Blogging On The Bus: What About The Sexism?

Eric Boehlert's book,"bloggers on the bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press", is a tour de force about the rise of activist political blogging that deftly describes the rise of political blogging in the Bush Era. It takes the issue of political blogging and its effect on politics and journalism seriously and provides many first person accounts of how it came about. As part of the story, Boehlert reports on the period of the 2008 Democratic primary. That portion of the book will anger many in the blogosphere. Perhaps it should. But perhaps they should also consider whether the book portrays the episode accurately. I believe it does.

In this post, I will be discussing Chapter 9 of the book - the issue of sexism and how it was covered and REFLECTED in the blogosphere. The most startling quote on the subject in the book comes from Chris Bowers during the 2008 Presidential primary - "[Was sexism] somehow pervasive throughout the entire blogosphere? I certainly have not seen that." (Emphasis supplied.) Chris is a good man. But please. This is like a Right Wing blogger complaining that there is not "pervasive racial coding throughout the entire Republican Party." Define "pervasive" Chris. More . . .

Others disagreed with Chris' assessment. I would hope that this disagreement would give him pause now. Not just from me. After all, I am just an a-hole. No need to listen to me.

But how about Susie Madrak - "It's disgusting and repellant. It's a real sustained problem that's out of control. I think there are a lot of Democratic women that are very very angry with the Netroots right now."

How about Digby - "When people assumed I was a man they reacted to me in a certain way. the minute it became known I was a middle aged woman, -- Oh God the worst of possibilities! -- people reacted to it differently. I'm not an idiot. I can tell."

How about Melissa McEwan? Boehlert describes her reaction:

McEwan became increasingly unnerved by what she saw of the sexist coverage of Clinton, and how the progressive blogosphere, having embraced Obama, let so much of it pass without comment. . . . Worse was the fact that over time, she couldn't shake the feeling that portions of the netroots were actually pushing the sexist stuff.

How about Jane Hamsher's rationalization for this behavior? "I think there might be a lack of sensitivity to sexist coverage. . . . I think that if you are a man you just do not see it that fast." What does it mean if you do not see it at all Jane?

The most ironic reaction Boehlert recounts comes from Booman (with whom I was quite friendly at one time), who, according to Boehlert, admitted that

[H]e was so "pissed off" [at Clinton] . . . that he lowered his outrage threshold in terms of defending Clinton against sexist broadsides."

How do you lower your threshold below zero, Booman?

What makes Booman's confession ironic is how he first built up his site - by taking advantage of the original "pie fight" - the battle over Daily Kos' (I was a front page poster at Daily Kos at the time) running of an ad for a new Gilligan's Island television program that featured a pie fight between the new Ginger and Maryanne. When Markos made the blatantly sexist remark about the "sanctimonious women's studies set" (a remark roundly and rightly blasted by many, including Daily Kos front pagers like myself and Meteor Blades. Markos later apologized for the remark), Booman made a big show of trashing Markos for it and offering his site as a welcoming haven for feminists. Booman had his own history of rather sexist comments so his newly found awareness of the importance of fighting sexism was quite, um, convenient.

Of all the episodes of the 2008 primary wars, to my mind, the pervavsive acceptance, even encouragement, of sexism and misogyny remains the most shameful and the one that must be remembered. Progressives abandoned one of the most basic tents of progressivism - all due to their love of one politician and their loathing of another politician. It should never have happened. And it is a wound that has not been addressed forthrightly.

Boehlert's book provides us another chance to heal this wound. Perhaps it will be addressed now. Not likely I know. But we are all for hope and change now no?

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Pot, Prisons and the Elephant in the Room >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does Boehlert include a chapter (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    on "playing the race card"?  Hope so, as he obviously "gets it" re gender.  

    He discusses many issues (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    and his book is about much more than the 2008 primary.

    The book deserves a more expansive review than I offer here.

    And I will provide it.

    But this issue has knawed at me since I started blogging.

    Indeed, one of the  most galling attacks on me was that I "discovered" sexism as an issue because I was for  Hillary.

    As readers here know, I was not for Hillary and I have been writing about sexism since I started blogging. (Google Armando and Summers for an example.)

    Hell, I have been PC forever.  


    i remember (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    when you did that diary on Summers and I simply couldn't believe the response you got to that. All the signs were there back then.

    I hope you also remember (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    that I would not be cowed and continued that battle over the course of months.

    If there is one thing I hope all will acknowledge, I will not back down from a fight.

    Perhaps it is a fault, but sometimes it is a virtue.


    Well, I admired that.... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    and I am confident many did.

    Sometimes not backing down is a great virtue.....
    in those cases....for sure.


    I won't (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Bemused on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:45:38 AM EST
     Seems indisputable to me that you ban people from your  threads for disagreeing with you which would be as strong an example as backing down as poasible. For you now to pat yourself on the back is quite amusing

    Here is a commenter banned from my thrreads (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:47:48 AM EST
    And yet he chooses to defy my banning.

    I admit I have no tolerance for the likes of bemused,. I certainly will pat myself on the back for it and will not report you to Jeralyn and ask you be banned from the site, considering this has to be the 20th time at least you have defied my banning.


    As i said (2.33 / 3) (#173)
    by Bemused on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:54:37 AM EST
     you have no tolerance because i disagree with you and pointed out od a few occasions how you premised entire lines of arguments on misunderstanding of law. So, you back down from the "fight" and resort to censorship.

      Here, I am just pointing out you are praising yourself for being able to defend yourself when that is clearly not the case.


    Here you are (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    defying the rules of the site again - you are banned from my threads. You KNOW this. You have been told this by me and Jeralyn countless times.

    Your opinion is no longer welcome in my threads, nor is your opinion why your opinion is no longer welcome.

    Stop commneting in my threads.

    Are you incapable of showing respect for the rules of the site? If so, why precisely should you be allowed to participate at the site?

    I think your own behavior rather makes the case for why you are banned from my threads. but it does not matter. You are banned from my threads. Do not comment in them. EVER. Jeralyn has told you this as well.

    What will it take for you to respect this site?


    Yep (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    I remember you having quite a few diaries on him. Nope, you sure didnt back down from that fight.

    hmm. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by souvarine on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    Was racism somehow pervasive throughout the entire blogosphere? I certainly have not seen that...

    While it is easy to find racism on the Internet, and if anything easier now that we have a black president, the racism that popped up in the progressive blogosphere during the primaries was almost immediately marginalized. So racism in the progressive blogosphere is a dog bites man story, yes it happened, and those who engaged in it were excluded from the community, as they should be. The treatment of sexism in the progressive blogosphere is a different story, which makes it notable.


    False charges of racism... (5.00 / 12) (#87)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    ... were endemic, and leveraged on a daily basis online.

    We often what we expect to find (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jondee on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    Or, are already particularly sensitive to.

    Like the constant references posted here during the primaries concerning "the white working class" (as if, as people like Glen Beck like to insinuate, blacks never work), that I took, and continue to take umbrage to.


    If I recall (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by DJ on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:02:07 AM EST
    you couldn't correctly say "working people" supported Clinton because black working people supported Obama.  It was never a slam to African Americans, it was recognizing that across the board their support went to Obama.

    That is absolutely correct (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    The phrase 'white working people' began defensively by Clinton's campaign because they were attacked when talking about support from the working class and relentlessly bashed about because the black working class were all supporting Obama. So, then, they started saying specifically 'white working class' and guess what - the same old game was played where they were portrayed as only caring about the white working class. Nothing surprising there - just the same old distortion came. Sometimes you can't win. The actual facts are that, in general, the black working class vote went to Obama and the white working class vote went to Clinton during the primary. I guess you're not supposed to say that.

    Enough sd. Boehlert? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    There's always going to be denial (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:05:41 AM EST

    Actions have consequences (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by nellre on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    There are sites I do not go to anymore.
    My trust in the progressive blogosphere was shattered.
    Sexism in all media may explain some of this:
    GOP Party Identification Slips Nationwide and in Pennsylvania
    In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years.

    But these Republican losses have not translated into substantial Democratic gains.

    Yes, as to distrust and not reading (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    certain blogs.  My introduction to reading blogs was during the GE campaign in 2004 and I read Daily Kos religiously and primarily.  No longer.

    Oh yes, me too (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    I used to pull up Kos and TPM multiple times daily. Not any more. Kos never, and TPM maybe once a week for very specialized issues. I know there are others I cut off my list but I have mercifully forgotten them.

    Make that me three....... (5.00 / 17) (#64)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    I used to read dkos daily, many times, and now, after boycotting it for a long time, I peruse looking for a diary I might find of interest.

    There were some frontpagers for whom I had the utmost respect but now toward whom I still feel anger for their blatant silence about the sexism on the site.....

    I have had to work really hard to let go of my anger toward the democratic party.   I really felt, as an older woman (a year older than Hillary), totally betrayed by the leadership.   I understand how each party member had a right to choose whom to support, but the leadership's silence on the blatant sexism in the press still bothers me. Women, in my view, have been the major supporters of democrats for decades...we were the foot soldiers.  We did a huge chunk of the drone work having minimal access to the leadership positions, rarely reaping the benefits......like the mothers always willing to put their own needs aside to benefit their children. But with Hillary we finally came to have a chance to be represented.   And, while I understand competition is a good thing, unfair rules undermined it all.

    There are certain media figures I do not think I can ever look at without feeling anger and disgust...Matthews (but that went back to before the 2000 election); Brian Williams, Russert, Olberman, Shuster and Maddow come to mind....
    unlike the disgusting pigs on the right, the pundit hacks of FOX who were openly hateful, the aforementioned were supposedly either neutral as reporters or progressive, liberal pundits......

    to this day some of them cannot let go of their CDS and/or their sexism.


    interesting read (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Patriot Daily on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    the dk sexism pie fight happened before i blogged there.

    the interesting part is given the sexism there today, i just can't imagine that there were enough persons to even care about advocating against sexism back in 2004.

    the digby comment is telling too. i often experience the same reaction when people learn i'm a woman. some things never change..

    There were many people then (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    who fought against sexism. I like to think I was one of them.

    Certainly, not so many now.


    it's been awhile since i posted (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Patriot Daily on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    comments here. can't remember the rating system.

    i gave you a 1, thinking it is the rec rate?

    just explaining in case it's not a favorable rec rate. :)


    Well (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    ratings do not matter here. But to denote approval of a comment, we give 5s.

    But if you are coming back, please do not worry about ratings. We moderate the site by dictatorship.

    In particular, I ban people from my threads. Many times it is not fair that I do so, but it is because I can not trust myself to remain civil with some commenters.

    It really is not fair to them, but I have not overcome my own commenting issues.


    Sometimes you even ban yourself from your threads (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:00:44 PM EST
    Or maybe it was just the once...made me smile.  

    More than once (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    thanks. i changed to a 5! (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patriot Daily on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    lol, 50/50 chance and i'm bound to go in wrong direction.

    You did (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    I remember it all quite clearly.  And you were trashed for it.  I tried to debate in the comments part but often came away feeling the sting of sexism and ageism (as I have always been open about my age and gender).  

    I always appreciated your voice and was sorry you were driven away ......


    You were! (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:49:01 PM EST
    That's why we [heart] you!

    I was there then (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    and one of the angry commenters.  It was an appalling episode in the evolution of new media, and it showed me that there really wasn't much new about its content; it just was a new toy for the too many of the same boyz.  So I rarely have been back to DKos since -- or to national blogs, until finding BTD here, in part because he did stand up to the sexism there.

    That hasn't spared me from him here, of course. :-)  My cynicism may get to many, but not more than all this got to me, as I used to be an optimist about the future for liberal politics.

    So it goes.  Basically, since the infamous pie fight, I spend less time on national blogs like this than before and more time on smaller discussion groups, some that split from this one during the campaign, as well as on local blogs.  There, we still may make a difference.


    I agree on the local (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    But it's important to be able to shine some kind of spotlight on them, as we did on the Alabama PACT scandal. Of course, Beltway insider stuff is a lot easier to write, because it's formulaic, and you might even get to go on the teebee!

    Oh, I was there (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by daria g on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    I recall being an apologist for Markos, frankly. I think it had to do with.. personally having gotten into a few pissing matches with women's studies people because, as a feminist I was/am looking at that from the inside. But I was naive about how deep-rooted sexism can be.

    I'm not making any blanket accusations against Markos but people were right to call him out for making that comment.

    The relative anonymity of the interwebs really brings out the worst impulses in a lot of people, and it's so disheartening to see what they are, what people say about women, and the consequences when it's allowed. There can be change but IMHO the leaders of those communities needed to step up and tell their commenters to check themselves, so they'd learn better, and they never did.

    Honestly I saw a fair number of racial comments about Obama in the progressive blogosphere too, but on largely Obama-supporting sites it was done in a strange backhanded way: thinking up a hideous racial stereotype and then accusing other people of making them think of it. I recall when a NH official in Hillary's campaign remarked on whether questions about drug use would come up, and was (rightfully) asked to step down immediately for that. And I also recall reading commenters saying it was comparing Obama to some awful stereotype of a street corner drug dealer.. and it's like.. who in the world thinks such a crazy thing, except you who is making the accusation?!


    Looking forward to reading this (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by daria g on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    Painful as it's going to be to hash this out one more time. It's hard to see lots of 'progressive' bloggers as progressives and allies on any issue when they don't see sexism as a problem. Wish I knew where I found this written originally but.. for many in the allegedly 'progressive' netroots, if you're against her, you can say whatever you want about a woman.  

    Frankly, if a lot of the netroots truly believe Hillary is that vile, evil, power mad, racist b---- they portrayed her as during the primaries.. Why didn't they launch a serious, organized campaign to deny her the job of Secretary of State? Why? I'd think there'd be a matter of principle there - if all those horrible things they said about her were true, and most of all, if she ran a race-baiting campaign, such a person has no business representing this country.  Where was the outrage?

    Start with John Aravosis (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    I did not mention him in this post because I could not be temperate about it. His behavior then and hios statements now are despicable.

    Of all the people on the blogs I have come to have no respect for, John Aravosisi is number 1.

    Arianna is what she always was. And people do for money what they must at times.

    But Aravosis was beyond any pale and he still acts as if he is the aggrieved party because his despicable behavior was criticized.

    I no longer read him on any subject now.


    You and me both (5.00 / 11) (#70)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    Aravosis was and remains an obnoxious bigot toward women in general, Hillary in particular.

    and I am not nearly as forgiving of Arianna as you are.  She is a sanctimonious hypocrite in my mind.  Her behavior in the 90s ( I clearly remember her noxious comments on political shows then, her friendship with Newt, her adoration of Reagan) offended me and I do not trust her at all.


    I do not forgive Arianna (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    as I have never forgottten what she is.

    I never embraced her so I need not forgive her.

    The Huffington Post is a blight on the blogosphere and has been since Day 1.

    That said, Sam Stein is a fine reporter.


    Yea, I do like Sam Stein (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    And I do go there to look for news, for certain bloggers.  

    Glad to hear others feel like me about Arianna....


    I was going to call him out specifically (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by daria g on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    Hesitated, revised my comment, but you're right.  He was the worst. I didn't read him then and I don't now, but one day I did check a post of his about Hillary and the comments were FULL of people flat-out calling her the B-word and worse, just vicious, hateful abuse.

    I don't know how anybody who encourages and promotes that kind of hatred can sleep at night. I really don't.

    And it's a damned shame because those of us who are true progressives have nearly 100% the same stance on LGBT rights. I do. I hate knowing he has no respect for me.


    Amen (4.75 / 4) (#55)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    And A-blog was actually the first blog I ever started reading (during the Jeff Guckert/Gannon saga). Such an eye-opening experience, the 2008 primary season.

    Now I'm glad (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    that I still have those two Cindy McCain dkos diaries bookmarked.  I was thinking about deleting them, but they are picture perfect examples of unrestrained ad hominem and sexist attacks.  

    There's much, much less feminist writing on dkos anymore.  


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    Daria G:

     Why didn't they launch a serious, organized campaign to deny her the job of Secretary of State?

    Because, to "progressives," sexism is a political tool to be used lilke any other, just like false charges of racism and electoral chicanery.

    When the need to use the tool ends, the tool is dropped. Not to say they didn't enjoy using the tool, of course. That showed up all to clearly on many, many "progressive" blogs.


    I'm reminded of the Lieberman/Lamont ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Caro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 04:59:28 AM EST
    ... primary. Punishment for Lieberman was the driving force there, and that's why blogosphere support for Lamont just died after he won the primary.

    Can hatred and vindictiveness be the primary basis for a political movement? It worked for the Republicans for a while, and may work again.

    Carolyn Kay


    I'm glad he talks about the sexism (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    and I hope that gets it a wider discussion. I'll have to read his book - I usually find him one of the more honest voices.

    For my part, I could not have been more dismayed at what I saw. Women kept the party afloat for many years while men rushed to the GOP. I had always assumed that men who stayed Democrats were by definition supportive of women and their point of view and rights. Dem men took a lot of abuse from the GOP for staying int he party that was perceived to be supportive of women, and had some women leaders - taunting as 'quiche-eaters', weak, and I know you have heard the rest.  I thought that they stayed and took it because they believed in women's worth and equality.

     Boy was that ever a horrible assumption. For a 50 yr old woman, I sure was naive.

    But in the end (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    Markos and his ilk, for all their work, really were Reagan loving republicans.   They may have changed a few of their views for real, but it is clear to me that lots of the younger men on dkos remain sexist as they were when they supported the republican party.  For Markos, after some of his recent comments, it seems that since he let go of republicanism and Reagan, he has now added ageism to his world view.

    Yes, but unfortunately, (5.00 / 7) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    I don't we can chalk this stuff up to being due to those who were former republicans, as comforting as that might be.

    Unfortunately, many 'progressives' and 'liberals' are as horribly sexist as right-wingers. It is just very commonplace and accepted.

    On some level, what happened during the election was shocking. But, on another level, I have to keep reminding myself that it really isn't that surprising. I am surrounded by lefty men in my work and personal life, and many of them are as sexist as can be. The way they talk about women is appalling, especially if they think a woman isn't listening, but even if she is. And they also have a long way to go in terms of fair treatment in the workplace.


    And about us formerly Dem women (5.00 / 16) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    we will not forget.

    Interesting aftereffects.  I give a lot of talks across my state on women's history to women's groups (because over many years, only one men's groups ever asked).  They tend to ask for talks on women's history in politics -- and never more so than this year.  These groups invariably include, invite, etc., many local and state women politicians (from both parties).

    So this year, I included discussion, visuals, etc., from last year's campaign.  These always are very responsive audiences, but this part of the talks really resonated -- I even got cheers.  And I got gratitude, with responses including that they were so glad someone was talking about it at all, as so many in the audience had been dissed for trying to do so during the campaign . . . and especially that someone still was talking about it and would not let this discussion die.

    And, of course, this goes well beyond the blogs, as many of these women were not on the blogs but saw the blatant sexism in every form of media.

    The anger was as palpable as the gratitude that someone still was talking about it.  The Dems, especially, have a lot of work to do.  These audiences, these groups, were their mainstay.  I don't know that they will remain that way.

    Above all, the Obama administration better believe, as I heard again and again, that these women are watching every move made now.

    Count me among the grateful. (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    In fact, the only thing that makes me feel even a little better about what I saw and heard during this election is that people like you are going to keep forcing it into the open and not let it be disappeared or denied or distorted.

    I am similarly extremely grateful to Melissa at Shakesville - one of the only antidotes in the blogosphere.


    And people like you -- and Shakersviille (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    Yes, sites like that gave me a lot of the material I saved last year and got to use in these talks as well as classes this year.

    Btw, a lot of students didn't want to see it -- and, of course, had not seen it last year.  I will get lousy evals, but so it goes.  Perhaps most interesting to others here, although not surprising to me, was that of the students who were aware of the sexism and do not want that discussion to disappear are African American women students.


    To clarify (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    The last sentence ought to end "of the students who were aware of the sexism and do not want that discussion to disappear, many are African American women students."

    That's good to hear. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    I ought to clarify (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    that I add these personal experiences not at all for self-aggrandizement, please.  I add these experiences to the discourse here because they are experiences beyond the blog world and out there in the real world of women who have worked long and hard for years for real hope and change in politics . . . and because most in these groups -- but by no means all -- are liberals.  It's interesting to see such unanimity in response, across the political spectrum, on this issue, as perhaps has not been so evident since the pre-1920 period.

    Yes, another formerly Dem woman here (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    and I won't EVER forget. To listen to members of my own party trash Hillary using the crazy GOP talking points of the 90's was mind boggling.

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    I don't post on it all every day, of course. That wouldn't be "looking forward." But I remember the lessons learned quite vividly. And no, I will not forget.

    We'll maybe we should give them some credit (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    they were so loud and blatant about it, we will not forget.

    Former Dem here also.


    Btw, your blog post has the BEST (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    headline.  Cracks me up:

    "Bloggers on the Bus" vs. bloggers under the bus

    That is so good to hear (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    thanks for being out there doing something instead of just being mad and boycotting web sites like me.

    And 'formerly Dem' is how I look at it too.


    Every vote counts (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    more than the total of all in my audiences.  But what may count the most is being willing to keep talking about it before the next frenzy of a campaign -- and about what we did and will do with our ballots.   The world has been changed before by what women do best:  talking to each other. :-)

    Very good (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    I certainly do that last part!!!

    You like my new acronym, then? (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    The FKD?

    The party Formerly Known as Democratic?


    Your equanimity (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    towards my "occasional" uncalled for outbursts is appreciated. We thank you for sticking with us.

    being mostly elsewhere (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by jpete on Sun May 03, 2009 at 10:56:06 PM EST
    on the blogshpere, it's really nice to return to find this discussion.  BTD, I think you've made very important differences in the progressive dialogue, and the issue of sexism is one of many on which you've been in front.

    Believe me, a lot of us (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    appreciated your voice then and still do.

    Do the people to whom you speak (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    think Obama is obligated to appoint a woman to Souter's place on SCOTUS?

    Of course not. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    The talk I hear is that we desperately need a justice who will be great, first, on Constitutional issues.  The hope is that she or he also has to be good on gender issues, but I don't hear optimism about that from this White House.

    As for the talk I walk, go see my comment on the earlier TChris thread about potential nominees.  I tossed a guy's name into the mix, because he may be our greatest on Constitutional issues but also is good on gender issues.


    That's sounds like a narrow construction (none / 0) (#160)
    by jpete on Sun May 03, 2009 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    0f "gender issues."  Would you place the great thinkers on civil rights in a similar contrast with constitutional issues?

    Women are about 50% of the US citizens. Our lives are marked in many ways by inequality.


    You will need to explicate (none / 0) (#163)
    by Cream City on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:53:51 AM EST
    more, as you make this some sort of dichotomy.  And that makes no sense.

    "Hillary is like your pscyho (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by lilburro on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:06:29 PM EST
    ex-girlfriend"...I rememeber that one.  And of course, let's not ignore the unnecessarily sexist attacks on Palin.

    Lots of bloggers discredited themselves by not taking sexism in general seriously by either participating in the sexism against Clinton or ignoring it (Booman's quote for ex.).  

    The Chris Bowers quote is a big wow.  Why the h*ll would he offer that one up?  Is he trying to drive away traffic?

    And then with Palin... (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    .., the "progressives" got to go crazy all over again! As if there weren't enough reasons to be against her, but no, they had to go for the sexism, and then throw in a bunch of trailer trash classism as well. Just appalling.

    So true (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by daria g on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    I was in a state of despair from the moment she was nominated, because the first thing I foresaw was the netroots getting to run wild with hateful sexist abuse, one more time.

    IMHO her candidacy was an irresponsible stunt, a joke, and an insult to the voters - she was utterly unqualified, and on top of it, attacked Barack Obama in ways that seemed out of line & persist with the angry right to this day (the 'palling around with terrorists' crap, for instance).  Today I'd see the whole thing as a camp classic if it weren't for hearing the crazy right wing repeating some of her worst rhetoric, and believing it. It's scary out there.

    Doesn't justify sexism.  Or the 'trailer trash' stuff! Get over yourselves with that. I hate the classism too.

    The night Barack Obama won the election I was at the White House myself along with a gigantic crowd, everyone was just elated beyond belief.  And running around in the crowd was a person dressed up as her, with a Palin mask and everything, waving around a fake rifle (yes, outside the White House with a fake rifle), getting a lot of cheers. Ugh. Did the ugly stuff need to be there? I wish I hadn't seen it.


    If Palin was unqualified ... (4.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Caro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 05:06:47 AM EST
    ... then Obama was even less than unqualified. He'd never held an executive position at all.

    That's why they felt they had to use Howitzers to fight mosquitos, IMO.

    Carolyn Kay


    Yes, deeply depressing (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by hollyfromca on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    It should have been a time of joy for all of us, but I have never been so shocked and sickened in my life, even as an old-as-dirt middle-aged woman.  Supposedly the profile of a blogger is a 40-year-old college educated male making $100,000 a year.  I just want to pretend that the people actually making the comments were 14 with too much time on their misguided hands, although I know that isn't the case.

    As for Markos, he's a shock jock who wants ratings.  Some of the rest are merely blind.

    Thanks to BTD and Jeralyn for providing a little bit of an antidote.

    Thats how I felt... (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Thanin on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:39:00 PM EST
    I was so elated that our candidate was going to either be a woman or an AA.  I thought everyone else felt the same.  

    So very, very wrong.


    As a woman, I have to say that the (5.00 / 16) (#50)
    by Anne on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    rearing of the ugly head of sexism by people who called themselves progressives, liberals, Democrats, feminists, was both shocking and heartbreaking.  I was prepared for anti-Hillary comments and what-not - heck, I was not even for Hillary when the media started pushimg her well before the campaign officially started - wasn't even for her after the campaign got underway.

    But the things I was reading and hearing got my antennae up, raised the hair on the back of my neck, started me to have a strong and visceral reaction to the "jokes" and the parodies and the smackdowns that just could not seem to focus on issues - but always had to go "there."

    Blogs and bloggers I had come to enjoy for their insights and scoops and coverage were removed from my bookmarks - the attacks in the comments were irrational and over-the-top; the bloggers themselves condescended to anyone who dared raise a point of fact.

    Suddenly, women were not people to cheer on and encourage - they were people to be feared and people who threatened.  Threatened what?  Who knows?  Is it possible the threat was that if they took the sexism out, their candidate came up short?  Did they decide that if all's fair in love and war it was okay to use sexism to help their preferred candidate win?

    How did they miss the price that is paid for that?  How did seemingly intelligent and visionary writers and such develop a terminal case of short-sightedness?

    Saddest of all were the women on the blogs who excused it, justified it and encouraged it - if only by not being willing - or able? - to see it for what it was and not call a halt to it.

    It still rankles, and I expect reading Boehlert's book will drag it all back to the surface again.

    I just wish I could believe that those who engaged in perpetuating and driving the sexist campaign were ready to acknowledge it, but I think it's too soon; there's still so much defensiveness and fear and, frankly, immaturity.

    We may have come a long way, but we have much farther to go than anyone realized; the question is, why did so many dig in their heels and bring the journey to a halt?

    Digby herself admits (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    she was a "chickensh*t" about the issue.

    I love her work dearly, but she was indeed a "chickensh*t" about it.


    Amen (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    I even quit reading Digby for quite a while because of it, though when my roster of readable blogs got down to this one and Kevin Drum and Somerby, I began to sneak back once in a while.  But I will never give either TPM or Kos another click again except by accident.

    I read everybody (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    Fodder. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    So I dont have to (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    I know you read everybody.  Good for you.  I don't have the stomach for it.  And I don't want to give them the clicks for their ad counts, either.  I'm happy to let Somerby watch Maddow and Olbermann and hear about it second hand, too.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    Though, to be honest, I mostly skim Somerby these days, and he is VERY HARD to skim.

    Somerby can be (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 06:42:04 PM EST
    hard to take, especially after reading him for so many years (I'm really tired of the "mordant laugh," etc.).  But I do like that he's going after "liberal" practitioners of the lie-through-your-teeth tactic.

    I can't watch more than maybe 10 seconds of Maddow's smug, smirky, arch face before I have to change the channel, and Olbermann has become completely insufferable.  So I'm glad to have Somerby I guess confirming that they're both getting worse as time goes on, not better, without my having to take anti-nausea medication in order to see for myself.


    Yes, she was. (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    She lost a lot of cred with me for that. I said so here at the time and got roundly flamed for it.

    That's why I gained a lot of respect for Shakesville during that time - she was not cowed into submission like so many others, and it was one of the only places with zero tolerance for that kind of talk.

    I still cannot believe the kinds of comments that were allowed to continue at places like Hullabaloo and TLC.


    It was (is) pretty heartbreaking (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by nycstray on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    I knew we still had a ways to go, but d@mn . . . .

    I think they did more than bring the journey to a halt. They set an example to be followed with the ready acceptance of their behavior. The volume of their behavior dominated and counter discussion was drowned out many a time.


    Exactly right... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Thanin on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    these people call themselves liberal and progressive, but obviously theyre not.

    That's really bad (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    In my experience, blatant anti-semitism that seeps in like that (and it sometimes does) is quickly denounced.

    +100 (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Reminds me of the commenting section at Kos, before the purge.

    When the "grown-ups" don't control what the "14-year-olds" say, or just let it go past, sooner or later you conclude that either the grown-ups believe what the 14-year-olds do, or, which is even worse, the grown-ups don't believe that, but tolerate it because it achieves what they want -- which was to throw part of the community out of the bus. Yay!


    If MY moderates his comments (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    then that comment clearly has to go.

    I don't understand this (none / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    MY? Matt Yglesias?

    Oops, please delete (none / 0) (#121)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    Careless me!

    Another issue (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by lilburro on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    among the progressive blogs is that the inability of many of them to deal with the sexism during Clinton's run makes me wonder how proactive a role they will take in supporting the next woman Pres. candidate or women in office in general.  As displeased as bloggers are over our mostly white male Senate, they seem unaware that their attitudes do little to change the race/gender composition.  They just don't see it?

    FDL/it continues (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    For a blog that was developed by women and still has a very strong female leadership, I was (and remain) VERY disheartened by Hamsher's blog with respect to its tolerance of sexist commentary and comments. The Hillary-bashing has been somewhat minimized, but one of their FP'ers (Lisa Derrick, I think?) continues to refer to Palin as "GILF" -- because, you know, it's a JOKE!!1eleventy! Suggestions that it's an inappropriate, sexist label are eye-rolled away, mocked, or ignored.

    I don't see a lot of policing or discouragements of these sentiments coming from Jane or Christy, both of whom I generally like quite a bit.

    My point isn't really to pick on FDL - it's just to note that "it ain't over."

    What the heck (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    does "GILF" mean?

    It stands for... (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Anne on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    Governor I'd Like To F*...

    Nice, huh?

    I've always hated the nicknames - for as much as I think Marcy Wheeler has done some excellent work - she's digging deep into the torture memos and the whole timeline - calling Jay Rockefeller "Jello Jay" or calling Arlen Specter "Scrapple" - as examples - does what exactly to the credibility of her writing?

    As long as that kind of thing pervades, I don't see there being much improvement in the discourse - on any side.


    Funny you mention this (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by talesoftwokitties on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    I was reading Marcy the other day and wondered, "Who the heck is she talking about". The witty nicknames detract from her otherwise excellent work.

    Oh, yuck (4.50 / 2) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    I don't whether the right-wing folks do it, too, but I just HATE the routine use of rude names for people we don't like-- "rethugs" and the like.

    So Palin is a sexy woman.  This is a shameful thing somehow?  I thought we feminists wanted strong, forceful women to be able also to be sexy.  Maybe the Republicans are better at doing that than we are.


    Exactly. The Dem party (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    violated its own charter.  Therefore, it no longer legally exists.  It's just a bunch of people banding together for power and not for principles, even the principles that defined its existence.  

    See Specter, Arlen, and Biden, Joe.  Some of us also do not forget Dr. Anita Hill.  We just had nowhere else to go.  But now we do.

    Where to go? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by lambert on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    I don't see a place to go, except going local.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    props for having the guts to talk about this issue. It's a big gaping wound and if the GOP were to run a moderate pro-choicer there's a large danger of huge numbers of women bolting the party come presidential election time. Obama's patronizing and condescending remarks towards women continues even now. Perhaps an electoral slap is the only thing that will knock him out of it.

    I had hopes that one day we would have a woman President. I don't really have much hope for that to happen after the last year and am beginning to believe that the first woman president will be a Republican.

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:22:27 PM EST
    will be the President in 2017.

    Doubt it. (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    As ageism is as pervasive -- including on but not limited to the blogs -- as sexism.

    But let's hope that you're correct for the sake of your daughters and mine -- and all of the sons, too, who are deserving of a world in which the gendering of women's lives necessarily genders men's lives as well.

    Let's hope that they get to be all that they can be.  Hillary's generation, my generation, was not allowed to do so.  But bless our foremothers that we even got this far, in politics and in other venues, at least for the vindication of those who went before and foresaw exactly what we have seen . . . but didn't let it stop them from getting us this far.


    Much as it might be true that (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    to paraphrase from the campaign:

    It Will Take a Clinton to Clean Up after an Obama?


    I don't think so either. (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    And I shudder to think what would be done to her if she did decide to run.

    LOL (4.40 / 5) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    You're joking right?

    Not only will she get the sexism crap, she'll get the geriatric crap.  That is, if she doesn't contract a deadly disease before then or something.

    Hillary will be nearly 70 years old in 2016.

    That's why the first viable woman candidate should have been the first woman president this year and the first black president should have occurred in 2016.  If you still believe their policies are interchangeable, that is.

    As it stands currently, the first woman president will be Republican. I'm willing to be a whole dollar on that.  And I'm not a betting woman.


    She will be 68 (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    in 2016 and will take the oath of office as President in 2017 at the age of 69, the same age as Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 4 years younger than John McCain would have been in 2009.

    Joe Biden would ber 75 were he to be President in 2017.

    Hillary Clinton will be President in 2017. As long as Obama is not an abject failure as President.


    That would be a consummation devoutly to be wished (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Vico on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    It will take two eight-year presidencies held by moderate-to-liberal Democratic presidents to straighten out the national embarrassment that is now the US Supreme Court.  A Clinton presidency following an Obama presidency would be a profound blessing to our entire judicial branch.  What a stain it would remove!

    No way. She'll be treated as Madeliene (4.25 / 4) (#119)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    Albright was.

    Thanin disagrees. Please explain why. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Exactly as I have always seen it! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    The Democratic Party needed a Kennedy before a Johnson, a FDR before a Truman and the Republicans needed a Reagan before a GHB Bush.
    I personally viewed Obama as having more transformative potential than HRC in 2008 but in 2016, HRC will be the strongest candidate on either side of the aisle and our best bet to carry the nation to greater heights.

    Yes, the continuation (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    by the White House is not unnoticed, from what I hear.  And yes, if the flipflopping on campaign promises continues, there could be payback for the Dems.  The campaign hysteria that clouded issues is receding, the realities are becoming more clear.

    And yes, women are watching. . . .


    Thats disgusting. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Thanin on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:35:32 PM EST

    Sexism in practice, (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Vico on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    in contrast to ideological anti-sexism, has a long history among progressives.  When I was involved in various movements in the '60s I was regularly shocked (and only irregularly spoke up, to my shame) by the ways that too many men leftist and progressive leaders treated women in the movements as factotums, from making the coffee to running the mimeo machines to providing sexual release.

    And as for today, just think how much sexism showed up in the floating of Caroline Kennedy's name to replace Clinton.  What seems different to me about today is that women also engaged in overt sexism: Think FDL and some dKos front-pagers.

    Coming late to the thread (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by NJDem on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    and boy is this a 'don't get me started' topic.  

    Many wonderful comments speak for me, but may I add it wasn't just the blatant/accepted sexism--remember the horrible homophobic comments on the blogs after Elton John dared to criticize the sexist treatment of HRC?  

    For me, it's the hypocrisy, stupid!

    I never changed my moniker, but I too no longer identify as a Dem, at least, not like before--it's just not in my nature to forget or ignore history...    

    Race Card? (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by veritas3 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 06:28:48 PM EST
    Oculus- Would love to know what you considered "the race card"
    It seemed like there was a great deal of media hype about it but remind me of a few examples please.

    Sexism (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Pat Johnson on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:04:46 AM EST
    The Confluence to its credit has never tolerated for one minute racist outbursts in all the time it has been in effect.  Never did.   Never will.

    The dislike of Obama was never based on the color of his skin but on the fact that he was unqualified and inexperienced as a presidential candidate.  The posters on that site saw through the efforts to make him into an icon that he had yet to attain and questioned his actions, particularly when it came to FISA, that sealed the deal of the disaffection with him.   He simply was not what he was being portrayed.  

    To suggest that the Confluence consisted of people who opposed Obama on grounds of race is simply and utterly false.   The posters were also protesting the singular effort to paint both female candidates in the most unflattering and misogynist colors by bloggers who did so unfettered.  This produced an outrage amongst the Confluence posters that was treated as "amusing" by those who refused to see the dichotomy of those unfair statements.

    Disagreeing with a candidate's positions is not racist or sexist and portraying the Confluence in that respect is wrong.  Disagree with their stance on the issues but do not cast them in the role of racists or sexists as it does not apply.

    I did not make the comment (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    and am happy to hear that The Confluence does not tolerate racism.

    I find the hatred for Obama irrational.


    I don't know the guy personally (none / 0) (#187)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    That being said if disagreeing with his positions on health care, social security or the economy makes me irrational then so be it.

    I daresay many Confluencians feel much differently.


    The Confluence's rep as a quasi-racist blog... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Pol C on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:28:31 AM EST
    ...was in large part fostered by a front-page post last fall that blamed the financial crisis on the Congressional Black Caucus. It also made a big point of noting that the CEO of either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae when they were taken over was African-American. The post was met with great approval by The Confluence regulars in the comments.

    Anglachel, among others, called the site out for this and the absurd level of ODS that taken it over by that point. This accomplished nothing; the response of the regulars was to circle the wagons.


    Anglachel (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    Where is Anglachel? I still check her blog every day or so to see if she's updated, and there's no sign of her. Is she all right?

    I have been wondering the same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by sj on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    ...for this excellent post, BTD. Agree with several of the commenters describing themselves as former Democrats.

    You've always done great work and your clear-eyed views on politicians is refreshing.

    Just wanted to add that the Confluence is not the crazed place you might think it is. There was actually a fierce internal battle there that resulted in some of the angrier and loonier elements leaving in a huff but left the saner elements in charge. It's actually a fine site with excellent writing, and the posters there have always appreciated your work, BTD (the criticisms of Jeralyn were based on her seemingly abrupt and total conversion to Obama right after the convention).

    I came to this thread late (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by CST on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    Just wanted to say - this past year was an eye opener - politically, as well as professionally and personally.

    I have now made it part of my "mission" to open the eyes of those around me, starting with my family who were pretty horrified at what they saw.

    So thanks BTD, and all the others who have helped open my eyes, I was dissapointed but will not despair.  The glass ceiling will be broken.

    And thanks to all the real "liberal" men out there (like my Dad) who give me faith that it doesn't have to be like this.

    Green Party, anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jondee on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    Or, any number of other third, fourth or fifth parties?

    History has proved that people can accomplish an amazing amount when they get organized; regardless of whether K St, Wall St and MSM sponsors want you to or not (they dont.)

    I think what's different about Talk Left (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    Is that the "dirty laundry" is aired out right in the open. No, Jeralyn did not distinguish herself with her unfortunate, personal, and IMO, hypocritical, attacks on Palin. But, if my memory serves me correctly, BTD didn't just disagree with her; he went ballistic in his criticism. Again and again, while confirming his personal friendship and respect for her, he disavowed himself from her remarks, and the obsessive, odious nature of the assaults.

    I don't agree with either Jeralyn or BTD all the time, nor do I appreciate the flippant, unwarranted deletings Jeralyn is sometimes wont to employ. But the subjects they post about are relevant and timely, and the commenters that frequent this site are, IMO, the smartest, best informed, and most literate group of folks of any of the topical sites on the net.

    Like BTD says, "we're not a Democracy here, we're a dictatorship." For me, that's a small price to pay relative to the value I receive by reading the comments and observations discussed here. And, I even get to toss my two cents in once in a while.  

    For those who dispute (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Spamlet on Mon May 04, 2009 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    my earlier characterization of The Confluence as quasi-racist, there are people over there right now complaining about reverse (sic) discrimination because they grew up white and blonde in Hawaii. If I were really interested in pressing a case regarding that site, I could rest my case right here. Go see for yourselves.

    The Fallout for me (4.60 / 10) (#18)
    by mudlark on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    Months of rage and betrayal that I wish I could forget. I will never go to Kos, TPM or Americablog again. As a gay woman, I'd participated in a number of actions led by Aravosis. I find him utterly repellent now, and want nothing to do with him or his site.  

    Americablog was disappointing. (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by lucky leftie on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    John Aravosis wrote some excellent rants about Bush, that made me want to stand up and cheer but he has another side to him.  His reporting on Sarah Palin was especially creepy.  I mean, I didn't like her either, she struck me as sarcastic and cynical, and I certainly didn't want to see her as VP, but smearing a pregnant teenager? Yuck.  I expected that from Michelle Malkin, not from our side.  

    Another casualty of misogyny in the primaries (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Spamlet on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    is what has happened to the former refuge that was The Confluence, and which is now a PUMA grab-bag of compulsive, quasi-racist Obama derangement and retrograde, resentment-based "feminism." That site has become everything its founder(s) originally deplored.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:23:11 PM EST
    That seems a predicatble result imo.

    We simply adopted a zero tolerance for it here.

    There simply is no other way with these things. Be it sexism, racism or any other isms, imo.


    Sexism is as sexism does: (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    like voting to clusterbomb Iraqi women and children as a viable policy option.

    I'm quasi disappointed that you (1.00 / 0) (#164)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 02:49:46 AM EST
    choose to let such a comment stand BTD. I visit The Confluence daily and do not see racism quasi or otherwise expressed there. I see justifiable anger, pure and unbridled.

    I dislike Barack Obama. It has nothing to do with his skin color. It has to do with his charecter(or lack thereof). It has to do with him poaching delegates in a state he did not even compete in from a person who EARNED them. It has to do with his talking out of both sides of his mouth on issues like FISA or adopting talking points from the GOP on issues like universal health care or social security.

    For the record, my nephew is AA. My sister's significant other is AA. I have had a myriad of friends(including a boyfriend) and roommates that were AA. I'm pretty sure if I were a "quasi racist" that all these encounters would be pretty gosh darn uncomfortable. Far be it for me to quasi get in the way of someone's judgement. I'm sure it's so much easier to call someone a "quasi racist" then it is to address the merits of their arguments(particularly when their arguments are valid and based soundly on factual evidence).  


    I'm glad to hear that (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:31:35 AM EST
    I do not visit the Confluence anymore.

    I found the  (imo) irrational hatred of Obama quite unappealing and found Jeralyn and myself to be targets of unfair abuse from the front pagers and the commenters so I forgot about The Confluence I imagine they have done the same about us.

    I do believe tolerating such -isms does necessarily lead to that stain dominating your site.

    I am glad to here Riverdaughter reigned it in.


    I do note, though, that (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by dk on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    you mentioned above that you read all sites, even those A-list sites of blggers who you indicate have been sexist or tolerate sexism (and at times were also quite critical of you and Jeralyn).

    I can understand if someone genuinely feels that a website is tainted with an -ism that they refuse to visit it anymore (even refuse to visit it in order to criticize posts on the merits).  But I do find interesting the frequency with which on the left that rule is often modified when the -ism involved is sexism.


    "Everybody" was meant figuratively (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    To be honest, it was not so much the abuse heaped on me, I am used to that, but the treatment given Jeralyn really bothered me.

    Well, if the reason (none / 0) (#182)
    by dk on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    is personal (i.e. loyalty to Jeralyn), I can understand that.  Personal loyalty is a good thing, IMO.

    Because if it were about not restraining commenters, I assume you would also not read Matt Yglesias' site (any many others that you cite to from time to time).  The quote from his comment section you cite above was not out of the ordinary in his comment section, as I recall.


    The FP of The Confluence (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    was quite vicious towards Jeralyn.

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    this site has done more than it's share of lobbing stones. I watched the site call people irrelevant simply because it disagreed with them.

    When lobbing stones it is always a good idea to expect to get what you give.

    Furthermore Jeralyn's behavior toward Palin was disgraceful. It is one thing to disagree with a person in principle and quite another to ridicule them. A line was crossed. I disagree with Palin on many things but I respect her. I respect that she has increased funding for Head Start and childhood obesity programs. I respect that the group she is part of contributed to the Domestic Violence Act and the Child Support Enforcement Act. I lauded their effort to provide pregnant women with a safety net so could continue with their education to improve life for their children and themselves.

    it is interesting that you would call people who dislike Obama "irrational" but not apply the same title to someone who heaped hatred upon someone just because she is their political opponent. Or that you would find fault with someone who chose to point it out.


    Callling someone irrelevant (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    LEt me start by calling myself irrelevant, can in no way compare to the abuse heaped on Jeralyn. It was inexcusable imo.

    My point is (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    Jeralyn took her treatment of Palin too far. She became as you term it "irrational". It is astounding to me that you reserve the right to call people on The Confluence "irrational" for their dislike of Obama but expected Jeralyn to espouse her hatred(for lack of a better term because I daresay Jeralyn personally knows Palin)and get a free pass. If it is irrational for someone to like or dislike a pol than it stands to reason that Jeralyn's posts on Palin should have been open to criticism. Furthermore, if you use ridicule to debase people then you should expect that others will do the same to you.

    I realize that ridicule has been an effective tool but it does not promote conversation at all.


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    I called Jeralyn irrational on this very blog about Palin.

    I find The Confluence irrational about Obama.


    My point is (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    The Confluence called Jeralyn worse than irrational.

    I'd like to see some evidence (none / 0) (#198)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    I think it might be helpful because RD also has no idea what FP posts you are talking about.

    I am aware that you called Jeralyn on her treatment of Palin. Even if I didn't post I did read TL from time to time. I disagreed with your strategy during the primary(I still disagree with it), that doesn't mean I can't or won't work with you on issues where we have common ground(that'd be just plain ol' stupid to spite myself that way).


    Perhaps my memory was faulty (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    I know I became quite angry at some of the posts.

    If I ma wrong, let me be the first to apologize to Riverdaughter (she will always be goldberry to me, I always admired her.)

    Perhaps I am making unfair accusations and am confusing her site with another.


    Jeralyn was (4.00 / 3) (#186)
    by itscookin on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    quite vicious to Sarah Palin, which is why some of us find it incongruous that Talk Left would have a post congratulating itself on not being part of the sexist barrage. Many people felt the need to exit this blog for the same reasons that they left the ones you call out for their sexism. At least the comments directed at Jeralyn were criticisms of her views and not of her personal life.

    She was indeed (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    If you recall, I criticized her myself right here, at THIS blog.

    But the abuse heaped on her was outrageous. sorry, it was unacceptable.


    The criticisms of Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:55:18 AM EST
    were in fact vicious and personal.

    some of you are rewriting history here.


    As for your dislike of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:33:21 AM EST
    I suggest you pretend that pols are not all  like that, that Hilary is not like that. And that makes you, imo, an irrational person on the subject.

    As I say on this thread, I was like that with one pol, Wes Clark. It was stupid of me.

    Pols are pols and do what they do.


    I am well aware that Hillary is a pol. (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:21:35 AM EST
    I don't place any of them on pedestals. That being said having spent 12 years in uniform I despise anyone who participates in making the US a banana republic(and yes, when you negate the will of the voters in states to get a desired outcome).

    There is no point in having principles if the intent is to abandon them for the sake of pragmatism.

    My eyes are more open then they've ever been. Prior to this cycle I would have called myself Democrat. I kept my eyes closed to the fact that the Democrats abandoned us on the Iraq war so they could gain from it politically(after all I had to be pragmatic). They abandoned women on birth control and partial birth so they could gain from it politically(after all where else could I go). They abstained from accountability for Bush so they could gain from it politically. In short I learned the difference between a Democrat is that a Republican will shiv you in the chest while the Democrats do so to your backside. I'm one of the swelling ranks of Independants that realize that NONE of the political parties represent me or my interests. Putting it on paper that you believe in equality doesn't mean anything if you aren't willing to practice the principle. I am no longer willing to stand idly by as they destroy my children's future for the sake of pragmatism. If that makes me irrational so be it.


    There is sexism pervasive throughout progressives (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jerry on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    And Melissa McEwan is right there being as sexist as anyone.

    When McEwan and NOW concur with research that shows:
     a) Domestic Violence is often initiated by women (20-40% of the time and that men need the same resources as women
     b) False accusations of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse are to be taken seriously and not dismissed (as a good learning experience for men as Samhita has).  Women and men guilty of malicious making of false accusations need to be charged and tried.
     c) There should be a rebuttable presumption of joint, shared, 50/50 custody of kids in divorce
     d) Salon: Broadsheet: the wage gap attributable to sex is more like 7% than the often quoted 22%

    Then progressive will have become to step away from some of the progressive bigotry and sexism we love.

    Oh yeah, ha ha ha, anyone that disagrees with anything from Shakesville, Pandagon, Feministing, ... must be an bitter angry pro-rape religious nutbag white guy.

    So please don't whine to me about progressives standing against sexism, we're soaking in it.  Gender Equity has nothing to do with any of the issues I listed above.  The usual and politically correct progressive take on these issues is the opposite of a gender equity position.

    P.S. As you may remember, I was and am an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton, long past when the feminist blogs, including McEwan's, had decided to dump her.

    huh?? (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by dws3665 on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:50:13 AM EST
    What point are you trying to make? That Melissa McEwan (and NOW) are sexists because they fail to agree with your dubious claims regarding male victimhood?

    First, you need to get s better handle on your statistics, and then once you do, you actually need to understand them. Partner violence is actually initiated by women about half the time, not 20-40%. And you know what? The work of O'Leary and Archer, among others, demonstrates that woman-initiated violence is in most cases minor (relatively speaking) and is EXTREMELY unlikely to cause injury or harm to the (usually, but not always) larger and stronger man. When men engage in partner violence, however, it is much more likely to be violent and result in injury. It is also much more likely to involve threats of death, economic punishment, and harm to children. These are truths that necessitate special resources for female victims. Please, peddle the false equivalence elsewhere.

    False accusations of violence are a problem; however, they are a completely infinitesimal problem compared to actual violence. I study this stuff for a living, and there is exactly zero credible evidence that false accusations are pervasive or even approach the frequency of actual violence. The world would be a much better place if there were no false accusations. It would also be a much better place if men (and women) who are legitimately accused of violence actually admitted it, sought help, and stopped being violent rather than label their accusers as liars. I am, sadly, not holding my breath.

    I am not informed about your other two points, though my personal opinion about 3) is very consistent with yours.

    Finally, your comment about McEwan's blog "dumping" Hillary requires some justification. Melissa did not especially support Hillary's candidacy because she did not agree with many of her positions. Should she have ignored this because Hillary was a woman? That is how I read your comment, and it is bizarrely sexist in and of itself (though perhaps this isn't your point). As the campaign progressed, however, Shakesville took great pains -- almost in isolation -- to document the sexist treatment of Hillary and her campaign in the blogosphere and the broadcast media. And this is tantamount to "dumping" her?

    These tossed off assertions do your credibility no favors to those of us who have actually paid attention to Melissa's blog.


    Jeez, thanks for addressing this. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    I didn't have the stomach to do it; you did it brilliantly.

    These posts are always the same - they are based on a common logical fallacy, Argument from Generalization, in which the commenter argues a broad conclusion from a small number of unrepresentative cases in order to try to distort well-supported and well-known conclusions.

    In this case, it's the attempt to pretend that most serious domestic violence isn't man-to-woman based on the 'hey, we know of a couple of times that a woman hurt a man so it's all equal' argument.



    I never heard that argument (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:00:12 AM EST
    It is so absurd on its face that it boggles the mind that it even needs to be addressed.

    Really, from the perspective of a black guy (1.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Angry Black Guy on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:29:42 PM EST
    it's pretty simple. I get that PUMA types are angry that Hillary lost. I'd be angry if Obama lost.

    But when you push from "there was some sexism" to "Hillary would have won if not for the sexism" or "Obama and his supporters were sexist" etc., I am hoping off the chain.

    There was sexism in the primaries but I believe that Geraldine Ferraro got up in front of the planet and said that Obama was where he was because he was black and a whole bunch of Hillary fans gave her a big "you go girl!!!" when she did.

    There was racism. There was sexism. And to be honest, it is impossible to tell what there was more of.

    But why are we still trying to determine that almost a year later.

    Move on people. Move on. We can actually do something about the issues in front of us. Sexism, racism, homophobia; let's go after it all.

    But I am not going to let folks say that Kos and a bunch of other really decent people were sexist. I am just not. Did they favor Obama? Of course. But that's not sexism. And many of us simply won't let disappointed Hillary fans pretend that it is.


    Alegre (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Angry Black Guy on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    Get the Hillary dems calling Obama sexist to stop.

    I think things would go a lot better if we started there.

    The only reason that people feel compelled to go after Bill is anger that Obama and his supporters were deemed sexist.

    As if hillary's folks were equally frustrating at times.

    Both sides did some equally screwed up things. This idea that one side ran a high browed Pimary while the other did not is ludicrous.

    Don't want to see Bill get bashed. Don't pretend that he was innocent across the board with everything.

    It ain't over yet. Check out the comments (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    to the Boston Globe article re rumor Chelsea Clinton will marry this summer.  

    Can't do it (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    I have a comment-reading rule - Talk Left only!!!

    Wise decision. Don't know why I strayed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    into those comments but some are really vicious.  

    I know, I stray into the waters occasionally (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    then click my mouse back as fast as I can. I'm afraid I may be one of those people that like mankind in general but not so much in the individual.

    Well, almost only ;-) (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    Newspaper comments (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    particularly local and regional papers, are for some reason almost always horrific.  It's like the scum who can't even find a blog that will tolerate them gravitate towards the newspaper comments.

    Here in uber-tolerant Vermont, the comments sections to the local papers are just beyond vile. The dozen or so really hateful people in the entire state seem to hang out there.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by andgarden on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    The comments in philly.com (home of the Inquirer) are never worth even trying to read. Atrios does enjoy making fun of them sometimes, but usually they're just deranged.

    I've read the on line comments (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by oculus on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    re local crime reporting and it made me wonder why anyone, including me, ever tried a case in front of a jury.  What are these people?

    Even the (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    ..."Progressive 2.0's" can't quite avoid the sexism. I saw a truly nasty sexist hit against Ann Coulter on a "progressive 2.0" (pro-Clinton) blog.  I don't like Ann Coulter -- in the LEAST -- but I am imaginative enough that I can think of many criticisms of her that have nothing to do with how she looks naked or how many external body parts she has.  I actually found myself defending her, a situation I do not like putting myself into.

    Sexism IS our society.  We are defined by it.  It's not going to change in my lifetime.  It doesn't matter how I vote or what I do.

    Sexism is to Democrats what religion is to Republicans.  They fan outrage when it suits their purpose.

    And I think that when we have a woman president, it will be a Republican.  But that also won't happen in my lifetime.

    I am not familiar with the post (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    on Coulter, but it is my view that sexism is wrong whomever it is directed at. It is why I was criticial of the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin (the irony of course was there was so much to criticize about Palin that her gender should have been the last thing to consider when mounting an attack on her.)

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    And you'd think the non-gender criticisms would be more effective, because they are about things that REALLY matter.

    But going after her sex is much easier and caters well to those who don't want to actually use their brains....the dumbing down of politics.


    Exactly - why even go there (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    with either Coulter or Palin?  What kind of a mind does it take to go right for that stuff first?  Aaargh....

    I content myself with turning Coulter's books backwards in airport bookstores. It's fun!


    I think letting the books (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:01:46 PM EST
    sit frontwards is better.  Her book titles SCREAM nutcase.

    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    But pretending she does not exist at all makes me feel better.

    pet peeve (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by nellre on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    The most annoying behavior I encounter... and it's so ubiquitous I notice it when I am speaking to a man who does not do this... is men interrupting women. What that means to me is that they don't think we have anything valuable to say.

    I've seen progress in the last 40 years. I have hopes that my granddaughter will live in a more equitable world.


    My favorite pet peeve (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    is when people insist they aren't sexist while they're actively exhibiting sexism.

    One example is my um, outspoken, 24 year old nephew that bragged about his progressiveness and anti-sexism, and then asked his grandmother during dinner, while they were both sitting there, if she'd get him another glass of water.

    Of course, I said, "if you're so non-sexist, why don't you get your own water?"  He didn't like that.


    My college student nephew... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    He lives states away, so I don't see him much.  We were at a wedding last fall and he was saying that he liked dating the women at college, but didn't want to marry them.  

    He didn't exactly say why not, but I'd guess that he thought a wife should be more about him and less about her career.  (He grew up in rural SC.)


    I am an equal opportunity interruptor (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    Yeah, that burns me, hardcore (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by daria g on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    I gave up on a friend (ok, a fellow NFL-loving drinking buddy, but there are a lot of football games that need watching) over doing that one too many times. The breaking point was when he declared a discussion over that I was having with another person at the table!

    Yep, GOP women have been the first (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    in so many political posts -- Congress, for example, since 1917.  I also expect that the first woman president will be a Republican.  

    The reasons are interesting, per a wonderful research paper in progress I heard at a poli sci conference.  In 1920, the GOP structured women into the mainstream of the party, while the Dems put them into the age-old auxiliary. (A 19th-century model from reform movements, with the result that women formed their own groups then; hmmmmm).

    Dem women made progress in the '60s revolution in their party, of course.  But that progress has been backpedaled so much by the party that I hold no hope for its inherent sexism to be fixed soon.


    The example of Palin (5.00 / 10) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    is what really resonates with women's audiences, even those that are resoundingly or mainly liberal.

    The blogboyz (and too many girlz) argument was that their behavior toward Clinton was because it was THAT woman in THEIR party.  So they betrayed their real reason when they behaved the same toward Palin.

    When I point that out, and show the visuals I saved first about Clinton, and then about Palin, there is a giant "click," as we used to say, in the room.

    Btw, the continued sexism by Dems and even by this White House since the campaign really raises the anger level -- the visual of Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau's fratboy behavior in "feeling up" the cardboard standup of Clinton.


    You 'n me both (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    I might have eventually swallowed some of my anger about the treatment of HRC if the same damn people hadn't done the same damn thing all over again with Palin.  A woman who is disliked or not in favor is undeniably treated far, far worse than a man, freely trashed personally to a degree that's just staggering.

    Im a democrat and Im not sexist in the slightest.. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Thanin on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    nor have I ever used sexism for any kind of gain, political or otherwise.  

    And no way will the first woman president be a republican.  Maybe others have given up on Hillary, but she's setting herself up so well in 2016 being SOS that, imo its a lock.


    Hillary Clinton, January to May (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    I feel relatively certain that in January of 2008, after Hillary Clinton had done something or other, I trotted out the "no wire hangers" line once. That was dumb, but I confess it to prove a point: the behavior among most of the blogosphere was SO bad that I, by May, had posted this diary to push back:


    As I said in the diary (over and over), look at the comments. Good grief.

    Certainly behavior was bad (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    But if you can find cheerleading for say, racism, from any "progressive" bloggers, let me know.

    Larry Johnson's site excepted. There may have been others. I can not say I followed them all.

    At THIS SITE, Jeralyn and I banned the use of the BHO nonsense.

    I do not accept that there was some moral equivalence.

    Indeed, if I overlooked racism, I should be roundly criticized for it now and should have been then.

    But I did not. I criticized Bill Clinton for bringing up Jesse Jackson in South Carolina.

    I criticized Bob Johnson, Billy Shaheen, Geraldine Ferraro and Andrew Cuomo (I bet you do not even remmeber why now).

    I reject your argument.


    I meant sexist behavior... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    ...I assumed that was obvious given the post (wholly about sexism in the blogosphere) I was commenting on? Apparently not.

    I wasn't talking about any moral equivalence at all. Nor was I talking about TalkLeft. I was talking about how bad things got at Dailykos as an example of how bad things were across the blogosphere.

    I have no idea at all what argument you're rejecting or where you got the idea that I was accusing you or TalkLeft in general of being racist. There is nothing in my comment even remotely hinting at that.


    Then I misunderstood your point (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    My apologies to you.

    No problem. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    By "being racist" I of course mean... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    ...excusing racism. The same way "being sexist" can be analogous to excusing sexism. Regardless, any re-reading of my initial comment will show it is simply supporting evidence for the idea that the blogosphere was rife with anti-Clinton sentiment, sentiment that was rooted largely in sexism and presented itself in the silly claim by many that Clinton wasn't a Democrat (b/c if she wasn't a Dem she could be maligned easier). You have absolutely no justification for claiming that I had said anything else or argued any moral equivalence. None.

    I apologized once (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:18:53 PM EST
    I will apologize again for misunderstanding your point.

    Heh... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    ...I was writing this as you were writing you initial apology. And this really only got written to define what I was talking about re: racism and sexism, to avoid a further exchange on that.

    For the sake of your point though, I'll offer a positive assessment of it as opposed to just saying that it wasn't my argument: with the exception of the blogs you note racism in the primaries was something most lefty blogs took pains to point out, acknowledge as a problem, and work through (or fight against). Sexism not so much.


    That was particularly hard to watch (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by nycstray on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    The acknowledgment and defense against racism and the blatant approval and participation of/in sexism.

    So it has always been (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    For example, it now long forgotten that I was also the main ranter on racism during my time on daily kos.

    I wrote many post about it. Then I wrote a diary urging increased discussion of racism in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that sparked a series of very good diaries from the community on the issue.

    I had a huge row at docudharma on the issue.

    I do not point this out SOLELY to pat myslef on theback. I point this out to exemplfy what MY IDEA of what progressives should do and what I did following that vision since I first started blogging 6 years ago.

    But I have always been more about issues than pols, with one exception, I was a Clark cultist.


    I would add (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    that the front page of thast site and many others read like that comment thread.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Addison on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    ...why do you think I wrote the diary?

    Not sure (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 03, 2009 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    The fact is too many people shied away from criticizing the A-List blogs.

    There was a lot of "chicksh*t" behavior, as Digby put it, from prmient bloggers who believed what we believed.

    The point is is was more than "the community." It was the bloggers themselves.

    If you get a chance to read Boehlert's book, you may be stunned by some of the defenses raised by them.

    Aravosis in particular feels aggrieved. I kid you not.


    ROFL! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    On diaries with a lot of comments I often scroll down to the bottom and start there.

    Second comment from the bottom - priceless.
    (You can look - it's about Obama, Clinton and investigating war crimes.)

    The rest of the comments are very typical of the primaries.  You've seen them all before.


    ::headdesk:: (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:42:06 AM EST
    Heh. I wonder what that commenter is thinking now?

    Howard Dean sexism in the election -a bit late (none / 0) (#125)
    by veritas3 on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:40:08 PM EST

    Must see- hard to believe no mention was made during the election- This must never happen again!

    Oh, he gets it now? (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    Gimme a break, Howie, and go away for good.

    Dean, above all, had the platform and the power to do something -- especially to stop his own people in party committee leadership like Prima Donna Brazile, who (with Eugene Robinson) began the crap about the Clintons being racist.

    Dean, above all, sanctioned all that happened by his silence.

    Want to talk about what the campaign "revealed," Howie?  It revealed that you no leader, and that you are a fool.


    Even if you forget about the crap (none / 0) (#152)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 03, 2009 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    regarding accusations of the Clintons being racists and the Obamas being sexists for a moment, I would still say that Pres. Clinton said some bizarre stuff during the primaries. For eg: On Dec 17, 2007 (long before charges of sexism and racism began flying around), Bill Clinton had the following exchange with Charlie Rose in "The Charlie Rose Show"

    Bill Clinton: Let's stay with the experience issue. I remember the first time Senator Obama said that, said, you know, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a lot of experience. And that has great superficial appeal. But let me make the argument in another context. That's like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractices case, medical malpractice, are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery, I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it.

    Now we all know that both HRC and Obama have law degrees from Ivy League schools and both have experience in being Senators. So why was HRC the "doctor" and Obama the "chef or a plumber" in this analogy instead of both being "doctors", with HRC being the more experienced among them?
    Obviously the Clintons are not "racists", however, isn't this analogy quite bizarre? Does anyone have an explanation about why this analogy was made? I have still not been able to figure it out.


    Well for starters (5.00 / 8) (#153)
    by nycstray on Sun May 03, 2009 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    Hillary was on her second term as Sen, Obama had barley gotten his feet wet (153 working days) and his State seat was part time. Then look at everything else Hillary had done prior back to when she was in HS/college compared to O. When you looked them up on Project Vote ( or whatever site it was) there was a glaring difference. At one point they did expand his committee assignments, but it's not like he ever did anything on those committees . . . .  He also didn't have much published (hello Law review!) aside from his partially fictional books and never talked about any major accomplishments aside from getting out the vote and winning elections . . .  need more?

    Yawn! (1.20 / 5) (#157)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 03, 2009 at 07:24:41 PM EST
    Bizarre? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Alegre on Sun May 03, 2009 at 10:19:03 PM EST
    Are you kidding?  Bill was right on the money with that one.

    I'm sick to death of people trashing the only Democrat who's won a second term since Roosevelt?  What is it with some so-called Dems that they would trash a good and decent Dem with such silly attacks?

    Gawd - for crying out loud get over it.  They campaigned tirelessly for the ticket in the GE and Hillary's traveled over 74,000 miles on behalf of our nation and the Administration.  What will it take for you guys to leave them the f#ck alone?


    Please retain some objectivity (none / 0) (#161)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 03, 2009 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    I have praised Bill Clinton for the good things he has done and have called him out when he has made disappointing comments. The comment that I pointed out was "bizarre" to say the least. I brought this up only after a thread on racism and sexism was initiated, I did not bring up this subject on my own. I know for a fact that most HRC supporters on TL would have cried a river (and rightfully so) about "sexism" if someone from the Obama camp had compared Chris Dodd to a doctor and HRC to a secretary or hairdresser while comparing their experiences. If you feel that BC was "right on the money with that one" there is not much I can say to you because IMO you are too lost within your own politics!
    I have acknowledged the good work HRC is doing and even expressed a desire that she become President in 2016, there is nothing for me to "get over it".

    I consider both of your reaction off base (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:36:31 AM EST
    clinton said what he said on behalf of his wife.

    It was a rather ridiculous clainm imo. But sicne when are riodiculous claims something new in politics?

    My gawd, the claims about Obama were absurd in the extreme. this one was one of the less extreme claims presented by a surrogate in the entire campaign.

    the view of politics held by some of you amazes me sometimes.


    p.s. But I meant to add thanks (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    for this priceless bit of video to add to my file.

    Love those moments like this one when men have to be told, by a woman, to notice that -- to paraprase Mrs. Obama -- there ain't no women there.  No women on the panel to be heard.  And only then does Howie think that they ought to have noticed it, huh?  

    No way any of those guys agreed to be there without knowing who was on the panel, and not a one of them noticed that it was all guys.  They're all fools.


    This... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    Love those moments like this one when men have to be told, by a woman, to notice that -- to paraprase Mrs. Obama -- there ain't no women there.  No women on the panel to be heard.

    feels like the story of my life during my career.


    You and me both (5.00 / 7) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun May 03, 2009 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    and not just in academe.

    I'm amid another example of it now, and I find I am just getting so d*mn weary of it that another generation better be ready to take on the fight.

    I look forward now to when -- although it's farther off now, owing to this economy -- I can retire.  Then I really can say/write/publish not scholarly stuff but the sort of work to reach a wider audience on what I have seen.  And I will; I've already mapped my plan of work for it.  


    This (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Spamlet on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    is excellent news:

    Then I really can say/write/publish not scholarly stuff but the sort of work to reach a wider audience on what I have seen.  And I will; I've already mapped my plan of work for it.

    And I thought it was interesting (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by NJDem on Sun May 03, 2009 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    that no one noticed (unless I missed it) that when Michael Richards (Kramer) makes a racist rant caught on tape he's treated like a true pariah, but Bernie Mac makes a number of public sexist comments, in front of our now president no less, and gets eulogized like a saint and is fondly remembered ? ? ?

    I saw that as one of those societal measurements on the 'how far have we come' scale.    


    Huh? (none / 0) (#205)
    by RedDragon62 on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    there are people over there right now complaining about reverse (sic) discrimination because they grew up white and blonde in Hawaii.

    I think it would be wiser to quote the entire conversation than running here and making it fit your argument.
    There was in no way anything implied that was racist but I suppose you can find whatever you wish to fit the narrative you wish to further,

    Nice try. I believe the people here are too intelligent to fall for that!

    Re: For those who dispute (none / 0) (#206)
    by Fitz on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:08:41 PM EST
    my earlier characterization of The Confluence as quasi-racist, there are people over there right now complaining about reverse (sic) discrimination because they grew up white and blonde in Hawaii. If I were really interested in pressing a case regarding that site, I could rest my case right here. Go see for yourselves.

    Look up "Kill Haole Day" (which is mentioned in the posts that you refer to).

    From Wikipedia:

    On Kill Haole Day, school children of Hawaiian ancestry harass, and sometimes assault white children. The origins of the day are unknown, but the tradition dates back to the 1950s.

    In current application, Haole can be used descriptively or as a racially derogatory word (often, if not generally, preceded by an obscene invective).

    Also, in 1999, it became an issue for hate crimes legislation.