home

Wolcott On The Malign Acceptance Of Sexism

By Big Tent Democrat

Wolcott:

Perhaps the next time Beltway pundits are tempted to romanticize the blue-collar working man in all his rugged, unpretentious, Saroyan glory, they might want to remind themselves of some of the less savory baggage being lugged into the lunch room, i.e., an ample load of sexist bile:

"For a lot of blue-collar guys over 40, Hillary Clinton is a poster child for everything about the women's movement that they don't like -- their wife going back to work, their daughters rebelling, the rise of women in the workplace," says Gerald Austin, an Ohio political strategist. . . .
"People don't want to speak out against Obama because of the fear of being seen as racist," he says. "It's easier to say you want to keep a woman barefoot and pregnant....You can call a woman anything."

Yes, you can can call a woman anything if you're semi-comfortably sure of being able to get away with it . . .

< Oscar Starring Roles: Who Would the Candidates Be? | The Obama Rules: Huff Po Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    P. S. Hillary is stronger than ever (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by dem08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    Hillary is back!!!!!

    Sheopenly mocked Obama's rhetoric today.

    CNN is featuring her at an overflowing rally with an audience of young people who are all laughing as she imitates him by shouting

    "The sky will open and the light will come down!"

    The Obama lovers and women haters will be in an uproar!

    It seems like things are turning back to Hillary!

    Don't be surprised if we look back to Saturday Night Live and Tina Fey as the point where we took back our media and our country.

    Tina started the way by denouncing the sexist Hillary bashing.

    We will see.

    You need to calm down (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    Some of your comments are offensive.

    Parent
    I assume that this post has been edited. (none / 0) (#59)
    by clio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM EST
    I can see nothing offensive.

    More optimism than I believe Senator Clinton's siltation warrants, yes.  Surely that is not offensive.  

    Parent

    Wish I'd seen that. (none / 0) (#10)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    Kind of sorry I'm not watching much TV now.

    Parent
    It Took 225 Years (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bob h on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    for American society to produce a woman candidate fully up to the job of the Presidency.  My sense is, if Hillary is rejected, that it will take that long again to produce another one, which means that American will probably never have a woman President.

    225 years? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    Excuse me, but I would vote for many many women for President in a heart beat.

    What bothers me is this back channel association that if you believe in Barack Obama you are a sexist.

    I do NOT have to support H.C. for president.

    Just because I do not support her does not mean I am a sexist.

    Conversely, just because you do not support Obama, that does not mean you are a racist.

    Parent

    What you say (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    is true.  Just mbecause you don't support her does not mean you ARE a sexist.

    But  because you don't support her does NOT mean you ARE NOT a sexist either.

    That is you are not absolved.  You could be or you could not be.

    What we could probably say is trus, is that if you do support her you are probably not a sexist.

    Parent

    nobody said that (none / 0) (#20)
    by coigue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM EST
    it's not about you. Get that through your head.

    Parent
    Just because (none / 0) (#55)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    someone doesn't support Clinton does not make them a sexist.

    It's the fact that the same person doesn't speak out against the rampant and subtle sexism the her campaign has unleashed that makes them a sexist...

    Parent

    A GOP woman will win the White House (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:13:22 PM EST
    first, I think -- as do poli sci studies based on the parties' histories, different structures for women (within organization vs. auxiliary), early support for suffrage and the ERA, and based on those now in the pipeline.  (They also look at histories of women in Congress, women governors, etc.)

    I hoped that wasn't so, despite the evidence of the terrible treatment by media and party leaders of Ferraro -- the first woman to get as far as being on a major-party ticket.  I was delighted with Clinton's campaign, as it meant that I could vote for a Dem, for the most qualified candidate, who happens to be a woman.  But it may not be so.  

    And that will mean that I will not get to vote for the next woman to run and get so far, if it is in my lifetime.  

    Parent

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:29:07 PM EST
    it's not over and there appears to be a sea change coming in the Obama coverage.

    Parent
    Hillary's gender helps her (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    A male with her resume would not be going as far in the nomination process as Hillary is.  Compare her resume to Bill Richardson, Dodd or Biden-- she has less experience than they do, and look where it got them....

    Hillary has 7 years in the Senate.  Assuming her 8 years as First Lady is comparable to holding a position in the Cabinet, she has similar experience to that of Bill Richardson, who was UN Embassador, and a two term  Governor and Special Envoy.....But look how far Richardson got on his experience....

    Democrats have not typically been moved by experience....Witness Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.....

    The reason Hillary has done better than Richardson, Dodd or Biden is because she is a woman in a party where a large majority of primary voters are women.....

    Sexism has helped (in the sense of galvanizing support for those who want to fight against it) rather than hurt her.

    Parent

    So what praytell helps Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ivs814 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:06:28 PM EST
    as his resume is beyond skimpy?  If experience is of no consequence, what makes him qualified to be President of the United States in these most trying times? It is not enough that he promises you Hope.  It is not enough to say that he brings in pseudo-Democrats that will flip in the GE.  It is not enough that he pretends to be a progessive and yet his past concilitory actions indicate that he is going to fold to the Republicans.  

    This guy is going to sell out Democratic values and it doesn't seem to matter to you.

    Parent

    He does have national security (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    experience....

    He co-sponsored a bill with Richard Lugar on nuclear proliferation (loose nukes) that became law...The number one terrorist or national securty threat is a loose nuke smuggled into the U.S.....And Obama has very good experience on that front.....

    Domestically, he seems open to innovation...

    I am an Independent who votes for Democrats 85% of the time.....So, I'm less likely than some to try to preserve core democratic principles....I have no interest in any Republican this year or probably for years to come.....  

    Parent

    The bill with Lugar (none / 0) (#41)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    was a continuation of established law, Nunn-Lugar.  It reauthorized the money for the program.  The program itself is a very good one, but thank Sam Nunn for it not Obama.


    Parent
    Have you read the London Times (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    raking him over the coals for his lack of international experience and railing against the possibility of another American president who does not understand Europe?

    Same with Germany, Spain and France.  "Not another one."

    You need to investigate Obama's much touted but oft unvetted claims that he has international experience.

    Or, perhaps you want to get into a conversation about Kenya?

    Parent

    London Times = (none / 0) (#52)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    Rupert Murdoch.

    'nuff said.

    Parent

    Der Spiegel, are they better? (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:43:43 PM EST
    Didn't Murdoch's paper here (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:15:37 PM EST
    endorse Obama? Not the end of what could be said, then, it would seem.

    Parent
    The NY Post did (none / 0) (#56)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:28:51 PM EST
    I doubt the WSJ did.

    But did you read the Post endorsement?

    "For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

    His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make."

    "[But]he is not Team Clinton.
    That counts for a very great deal."

    Same tune as London. They just hate Hillary a tad more.

    Parent

    Are you implying Obama's color is helping him? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    Democrats like sizzle not experience (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:11:39 PM EST
    Edwards is a firey populist, former VP nominee, who is a good speaker...

    Hillary is a woman who has fought many a battle against right wingers.

    Obama is African American and also young, very smart, innovative and a very good speaker....I think Obama's appeal is more generational than racial, but no doubt one of his key areas of support is (now) African Americans.

    Parent

    My eyeballs were singed at KOS (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    I used to visit so many liberal sites - KOS, TPM, HuffPost, America Blog, etc. The deluge of sexism and misogyny has been stunning.
    I was onto the buried misogyny and double standards within the progressive world many many months ago after countless conversations with liberal friends. I made the video below to get them to question themselves. One doesn't have to support Hillary but at least be honest about why.

    Evil Woman

    I have quit (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by zyx on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    I forum where I discussed politics with THE SAME PEOPLE for four or more years.  They have, yes, come out of the closet as misogynists in their over-the-top support of Obama.  

    I've been told I "sound like a woman scorned".  They make Clinton boob jokes, talk about her "cackle", about Bill's fooling around (channeling their worst inner Ken Starr--really nasty stuff innuendo), and on and on and on.  

    And if anyone says anything mildly critical of St. Barry, they just go berserk.

    I talked to these people FOR YEARS and they drove me away.

    Parent

    Obama Evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    My office neighbor of 4 years has always been a moderate guy that ALWAYS considers all sides and calmly explains his pov. We got into a discussion about the Reagan quote of Obama's. He told me that I "was spinning" the quote. I replied that he was insulting me by diminutizing my argument. I went over my perspective in greater detail and how i had reached my conclusion. I then said that it was only fair for me to listen to his argument which I was certain was just as thought out and valid as mine. In a snarky tone he rattled off a few sentences and then said, "If you were more dispassionate and objective, you would see things as I do". I got pretty upset and said he was talking down to me again. His response, "Can you honestly say that you're being dispassionate?".
    It was unbelievable. His arrogance and need to have me "believe" as he did. The sexist rebuttal...what the hell is going on with these Obama supporters?

    Parent
    Politics, not unlike religion, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    has a way of revealing who we really are.

    Parent
    I am sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    You have encountered more rude people in the world.

    I am quite capable of being verbally...sharp when I have to be, but as a white male, the fact of the matter is, I'm the last person in the world to lay scorn at anyone for who they were born as.

    That will not stop me from criticizing what they do.

    What has been done to women has been criminal beyond the ability of humanity to properly address it.

    There are many titanic and glorious women in my life.

    That does not mean that I will support Hillary Clinton.

    And the fact that certain people of lesser intelligence have driven you from Barack Obama because of their actions, then it saddens me.

    Parent

    actually what has turned me off (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    on Obama even though as I've stated before I will vote for whoever wins the nomination, is his ability to do things as he did in Illinois during his run for state office in order to win.  Also the way he acts innocent of the things his people or followers do but accuses Hillary of not reigning in hers.  I could go on but the list will become too long.

    Parent
    Sex Card Vs. Race Card? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    I rarely see people comment in the same post about both.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#33)
    by sas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    video, sarah, is fantastic.  How do I e-mail it to friends?

    Parent
    I already bookmarked it :-) (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    and you can send it on by, when you click on it, go to the url at the top of your screen, copy it, and then cut and paste it into email.

    (Sarah, I wish I could use it in classes, but I'd hear it about some of those words!  Words used, of course, about great women.  Thank you so much for starting with ER.  And if ever you want to do more videos, consider great women throughout more than the century before her . . . and for a soundtrack, I've always wanted to see someone on Youtube use some of Mary Chapin's fantastic "Heroes and Heroines" about women and men in our history.)

    Parent

    Therapy (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    Hey Cream,
    Thanks! I'll be making more videos as therapy after this election.
    I don't know that Chapin song - I'll check it out.
    The primary therapy I'll be using is action. I'm going to become a big sister to a foster child. A little girl, of course. It's time to fight in the trenches for the disgusting misogyny and sexism that is alive and thriving. Thanks again for the encouragement.

    Parent
    Therapy (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    Hey Cream,
    Thanks! I'll be making more videos as therapy after this election.
    I don't know that Chapin song - I'll check it out.
    The primary therapy I'll be using is action. I'm going to become a big sister to a foster child. A little girl, of course. It's time to fight in the trenches for the disgusting misogyny and sexism that is alive and thriving. Thanks again for the encouragement.

    Parent
    Actually I have seen a lot of sexist remarks (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    among Obama supporters not all Bloqs are like TL.  Go to HuffPo and other so called progressive bloqs.

    This analysis makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    If working class males are all Archie Bunkers, who dont want their wives to work, and are so resentful of women, then why are they part of Hillary's base?

    I wonder when the last time Wolcott ever spoke to a blue collar worker.

    In fairness to Wolcott, (none / 0) (#25)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    the words were:
    For a lot of blue-collar guys over 40, Hillary Clinton is a poster child for everything about the women's movement that they don't like

    I agree the argument is structured in a way that just BEGS we dismiss it, but at least Wolcott isn't foaming at the mouth like so many recent commentators. I don't so much fear voters having to rally behind the nominee (time has a way of healing wounds), but I do fear that many intelligent commentators will completely lose their credibility. Example: I can't take Bob Herbert seriously after his substanceless editorializing against Hillary. How can he just switch positions entirely and support her in election commentary if she's the nominee? But we need him and everyone else on the Left to push the ultimate nominee's case against the howling rage of the Right-wing election machine. The gloves are really going to come off in this election. Believe it or not, this is the calm before the storm. The RNC already has 10s of millions to burn.

    Parent

    emphasis was added (none / 0) (#26)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    in the quote. Sorry for the extra post!

    Parent
    That's bending over backwards (none / 0) (#43)
    by AF on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:49:41 PM EST
    Just about anything is true of "a lot" of people.  A lot of black people live in Idaho.  A lot of young white males vote for Hillary.  A lot of young urban professionals hate Thai food.

    By any reasonable measure, it's a false statement that betrays Wolcott's shoddy journalism and not-too-subtle classism.

    Parent

    Here's data (none / 0) (#46)
    by AF on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    On Obama's share of white voters without a college degree (through Potomac primaries).  Hillary wins them 2 to 1 -- sometimes more.  This includes women, but it also includes all ages -- including college students (who don't yet have degrees).  Hillary's totals for older blue-collar white males are probably similar to these figures.

    Parent
    Too late now. Entrenched Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    supporters aren't listening.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#7)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    1. Both Obama and Clinton have high-sky approval ratings among democrats. Obama-haters and Clinton-haters alike are a small minority. Taylor Marsh and her ilk are vicious Obama-haters and not at all representative of the electorate.

    2. There definitely is A LOT of sexism against Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't follow that Obama or his campaign is sexist. Which they are not.

    3. The reason Hillary Clinton is losing in the democratic primary is not because of sexism. It is because she has simply run the wrong kind of campaign. She and her strategists misjudged the mood of the American electorate, and in so doing squandered the enormous advantages in popularity, support, and money she had going into the race.


    I was with you... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    Until #3. Well, #2 is iffy. But I have to say I think it is a sign of the strength of the Hillary support that despite the RIDICULOUSLY biased media coverage she is essentially tied with Sen Obama. A lesser candidate would have been crushed by the litany of negative stories and comments.

    Latest case and point is todays Frank Rich NY Times column which concludes with such insightful analysis as:

    "Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin' Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge."

    I mean this is serious opinion and journalism? Analyzing the Clinton campaign donut budget?

    Parent

    This was in reply (none / 0) (#9)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    To an amanforhil comment.

    Parent
    That's why feminizing the term 'special interest' (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    ... eg, zoning in on the proverbial selfish women wanting control over their own medical and mora decisions. It makes it easier for so many OTHER special interests to join the swarm, and it's why the straw (wo)man has been the Dems' go-to Special Interest boogeychick.

    That habitual demonizing & feminizing is also at the root of the "criticism" that HRC is "divisive" (because her persecutors are jerks) or that she's, passively, a lightning rod.

    BTW, don't forget that tonight's the night for what sounds like a story that could set off a cascade of explosions that will blow the lids off other barely contained pockets of corruption. (It sounds right up TL's alley).

    Yesterday, Scott emailed [Glenn Greenwald] to say:

    You should alert your readers to watch 60 Minutes on Sunday for an extremely important piece. They will learn how at the instigation of Karl Rove, the Justice Department was turned into a political hit machine to destroy the reputation and ultimately imprison AL governor Don Siegelman on accusations which do not constitute, no matter how you parse it, a crime. . . .

    It's an extraordinary, deep peek into a hopelessly corrupt Justice Department. They've been struggling to keep the lid on this story for two years. And on Sunday it is going to blow.

    More details and background on tonight's 60 Minutes story are in this AP story here.




    "Boogeychick" is a term (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    I may have to use!  I'll give attribution, of course.

    Parent
    Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Is what Taylor Marsh is saying true--that you have been targetted and threatened for your perceived "Clinton bias"?

    I have (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    People that were friends have yelled insults at me for not supporting Obama. I've been completely shocked. I don't understand how the "unity" campaign inspires its believers.


    Parent
    This is about our blog host (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    being targeted; see taylormarsh.com, people.

    (Sorry, SarahFD, that you also have been subjected to the creeps, as have so many of us.  But most of us are in less public venues than this blog for our host.)

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    i was being hysterical and overly empathetic. ;)

    Parent
    At Certain Point Obama is Responsible (none / 0) (#42)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    Obama touts his campaign success as evidence that he can be "Commander in Chief." He also relies on it to counter his lack of experience.

    If he wants that much credit, then he must take the responsibility that comes with it.

    Although it's true that he doesn't control the progressive blogs, it's very apparent that he has a close relationship with them. Over the past months he has benefited openly from their attacks - many of which have been blatantly misogynistic - but has not criticized them.

    He complained at the debate about those who characterize his followers as cultists. But a review of his website - which adopts semi-religious themes to depict him - leaves himself open to that type of criticism. Similarly his rhetoric that he "can unite folks" despite generations of acrimony without offering substantive proof of past successes sounds like those who promise the "spaceship is coming" or "Armageddon arrives tomorrow."

    These tactics will kill his campaign in the general but no one is allowed to speak out about it. (See posts above threatening bloggers who don't fall into line. See memo from his campaign about the need to promulgate that Bill Clinton's remarks were actually racist.)

    Given the obvious clumsiness of his approach, it's mind-boggling to imagine why it works. That's why it's necessary - with columns like Wolcott's and others - to examine possible reasons for the support or at least benign indiference.    

    Obama (none / 0) (#48)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM EST
    should respond to negative attacks that devolve into smears and sexism if he wants to be believed on his claim that he's a new kind of politician who's above the fray.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:14:04 PM EST
    I agree.  Any leader should do this any time supporters act in a vicious fashion.

    Parent
    I thought Wolcott (none / 0) (#44)
    by kmblue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    was quoting Gerald Ford, political strategist?

    Ooops sorry (none / 0) (#45)
    by kmblue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:51:00 PM EST
    Gerald Austin.

    Parent
    Sexism (none / 0) (#47)
    by Runasim on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    I think the commentators re Hillary supporter have it backwards.  It's customarily emphasized that women are the biggest block of her supporters. This sort of emphasis has a disparaging effect on her candidacy; it says that 'only' women suppoet her and brings into qustion her validity as a candidate for everyone.
    To present the situation more fairly, the question should be examined, instead, in terms of asking why aren't more men of the same social class and political leanings as her female suppporters actually supporting her?
    I haven't heard of a single attempt via poll or survey to analyze this side of the equation.

    Granted, the Obama/Clinton split hinges on many factors aside from gender.  But the gender issue is brought up constantly without a serious look at what underlies it

    To me, it seems clear that gender bias is involced. Male workers feeling the economic pinch must be at their most vulnerable, psychologically, since a male's status is so closely associated with his earning power. To see a woman in a position with the highest power when a man is struggling with his own self esteem, can't be a welcome experience for many.

    That, in itself wouldn't be so bad. The way the press present this issue, however, just serves to augment the problem.  It's sad and tragic that press coverage is so much engrossed with 'gotcha' commentary instead of analyzing and commenting in a more intelligent way, so as to educate rather than entertain or evoke partisan hatreds.  

    I saw a few minutes of Fox today (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    and became fascinated by a little man on the street piece.  The reporter spoke with a guy who was dumping his waste tank in an RV park in Arizona.

    When asked who he would vote for, the immediate response without a second's thought was "Ain't gonna vote for no woman, that's for sure".  Pressed on the matter, he said he was voting for McCain "because he ain't arrogant like the others".

    I hate to say this but that just might be a lot more normal than we believe.  Irrational as can be and pure sexism  :-)


    Parent

    Betcha, (none / 0) (#58)
    by clio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:16:51 AM EST
    this man "ain't gonna vote for no n****r" either.
    But you'll notice he didn't say that.
    He didn't even say he wouldn't vote for "no colored."

    Blatant sexism is still acceptable in America today.
    Blatant racism is not.

    Parent

    Paint with (none / 0) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:05:29 AM EST
    a pretty broad brush, don't you?  

    Parent