an inexperienced, arrogant, opportunist....

    He's quiet and passive (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:02:28 PM EST
    About everything. Not just sexism.

    [ Parent ]
    Memories ... of the way we WEREN'T (5.00 / 14) (#129)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:40:58 PM EST
    I want to know WTF Obama ever did, ever risked, ever strenuously objected to the War On Iraq, in real political time as opposed to that "brave" self-congratulating rhetorical post facto stance.

    To me it's his AWOL story. Wouldda couldda shouldda and he didn't happen to be in congress at the time, which of course isn't his "fault".

    It speaks volumes to his undeserved laurels in that category that he wasn't leading on the national stage on that issue. I mean, it's so often raised as a big reason he's more righteous than Bad Obstacle Lady.

    Were he really the second coming of MLK and Gandhi combined, he'd have been THE voice of the anti-war movement. If he'd accomplished a fraction in realtime as what his rhetoric suggests, he'd have been taking on the Patriotic Police so hard, he'd have been a librul household name back when it mattered.

    It reminds me so much of Lt. GW F*ckup who swaggered around in a bomber jacket in college, being a 1st class pro-war @ssho!le while other poor b@stards without his connections suffered and died for his bragging.

    Another thing that's striking about this smoke and mirrors, all-sizzle, no-steak movement is that they're so much like the post-literate definition of a classic as a book everyone wants to have read.

    Not very many of the movementarians seem to care much about where the samples / cribbed phrases of the swaying and the "inspiring" speeches come from, or the hard civil rights battles -- going for a large sexist frappacina if anyone wants to come with -- they seem more in a hurry to have been a part of a movement.

    It's like an implanted chip with a scripted photoshopped memory that didn't really happen but replays well.

    Yeah, I generalized. :: spit ::

    Once I got pegged as a typical problematic racist white b!tch and officially got tossed off the Fauxgressive Express, I figured, why not go Rogue?

    [ Parent ]

    The most amazing thing... (5.00 / 16) (#21)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    is that all Obama had to do was to make a campaign speech and address the sexism and stop it in his tracks.

    He never did.  IN fact, he fertilized it with his "finger" on the cheek at the appropriate time when he mentioned HRC; his claws reference; his periodic reference....I will never forgive him.  

    Obama can, now, talk until he's blue in the face about women and HRC and his daughter and me...and I will simply flip the bird right back at him!

    I will never forgive him.  Never.

    So we have to go see him in a group (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    And just keep fingering our cheek as he does his speech. Like the Wave, ha. Hillary did not lose because of sexism in reality, but the sexism in the media was ugly. None of us deserve that and since the media was guilty of that, then it goes into the equation.

    [ Parent ]
    There's plenty of time left (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:51:36 PM EST
    and he knows how to make that happen.

    No. He. Does. Not. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:10:08 PM EST
    And if you think he does, then you must still be sipping that Kool-Aide.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Psstt was referring to (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:12:53 PM EST
    the part about Obama being the only one running. He does know how to make that happen, he has done it in most of his elections.

    [ Parent ]
    The proof is in the eating of the pudding (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    and I think Obama has the best ratf*ckers money can buy, along with a whole army of ratf*cker trolls who really haven't realized the big battle is still ahead, with nary a caucus in sight.

    Fight fire with fire, it's been said. We've certainly found someone who knows how to use the rules set forth in 2000. Now all that matters is if he's just as competent as GOVERNING -- previous examples point to no.

    It's amazing, really. It's like they hollowed out a democrat and poured a GOP operative inside. Less Manchurian, more Dolly Madison.

    [ Parent ]

    I admit I've been thinking that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:40:25 PM EST
    Along the lines of, Maybe it's good to have a really ruthless Dem for a change, instead of one who just rolls over...

    Problem is, I just can't get past the part about those tactics making us nothing better than those we claim to despise.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the post I responded to has (none / 0) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    disappeared. It referred to a ballot with no opponents.

    Apology accepted.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a big part of me that was (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    wishing that we really did have 57 states, and that this process could go on just a little longer, just because I think we were really on the verge of having a national conversation (God, I hate that term) about sexism and gender issues.  Now that Hillary has conceded the nomination, it seems that even trying to have that conversation brands us as "whiners," which is a shame because I think we have a lot to talk about.

    Contrary to what we keep being told, this isn't about blaming sexism for Hillary's loss - unless the Obama people want to own the notion that he should let race take credit for his win - it's about taking a good, hard look at our attitudes and perspectives and actions where women are concerned, where we are as a nation, and where we are headed as a result of what happened these last months.

    She suspended, she did not concede (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:00:06 PM EST


    [