home

On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Marie Cocco names names:

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White B---- Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

[MORE . . .]

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." . . .

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mockup of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

. . . Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Well said, Ms. Cocco.

Comments now closed.

< Tuesday Open Thread | WV Prediction Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism | 221 comments (221 topical)
    Thanks for posting this. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST


    That was well done. (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    She gets it.

    The silence from Obama is the most telling, IMHO.

    they can't admit.... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters can't admit the extent to which they have benefitted from sexism in this election.

    Whatever benefit Clinton may have gotten as a result of racism is far outweighted by the benefit that Obama has gotten from "identity politics".  Clinton has gone out of her way not to play the 'sexism' card against Obama in the way that Obama has played the racism card against Clinton.  

    Its a shame really, because while Obama talked about "transending race" while exploiting race to the hilt, Clinton has been 'transcending gender' just by going out and being a vastly superior Presidential candidate.  (Of course, if she'd run the kind of campaign that Obama has run, I would still just consider her the lesser of two evils, rather than someone I want to see in the White House...)

    Parent

    Obama has been a big part of the problem... (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:26 PM EST
    1. He compared Hillary to a skittish domestic cat with the "claws come out" slur.

    2. Played into the negative stereotype that women are moody and "periodically" crazy.

    3. Compared Hillary to his wife, saying she is no more qualified to be President than his wife is to be Senator.

    4. Appeared in a SNL skit where the repeated "punchline" was that everyone was confusing Hillary with a witch.

    5. Michelle Obama has repeatedly made thinly veiled attacks about Hillary's inability to "keep her house in order."  

    6. In the first two-person debate between the two candidates, Obama pulled out the chair for Hillary at the beginning of the debate, even though he had never done this before in previous debates. It was an obvious stunt that he knew Clinton couldn't complain about and was hoping to spur conversation.

    7. Obama's mocking and making a joke about Hillary handling a gun when she learned to shoot from her grandfather and her story about going duck hunting. Can you imagine Obama mocking a male candidate?

    8. Generally speaking, Obama has played into many of the negative stereotypes of high-achieving females, including that Hillary is untrustworthy, unloyal, and will do anything to get to the top.

    9. Done nothing to curtail sexist conduct at his rallies, including the wildly popular "bros before hos" t-shirts.

    10. The entire "just quit" meme started with the Obama campaign and is incredibly sexist.  When you consider that, according to Media Matters, no other candidate in Hillary's position has been driven out of the race with such venom. This has been going on since FEBRUARY and has cost her millions of votes and dollars of support.


    Parent
    good point about the SNL sketch. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    No objections from the man who could only be himself.

    Parent
    Thanks for this most excellent summary (none / 0) (#225)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST


    Parent
    He should make a speech about it! (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    It's gonna be the greatest speech EVAH!

    He can talk about his grandma (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    You know the typical white __. Sorry I have to stop there, blog rules.

    Parent
    Dem balance: most perfect silence EVAH on sexism (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    Not even crickets to puncture it, wouldn't you know!

    Imagine hearing, easily, two dozen n* jokes in mainstream media, in the nightly news and in newspaper columns every day targeting Obama.

    And the Democrats saying NOTHING about it.

    What a travesty. I'm going to keep score. Everytime I hear an gratuitous woman-hating slam against HRC -- as opposed to a tangible critique of her record, words or deeds, directly specifying which -- I'm going to mark a notch under "Why I'm writing in Hillary Rodham Clinton as my choice for President of the United States."

    Every time I hear a senior member of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama or spokesperson, or member of the media affirmatively denounce sexist smears, I will remove a notch from above and place it under "Why I will vote for whichever candidate is formally announced at the Democratic National Convention."


    Parent

    Oh then, you'll be voting for BHO in November... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    He'll make lots of speeches denouncing sexism ... after he's the official candidate.  After all, he'll want those votes.

    Parent
    This is why (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    I've always felt sexism is a more intractable problem than racism.

    Not because there's more of one than the other, which is something I have no way to measure.

    But because, by and large, we have reached a consensus on the things you're not supposed to say where race is involved.  In fact, we tend to err on the side of calling stuff racist even where the issue is debatable.  That's not to say that there's no racism, only that racist comments are generally identified as such without difficulty.

    But there's no consensus on sexist comments, nor are they universally perceived as a problem.  It's more like "come on honey, lighten up."  That's why I think we have more work to do where issues of gender are concerned.

    Parent

    Open Ridicule (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    The overt ridicule of women, including Hillary, is acceptable.  I have no doubt that part of the Obama phenomenon is the intense male-bonding that opposition to Hillary has provided.

    All that pent-up hostility to women now directed at one, central target - and she's even seeking power!

    Obama has been content to ride atop a wave of crude sexism into the nomination.  Add to that his willingness to use his grandmother as a convenient prop for a failed moral equivalence with Wright.

    His grandmother?  Good lord.  And here's one more male candidate with a suitably educated wife who puts her career on hold for the great man.  Where have I seen that before?  Doesn't look like change to me.

    I hope that McCaskill, MoDo and their ilk enjoy their few minutes on the bus - before they're sent to the back rows or shoved underneath.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    The Hill asked all 97 senators who are not running for president the same question: "If you were asked, would you accept an offer to be the VP nominee?"

    McKaskill said this (warning - you may throw up a bit in your mouth):

    "If I were asked, I would ask some mental health professionals to visit Barack Obama. I just think Sen. Obama is way too smart to pick me. I'm not a good pick, and he's smarter than that. That's why he's going to make such a good president."

    Parent

    she should have been ridiculing him (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    the whole time.

    It's a potent weapon that makes oppoents snap.  He'd have snapped eventually.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    I had a recent conversation about this with family members.  It's interesting although I do hate to compare "isms" they're all bad...

    My take is this:

    I always thought a woman would have a harder time being elected president than a black man.  Not that sexism is more prevalent than racism, just that it's a different type of prejudice.  Racism has more to do with defining what black people "are".  Sexism is more about defining what women "should be".  Examples - black people are all criminals, women should stay in the kitchen...  It is easier to overcome that first stereo type (i.e. Obama is clearly not a drug addicted thug).  It's hard to overcome what people think you SHOULD be.

    However, when it's not related to a presidential election, I think racism is more prevalent in day to day life.  It is harder to overcome an assumption of what you "are" if nobody knows you.  Also, I have rarely been blatantly insulted for being a woman (in this country - overseas is another issue), but I have heard many racial slurs directed at my friends, and it also shows clearly in the economic and social divide.

    All that being said, I don't think any of this should play into who you choose as your candidate.

    Parent

    That's an interesting take. Have you lectured ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    ... TeamObama on why they should direct the 90% and up black voters not to vote for Obama because he's black and they're black?

    I think that would be really cool. I hope you make your post a diary at dKos, and I'll definitely log in and rec'it.

    And I'm still voting for HRC because she's the best candidate for the position, having more experience, qualifications and character for the position than Obama has displayed.

    She earned my vote. He didn't. Being black isn't enough to be president. Given that he and he alone has not lived up to his promise of a new politics, I will not vote for Obama.

    Not only has he not bothered to even try, he's unleashed the most targeted and insidious race baiting and sexism I've ever seen in a campaign. (The upfront stuff I'm quite familiar with and it's self defeating. Obama's racism and sexism are worse to me.)

    Parent

    I think you misunderstand me (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    I wasn't talking about Obama, or Hillary.  Just hypotheticals.  And I don't go to kos.

    I also stated explicitly that I don't think race or gender should determine who you vote for.

    I was trying to make that a non-political post, just my take on the state of things in society.

    Parent

    I think it's important to make clear to AA voters (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
    ... too that they shouldn't, and wouldn't, be supporting Obama in those numbers if they were voting fairly.

    And to be even fairer, since you took the time to share that deep concern about women backing HRC for gender you should post the same caution as regards race on a pro-Obama blog. dKos isn't the only political blog. You can ask a neutral blog or go to OpenLeft and do it.

    Post the link when you're done. Thanks! I LOVE PROGRESS!

    Parent

    Where did I say that? (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    "deep concern about women backing HRC for gender"

    I was talking about voting for race or gender, not one explicitly more than the other.  I wasn't trying to take any one group to task. I don't think I ever mentioned women voting for Clinton once, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply it.

    Also, I consider this to be a pro-left blog, that Hillary supporters frequent.  Not a pro-Hillary blog, although there is clearly a bit of a preference.

    Parent

    that's a unique point (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Overt public sexism is more acceptable, but racism is more likely to exist silently.

    Probably true. Men snap to attention is a woman wants to take charge, but will moan about her later quite openly.  

    The racial dynamic is very different.

    Parent

    The more this continues (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    the more I am wrestling with the possibility that I will not be able to continue to support the DNC, not with my money, not with my time, and scariest of all, not with my vote. I don't think I could have imagined even a year ago that there would be circumstances that would cause me to consider not voting for the Democrat (which would mean either not voting, or writing in a candidate).

    For as long as I can remember, my basic political philosophy has been a pragmatic one -- that it may very well be necessary to vote for a person who is less than ideal, perhaps even distasteful to me, if that means defeating a far worse candidate. I argued fiercely with anyone I knew who considered voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 that it would only strengthen George Bush. Don't be silly, my friends in NY and CA and TX told me, our votes don't matter anyway, it won't change anything. On the contrary, I argued, this will be a close election and we need to build up Gore's popular vote, even if the electoral votes don't change. Do what you want in the primary, fight the good fight there, but when the GE rolls around, we need to use our votes wisely and pragmatically.

    The disdain that has been exhibited for my vote and my concerns has been so overwhelming and so astonishing that I honestly don't know if even my own arguments will work on me this time around. I'm tired of putting aside my concerns for the "greater good" because I no longer believe they can be separated. I can't stop the Democratic party from taking me for granted and tossing me aside when it serves their purposes, but I can stop supporting their behavior.

    Parent

    Oh, Iphie -- I agree! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    My arguments were with siblings -- and now I'm arguing with myself.  Either way, I expect I'll feel like I lost the argument.

    Parent
    I empathize with your feelings (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    and often feel the same way, but I will vote democratic because I know that this election is about more than "my candidate", that this is a big country and other people may have a preference for another candidate, that only with a democratic as president can we hope for even a semblence of fairness for all Americans, that democratic ideals are best suited for restoring our rights and securing a future for our children.  If Gore had been elected the country would not be on this precipitous fall from decency to inhumanity and unbounded greed and that America would be infinitely, profoundly better off than it was eight years ago.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by ajain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    The worst is the non-reaction and silence that has come out of the Democratic Leadership - if we can call it Leadership.

    I hope these voices like these are not muted, because as much as race is an issue in this election (and who ever thought it wouldn't be one), gender is also an issue. We have talk about and if we don't Obama loses the election.

    See above (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    Wait till the GE gets underway.  They'll denounce it then, when they want your votes.  Maybe they'll even find another woman for the VP slot -- like throwing a fish to a seal.

    Parent
    Cause we all (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    know that one woman is interchangable with another. Right?

    Parent
    For some odd reason... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by cosbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    I feel there's going to be chaos at the convention this year. I can't imagine why I would have such a feeling.

    What would happen (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    If they gave a convention and no one (except the Obamabots) came?

    Parent
    It would look (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hitchhiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    just like the 2004 Republican convention.  People wore purple heart bandaids to show their contempt for John Kerry.  What will they wear to show their contempt for HRC?  Little nutcracker tie pins?

    Parent
    Ironing boards and Irons (none / 0) (#200)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I Believe You Are Right. And It Is Time For (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    many issues to be addressed and what better place?

    Parent
    Wow, that's a two-fer. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Offensive to both candidates! Teh awesome!

    The silence from Democratic leaders (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by BernieO on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    is the worst part. The lack of outrage makes it clear that the party cares more about African Americans than women. Aside from the lack of principle involved, the fact that women are more than half the population and vote in larger numbers than men, while AA's are only 12 to 13% makes this an example of sheer stupidity. Ditto for the dissing of baby boomers who are the largest demographic group in the country.

    And as the majority of AAs are women (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    as well, is the Dem party saying their pigmentation matters more -- and even that their gender does not matter at all?  That only one form of discrimination that they face matters?  

    Parent
    Excellent point. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    Yet another reason to feel inclined towards quitting the Democratic Party, no? They are so blind and clueless that they think minority women are minorities FIRST and ONLY.

    Parent
    Well, here's a clue: (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Hillary is the ONLY U.S. Senator--male or female-- who has a "women's issues" page on her senate website. There are only about 9 or 10 Representatives (including a few men) who have a "women's issues" page on their congressional websites. To me, that speaks volumes about the insensitivity of both sexes to the special issues women in this country still face. Change has to start at the top in terms of defining acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

    Parent
    And BO doesn't even have one on his (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    campaign website!

    Parent
    ... care more for AAs? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jackyt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:33:00 PM EST
    I don't think for a minute that the Obama "coalition" cares one whit for the AA community. It has been an easy "get" to plump Obama's vote totals in states with large numbers of AAs registered as Democrats. Come the GE, Obama will be back to being "transcendent" and "transformational" and "beyond race"; and the AA voters will join the rest of us under the bus.

    Parent
    On Th Bright Side (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    This is one more reason to hope for a unity ticket. The Democrats do not have to do a thing except to give the GOP enough rope for them to hang themselves, iow more of this please.  This is exactly why America is sick of the party who believes a woman's place is in the bedroom and kitchen and AA's have no business as representatives in Congress, not to mention as POTUS.

    Parent
    Yet it will not go away. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    Every time he stumbles or something goes wrong in the campaign, Hillary will be faulted.  And let's be blunt, if he was to pick her for VP the sexist comments would still be out in full force.  Just because they're quiet "now" doesn't mean they've gone away.

    And, of course, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    our shrill friends at Americablog.

    An unrepentant hater of women (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    is John Aravosis.

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    I haven't gone there for a very long time.

    There's also a lot of anti-Semitism in the comments, I'm sorry to say.

    Parent

    It's outrageous (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    I guess I'm going to have to be a PC cop for the rest of my life, because this stuff is just so obvious, and it sickens me.

    Parent
    I have been a PC cop for a long time (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    I think folks who decry common courtesy, decency and avoidance of sexism and racism in their conversations reflect their own views. there is a commenter in this thread who generally is intelligent and reasonable but displays the most disgusting attitudes about these things. I can not respect him because of it.

    Parent
    Lots of us were taught courtesy (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    long before the term PC was invented. Just like not booing the opponent at a sporting event (or Jefferson - Jackson  dinner). I even distinctly remember my Dad teaching me that 40 years ago - cheer as loud as you want for your own guys, but don't boo the other side.  That has also gone by the wayside, as I learned to my shock at a college football game last year.

    Makes me sad.

    Parent

    The worst (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    is the new hockey tradition of booing the Canadian national anthem.  Disgraceful!

    Parent
    Oh nooo...I have not seen that. (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    Waht are people thinking? Wait, don't tell me, I don't really want to know.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by phat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    This election has been an eye-opener for me.

    Parent
    I love a man in a uniform: PC-cop, Ice-Cream Guy (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    ... any combination of Champion for Human Rights (with or without shining armor) and bringer of fine comestibles (sweet or savory) is the best kind of person to be and to be around!

    Thanks BTD -- and Jeralyn, if you're reading -- for leading on this!

    And in passing, who's being the change we want to see in the world, hmmm? ;-)

    Parent

    I just finished reading that, (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Klio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    came here and you had already blogged about it!

    Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars....  There are many reasons why Clinton is losing the nomination contest.... But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

    I don't know which I despair of more:  the silence of the Democrats [not only those Cocco writes about] or having to acknowledge the 'malign acceptance.'

    i fear ms. cocco is deluding (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by cpinva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    herself, if she truly believes the mysogony displayed during the primary will simply disappear, it won't. having been given free reign (because, after all, it's "only" hillary clinton), the "boys on the bus" now feel emboldened. it won't stop. female mysogonists like maureen dowd make it acceptable as well.

    penn jillette fancies himself a "libertarian", while displaying little to no knowledge of all that actually implies, other than him not having any responsibility for anything other than himself. guy, don't quit your day job!

    Yes, it is a good article... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    but I notice there is no solution offered. The next time any female presidential candidate runs, we should expect more of the same, apparently?

    And what if HRC wins the nomination? It won't go away then. And what if she's the President? It won't go away then either.

    Nevertheless, I'm just glad that this very specific denunciation is out there. It needs to be. There have been far too few of them in the corporate media.

    Parent

    But but but.... (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by gmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    ...it's not hatred of WOMEN, it's just hatred of HER SPECIFICALLY! </snark>

    That's been my least favorite counter-argument from friends who used to care about these unrelenting examples of sexism.  

    I find that counter-argument even more offensive than the silence, because it looks to contort and justify sex-based hatred, provided that the person being attacked is just "getting what they deserve."  

    Using a person's gender as a means to attack them or their character, under any circumstances, is wrong.  

    I hadn't thought of that (none / 0) (#77)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    "it's not women, it's this woman in particular..." interesting how that would play out with any other interest group.  Good catch.

    Parent
    just like rape victims "ask for it" (none / 0) (#211)
    by jackyt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I am one Obama supporter who (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    absolutely positively cannot stand sexist commentary like the stuff you mention above. Sexism is no more appropriate than racism.

    I appreciate your comment (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    I have made a point of making sure that Hillary supporters here hear it from me if they even act like they are condoning racial remarks.

    Both are unacceptable.

    Parent

    Thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by independent thinker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    You may be the first person here to respond to me without vitriol since I started participating a week or two ago.

    As a boy I was raised to undertand that all people should be judged by who they are and how they behave...not by race or gender or religion, etc.

    I look for sincerity and a good heart in people. This is, after all, what is truly important.

    I sincerely regret any sexist comments made by anyone, but most especially by any Obama supporters. I have also personally witnessed racist comments from Clinton supporters. Such talk has caused a lot of hard feelings on both sides.

    Parent

    I regret that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    and take responsibility for it.

    It is hard to police the threads but I must do better.

    Parent

    Excellent piece! She's far too kind to (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Roger Stone though. And what is with Mike Barnicle? He absolutely loathes HRC. Is there some history there? The sad thing is none of them even give their behavior a second thought. They are like some frat boys who never grew up.


    they've been given no (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    reason to give it a second thought.

    Parent
    True that. Our letters and petitions (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:08 PM EST
    have been ignored and their masters just encourage them. I wish Angelina Jolie would take up our cause-they would go all goo-goo for her! Ha!

    Parent
    Mike Barnicle has (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Binx on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    always been a sexist jerk. I'm just glad he hasn't been as ubiquitous in Boston since he got fired from the Globe for plagiarism. I believe he's still writing a column at the Herald

    Parent
    Maybe there think that no women will hear them (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    Roger Stone is a dirt bag anyway, but his club name is disgusting. And he is a Republican. Where is their outrage? I don't hear one.

    Mike Barancle was always good, but once again, it is the boys on the bus gang. What is with these talking heads? He apparently has been married more than once. Go figure.

    And Howard Dean, Donna, Ted, John, Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders SHOULD be protesting these insults in the name of all females in the world. Their silence only reinforces my decision in November.

    Hillary protested once on behalf of her daughter and got paid back 10 fold. So once again, I guess it is up to us ladies to start the protest against the media companies who make these outrageous remarks. As long as we ignore and let these guys get away with this cr*p, then we are not helping ourselves, our sex, or our candidate. I am getting my protest letter off to MSNBC.

    Parent

    The best way to force a change (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    is to organize a letter writing campaign to the sponsors of the news shows.  It's only when you threaten their income stream that they respond.

    Parent
    Thank you BTD for posting this (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    . . . Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

    I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

    Thank you Ms. Cocco, well put.

    Here's how bad it is. (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    My Republican father e-mailed me an Obama rant this morning.  He's discovered internet and e-mail in retirement!  So I wrote him back and said hate away because I was too heartsick over the sexism directed at HRC to argue with him and provide him his daily entertainment.  He wrote back and said that he never believed that he could ever feel anything but loathing for Hillary Clinton, but that she had earned his begrudging respect given the honorable and courageous way she has comported herself throughout this campaign and that he feels chastened about his own attitudes having seen the treatment of her from the media.  He of course ended on a triumphant note about the hypocrisy of Dems, how they are even more racist and sexist than Republicans because they live in denial and refuse to admit their own human failings.  I didn't bother to argue.  What could I say?

    I hear the same nearly every day (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    from Republican co-workers. Some say they would have a tough time choosing between Hillary and McCain.  Obama, not so much.  Slam dunk McCain.

    I live in FL, in case I haven't mentioned that recently ;-)

    Parent

    Well my dad ain't voting for HRC in any event (none / 0) (#82)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    But he has consistently said he was rooting for her to get through the primary, because at least she was competent and pro-America.  She is the fallback Dem of his choice by a country mile.  And no doubt as a sop to me, he's also consistently added that it wouldn't hurt to elect a woman in this country at long last.

    Parent
    Hats off to Cokie Roberts (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    who on This Week this past Sunday called out the MSM for "blatant sexism" in their Hillary coverage. She said it was bad enough on TV and she dared not even look at the blogs.

    Then Sam Donaldson abrubtly changed the subject. How many times has that happened to you ladies?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    My neighbor friend talks about it all the time. You will be talking about your subject and one guy who is not interested will just throw in another thought and change the subject. We have gotten good at being able to say, excuse me, and get back to what we were talking about.

    Parent
    go cokie! (none / 0) (#94)
    by proudliberaldem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Cokies was silent, however, for how many months (none / 0) (#217)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    about the rampant mysognyy?

    I'm glad she's saying something now, but it might have done more good earlier.

    Parent

    This Is Why I'm Questioning (5.00 / 13) (#62)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    whether to stay registered as a democrat.  It's not just that the party's likely nominee was willing to make sexist dogwhistles, it's that so many in the party have stayed silent against the widespread misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton.  I don't think a party willing to sit silent in the face of overwhelming hatred of half its members is really for me.  Not to mention its willingness to allow a movement within the party to leverage that hatred to win.

    My wavering from voting democratic in November is not about Obama.  It's about not wanting to be part of a party that thinks hatred of women is okay.

    And ALL of these comments were strongly condemned (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    by many folks. And of course by THIS WEB SITE.

    Parent
    My Other Favorite Defense of Misogyny (5.00 / 11) (#97)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    It doesn't matter because the Clintons are racists.  IOW, b!tch deserved it.  Very nice.

    Parent
    That's sure how I read what you said. (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Then what exactly did you say? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by davnee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    Please enlighten us as to your original point.

    Parent
    "Plenty of blame to go around." (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    That was your narrative.

    It doesn't answer the sexism, it just conveniently changes the subject.

    Parent

    But yet (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    the Democrats are the party of women's rights!  LOL.

    Obviously, they're actually charletans on that matter.

    Parent

    And that has to do with sexism how? (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    You know what I won't miss? The response to every comment and question in life being "but the Clinton camp did..."

    Broaden your view just a little bit my friend. There are women who have suffered and will continue to suffer from sexism and misogyny. "Clinton camp did xyz" will in no way alter that.

    Parent

    You don't have one correct (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by BevD on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    fact.  Billy Shaheen didn't suggest that Obama was a drug dealer, no one suggested that.  Bob Johnson, in response to the criticism of the Clintons as racists because of her remark about MLK said, "...Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."

    Bob Kerry did not suggest that Obama went to a Madrassa, in fact, he said that Obama should not be afraid to use his middle name, "It's probably not something that would appeal to him but I think the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and that his father was Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim there are a billion Muslims on this planet and I think that experience is a big deal."

    Bill Clinton didn't suggest that the only reason Obama won SC is because he is black, that is what you inferred from his comment.  

    I am disgusted with the "dog whistling" comment, it implies that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a dog incapable or reasoned thought.

    Parent

    Shaheen & Kerrey (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
    were not part of Hillary's campaign, but I believe she apologized for their remarks.
    All of your points begin with "suggested" - but people seeking racist motives will find them. And it was clearly Obama's strategy to "find them" and depict the "first Black president" and his wife as racists.

    Not a word from Obama for:
    "Hillary ain't never been called a N----r!" - Rev. Wright, from the pulpit,
    Jan. 08

    "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina victims." - Jesse Jackson, NH primary


    Parent

    I don't know about Kerrey, (none / 0) (#186)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    but Shaheen was her NH campaign director, and he resigned shortly after making the remark--undoubtedly at her request.

    Parent
    Amused, Billy Shaheen raised the prospect of (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    the Republicans using that attack against Obama, based on Obama writing about his minor use of cocaine and marijuana in his autobiography.

    He did not say Obama was a dealer.

    Among his concerns about Obama as the nominee, he said in an interview here today, is that his background is so relatively unknown and that the Republicans would do their best to unearth negative aspects of it, or concoct mistruths about it. Shaheen, a lawyer and influential state power broker, mentioned as an example Obama's use of cocaine and marijuana as a young man, which Obama has been open about in his memoir and on the trail.

    "The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

    Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." (Bolding mine)

    I don't see Shaheen charging that Obama was a drug dealer -- do you?

    Bill Clinton never said Obama won SC "only because he was black"; many in the MCM and elsewhere, however, did say he overwhelmingly won the black vote. Clinton said it was not unexpected and that Jesse Jackson had done well there in two primaries.

    Attack phrases may feel good to you now, but they also may mean you have missed actual facts or nuance.

    Parent

    Got party? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    Will women have to go looking or will someone step up?
    I'll bet on looking cause it's hard work risking political capital. Besides it's unity baby, there's no place for anything but unity.
    Get in line, d*mnit!

    Thank you (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by proudliberaldem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    so much for posting this.  The staggering, pervasive sexism surrounding this campaign is depressing beyond belief.  It exists on so many levels, its hard to know where to start, but much of it amounts to the fact that many of the qualities necessary in running for office -- fortitude, aggressiveness, political calculation -- are, in a woman, hysterical evil ball-busting b***hiness.  As a Clinton supporter, I want to thank the Obama supporters who speak out against it.  But, as Cocco so aptly notes, the silence from our party has been heartbreaking.

    The Silence of the Lambs (5.00 / 12) (#91)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    A feminist blogger recently commented that the misogyny exists because the Dem party believes we have nowhere else to go, and added "You know what?
    They're right."  Sorry if I am not quoting completely accurately.
    Well, as we have seen on Talk Left, that may be a miscalculation.
    Speaking for myself, this election cycle has left me heartsick and angry.
    If women voters feel a tenth of what I feel, the Party may be in for a surprise come November.

    "fellow so-called progressives" (5.00 / 5) (#223)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    that's been a huge disappointment for me. I've seen some amazing (not in a good way) true colors being exposed.

    Parent
    Sexism plus (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by pavaoh on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    It isn't just about sexism.  There isn't anything you can't say about the Clintons.  There are no limits.  With every snide and rotten remark there are chuckles and more declarations on how low they are.  That is why the republicans are so good at portraying the democrats as elitists.  How many democrats have stepped up to the plate and defended her?  I don't care who you support in this primary, every democrat should be defended.  I wasn't for Clinton when this started because I knew this would happen.  I was just stupid to think it would be from the republicans.  Now I need a reason to vote for Obama other than a vote against McCain.  I am sorry to say I don't trust him and its not because of his race.  It is one of my biggest resentments that it is used as an excuse to explain why he is not getting white working class.  We connnect with Hillary because we have all at one time been treated like her.  We reject people who act like they have more class or that we don't know what we are doing.

    And Obama (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    supporters think that they can tell us McCain is horrible? It seems that when it comes to this kind of stuff, the Dems are no worse than the GOP. It's why lots of us are probably going to sit home or vote McCain in Nov.

    It is true that McCain is worse (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    Who do you think Roger Stone is? Why do you think he's doing what he's doing?

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    Obama is a horrible misogynist but McCain is just as bad if not slightly worse. That's a real motivator I would say.

    Parent
    His policies would be leagues worse (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    I don't think any reasonable person could question that.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    but who knows what Obama's policies are? I want him to tell me not to have to go to his website. Besides, I think he's too afraid of offending someone to state them.

    Parent
    Let's just put it this way (none / 0) (#139)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    Obama gets a 100% from NARAL, and McCain gets a 0%.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    He has shown a history of rolling over. If the GOP fillibusters none of his appointments will see the light of day.

    Parent
    Even if you believed that (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    It would not be a good enough reason to abstain for vote for McCain, who is GUARANTEED to appoint bad judges.

    You think Congress will stand up to him? Ha!

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    I think the supreme court is already gone. It's no longer a salient issue with me and the fact that Obama plans to hit me over the head with it to "get me in line" ticks me off more than anything. I don't like totalitarianism from the left any more than I like it from the right. Obama acts just like George W. Bush. If you didn't vote for W. you were with the terrorists and hated america Right? With Obama it's vote for me or you're a racist. Or vote for me because of Roe v. Wade etc. I'm sick of this. Frankly, maybe divided government is a good thing.

    And I agree with you about the Dems in congress. And they are all the ones who think Obama is so great. Does failure attract failure or something? Obama is just more of the same losers.

    Parent

    Well I'm sorry (none / 0) (#187)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    but this is just politically stupid.

    Feel free to do whatever you want, but I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is.

    Parent

    Wrong. Politically stupid is remaining silent (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    while it's a free for all against over half the electorate.

    Parent
    Let me ask you (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    this? If you had to go back to 1976 would it have been better to let Ford have another term or elect Carter? Having a bad President for a term can be worse in the long run than losing.

    Parent
    The Republican party of 1976 (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    was not the same as it is today. Ford was Pro Choice as widely regarded as a moderate.

    McCain has to stake his political fortunes on the religious right, and it is  imperative to get them out of the White House ASAP.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#222)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    it's not the same but McCain is from the wing of the party that is more goldwater than falwell.

    Anyway, you could say the same thing about Obama. He's too far left for the country. Or at least that's the perception out there no matter how much he spouts right wing talking points.

    Parent

    Carter brought his religion into the race (none / 0) (#215)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    and I was deeply troubled by it.  I very nearly voted for Ford whose only serious flaw was pardoning Nixon (at least that's all I remember at this point)  Carter also seemed very self-satisfied (still does) and I didn't particularly like that either.

    Looking back, I probably would have voted for Carter even without my sister's intervention -- because I was a Democrat.

    Technically, I guess I still am.

    Parent

    So if we let (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    the DNC get away with this because of the judicial boogie man run us, then we'll henceforth and hereon, and for the rest of our lives have a party that feels it can throw us under the bus.  

    Personally, I think 4 years of McCain judicial nominees (that Democrats could mostly reject if they had a backbone (oops!)) is a whole heckuva lot better than having no party supporting us at all ever again.

    We need to send the message NOW, before it becomes more ingrained.  Otherwise, women had better start thinking about forming their own party. (And I'm actually very much behind the notion).

    Parent

    NARAL (none / 0) (#190)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:24:23 PM EST
    lost all credibility when the chose to support Senator "Short Ride" Lieberman over the much, much stronger pro-choice candidate (and Democratic primary winner) Ned Lamont. This doesn't even begin to touch on their behavior during the Roberts and Alito nomination processes -- I have lost all faith I ever had in NARAL. They are a joke.

    Parent
    As a woman (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    I have been deeply offended and enraged at the silence of the Democrats, the DNC, and the Obama campaign, and the disgusting vile blogger boyz over the mistreatment of Hillary.

    This is the main reason I'm switching from Democrat to Independent.  I truly hate them all now.

    Yesterday I got an e-mail from an Obama supporter bemoaning the same mistreatment that Michelle is getting and will continue to get.  She called it the "Hillarization" of Michelle.  

    They mistakenly thought it had something to do with Hillary to begin with.......

    My biggest disappoint w Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by wmr on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    was the way he joined in the let's-all-beat-up-on-Hillary in the early debates.  She was the presumptive favorite at the time, as I recall, and he was desperate for media attention, which he never did get, except above his hairline.

    But it still rankled.

    Wait a moment. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    what specifically sexist thing did he say?

    (Apart from the Salmon Jacket faux pas. Wasn't that just oafish?)  

    Parent

    He didn't say anything (none / 0) (#207)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    overtly racist but after Iowa, he was declaring her out of the race and that it was down to two men -- Obama and himself, totally discounting the fact that there was about .5% difference between her vote totals and his own.

    That's when I knew the media was completely against her too. They kept talking about her spectacularly losses when she pretty much tied with Edwards for 2nd place.

    Parent

    nothing sexist (none / 0) (#209)
    by wmr on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    Just that he didn't even take a step back from the general pile-on the "moderators" invited.

    I don't have transcripts in front of me and I am just commenting based on my memory of being disappointed, so I may be wrong, but that's how I remember it.

    Parent

    We're Being Played (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by HenryFTP on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    The corporate media conjured up the "Bradley effect" out of thin air early in the campaign, and then amplified every bit and piece they could pick up along the way to smear Hillary (and Bill) Clinton as "racist" -- the most notorious example being the Steve Kroft "interview" where he browbeat Hillary about the "questions" raised about Obama's Christianity.

    The media have been even less subtle on the sexist angle -- and Marie Cocco's piece sums it up devastatingly well.

    Folks, hearken back to 1964, the foundation date of the modern radical Conservative movement. Which political party has advanced women's rights and rights for African Americans since 1964, which the other party has been only too happy to decry at our expense? Who is benefiting from the rancor inside the Democratic Party now?

    The messages being disseminated by the media are fully controlled and adroitly manipulated. It's no accident that relatively peripheral figures such as Geraldine Ferraro and Donna Brazile have received wildly disproportionate amounts of airtime.

    We are being played, and we really have to try to keep our focus on the forces in this country that have brought us to this terrible pass. They are well entrenched, and they will fight us, in the most underhanded ways imaginable, every step of the way. Because they are so powerful, we have to remember that we must truly remain a "Big Tent" party -- dividing us has been the secret of their electoral success since 1968.

    Soory to call you a red herring expert (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    But where in Gawd's name did I say it was Obama's fault?

    I hate people like you who seem incapable of condemning sexism, plainly and simply.

    It is indicative of the very malign acceptance of sexism that this post decries.

    In essence, the person condemned here is YOU, not Barack Obama.

    Oy, back atcha (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    Racism is Hillary's fault because...?

    I recall that Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    went out of his ay to say:

    I don't want your vote if you won't vote for a woman or a black guy.

    Something like that.

    It would have gone a long way.

    Instead Obama appears to have encouraged it.

    Humour (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    The problem is that these days nearly any/all offensive and insulting humour is considered to be a laff riot and thus excuseable. Look at people like Lisa Lamperelli, Sarah Silverman, etc. They're not funny, they're vile, but if you say you're offended, then you're a PC idiot with no sense of humour, especially when it comes to mocking women.

    Penn is an arse (although we have a mutual friend in common who adores him so I'd say Public Penn is a lot different than Private Penn) -- and this is just a small symptom of a much LARGER syndrome.

    Chris Rock has said some amazingly misogynistic things about HRC and no one's called him on it (starting with "That White Lady"). Had a white comedian made racial 'jokes' about Obama, you know the DNC et. all would be screaming for blood -- and rightly so. There's been a ridiculous double standard permeating this primary, and not just from the Democrats. The incident with McCain where the woman in the audience called her a b*tch was another salvo. I have to give McCain some credit for at least backing down and decrying the whole 'psycho ex-girlfriend' thing.

    Of course, women aren't supposed to be offended. If they are, they're too sensitive, lack a sense of humour, have pokers up their butts etc. Yeah, har har har. We'll see who is laughing on Election day.

    Depressing Banality (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    It's always been disgusting how HRC was treated from the earliest days of the Clinton Administration.  She was no more politically ambitious than any man, but her ambition was treated as if she were Lady Macbeth.

    When she was strong HRC was described as "lacking feeling" of "not being human".  When she showed emotion, she was castigated for "playing the gender card" (whatever that is).

    Republicans knew they had tapped-in to a rich vein  of misogyny, and they mined it vigorously and effectively.  As the quotes above attest, the media were and are enthusiastic promoters of this misogyny.

    But why single out Howard Dean?  I live in California and I didn't see any national or local coverage of DiFi or Barbara Boxer (or my congressman, HRC superdelegate Mike Thompson) call out the media and Republicans on their misogyny.  I didn't even see James Carville, Paul Begala or Bill Clinton call the media a bunch of disgusting misogynists.

    Nor did I see Howard Wolfson or Mark Penn call out the media for the disgusting bunch of misogynists they are.  None of them -- not a one that I've seen -- ever blamed misogyny for problems HRC had with media coverage or her campaign, even though it was obvious what was going on.

    At least earlier-on, the Clinton campaign had plenty of money and it certainly knew how to get a meme going, but it never tried to accuse the media of being sexist or misogynist.

    Indeed, instead of talking about how being a woman brought strength and compassion to her politics, the Clinton campaign had its surrogates go on about her "testicular fortitude."

    So if Bill Clinton and Mark Penn weren't willing (or thought it a bad strategy) to call Republicans and the media a bunch of disgusting misogynists (which is what they are) then why should Howard Dean be expected to do so?

    It has to be someone who is not connected to her (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by wasabi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    It has to be someone who is not connected to her campaign to call out the misogyny or it will set the media's eyes rolling.  Sour grapes and all.  Playing the gender card and all.

    I want my Democratic Party to take a stand even when it isn't convenient.  I expect it.  I've seen them call bs on the media before.  Not this election.  Not this time.

    Parent

    quick survey (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by pixelpusher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    How many female bloggers and commenters out there are using gender-neutral names because they know their ideas wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise?

    Plays to stereotypes, doesn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    I use two different screen names, depending where I blog, and yes, from all that I can see, my comments are treated more respectfully with the gender-neutral/male-sounding name.

    Parent
    oddly enough (none / 0) (#213)
    by pixelpusher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:40:36 PM EST
    a female blogger/commenter cannot become a frontpager at Daily Kos unless she uses a female screen name... while male bloggers can use whatever names they like.

    "Pet females"

    Parent

    The sexist language has worked. As proof (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by FLVoter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    look at some of the posts in this thread.  The blatant sexist language has worked to trivialize a female candidate.  Once she is trivialized, she can be discarded easily.  When called out for the blatant sexism, those using sexist language can say it's not sexism because it is really anti-Clinton.  The damage has been done and will be felt by all women in all aspects of their lives for some time. This is a very sad time in America.  Personally, this is one of the many reasons why I changed my party registration from Democratic to NPA (No Party Affiliation).

    wait a moment (none / 0) (#208)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    she knocked out a huge field of men. Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel...

    Her impact has hardly been trivial.

    Obama kinda fluked it because he had the sheild of a fairly large greivance too.

    If Clinton had not been in Edwards may well have beaten Obama.   But with Clinton in alongside obam, if was always going to be a duel between those two.

    Parent

    When the primaries came up, the (none / 0) (#221)
    by FLVoter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    trivialization ramped up.  The sexism became more blatant.  The media focused on both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton as two historic candidacies.  However, once the field was narrowed, the historic female candidacy was removed from the dialogue and only the first viable AA candidacy remained.  The historic female candidacy has now become an after thought if mentioned at all.  Sen. Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but in using sexist language, it did trivialize her.  When it is easly to mock and portray her as a psycho ex-girlfriend, suffering mulitple personalities, mood swings, etc..., it is easy to say that she cannot be POTUS.

    Parent
    Words of wisdom (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    "In the end, I will remember not the words of my enemies, but the silence of my friends."

    -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Let's see (1.00 / 5) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    Penn Jillette
    Jack Cafferty
    Joe Scarborough
    Mika Brzezinski
    Chris Matthews
    Ken Rudin
    Andrew Sullivan

    What do these people have in common?  

    Give up? NONE of them are officials of the Democratic Party, elected or employed.

    What they ALL are is media talking heads.  

    Why is it the job of Howard Dean or Barack Obama to condemn these people?  Why wouldn't it be the job of the people that employ them?  

    I guess being a scolding mother is worse than a jilted ex-girlfriend.

    I have told you many times (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    You should avoid these threads. You really expose yourself.

    I have no response to give you you neanderthal attitudes. Imagine asking the Democratic Party to stand up against sexism, especially aimed at a Democratic candidate. Who would possibly ask for that.

    Do me a favor, please leave this thread before I get angry with you. You make it very hard not to despise you.

    Parent

    Right (1.20 / 5) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    My neanderthal attitudes.  Right.

    You make it very hard not to despise you and your hypocrisy.(I'm sure that this comment will be deleted even though it's ok for BTD to use the same language).

    It amazes me that you think that Obama should be some sort of media critic, as if he doesn't have anything better to do.  Why doesn't Hillary stand up to these brutal sexist attacks, she being a fighter and all?  Obama is not the spokesperson for women's rights and it is absurd that you think he needs to speak up everytime someone says something stupid and sexist.  I certainly don't expect Hillary, or Obama for that matter, to step up everything someone says something racial.

    You have never understood my point on this, always thinking that I condone sexism.  My point has always been the same.  Just because someone references Hillary's gender in a negative way doesn't make them a sexist.  Just like Hillary reference skin color doesn't make her a racist.

    The comments you provided in this thread certainly appear to be offensive and sexist.  Certainly Jillete's comment was.  But god forbid you actually tried to discuss this issue like an adult rather than as a petulant child.

    Parent

    Despise me for demanding (5.00 / 13) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    that DEMOCRATS decry sexism?

    what more can you say to shame yourself.

    I will not be responding to you anymore.

    Your false charges of hypocrisy are laughable of course.

    This is your epitaph imo:

    "Obama is not the spokesperson for women's rights"

    The Democratic nominee MUST be a spokesman for women's rights in the Democratic Party I care a
    bout. Obviously not in the Democratic Party you want.

    Our division is now complete.

    Parent

    BooHoo (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    I'm really torn about that.  Your divisive and needlessly hostile tone was far more insulting.

    You create an environment of intolerance.  Either people accept your premises and beliefs or they are vile human beings.  

    My comment about Obama being a spokesperson for women's rights was unclear.  But what's the point in clarifying it?  You'll just twist something else I say into something unrecognizable.  THAT'S WHAT YOU DO!

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 12) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    You have really dug yourself a deep deep hole in this thread.

    You are such a knee-jerk excusemaker that it's no wonder people are routinely flabbergasted by your comments.  Once in a while, give some thought to actually considering the argument being made and responding on the merits, instead of offering a mindless "it's not Obama's fault!" rejoinder.

    Parent

    I don't care much (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    for the non-stop insults.  I disagree about some of the claims of sexism that are made on this site.  So BTD seems to think that equates to me a disgusting neanderthal sexist.  

    I think there is a valid argument about the malign acceptance of sexism.  But BTD decides to play to the crowd and target TL Enemy #1, Obama, and TL Enemy #2, Dean, as the villains.  

    So this thread will lead to the inevitable "Obama is a horrible sexist" diatribes that these sorts of threads ALWAYS wind up at.  

    Parent

    Speak to this article (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    and its specific instances, not to some vague instances in the past on this blog.  This article targets Dem leaders, not Obama.  You are bringing him into it, cleverly attempting to mask what you are doing to derail the thread.

    (I agree with you, actually, that there have been instances here of labeling as sexism what were attacks on Clinton for other reasons -- and wrong attacks.  Just as there certainly have been charges of racism when it did not occur.  But you are doing essentially the same thing here, confusing the conversation rather than addressing the post.)

    Parent

    This is what I'm talking about (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    You see the post as an attack on Obama even though it says nothing of the sort.  Your hypersensitive once again finds the "hidden" message aimed at Obama.  This is exactly what I mean when I talk about knee-jerk reactions that accomplish nothing.

    BTD criticizes the Democratic Party for not taking a stand against rampant sexism aimed at a Democratic candidate, and your response is "Obama is not the spokesperson for women's rights and it is absurd that you think he needs to speak up everytime someone says something stupid and sexist."  Again, if you'd take the time to think instead of instantly seizing upon the secret anti-Obama code hidden in every TL post, you probably could make a much more worthwhile contribution to the site.

    Parent

    Obama is a word NOT in my post (none / 0) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    Now you are reduced to falsehoods.

    Parent
    It was unclear? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    It was perfectly clear. Perhaps you want to retract it. It would be a great credit to you to do so.

    I would if I were you.


    Parent

    Threats now? (none / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    Jeez.  Embracing the Moe Lane school of diplomacy?

    Parent
    threats? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    Now you are showing a propensity to falsehood.

    I have told you you should stay out of these threads precisely because you become something really unpleasant in these threads.

    Parent

    Did you really mean to say this? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by suisser on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    Obama is not the spokesperson for women' rights

    Indeed. And yet he only aspires to be the leader of the free world.
    You typed this and it didn't strike you as absurd?

    How very, very strange.

    Parent

    Isn't a candidate -- and then a president (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    supposed to speak for the rights of all?  Now he is only supposed to speak for the minority of Americans, men.  So, at long last, that's What Obama Really Means?

    Well, then, there ought to be no surprise as to What Women Really Mean if he is the nominee in November.

    Parent

    He should have a said a few things. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    I nstead he benefitted form a coordinated drum beat of ridicule.

    Parent
    I guess you think Penn was being serious.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    I think he was joking.  Playing on a stereotype, like many fine comedians do.

    Parent
    Sexism as humor? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    Ha! BTW, you found it funny? really?

    Parent
    I chuckled.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:51 PM EST
    you bet.  I like biting humor.

    I take it you're not a Chris Rock or Jeff Ross fan, to give you 2 examples of comics who play off stereotypes.

    The sooner we all laugh at stereotypes, the sooner nobody believes them.

    Parent

    Biting humor? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
    Sheesh. you must be kidding. Enough with you on this.

    I leave you to your views.

    Parent

    You forget that humor is also a tool for shaming. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    Laughing at stereotypes doesn't necessarily make them go away. If that were the case, effeminate men would be socially punished (at the least) and brutalized (at the worst).

    Parent
    "wouldn't be" -- really big typo. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST


    Parent
    And you understand (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    that underneath all jokes are kernels of truth (or what the speaker believes to be the truth)?

    Parent
    (eyes bugging) (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    Oh, I don't think so.  Everything you said was totally wrong.

    Parent
    If any of them had made (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    a racist joke at Obama's expense the entire Dem leadership would have unleashed holy-hell on them, as they should.

    Thats why.

    Parent

    He did (none / 0) (#40)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    He made a racist joke at Obama's expense and a sexist joke about Clinton.  Your premise is false as no one in the Democrat leadership "unleashed holy-hell" about the Obama crack.

    We really need to stop polarizing ourselves and villifying one another.  The Republicans will do a good enough job of that without us giving them a helping hand.

    Parent

    You too? (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    EWow. Some people are revealing themselves now.

    Are you seriously arguing their has not been great outrage at racial, remarks directed at Obama?

    I tell you I am coming to really find out about people in this campaign.

    I can not tell you how disappointed I am that you have written this comment.

    I find it hard to respect you now. I am serious.

    Parent

    Sorry to hear that (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    But I am afraid you have lost some perspective.  I always respected your passion Armando, but I think you are missing the larger point.  

    I think Penn Jillette is a lousy magician and an even worse comedian.  I think his remark about Hillary was offensive and his crack about Obama stupid.  But I do not believe EITHER campaign need to respond to inane attempts at humor by B-list comedians.  

    My initial reply in this thread was to Chisoxy who was trying to create more divsion between Democrats when she claimed a similar remark by Penn would have unleashed a response from the Democratic leadership, while they remained silent when Hillary was the victim of the joke.  I merely pointed out that Penn was an equal opportunity offender and there was no double standard.  If somehow me pointing this out caused you to no longer respect me, I doubt you ever really did.

    I truly do hope you can step back and regain some perspective and realize the damage that is being done to our party by some of the comments and posts.  Obama supporters are not the enemy.  Supporters for both candidates have done dumb things but they are a small minority.  At some point in time we really need to stop finding outrage in everything and start coalescing.  

    Parent

    Excuse me (4.33 / 6) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    If you want me to "gain perspective" by malignly accepting sexism as you now seem to you will have a long wait.

    I submit that you have shamed yourself with your attitude displayed in this thread.

    Disgraceful ideas couched in pretty words do not make the ideas anymore acceptable.

    Your attempts to act above it all are ridiculous and disgraceful.

    Is it so difficult for you to condemn the sexism that we have seen in this campaign. Is it difficult for you to condemn the malign silence that has been the response to this sexism?

    Apparently it is impossible for you. I fond your attititude completely unacceptable and I will say so. And I have said so for many many years.

    you remind me of the folks who defend Andrew Sullivan's defense of the Bell Curve and folks who defended Lawrence Summers outrageously sexist remarks. I gave those folks no quarter and I darn sure will not give any to you.

    Parent

    Keep your quarter (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    Your last reply illustrates the point I was trying to make.  No where did I condone sexism or Penn Jillette.  I merely tried to edify a commenter who believed that a similar remark made about Obama would have triggered a tsunami of outrage by the Democratic Party.  Your own post indicates that Penn did, in fact, make a similar offensive remark about Obama and there was no outrage by anyone.  So while trying to diffuse more of the flames of acrimony that is being fanned at this site, I somehow get lumped into the category of being a defender of sexism?

    If you know anything about my background and career, you will realize just how preposterous your last post was.  This is the heart of the problem old friend...you are so caught up in this campaign you have lost your perspective and are lashing out at those that share similar values.  Re-read my reply to Chisoxy after a few hours and perhaps you will see that all I was trying to do was to get ahead of the inevitable Obama bashing that was sure to follow.  You might also want to reassess your opinions on those that have disagreed with you.  You might be surprised to find that their committment to women's issues goes far beyond well-intended posts on a blog.  

    Parent

    Perhaps the phrase (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    "malign silence" has you confused.

    Nowhere did you CONDEMN it. Nowhere did you condemn the malign silence regarding the sexism and misogyny in this campaign.

    Your attempts to belittle my longstanding concern about sexism as being "campaign based" are duly noted.

    Honestly, I never knew you before this thread.

    Parent

    No, you are confused (none / 0) (#175)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    I was replying to Chisoxy, not your post.  Nothing in my reply to Chisoxy was intended as a comment about your initial blog entry.  You instead chose to jump on my reply as some evidence that of a moral failing.

    Let me make it clear to you Armando as you are clearly in litigation mode and have confused what side everyone is on:  I CONDEMN SEXISM IN EVERY FORM.  I CONDEMN WHAT PENN SAID.

    Got it?  

    Now go take a look at how this thread, as has become all too frequent around here, degenerated into another Obama is evil screed. You did not raise Obama, but people like Chisoxy did which was what I was trying to diffuse.  Congratulations though, you managed to obfuscate a legitimate point by allowing the Obama vitriol to go unchecked while  fixating on nits between us.

    Parent

    Did you miss (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    the part where she rebukes the Democratic Party? She says only Barbara Mikulski has spoken out against the rampant sexism that HRC has had to face.

    See, that part was separate from the part about the media.


    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    you seem to think that Obama is somehow watchdog of the media.

    It's great that Mikulski spoke against sexism.  But I wouldn't think less of her if she didn't.  And I fail to see how anytime someone says something sexist the criticism magically turns towards Obama.  Actually I know why that is true here, but it doesn't make it legitimate.

    Parent

    The criticism of the article (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    (and of most of the comments here) is that party officials are not fighting back against this sexism--which is ironic given that Democrats are supposed to stand for inclusion, diversity and equal treatment.

    ...Oh, but all three of those principles are under the bus now. See, in respective order: FL/MI, Donald Hitchcock's lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, Hillary (and even Obama) and the media.

    Parent

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    I think that the Democratic Party should unify against sexism, whether it's the media or their own members who practice it.

    Nice try.

    Parent

    I do it because I head Barack and Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    Make comments that were sexist or played right into sexist stereotypes. So yeah, I hold them responsible.

    Parent
    Because they want women to vote (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    for Democrats? Oh, they don't need the votes of half the population? Okay, nevermind.

    Parent
    I can't believe you're going to hide behind (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    the corporate veil, and absolve the Democratic leadership, the candidate himself, and/or his surrogates, from calling out the people who are making a sport out of delivering - with great glee - sexist and ugly remarks about a candidate for the Democratic nomination.  If they were sitting around in blackface, Al Jolson-style, Teddy Kennedy's head would be exploding in the offices of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC - but this?  Not a peep.

    Maybe it's David Shuster Syndrome - where the Obama supporters are afraid that if they make any waves, the offenders will punish their candidate - and heaven knows, we wouldn't want to take a risk like that just for the sake of principle, would we?

    I have long since given up looking to Howard Dean for leadership - he's too drunk on the visions of Obama money swamping the DNC coffers to care about Michigan and Florida, for crying out loud - why would he give a cr@p about a little thing like sexism?

    The media are the media - they're little more than zoo animals who think we are entertained when they soil themselves and paint pictures with it - but I could not be more disgusted or disappointed with the behavior of those who consider themselves Democratic Party leaders.  Although, tomorrow is another day and another chance that I can be more disgusted than I am today.  

    Not trending well for the future of the party.


    Parent

    BTD in his post says (none / 0) (#19)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.


    Parent
    Jillette Is An A$$, As Is Anyone That Thinks Like (none / 0) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    he does...not to mention he is a lousy dancer!
    We do not need this kind of b.s. in our campaigns and anyone who lets them get away with it, should not be given any credence.

    I thought (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    that Penn's joke was very offensive, but what he actually said on MSNBC was pretty interesting.  It kinda got lost because the whole story was that he repeated the offensive joke on the air, but from watching it, it seemed clear to me that he wasn't retelling it in order to titillate.

    If you are able to discern (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    that a statement might have a legitimate position yet has been padded with sexist comments, and you are required to and actively work to ignore and set aside the sexist and offensive comments... well, then we have a winner.... you understand we are a culture of misogyny.

    Also from the article.....[But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.]


    Parent

    Except for the fact (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    that this is not the first time he's told the story -- ostensibly to illustrate the sexist vitriol out there, but given the frequency of the re-telling it sure seems like it just gives him cover to continue to tell the joke. The link above is to James Wolcott blog from 2/13 -- read it, it also takes Jillette to task for not only telling the joke and then repeating it, as if to make some sort of thought provoking point. He's an a$$.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    I thought his tone in the clip spoke for itself.  In my opinion, he seemed embarrassed by the joke and clearly was not looking for an excuse to repeat it.

    Parent
    He can't stop himself from repeating it. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    It's like he's got Tourette's with this joke. But he knows that it's shameful which is why he explains to us that his reason for repeating it is really to illustrate what neanderthals his performances attract. He could just as easily tell the story without re-telling the joke -- he could explain that it was an ill-conceived joke aimed at Hillary and that he was taken aback by the response it received. But he doesn't do that, he repeats the joke first.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    My wife and I went to one of their shows in Vegas a couple years back.  Watch who you call neanderthals!

    When I first read that he was telling this joke, a few months back, I felt really really dirty for giving them our money.

    Parent

    Present company, (none / 0) (#203)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    of course, excepted.

    Parent
    According to MediaMatters Joe Scarborough (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    knew that the joke was coming - the transcript makes that clear

    Of course, Penn was retelling it in order to titillate - he was invited just so he could get his "joke" in on air (cause it sounded oh so funny on the internet (Joe S). The hosts made the appropriate noises, Penn got another 15 minutes of fame and that was that ...

    The saddest part of it all is
    The fact that that just about everyone who decided to make sexist/nasty Hillary comments or jokes got/gets away with it on air, on the blogs, in editorials etc. So it will only get worse because Clinton haters found out they can say anything they want with impunity.

    America's women finally learned the hard way how much woman hate is really out there in the culture ... and that certainly includes  female pundits and writers who engaged in nasty misogyny re Hillary themselves and enjoyed it ...

    re Randi Rhodes
    I still don't understand why Randi Rhodes's horrible Clinton comments have been defended by "liberals" and largely ignored. As it turns out, she was back on the air in days after leaving AAR - gloating.

    At the time I checked Sam Seder's blog which has turned into a Clinton hate blog as well to my chagrin for info (Seder sat in for Rhodes while on vacation). Hillary Clinton was trashed to kingdom come for poor Randi's problems with AAR. I couldn't believe my eyes cause I remember Seder from "before Obama" and I always liked him - BUT  he didn't discourage it at all.

    Si re Clinton hate and misogyny: Could it get any worse on rightwing blogs (which I never read)?

    And digby, the celebrated female blogger? Not a word from her. So my question is still: Why is everybody "disappearing" Rhodes' appalling Hillary comments? Cause thats how it always looked to me.

    After this whole experience (and it ain't over yet) expect sexism and misogyny to get much much worse. It is now officially part of the public "chatter."

    Parent

    I gotta admit.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    I chuckled.

    Penn's a funny mofo, but I was always more amused by Teller's silent straight man schtick.

    And yes, I laugh when Chris Rock tells jokes about black people and when Larry the Cable Guy tells jokes about southern whites and when Dennis Leary used to tell jokes about drunken Irish-Americans.  

    I've never discriminated against somebody in my life, but I guess I'm still the devil because I can laugh at stereotypes.

    Parent

    No, kdog not you too? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    Dang, you used to be my high standard for guys, too! ;-)

    The difference here is that it's not an isolated, one time, screamingly funny joke -- I've laughed at those without justification, told ist ones myself and taken the righteous hit (explained or copped to it beyond calling the PC-cop names.)

    It was a lame cheap shot that was part of something else.

    We're talking about an unremitting campaign of smearing disguised as jokiness. The sexist version of the Step'n'Fetchit routine, or the Amos-n-Andy bit that comprises the MAJORITY of mainstream coverage given to a sitting US Senator, on a campaign for the highest office in government, arguably the world.

    If it were an isolated un-PC joke, and the FUNNIEST ONE EVER, I could see this dismissal.

    It's not, it wasn't, it's one of dozens of lame, ugly, disgracful comments having nothing to do with Sen Clinton's ACTUAL record, words, deeds and character ...

    ... but piled on her gender only. Like gratuitous n jokes, j-w-jokes, sp!c-jokes, f@g jokes and other egregious 'humor', it's raw up-front bigotry. It's fear, resentment and hatred of women: but for some reason that's so beyond tolerated it's even ENCOURAGED on our airwaves by broadcast 'professionals', we're supposed to take it and so rarely do men go beyond looking silently the other way, when women speak up we're humorless 'feminazis' or the PC police.

    Well I don't get the joke not because I DON'T have a sense of humor but because I DO HAVE one and know the difference.

    Parent

    Don't know where the bolding came from (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    Sorry for the visual displeasure of all that bolding. I have no idea where it came from!

    However, if misplaced HTML is throwing off anyone's browser, BTD and/or Jeralyn, feel free to delete and I'll repost format free.

    I was trying to hold to site rules and not set off reader firewalls on language/content.

    Parent

    The asterisk (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    sometimes creates bolding/unbolding. I suspect that's what happened to your post.

    (I put an asterisk right before "bolding"(with no space) and one right after "unbolding" to create the above bolded segment.)

    Parent

    Seriously.... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    Penn, the B-List Comedian, is part of a unremitting smear campaign?  I think you give him too much credit.

    I heard "White B*tch Month" as compared to "Black History Month" and chuckled.  I'm sorry.  If that makes me a pig in your eyes so be it...I'm not gonna lie.

    I get nervous if the PC police had their way we'd miss out on a lot of good comedy.  Remeber, Lenny Bruce got locked up for "offending" people.

    I'm a lot more concerned with all the mothers in the pen locked up on bullsh*t drug charges and seperated from their children, or the mothers crying themselves to sleep with worry about their sons and daughters in Iraq.  I can't get worked up about what Penn said on the boob tube, I really can't.  And again, I worry there will be even less worth watching on the boob tube if the easily offended dictate the programming.  

    Parent

    I know, like I said, take the hit (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    Which at least you're doing.

    And it's NOT a choice between free speech and brilliance like Lenny Bruce on one side

    And the targets of unremitting sexist smears sitting silently by and not exercising THEIR FREE SPEECH on the other.

    Free speech means CRITICS and DISSENTERS also get to have a say and, were your balance honest, you'll encourage the dissent rather than back the pile-on of the status quo.

    But I still invite you to my feminist weenie roast. Heh heh. You can be the guest of honor.

    Parent

    By all means.... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    dissent and condemn him...this is your right.

    I just can't do it because I don't agree with it.  This sh*t doesn't even rate on my offended scale...too many overt acts that directly harm and persecute and discriminate out there way ahead of this.

    Glad I'm still invited to the roast.  And when somebody speaks out about denying women their equal rights under the law or says women aren't qualified to be president I'll be right there outraged with ya:)

    And fwiw, I've seen a few female comics rip into male stereotypes...and laughed my arse off.  You know, we're all dumb apes who only think with our d*cks and all that.  Actually, I'm eating a banana right now, dumb ape that I am:)

    Parent

    Kdog's cred went up for me (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    because of his sweet Mother's Day comment.  Up down, up down.  

    Parent
    It's cool Oc.... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    I can't figure me out either:)

    Parent
    Somehow, I've suspected that! (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:15 PM EST


    Parent
    You are very good at (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    excusing your own acceptance of sexism and misogyny. I do not excuse it.

    Parent
    You see sexism and misogyny.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    I see a joke.

    Whether it's a good joke or not is a matter of taste.  I have no reason to believe Penn hates women or doesn't support equal rights for women.  

    Don't ever watch Jeff Ross perform at a roast...your head will explode with your hyper-sensitivity to these things.

    Parent

    If kdog (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    is a loyal clinton fan it makes the charge of sexism a little bit hard to swallow.

    Parent
    Actually.... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    I'm a none of the above fan.

    Parent
    Penn himself (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    admitted that it was a dumb throwaway joke.

    Parent
    A joke... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    well there you have it.

    Parent
    My point is (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    even the guy who told the joke didn't try to pass it off as some sort of brilliant satire a la Lenny Bruce.  It was just a cheap sexist joke.

    Parent
    I wouldn't call it brilliant satire.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    by any stretch.  Do you think Penn is a sexist misogynist bastard or do you think he was kidding around?  Honestly.

    Parent
    False choice (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    One need not be Hitler to tell a sexist joke.

    Nothing whatsoever about that joke encouraged people to laugh at the stereotype in the manner of a Chris Rock joke.  I'm surprised you can see it that way.

    Parent

    Perspective (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    When AA's and women have the same amount of power in our society as white men, maybe it would be funny, a big maybe. This kind of humor is all about perpetuating exclusion and maintaining dominance, iow keeping the status quo: white men on top. Jewish jokes were the rage during Nazi times, AA jokes were ubiquitous for over a century in America, women jokes still get a pass even among so called educated men.

    Free speech is one thing, kdog, but using it as a tool of oppression in order to maintain stereotypes is not cool.

    Parent

    Maintain stereotypes? (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:45 PM EST
    I wanna break 'em down brother.  Comedy is a great tool to do that.

    This was by no means a brilliant joke.  But it's a joke.  Penn ain't holding anybody down.

    Parent

    What I think you miss in your (none / 0) (#113)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    excuse is each comedian you listed was part of the sub group that they are making sport of.  Let's see a white dude make the same jokes that Chris Rock makes. Wouldn't be so funny would it?  
    We would call it racism.

    But I am in no way implying that if a woman said this, I would find it funny. B*tch as a punchline doesn't work for me.

    Parent

    What about Tina Fey? (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    She used it and it worked.  I agree though, you can only make fun of your own group, otherwise, it's really not cool.

    Parent
    It was how it was used (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    CR was actually kinda nasty when he said it. Fey owned it.

    Parent
    I agree completely (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    Also, it makes a HUGE difference who makes the joke.  Tina Fey was also talking about herself, not a group of which she has no part.

    Parent
    at that point you are a Mencia. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I hate Mencia (none / 0) (#161)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    But I think it's just cuz he's not funny.  Also, he makes fun of groups he has no business making fun of.

    Parent
    Go to youtube.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    and search for Jeff Ross roast.  He's a cracker and makes fun of any and all stereotypes.  And he's funny as hell while doing it.

    Parent
    I have no desire to set myself up to be offended. (none / 0) (#167)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    Has it occurred to you that maybe Jeff Ross really is a racist.  Why do you see it as him making fun of stereotypes. Maybe he actually believes in those stereotypes.  

    Parent
    Because he's telling black jokes.... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    at the Emmit Smith roast in a room full of black people and their all laughing with him.

    He's telling PETA and dumb blonde jokes at the Pamela Anderson roast and cracking everybody up.

    I doubt they would be laughing if they thought he was serious.

    Parent

    I disagree. I don't know who Jeff Ross is (none / 0) (#212)
    by leis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    so I can't speak to his humor. But maybe those people are laughing because what is their other option? Calling him out? In the middle of a roast? Sure, then they are a bunch of people that can't take a joke and become endlessly mocked. Never mind the fact that what he says is needlessly cruel. People with no sense of humor are the problem, not the people that are offending.

    Parent
    If you look at your list, (none / 0) (#173)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    everyone of them is making a joke at the expense of a group he belongs to. Women can handle making fun of each other, too. But just like a white person can't use n*gger in jest as Chris Rock does, b*tch belongs to US - not you.

    Parent
    Oh.... (none / 0) (#214)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    and here I am thinking I've got the whole language at my disposal.  Silly me, I forgot some animals are more equal than others.

    Please be kind enough to let me know what other parts of the english language are off limits to me.

    Parent

    Chris Rock is Black (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    Leary, Irish American . . .  See a pattern yet?

    Parent
    According to MediaMatters Joe Scarborough (none / 0) (#219)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    knew that the joke was coming - the transcript makes that clear

    Of course, Penn was retelling it in order to titillate - he was invited just so he could get his "joke" in on air (cause it sounded oh so funny on the internet (Joe S). The hosts made the appropriate noises, Penn got another 15 minutes of fame and that was that ...

    The saddest part of it all is
    The fact that that just about everyone who decided to make sexist/nasty Hillary comments or jokes got/gets away with it on air, on the blogs, in editorials etc. So it will only get worse because Clinton haters found out they can say anything they want with impunity.

    America's women finally learned the hard way how much woman hate is really out there in the culture ... and that certainly includes  female pundits and writers who engaged in nasty misogyny re Hillary themselves and enjoyed it ...

    re Randi Rhodes
    I still don't understand why Randi Rhodes's horrible Clinton comments have been defended by "liberals" and largely ignored. As it turns out, she was back on the air in days after leaving AAR - gloating.

    At the time I checked Sam Seder's blog which has turned into a Clinton hate blog as well to my chagrin for info (Seder sat in for Rhodes while on vacation). Hillary Clinton was trashed to kingdom come for poor Randi's problems with AAR. I couldn't believe my eyes cause I remember Seder from "before Obama" and I always liked him - BUT  he didn't discourage it at all.

    Si re Clinton hate and misogyny: Could it get any worse on rightwing blogs (which I never read)?

    And digby, the celebrated female blogger? Not a word from her. So my question is still: Why is everybody "disappearing" Rhodes' appalling Hillary comments? Cause thats how it always looked to me.

    After this whole experience (and it ain't over yet) expect sexism and misogyny to get much much worse. It is now officially part of the public "chatter."

    Parent

    hard to be surprised (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    when this is the world we live in.

    "Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette" (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    I like this part.  Im sure she was real hard on Penn.
    between snickers and smirks.  she could hold master classes on Hillary hating.

    Um (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    You should watch the video, I think your assumption is incorrect.  Link here.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    I am completely surprised and I take most of it back.


    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#206)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    I like Penn and I think he is a very smart guy and I think that joke, while over the line, is really nothing compared to the americablog link I posted a couple of comments up.
    or the non stop 24/7 Hillary hate and attacks that come from that blog and others.
    I am ashamed I ever hung out there.

    Parent
    Talk about a two faced... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    ...media drone.

    Geez. This is one of the Zbig clan too. On a TV show running the TV show.

    Parent

    Obama appears where in this post? (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST


    Obama, himself, has been a big part (none / 0) (#171)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    of the problem and, frankly, although its not Obama's fault, the media and the blogs have used Obama's race as cover for their sexist treatment of Hillary.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST


    in 20 years (none / 0) (#228)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    I wonder if twenty somethings watching old clips of this will be as appalled as I was when I heard it (penn.) No apology from MSNBC or the others, why is this so widely accepted? If Bastad is the equivalent, than why isn't any male ever referred to in that way?

    On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism | 221 comments (221 topical)