home

Here Comes the Gender Post-Mortem

Now that the media has crowned Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee, it finally wants to talk about the sexism Hillary Clinton has faced in this campaign.

Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high political office in the first place.

....Decades after the dissolution of movement feminism, Mrs. Clinton’s events and donor lists filled with women who had experienced insult or isolation on the job....

These women watched in disbelief as the media repeatedly provided sexist coverage of her campaign: [More...]

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters point to a nagging series of slights: the fixation on her clothes, even her cleavage; chronic criticism that her voice is shrill; calls for her to exit the race; and most of all, the male commentators in the news media who, they argue, were consistently tougher on her than on Mr. Obama.

As to what will be the cost:

If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?

“Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”

There will also be women who won't vote for Barack Obama in part because at times he appeared chauvanistic himself:

Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton “likeable enough” as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would “absolutely, positively not” vote for him come fall.

Groups already are forming:

Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. “We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus,” she said.

To be sure, many of those quoted in the Times article insist Hillary isn't the victim of sexism but an inept campaign -- and that her campaign failed due to her campaign management and a variety of other factors. They are in denial.

Sexism played a huge role in this campaign. That the media wants to discuss it now when it appears to be too late to do any good is almost as insulting as their coverage throughout the campaign.

The last thing Hillary Clinton would want is for her supporters to stay home or vote for John McCain. Like Hillary, I believe a Democrat is better than a Republican in November. Our President will have a say in legislative agendas Congress takes up, from health care to social security. She or he will nominate our judges and our Attorney General. We can't allow that person to be John McCain.

A candidate with an insubstantial track record who is long on vague rhetoric like promises of hope and change and short on substance is still better than a Republican.

That said, there are still five primaries left. The nomination won't be settled on May 20 no matter what the Obama campaign and the media say. The outcome of the nomination is not certain until either one candidate drops out or actual votes are taken at the convention.

Once it's settled, should the nominee not be Hillary Clinton, count me as one who will refuse to read a single article by the mainstream media on the effect of sexism in this campaign. That ship has sailed and the media failed spectacularly in its duty to fairly report on this primary race.

Comments now closed.

< Soldier Uses Koran For Target Practice | Late Night: Running on Empty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Day Late, Dollar Short and Hillary Was (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    raked over the coals mercilessly.

    She was (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:25 AM EST
    A lot of my progressive and liberal male friends either willingly took part or dismissed it out of hand if I ever brought it up, or even brought up what she's done for women's rights, as if it didn't matter..

    I knew the media would be harsh on her but never expected it to be as bad as it's been.  Some of the things that burned me the most were commentators saying as far back as February that she could finally, finally win their respect if she'd only quit the race.  I believe it was Fineman in Newsweek who lamented that she simply lacked the imagination necessary to drop out.  Dowd and Rich have been vicious, of course, and I know plenty of liberal Democrats are sending those op-eds around.

    Obama flipping Hillary the bird, "you're likable enough," "sweetie," calling her dishonest, saying she attacks when periodically she's feeling down.. these things passed by without much notice.  ugh.

    Thanks for this post, Jeralyn.

    Parent

    My only question about the sexism of this campaign (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:33:22 PM EST
    is this:

    Why didn't women revolt and in overwhelming numbers vote for Sen Clinton? I would have expected that when faced this kind of blatant discrimination that women across the country would have reacted and said enough.

    Was it because they didn't want to believe sexism could be so alive and well? Was it because they blamed the victim?

    I want to make clear this is in no way a criticism. I just don't understand really.

    Many of us aren't upporting (5.00 / 18) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    Hillary because she is a woman but because she is the best qualified candidate for the job of President.

    I wouldn't vote for President based on a historical marker, whether it's the first woman or the first African American president. The job is too important.

    Parent

    Good point and I understand that (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:43:45 PM EST
    But assuming there are two qualified candidates (I say if), and one is getting overwhelming support from a community why is it a bad question to ask why the other didn't get overwhelming support when faced with such strong bias?

    I don't have a daughter, but if I had one I would be deeply saddened by what I have seen, and what she would be facing. Even if I was not for Sen Clinton I would have seriously considered supporting her to push back against what has happened.

    Only way this would be "wrong" is one assume she was not qualified, which I would strongly argue if anything she is overqualified. And sometime it takes a shout to get peoples attention.

    Parent

    It is what you said, that (5.00 / 14) (#50)
    by Bees on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:09:42 AM EST
    some women do not want to believe they live in a sexist culture. It is far easier to deny that our society is sexist because it can make a woman feel bad to have to deal with that reality. It is easier for some women to blame the victim of sexism for bringing it all on herself.

    Another reason is that women don't want to appear biased in favor of another woman only because she is a woman. That is not looked upon favorably. You might be labeled a bra-burner, or a femi-nazi if you support a woman simply because she is a woman, or you speak up too often about sexism in our society. There are no equivalent words like that for AA's who support other AA's, or who fight racism.

    And finally, there are sexist women in our society. A lot of them. My next door neighbor, a woman in her thirties with young children, told me she would't support Hillary because women are "too emotional" to run the country. She said this in front of her 7 year old daughter. I was so disappointed.

    We hear about the women's suffrage movement, and how hard women worked to get the vote. What we don't hear about is the women's organizations that sprung up to fight against women getting the vote. These women wrote long editorials in newspapers, held rallies, etc., to deny women the right to vote. Unbelievable, but very true.

    Parent

    it amazes me how people just ignore (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:39 AM EST
    what 7 years of GWB have done to the country.

    Compare it to Clinton who sounds crisp and sharp and presidential.

    I'm sorry, Obama for all his glory as the top dog orator just doesn't even sound  very good, I've tried to listen to him but he chops his words, and that is annoying as hell.

    Parent

    All Kinds Of Variables Go Into This (5.00 / 8) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:05:38 AM EST
    A lot of women have been brought up to think that it is not womanly to make a fuss. They receive negative reinforcement for being assertive. Men are labeled powerful and respected when they are assertive and women taking exactly the same action are labeled "b@tches etc. This is the criteria they use for themselves and what they use as the basis for judging other women.

    Also, peer approval, especially male approval, has high priority especially with younger less secure women. If worshipping Obama and bashing Hillary is the thing to do, then they are more likely to go along with the crowd.  

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:32 AM EST
    That this is a general problem.  Women don't side with other women just because.  I think African Americans do.  I don't think there is anything wrong with either point, but I do think it's the truth.  How many times have you seen a woman turn on another woman because of a man or any other reason?

    I am a young, educated (very liberal even) man and I have sided with Clinton from the beginning.  I never thought Obama was so bad, but it always seemed so clear to me that Hillary Clinton was so much better.  She had thoroughly earned my respect before the campaign began and I feel that even more so now.

    Parent

    Disagree with your coment about AA's (none / 0) (#172)
    by shoephone on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    A very good male friend of mine who is black (and my age) has been supporting Hillary since the beginning of the campaign. Last year he told me that even though I was supporting Edwards then, I'd come around to Hillary. He was right. About one month ago I sat in his kitchen and listened as he lamented about what an amateur Obama is. He said flat out, "Obama just ain't got it. Hillary does."

    I know other blacks that are supporting Hillary and, keep in mind, I'm in Seattle which has become Obama Central for the NW.

    Parent

    Obama Central? (none / 0) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:31:15 AM EST
    I'm in Seattle, as are many people who post here. I just don't know it as Obama central. He only won the primary by 5%.

    Parent
    Yes, I agree completely. (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Bees on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:04 AM EST
    I think it's the way girls are socialized. Women certainly don't want to be seen as victims, and from a young age girls are taught that things are pretty much equal between the sexes. It makes it very difficult to point out sexism in our society, and sometimes it is hard to even spot it, especially since we are surrounded by it.

    The media made the word feminist into a bad thing that can safely be mocked and ridiculed. Younger women definitely don't want to identify with it because of the way it is portrayed in our media. Also, like you said, younger women haven't experienced the sting of discrimination yet, and so it's easy for them to believe that feminism is something that is unnecessary because we are all so enlightened now. If only that were true!

    Parent

    women in America lead sheltered lives (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    because we believe we have equal rights.Our govt and media tells us so

    Just reading up on life for women in the Middle EASt comparatively,should be an awakening. Despite the wealth of those nations, really their society has not advanced  civil rights for women and its so institutionalized that even the women defend it.

    Its a sobering reality for women but saying they ENJOY their oppression is indeed a problem for all women of the world because we'll never regain a foothold on our bodies and destinies until there is acknowledgement that their indeed is a problem with equality.

    Parent

    Personally, (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:29:53 AM EST
    Most situations both online and in real life when I've had the opportunity to discuss politics, the conversation has been dominated by men who seemed most interested in vociferously arguing against Hillary Clinton with a lot of personal attacks, while women were more quiet because there wasn't much logical to engage with, and then they mostly disengaged because the discussion was tiresome and pointless.  

    I came to believe watching this play out in the blogosphere that one net effect was that it took the quiet ones longer to find each other or to create their own space where we could hold a rational conversation, and from there, reach out to build support - we spent too long playing defense against all the invective hurled at Hillary in the first place.  I also believe that it might not have been as bad if Obama hadn't run his campaign as something approaching a religious movement that really tolerated little to no criticism - that's just how I saw it, but look at the imagery on his website, I don't think it was an accident.

    So.. I think it's not automatic, but requires people to speak out.. it's hard to spark overwhelming support if you feel for the longest time that you're the only one, or at least part of a very small minority, who hold the same views.  

    Parent

    Wasn't this an issue... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:07 AM EST
    ...when she was First Lady? There seemed to be a divide among women over how to perceive a modern, strong First Lady who used her position to advocate.  Eleanor Roosevelt faced many of the same pressures.  

     On the other hand, there were other issues affecting Senator Clinton's candidacy that prevented the kind of vote reversals you are talking about.

     I live with someone who was so upset about her treatment by the media and the punditry that he donated fifty bucks to her, even though he voted for Obama.   There are plenty of people like that out there, although I think it is a mix of Clinton goodwill and sexism in the media.

    Parent

    Very true. (5.00 / 12) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    One of my main gripes with this whole thing is his lack of qualifications. If he were equally or just more qualified than he is, it wouldn't sting so much. And sting is putting it mildly.

    Watching a more qualified woman out there campaigning her heart out for him is gonna be hard to watch. And if he wins, on the job training will be something I won't be able to watch. The fact that she was treated so poorly prior to these future events, is just so wrong.

    Heh, prob a good thing I work for myself right now, lol!~

    Parent

    amen! (5.00 / 11) (#64)
    by moll on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:25 AM EST
    the first time I heard about the SNL "pillow" joke (the debate skit about offering Obama a pillow) I was annoyed. Yes, it's tougher when you're a woman, but you've got to be tougher, that goes along with being the first - and that is why you earn a spot in the history books for doing it.

    Since then, though, my concern has been that sexism has been a weapon deployed to deliberately eliminate the candidate who should have won - not because "it's our time", which is a load of total rot, but because Clinton would obviously have been the candidate if the media had not been deliberately using its power to manipulate.

    What to me is more disturbing than the sexism is the idea that, if the media picks our candidates, what we have is no longer 'democracy'.

    There are two separate issues here. Sexism isn't such a big issue really because the recognition that we're going to lose the better candidate is really waking up women - and feminism will be back.

    But the other issue is that we were manipulated. And that to me is far more important. Whether it is because Hillary is a woman, or merely because someone doesn't like her politics, the real story here IMO is that sexism was used as a weapon to rob us of our democracy.

    Parent

    There was victim blaming (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:49:17 PM EST
    remember, the O'Camp was constantly attacking her character. Some women I know on other forums who fell into the O'Camp kool-aid vat were saying some horrific things about her, but it was the same message that we were already hearing from that origin. I was honestly shocked at a couple of them.

    I think more women did start coming out and speaking out as the campaign moved along, but the ones already firmly in the O'Camp weren't budging. (and some were relying on old baggage and/or what they had been told about her) Also, the media ignoring it didn't help either and they also help some of it along with their poor showing. And when was the last time you heard them discuss women as a voting demographic in regards to voters he's gonna need in the fall? He never made huge inroads into her women and iirc, the split gets larger as the women get older.

    They seem to have forgotten that saying . .  "A woman scorned . . ." or they think we will meekly fall in line because they say so. heh.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:22 AM EST
    The Obama camp painted Hillary with the broad strokes that the republicans painted her with and to do so was to underestimate and belittle her. I can not respect them for what they portrayed her as.   I respect her because she has not only survived but thrived in the face of all of it.  Her resilience, to me, is astounding.

    Parent
    Obama's Chauvinistic Arrogance (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST
    During the debates it inflamed me to see him put his head down and take notes as she was speaking as though 'she' was unimportant, but yet when Edwards spoke he gave his full attention. That was no doubt a chauvinist snub and whether it was intentional or not does not matter - it was there.

    Being from a solid blue state I will be exercising my safe right to not vote for Obama and instead write in Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    I would interpret this as Obama realizing that yet (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:21:53 AM EST
    again, she has set a standard an idea forward that Obama has failed to advance because he lacks the guts to do it and waits takes a whether report and then puts out a position, usually au contraire to Mrs. Clintons or, just me too.

    That isn't the mark of a  leader, its the road of a follower.

    Parent

    Senator Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:28:23 AM EST
    not Mrs. Clinton. She's earned her title.

    Parent
    I hope you've taken the opportunity (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:37:48 AM EST
    to listen to the blogger telephone conference call with Hillary Clinton from Friday.  She is amazingly resilient, acknowledges how the media has treated her and her campaign, how some bloggers and blog commentators launch similar treatment, and how she considers such treatment a perverse type of compliment.  Quite a woman and a good role model for all of us.

    Parent
    disagree (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    Not in this case.  Hillary from her past, votes, policy positions is a feminist, it's obvious and that NARAL move generated massive outrage, with the state organizations as well as the members.  

    I have seen so much misogyny in this campaign, directed at her I think it's pretty obvious that this is about sexism.  

    What I find most interesting is the GOP/Republicans, over time have been more respectful of her than the Democrats.

    But, I've seen that before too, some of the biggest rednecks on the planet in the US when it comes down to hiring someone, paying them equally and treating them equally will do in acts much more than the words of a Berkeley liberal.

    Case in point is the void of women in high tech who are the actual designers, the scientists yet in an area that is supposedly liberal.

    Parent

    Because women are not unified (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:13:52 AM EST
    Black people have grown up being told that they are an oppressed minority, by the media, by their families, by their churches. This has led to solidarity. They may not agree with each other on various issues, but they will stand with each other and help each other. This has been good for the community - ethnic groups help each other all the time. That's part of the reason that immigrants tend to be successful in this nation. But because of the way black people "immigrated", they never had an opportunity to help each other - now they do, and they are.

    Women, on the other hand, are told how well off they are, how sexism is dead, and how they should all stop whining and take care of business (and babies, of course). We still can't join a number of male-only clubs, we still face glass ceilings, income disparities, and criticism is we speak out about it. There is no force unifying us. Many of the most sexist comments in this election came from women who simply see nothing wrong in accusing Clinton of all kinds of wrongs (See Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington). Women know that other women didn't help them on the way up, so they feel no obligation to help others, and neither their families or their churches are encouraging them to do otherwise.

    Parent

    dont forget Arianna used to be a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:27:24 AM EST
    not sure of MODO.  

    Democrats this season are having problems with this because it seems to come from former Republicans, Kos, Huffpo, Ed Schultz.

    I couldn't tell if either of these pundits was a democrats by the stupid rants and disparaging remarks for Clinton.

    Parent

    Dowd... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:37:14 AM EST
    ...was pretty damn critical of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.  She is a Democrat, though.

     Huffington has a complicated history and biography.  But regardless, their grudges against the Clinton administration are, I think, largely unrelated to gender issues.  Dowd maybe less so.

    Parent

    just a level playing field, not solidarity, please (none / 0) (#85)
    by moll on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:22:17 AM EST
    This has led to solidarity.

    I don't think solidarity is always a good thing.

    We shouldn't vote for any President because she's a woman.

    That in itself is another form of sexism - the idea that Hillary Clinton's voters should or do or would or ought to vote based on her gender. Clinton is running based on the claim that she'd be the best candidate - and all of this talking about sexism is IMO a way to derail her appeal to her actual qualifications and make it all about affirmative action.

    Parent

    Until we have a semblance of solidarity... (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:34 AM EST
    ...we won't have equality. Solidarity doesn't mean that we have to choose someone who isn't qualified for a job because she's a woman. It means that we make sure that qualified women are not passed over for men. It means that we help younger women become qualified to do better jobs. And it means that we stand up in unison and attack anybody who tries to turn a women into a caricature.

    Parent
    you fell for it too, huh (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:58 AM EST
    The obama campaign was very deliberate and calculated about painting the clintons as racist. the memo after new hampshire is evidence. after all of the clinton's lifetime of work for minorities, you have the gall to trash them and their record. your hatred allows you to do such things i guess. they would have absolutely NOTHING to gain by playing a race card. NOTHING. how can you believe that they would be so stupid. but obama, on the other hand, has everything to gain. i can't go on....you're comments are infuritating and dishonest. i don't know how i'm going to vote for that man. but oh, i don't matter. i'm one of the older gals you guys laugh at. unity my A**. the majority of the AA community isn't against the clintons...polling proves it. it's the young privelaged white males that shriek this garbage. and the media stirs the hatred cauldron. Obama has run the nastiest campaign i've ever seen. i don't know how this charade continues....there's no core value there except I"M OBAMA! I"M MAGNIFICENT.

    Parent
    For over 15 years (5.00 / 11) (#130)
    by Left of center on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    the right wingers have accused the Clinton's of everything from murdering Vince foster to embezzling money, but they have never even once tried to accuse them of racism. It took Democrats to stoop that low.

    Parent
    It was low. (5.00 / 6) (#192)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:43:14 AM EST
    It's poison.  I don't know if those who have thrown out those charges fully realize the extent to which it's divisive, dangerous, complete and total poison to the Democratic Party. If some comments gave offense there was a choice to make between letting them go and throwing gasoline on the fire.. such as making a national story out of remarks made by Ferraro, who was not a spokesperson for the campaign, at a private event. I'm sure the GOP sees it as karma coming back on us, but it never should have come back on the Clintons of all people.

    Parent
    NARAL (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:19:21 AM EST
    Explained their endorsement of Obama as because they believed the media push that he was the most electable. The local chapters have tried to distance themselves from the national because they were not part of the endorsement.

    Hillary did not savage NARAL. Where did you come up with these ideas?

    Parent

    NARAL also said (5.00 / 9) (#96)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:19 AM EST
    Their endorsement was because of "cash on hand".   Seriously.  And then they went on to explain that Clinton's record was actually better.

    It's like a neverending parade of compromising our values and just sitting back while we all get run over by the Obama machine.

    Parent

    Very good question (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Foxx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:22:17 AM EST
    And one I've been raising for awhile.

    Same reason lots of women are against the women's movement.

    Women are the most colonized people on earth. We are raised from minute one in intimate contact with men and told we are inferior to them. We have no neighborhoods in which we can gather with each other and develop solidarity. Nowhere on earth do we see women in charge of anything.

    The primary function of the intense sexism in the media was to send a message to women: If you stick up for this woman WE are going to get you. We (men) are making this a sex issue and you better tow the line or we will turn on you too. To a lot of women that realistically means beat you up, throw you out on the street.

    Parent

    Not sure what you are referring to (none / 0) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    there are many women's groups that gather regularly and provide a wonderful resource for anyone who joins.

    I sure wasn't raised inferior, and my daughter knows she is capable of pursuing anything she wants to. We are not unique.

    Parent

    We do not grow up (none / 0) (#121)
    by Foxx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:46:07 AM EST
    in female families and female neighborhoods.

     

    Parent

    There was no way to say "enough" (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:07 AM EST
    In what forum would it have been said? Kos?

    NWP, anyone?

    Parent

    Race is not part of this discussion (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    don't try and change the topic. Hijacking threads is not allowed. You don't think she's qualified, fine, you made you point. Now address the issue of media coverage of the campaign or move on.

    Parent
    May we assume you are of the opinion (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:58:16 PM EST
    Barack Obama has all the qualifications you list?  Does any woman?

    Parent
    don't let him hijack the thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:55 AM EST
    this is about sexism and the media.

    Parent
    Caucus & Timing (none / 0) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:42 AM EST
    The caucus system really has been a problem this primary season.

    Who would have guessed that Hillary would be treated like this? By the time it was apparent what we were up against, half the states were already done with their primaries.

    Organizing takes time, and we need to know the force we're up against.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:32 PM EST
    There's a gender problem? Well...I'll be.

    And here the pundit class was telling us that it was all in our pretty little heads.

    Hmmm...it's shocking...

    I'm sure that we will have (5.00 / 15) (#7)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:56 PM EST
    a glut of articles at some convenient later date wondering how so much sexism could have gone down with so little protest in the media and from pundits. And, of course, those articles will be generated by the same media and pundits who turned a blind eye in the first place.

    It will be like the aftermath of the Iraq war, with the media and pundits likewise wondering after the fact how such a messup could possibly have come about, all the while studiously ignoring their very own grievous sins of omission and commission in covering the runup to the war, as if those were perpetrated by different people.

    It's actually pretty sickening to behold. They are never responsible; they are never accountable; they can lie, cheat, and steal in service of their biases, and they will issue themselves their own absolution.

    How Could The Media Protest? (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:07 AM EST
    The media and pundits did not turn a blind eye to it. More often than not, they gleefully participated in it.  

    Parent
    color me paranoid, but... (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by moll on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:42 AM EST
    They're only protesting now to destroy her attempt to control the narrative. Her new message is, "this is like a job interview. Which candidate would you hire?" and she wants people to be talking about qualifications. So, they are talking about affirmative action and entitlement. It confuses the narrative.

    The actual concern for sexism will not come from the MSM until the outcome is truly not in doubt.

    Parent

    Ploy to shift the mood and keep the audience (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:26 AM EST
    The media is going to report what they did as though they were just innocent bystanders. And, if they keep their audience, we can then say we have no one but ourselves to blame.

    They probably think that if the Hillary supporters who are incensed by this biased and unfair reporting will stay with them, then we are more likely to fall back into step with Obama by November.

    Problem is, I'm not so sure 4 years of an inexperienced, inattentive (he can't stick with anything) and arrogant democratic administration won't lead us straight back to another 16 years of Republicans starting in 2012. They might very well be counting on Obama being what we think McCain will be...a one term president.


    Parent

    They won't admit the real reason (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM EST
    They can't. It's too hard to admit. Women, overall, are inferior in our society. We do the dirty work, the lower pay work, the less secure work. We can't be relied on because we are moody and tempermental, and even if you hire us we're just going to leave to have a baby in a few years anyway. America has a caste system - and we're on the bottom. Enough women have power that society can point to them and say "
    See, women aren't being hurt", but the reality of poverty, abuse, and societal control tell a different story.

    Parent
    Just finished reading (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by standingup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM EST
    another article from the Chicago Tribune - Devil in a pantsuit or the demonization of Hillary Clinton -  which emphasizes the extent to which the media used "violent, death-infused imagery" in covering Hillary.  I follow your reasoning for voting for the Democratic nominee, even if it is Obama.  But I do think the DNC, the media and many male (and a few female) elders need to be taken to task for the outright sexism in this primary.  Honestly, I have lost a lot of faith in the Democratic party.

    devil in a pantsuit (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by noholib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    Thank you for the link to this very insightful, powerful article. So, it's not only misogyny at work; it's "eliminationist" or murderous misogyny--hatred that aims at the very elimination or annihilation of the hated AND FEARED woman.  

    Some may want to check out historian Lynn Hunt's book The Family Romance of the French Revolution.  In the mid-18th century, Rousseau wrote that allowing women into public life would unman men.  During the Revolution, Marie Antoinette was charged with all kinds of crimes--untrustworthiness and dissimulation, that is, telling lies all the time. Compare to charges made against Senator Clinton-she'll say anything to win. Political opponents resorted to pornography in order to charge Marie Antoinette with sexual depravity. Compare to the Hillary nutcracker we've seen in this campaign.

    It's shocking how little has changed!
    How primitive that so many men still fear women so.


    Parent

    Hah (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:49:06 AM EST
    I just bought a book on that very subject a few weeks ago, Marie Antoinette singled out and accused of absolutely everything.  Not Lynn Hunt's book though, which I certainly remember and will have to seek out.  I've read plenty of comments on "liberal" blogs saying Hillary is like Marie Antoinette, and not saying it as a commentary on witch hunts, just saying it as a random personal insult --> that woman is evil.

    Parent
    The Republican Party Would Never Have Allowed (5.00 / 13) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:17 AM EST
    this to happen if Clinton was their nominee. As much as I hate everything they stand for, they would not have stood quietly by and let the press get away with demonizing their candidate. The fact that the Democratic Party not only did not stand up to stop this but many members joined into the fray is the reason I'm now an Independent. I have lost all respect for the party.

    Parent
    I suspect they helped it along (4.71 / 7) (#104)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    The Democratic Party ignored the problems for so long, focusing on how long Clinton was staying in the race instead of how to "heal" the wounds. The right way to run this campaign would have been to prevent the wounds - send their best people out on a PR trip to attack anybody who used sexist language about Clinton. But as much as they don't want a discussion on race, they want one on gender even less. What are they offering women? Nothing. They take us for granted. No more.

    Parent
    The democratic party did not just ignore (5.00 / 7) (#198)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:57 AM EST
    the leadership helped it along .  Probably because of the same mentality that was pervasive in the media.  None of the democratic leaders said anything about the obvious sexism.  As a democrat, watching this seeming collusion between the party leadership and the media, how does one express outrage?  Obviously, the overt effort to deny Hillary Clinton any positive coverage to impede her campaign factored in the idea that the majority of the women in the democratic party wouldd have no choice but to coalesce around their anointed nominee because they hate the republicans more.  

    As for me, I refuse to support this kind of calculated decision-making in my own party!  I protest.  I am definitely leaving the party, with my one vote and anyone else I could persuade and be an independent.  I refuse to vote for the democratic nominee that benefits from this kind of sexist calculation.  Fighting sexism must begin with me as an American who believes in the ideals of equality as citizens without regard to gender, race, religion.  

    The media may have a more significant role in the treatment of Hillary.  But the party had the responsibility to advocate for the ideals it is supposed to support.  And I am prepared to say goodbye to the democratic party after the outcome of Colorado.   Because some other really qualified woman might come along, and will probably get the same kind of treatment if nothing is done to protest the treatment of Hillary.  She may exhort others to vote against a republican in the whitehouse; but that is because she is a good democrat and a leader in the party she has done so much for.  But I am not bound by any of those things.  I am angry.

    Parent

    A mildly annoying article by Ms. Kantor. (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    There does seem to be an age break as to female assessment of whether Hillary Clinton was treatly fairly during her campaign.  But how does that explain Doris Kearns Goodwin's opinion?  I still like her Wait Until Next Year, but I am surprised by her statements in this article.  

    Doris Kearns Goodwin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    is a historian not a campaign expert.

    Parent
    She is also, if you recall, a plagarist. (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by miriam on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    A historian who plagarizes others' research and writing is an unworthy human being.  As a writer and historian myself, I find Goodwin beneath contempt.  And am therefore not surprised by her attitude. Her additional crime is appearing on television to opine about anything, and the network people who invited her there to criticize HRC are just as guilty.  

    Parent
    Isn't she a talking head on cable (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    about this particular campaign?

    Parent
    that doesn't validate her views (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:58:16 PM EST
    on areas outside her expertise.

    Parent
    So true. I'm disappointed (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    Kantor included her opinion.  

    Parent
    I'm hardly a feminist (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by BobbyK on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    But I've been aghast at the attacks Senator Clinton has been subject to. I'm not sure I can vote for obama come November.

    This might be what it takes to change things (5.00 / 10) (#83)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:48 AM EST
    If enough women stand up and don't vote for Obama, maybe the Democratic Party will recognize that their largest voting bloc isn't going to just stand by and be ignored any more. This is not just about soccer moms. Every woman was diminished by the treatment of Clinton during this election, and there was no outrage, not even a hint of recognition by those in power. It was made quite clear that racism was unacceptable, even if it was so vague that it had to be explained to people, while overt sexism was an acceptable method of attack. Every time someone dismissed "old school feminists", I cringed, not because I am part of that group (I'm in my early 40's), but because I know that I owe my job and my home to those women. They broke down the barriers. I just walked through. But there are barriers yet. I run into them every day. And we need to address this. I'm adding this to the reasons I'm not voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Why are you "hardly a feminist"? (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:07:51 AM EST
    Why are you against equality of all in our society?  That's all that feminism means.  Please explain your near-total support, then, of gender discrimination.  

    Parent
    We've Come a Long Way (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
    My video, We've Come a Long Way, was featured today in the Huffington Post.

    Shut the Freud Up (IndyRobin and Myself) Produced, "Mad as Hell" re. the sexist media bias.  

    We have a new blog and new video, DNC: Fractured Fairy Tales,  that went up tonight.

    "Mad As Hell" is one great piece of work (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by miriam on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:58 AM EST
    Are you planning to send a copy to Howard Dean?  I'd suggest sending it to Olbermann, but he'd only subject his viewers to yet another one of his endlessly long, repetitive, pretentious, pompous, self-serving, and melodramatic Special Comments on Hillary Clinton.  The guy has morphed into Josef Stalin.

    Parent
    Olbermann's despicable (5.00 / 7) (#203)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:55:20 AM EST
    I never thought I'd say this but at least Bill O'Reilly had the guts to say to her face all the criticisms he makes of her and try his best to step all over her answers, and she argued right back and gave as good as she got.  I really appreciated his interview.

    Whereas Olbermann barely asked a challenging question to her face, went to Daily Kos later to try and explain this away, and immediately resumed trashing her with his boys' club who agree with every damn thing he says.

    Parent

    That's wonderful (none / 0) (#102)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:39 AM EST
    I wish I knew how to make videos. I'd like to do something with the theme from Enterprise. It would make an amazing background to a video about Clinton and women in general.

    Parent
    Great stuff (none / 0) (#107)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM EST
    I just watched those and nice edits, although while i got it, I wonder in many of these concrete heads can even figure it out?  

    Parent
    I do not want (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:43:11 PM EST
    links to sexist videos or comments here. You don't need it to discuss the media coverage and I am not going to spread them around the internet. Thank you.

    The topic is the mainstream media's sexist campaign coverage and their audacity in wanting to discuss it now, after they've crowned Obama as the nominee  -- effectively telling the people in the five remaining primaries, don't bother voting, your votes won't count. They're also, btw, sending the same message to the 2.3 million voters in FL and MI whose votes have yet to be recognized by the media, even though the DNC stripped delegates, not votes.

    I'm referring to a comment I deleted (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    not ones made by Hillary supporters.

    Parent
    I am on a roll tonite....sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    Yes yes yes yes! (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    "the mainstream media's sexist campaign coverage and their audacity in wanting to discuss it now, after they've crowned Obama as the nominee"

    I knew this would happen.  Now they want something from us.  They want our votes this fall.

    Really is like an abusive relationship.  The beating and broken ribs land you in the hospital -- but it's roses and chocolates the next morning.  

    And you're supposed to pretend nothing happened.

    Parent

    Don't vote for Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:12:03 AM EST
    It will hurt him and he would have earned it.

    Parent
    I don't know what to think... (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by OrangeFur on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:56 PM EST
    This campaign has been incredibly depressing on so many levels. The partition of the Democratic Party into such predictable demographic groups and the resulting tolerance of vicious stereotypes in the media has led the way.

    I don't know which started first: the media's irrational antipathy towards Hillary Clinton, or the sexist tone in which they've attacked her. Namely, did they hate Clinton because she's a woman, or have they been using sexist attacks because they've taken up whatever mud they can find? Maybe the two can't be separated. Either way it's been outrageous to watch.

    And the way top Democrats have watched it go on without comment has been a deep betrayal that should make them ashamed.

    Yeah, I do think it's (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    true that it's impossible to separate the hatred of Hillary from the sexist attacks on her, as if one might be the cause of the other. At an early stage, they simply became two sides of the same toxic coin.

    And I see it as one of those events -- again, like the Iraq war -- where people are simply swept up in a crowd mentality that disinhibits them from their usual restraints, allowing them to indulge their irrational biases in a way that would shame them in another, more sober context.

    Really, it's just another episode that reinforces that there is nothing so ugly and vicious as a mob.

    Parent

    Boundaries (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:45 AM EST
    That's why we have something called "boundaries."

    One of the bottom lines is that hate speech is never acceptable.  Whether I like BHO or not, there are certain words I am not allowed to apply to him, and jokes I am not allowed to crack about him.

    But when Jeremiah Wright got a free pass for hate speech back in March, it showed that we were in a land without boundaries. Hence, the language that has been used against HRC, culminating in Keith Olberman's suggestion that she be snuffed.

    Under the new rules, if I have an enemy, it is alright to use hate speech against him.  Which, of course, obviates the very necessity for the boundary at all.  It only has meaning when it protects your enemy from YOU.

    God help us.  I don't recognize this party any more.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:51:17 AM EST
    No matter how angry people got with Obama, they didn't use racist language to attack him. Why should sexism be any more permissible?

    Parent
    Jeremiah Wright is running (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:16:04 AM EST
    for president? And what free pass? I think you have him confused with Hagee, Falwell, Parsley, Graham, etc?

    Parent
    Women did vote (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by hummingbirdv on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:52:31 PM EST
    and are STILL voting in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. The race isn't over.  Senator Clinton is in it to win.  People love her and ARE voting for her.  She is ahead in the popular vote count and after this Tues it will be a by an even larger number. She has every right to take this to the convention in Aug. and the millions who have voted for her want her to do so.

    Regardless of what the media says, the voters say by 72% in a new poll that the media should not be declaring a winner at this point in the race.  I agree.  

    The bias and sexism in this campaign directed at  Senator Clinton has been intolerable to many women and men. The fact that it has been largely denied or dismissed does not make it any the less horrific.  And women are fed up.  So much so, that we are fighting mad.  

    Clinton will not quit.  She believes in finishing what she starts.  So therefore, the convention it is.  And may the best candidate win.

    This is debatable (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:29 PM EST
    A candidate with an insubstantial track record who is long on vague rhetoric like promises of hope and change and short on substance is still better than a Republican.

    There is an argument to be made for the damage a bad  Dem for president can do in the longer run. Say Obama as President pushes someone like Roberts (who he believed in). It limits the chance of a Dem congress to block it; while a Dem concress can fight more freely McCain  (like it did with Bork).
    There are tons of bad policy decisions he could make that being a Democrat who will undo?
    It also increases the chances that 2012 will bring a Rep. (othe rthan McCain) who could potentially stay till 2016.

    I am not advocating you vote for McCain; just saying one can argue your point above -- more eloquently that what I am doing here. I too tired...-

    I agree with this. (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by alexei on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    IMOP, Obama would be worse because of incompetence, inexperience, hubris and arrogance.  He has talked about privatizing SS, was ready to vote for Roberts and his economic advisers and plans are more Republican than Progressive.  

    Parent
    All I know (5.00 / 11) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:38 PM EST
    is if you reward nasty behavior, you'll reinforce it.

    It will be worse next time.  Is that what we want?

    The ones who wished to destroy Hillary don't care if you don't read their newspaper, or if you vote for X, but think long and hard about it.  

    The only power we have is in our vote, or lack of vote.

    It won't stop (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:04:42 AM EST
    In fact, it will get worse.

    Obama's movement was built on sexism. It's worked well for them. Why would they change?

    Parent

    My vote is mine (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by DaleA on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    and I can vote as I see best. Right now, a write in for Hillary looks like a good option. That would be voting for a Democrat. And sending a message to the DNC. The sexism has been beyond belief. IMHO it began when Obama threw Gays and Lesbians under the bus last fall. Outside GL and Feminist groups there was very little understanding or concern. If someone wants to test how mysogeny will play out, first try it on gays. If you get away with it, then women are fair game. And you will probably get away with it.

    Yes, that is what I'm doing as well. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by alexei on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:04 AM EST
    It is my vote and Hillary gets it either way.

    Parent
    Sorry Jeralyn. (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:00:59 AM EST
    I will not reward such behavior by helping Mr. Obama.  Remember, it was not just the media, but Obama and his campaign too.

    that's ok, that's your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:25 AM EST
    and while I disagree, I think it's okay for the Democratic party to know how many they have alienated and why. So no need to apologize.

    Parent
    By reregistering as undeclared (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nellre on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:18 AM EST
    This sends the message does it not?

    Parent
    It does (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM EST
    and even if they don't "get" it, at least they can't Dem guilt you!  ;)

    Yup, I'm undeclared.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Foxx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:55 AM EST
    refusing to vote for Obama is the only way.

    Herstory shows us that not until we stand up and say NO will we get any results.

    Parent

    It is very hard for me to expect (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:17 AM EST
    the "Democratic Party," DNC, or anyone else who in power will get any message from people refusing to vote for Obama because Clinton was treated poorly by the media, the party, or Obama or his supporters.  I think it is a wasted vote or non-vote as the case may be.

    Parent
    Once they could count on layered support fm me (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:53:29 AM EST
    No longer.

    They have to solicit each element starting from scratch: vote, funds, activism, party loyalty.

    (They started losing me in '06 and this campaign was the last straw.)

    Parent

    If Obama loses (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM EST
    and the exit polls show a huge gender gap, the message will get through.

    Parent
    Nauseating prediction (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by zebedee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:07:11 AM EST
    Once nomination is secured, Obama turns into a champion of women's issues. He gives a major speech praises Hillary effusively, bemoans the sexism she was subjected to and lauds her for doing so well despite this treatment. To cheers from the media, he challenges America to confront sexism the way he challenged us on race.

    Won't that just be special (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:48 AM EST
    and nauseating.  Hopefully, it will lose him some votes for being a bigger hypocrite.


    Parent
    He Might Give A Speech But He Will Follow Up (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:30:50 AM EST
    on that issue the same way he did on the Greatest Speech On Race Evah.  Crickets.

    Will he give a speech? Maybe. Will he actually stand up for women's issues? I doubt it.

    Parent

    That's his style (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:26:21 AM EST
    wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    Parent
    that's pretty (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:30 AM EST
    nauseating a scenario, I so hope he doesn't try to pull that.

    Parent
    nauseating (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by noholib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:57 AM EST
    and it's just nauseating enough to sound plausible.

    I found today's NY Times disgusting, though schizophrenic.  In the Magazine, Peggy Orenstein wonders what kind of message this campaign sends her young daughter.  Good question.  But the Week in Review section already has Senator Clinton long gone, dead and buried as a Presidential candidate, and is blithely asking: Who will be the first successful woman candidate?  Mirror mirror on the wall, what, pray pretty tell, will this divine creature look like in the future(my paraphrase)?  All the women mentioned as possibilities are so inferior to the brilliant and outstanding woman candidate who is still running - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton!

    Parent

    {starts saving for a new TeeVee} (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:58:35 AM EST
    I think he will try it. Maybe not right away, but if he is not getting good poll numbers . . . ugh. Maybe he'll offer kisses for votes again with a sweetie on top. . .

    Parent
    As an Independent (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
    I don't know how you can even say this, let alone back it up with anything factual.

    A candidate with an insubstantial track record who is long on vague rhetoric like promises of hope and change and short on substance is still better than a Republican.

    Seems patently absurd on it's face.  I do not want to be insulting but I really don't understand it.  Maybe it's just a "sometimes you've just to be there" kind of thing.  :-)

    Seems to me that an unformed Democratic President could be a real disaster, since the Congress of his own party would want to go along with him.  On the other hand, a GOP President would have a hard time getting their legislation through a Democratic Congress.

    Seems like a pretty decent argument for divided government.  


    I gave the reasons (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:18:59 AM EST
    health care, socical security, judges and the Attorney General. That's enough for me to vote Democratic regardless of the candidate. Is it ideal? Of course not. But there are obvious policy differences between the parties on these issues.

    Now can we get back to the effect of the sexist meida coverage of the campaign?

    Parent

    Yes we can :-) (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:21:45 AM EST
    This is just like the Iraq war coverage.  Absolve themselves of all blame while reporting on the problem after it's too late.


    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:55:31 AM EST
    Absolve themselves of all blame while reporting on the problem after it's too late.

    thanks for saying in one sentence what took me paragraphs. (Wish I could do that.)

    Parent

    Also exactly like warrantless surveillance (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:10:15 AM EST
    where the Times suppressed Risen's story until after  Bush was safely elected.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#123)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    Women stay with abusive spouses because of reasons that are "good enough", too. I need his income. I have no where to go. He'll come after me. The kids need their father. If I don't make him mad, things will be better.  Sometimes you have to just leave and deal with some tough times to get to the better place.  I respect what you're saying, but if we vote for Obama, the abusive relationship between the Deomocratic Party and women will continue.  We need to walk away.

    Parent
    the gray lady jumped the shark (again) (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:48 AM EST

    Mrs Clinton's supporters point to a nagging series of slights

    I'm not even going to read the rest of the quotes, much less the article.  That rhetoric is nauseating, as has been almost all of the nytimes coverage of the race.  It is laughable that they "finally" want to talk about sexism, but continue to do it in as dismissive a way as possible.

    Gotta Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    That's a sexist stereotype that women resent successful women any more than men resent successful men.

    The real difference in Obama support is that he does very well among young women.  Older women have supported Hillary by large numbers.  

    Which speaks more to experience than anything else.  There is no more gender equitable place than a college campus.  I had no idea about the prevalence of sexism in the real world until I had worked in it for years.  And even with that, I was shocked by what I've seen in this campaign.  

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    you are replying to for offensive language and for changing the topic to race.

    Parent
    Can we elect a new MSM? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by nellre on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:35 AM EST
    Something's got to be done about this.
    This is not a free press or free speech. Our MSM is currently yelling fire in a crowded theater but pretending Obama is the presumptive nominee.

    All I hope for now is that there is a big turn out in Kentucky. If there is, it means the MSM is failing in their effort to brainwash us all.

    Under the circumstances... (5.00 / 9) (#72)
    by jackyt on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:38 AM EST
    "A candidate with an insubstantial track record who is long on vague rhetoric like promises of hope and change and short on substance is still better than a Republican."

    I will withhold my vote rather than participate in a sham election.

    If it were only 4 years of an inconsequential president, maybe. But it is also a validation of the DNC thumb-on-the-scale tactics during this campaign, and an acquiescence of the role the media play in jury rigging the system.

    No way this is democracy.

    Dean, Pelosi and Reid (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:32 AM EST
    Even worse than the media sexism review will be the entreaties by the three party leaders who have sat silently by why the media engaged in its sexist attacks and Obama leveraged them.  

    My problem is much bigger than Obama.  If it were just with Obama, I'd know what to do - I'd hold my nose and vote for him.  I did it in 2004, I could do it again.

    But the democratic party has failed to stand up against misogyny, which isn't just an attack on Hillary (whose impervious to it, anyway), it's an attack on me.  If party leaders won't fight hatred targeting more than 50% of their base, then why am I voting for these people?  I've derided Log Cabin Republicans for years for being willing to stick with a party that leverages hate against them to win elections because they agree with Republicans on larger policy issues.  Now, I'm supposed to do the same for the Democrats?  

    I do not want McCain to be president and would never vote for him.  But I can't say I'll definitely vote for Obama either.  

    Keep your civility BO, I'll keep my civil rights (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    I thought Bush was bad, but Obama has set a new low for smarm. It's a little late to ask his astro-trolls and hit squads to stop pestering the opposition, doncha think?

    I don't care about this meted out "civility".

    I prefer civil rights, thanks.

    Obama Orders Faithful to "Be Nice to Clinton Supporters" by Bonney Kapp

    At a fundraiser last night in Portland that raked in an estimated $350,000 to his campaign coffers, Barack Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would "put us over the top."

    "We will be able to say we have won a majority," he said. "But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."

    For Dems to win in November, he said, it will require a unified Party," [...] (Knapp, Fox News, May 18, 2008)

    He's sickening. He's Bushian. He's not my next Pres.

    I'm still in it for HRC to win it. Count the votes, seat FL and MI before taking a clean, transparent count.

    As an Indy voter, my conscience is clear and I'm beholden to no party or no interest. I'm writing in my Pres/VP ticket and voting downtick. I'm not voting for Obama; he'd be worse than Bush IMO and will set back Democratic and democratic principles decades.

    (I was an Indy when I started commenting here and won't clutter this site with anti-Dem activism. Jeralyn, BTD and The Third Tenor, you're all exemplary partisans. Were the party a tenth as principled, I'd be behind it again 100%. I am supporting some candidates and pro-Dem groups. I deeply despise political machines and this is one of the dirtiest I've seen.)


    Since Clinton and Obama's voting records (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    are identical on the war, pray tell what has he done to oppose it since being in office?  Absolutely nothing!

    After Giving One Single Speech In 2002, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:23 AM EST
    please tell me what Obama actually did from 2002 thru the time he started his presidential run to oppose the war?

    Did he ever vote "NO" on funding the occupation prior to deciding run for president? Did he ever give a rousing speech on the Senate floor against funding the occupation prior to deciding to run for president? Did he ever devote his amble media time to denouncing the occupation and demand that Congress stop the insanity prior to his run for president?

    That Story Is At Least 16 Years Old (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:07 AM EST
    The rightwing pushed this when Bill was running.  Heck, they pushed this in Arkansas.  It's also nice that they cite two Clinton haters Hayden and Reich.  

    I'd also say working for a summer in a law firm is fairly meaningless as is what she did when she was 20.  But it's a nice try at trying to get the media's Clinton hate to distract folks from things Obama has done much more recently.  Wright and Ayers aren't people Obama went to school with or someone he worked for during a summer clerkship.   Although I personally find Wright not nearly as offensive as Obama's failure to hold a single hearing on Afghanistan.

    Somehow I doubt if (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:51 AM EST
    interning in a left wing law firm in the '60s is going to cause her much heartburn.  It's not like she recently worked for a terrorist like Ayers, though Obama did for several years as head of his foundation.


    I think the sexist attacks on Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:54 AM EST
    hurt her campaign initially because she and her team were, I believe, completely unprepared for the full on MSM and liberal elite sexist assault. They initially allowed themselves to be swiftboated like Kerry but unlike Kerry got back to their feet fast. Since Ohio, Hillary has made a lot of changes in both her campaign style and her personal style and has been able to fend off the sexist attacks extremely effectively and in fact has managed to emerge stronger because of the same.

    I hold the Obama camp completely responsible for the sexist attacks. Right from the start they tried to define her through gender prejudices. They consciously used language and words to reinforce the negative powerful woman sterotype. His supporters both in the MSM and netroots picked up on the same and then it was open season.

    I can see a similar patttern in his attack of McCain. Instead of attacking McCain on his policies they are trying to define him throw the ageist prism. Obama's language recently in response to McCain some comment was 'he has lost his bearings'. His supporters and MSM friends picked it up and were harping on how old McCain is for the job and whether he will be upto it because of his age.

    Scraaaape.... scraapppe... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:53:03 AM EST
    That's the sound of the media scraping the bottom of the bucket, desperately looking for something to pin on Clinton.

    I haven't googled, but I'll bet it's recycled too.

    A disgusting turn of events (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    I'll be voting in June, and that will be my last vote as a Democrat.  I'm leaving the party with disgust, not at the media, but at the left blogs and at the DNC establishment.  I'll be happy to join the millions of Americans who don't care to vote because they understood what I was too stupid to see.  The Democratic Party is corrupt to the bone.  Only a corrupt political party can give more delegates to the ID caucus winner than to the PA primary winner, and then with a straight face defend it as "party rules".  Only a party that does not care about the voters can defend taking away the voice of millions of voters from two states.

    I hear you.; (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:04 AM EST
    Register as an independent/unaffiliated.
    That's how I am.
    The Democrats don't deserve to win.

    Parent
    Warning: Tin foil hat (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:03 AM EST
    So here's my tin foil hat theory on why they're airing the sexism articles NOW, when it doesn't matter anymore.

    They've gotten the stronger candidate out of the way.

    Now, the MCM (aka Republican media) wants to fan the outrage.  They see that women are peeved at the DNC and they want to make them more peeved.  This will ensure a McCain win.

    And as anyone who has read anything I've ever written here knows, I actually think a McCain win is good for the long-term health of the Democratic Party, especially in its relationship with we "sweeties".

    However....tin foil hat theory still in place.  Thankfully Costco has coupons this month for Reynold's wrap.

    Well, I will go with McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:19:05 AM EST
    with a Democratic congress over Obama anyday.
    It will send a message to the party that they better get with it and defend ALL of their members equally.
    I will not reward Obama for his behavior.  As another poster said, he is attacking McCain in the same way he attacked Hillary.

    Parent
    Not too tin foil (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:45:30 AM EST
    after all, McCain started pandering to us last week or so . . .

    Make sure to recycle that tin foil! Does Costco have the brand that's already recycled? We may be wearing TF hats as the newest fashion statement this fall ;)

    Parent

    It was Jacksons "tears" speech for me (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:11:01 AM EST
    That was when I decided I could never vote for Obama. He not only dismissed her tears as a camapaign ploy, he suggested that she didn't care about Katrina. It was a hateful speech, and he should have been dismissed immediately. He wasn't.

    We have come a long way, but not far enough. The existing sexism doesn't bother half as much as the absolute denial that it exists. You can't fix a problem if you don't acknowledge it. Women's rights has been stalled for over a decade, and is actually being set back in some ways.

    Oh the tears meme... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:26:46 AM EST
    ...infuriated me.

     That being said, Edwards was worse on this one, from what I remember.

     What is most troubling was the way the media treated the "tears" issue.  It played into a certain view of the Clintons, although every time I watched it it seemed very genuine, even humbling.  God knows I was on the verge of tears in November of 2004 for precisely the same reason: this isn't a game.    

     That being said...for me there was something more sinister about the way SC was dismissed by President Clinton.  Maybe it is my own prejudice against him, coupled with my views of the war.  But on election day I couldn't let it go.

     On the other hand, watching clips of Senator Clinton laughing, her facial lines, etc. convinced me that there was a real and deeply troubling gender bias in this campaign.        

    Parent

    The race is not over (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
    so why should Hillary bow out. Why have a race then if the intention was to crown a winner based on the front runner status and not on actual winning. Dean himself has said that the coming races need to be taken into account by the SD's to decide on a winner.

    The truisim of this campaign is that for whatever reasons Hillary initially faltered badly but has since found her groove and is emerging stronger and stronger by the day. Obama started off exceedingly well but since has kind of declined dramatically in all aspects.

    The sad part is that nobody not the MSM nor the DNC elites are willing to acknowledge reality. The reality is that right now there is no clear winner but two candidates in dead heat. The DNC SD have been created for a reason just like the distribution of delegates. The SD's have a choice to make on who is the stronger candidate now , not previously.

    I saw my first "Bros before Ho's" (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:25:03 AM EST
    T-shirt today. I'd read about them of course and seen them on the intertubes, but today I had a physical sighting.

    I don't need to tell you how profoundly depressing this was.

    It's depressing just reading about it (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:35:01 AM EST
    You suppose the media would be ashamed of themselves for the image they've created? Try to think of something in the reverse that would be acceptable.

    Obama was very upset that Hillary didn't say more to defend him on some outside attacks, yet he didn't once criticize what he was hearing on the media to belittle her.

    This primary has exposed much more bias toward gender than it has toward race.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't care (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    Obama only cares about Obama. So of course Hillary was supposed to defend him against the mean ole' mans who say mean things.

    He has major mother issues, IMO.

    I can't believe I'm even saying this stuff. I never thought we would come to this in this election. I never thought I'd feel this way about a candidate whom so many people adore.

    But as others have commented, this election has indeed been revealing.

    I don't like the underside of the rock it's turned over.

    Parent

    More to media than just CDS and BO-koolaid (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST
    Don't underestimate the glitter the media, along with the Dem leadership, are seeing off the Barama bandwagon.

    Not only does he promise (emptily, IMO) to bring with him the overly coddled 18-35 male consumer and the wheezing older men who are vicariously pretending to be Teh Hip guys who can rap with the young, but these delectable mid teens and up who are paying attention to the campaign and politics as the hot new thing.

    Yes, they might even watch cable news to get a fix. (I doubt it.) Just imagine the fostering of a future audience of political junkies deeply loyal to Obama for the next 4-8 years.

    The figure of Obama's magical mythical database that promises to generate $200,000,000 over the next few years from these Dumpling Dems -- JUST BY PULLING A LEVER AND SAYING TICKEDY BOO! -- has everyone in a tizzy.

    It's fools gold; it's as if he's seeded the river with a few nuggets and his supporters, the Dems, and media are all holding their breath in case this is a motherlode.

    TeamObama's support has yet to be proven substantial enough to last the summer but greed's winning out here.

    (I'm going on logic: look at how many directly OPPOSITE causes/parties he's promised to support: hardcore evangelical Christians and NARAL? Look at how quickly and easily he abandons anyone and anything that presents an obstacle or complicate things for him.)

    Everyone was talking about Iraq. What did he DO (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:32:28 AM EST
    If he was in office, what measures did he take. What marches was he on? What groups did he lead?

    What brave stand did he take?

    And Afghanistan (5.00 / 6) (#186)
    by dissenter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:36:47 AM EST
    Where were his hearings? Maybe if he had some he might know what is going on over there. I would have settled for him showing up for his job or educating himself on the unfolding disaster.

    He wants to be CiC but his answer to the problem is ARABIC translators. He has no plan. We are suppose to vote for a guy to get us out of two wars when he doesn't even know what language they speak in Afghanistan? It boggles my mind.

    The insanity in Afghanistan is starting to make more sense to me than what I have watched in this election.

    Parent

    i agree (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by proudliberaldem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:33:31 AM EST
    wholeheartedly with Jeralyn that the timing and tone of some of these articles just now discovering the sexism is a slap in the face. but we have to keep this in the news -- now and after the nomination is decided. how the history of this campaign gets recorded matters.  and we have to hold the msm accountable for their sexist coverage.

    Women in Academia (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:39:17 AM EST
    I find it rather strange how many women academics and lefty writers had such a monolithic pro-Obama reaction.  Then I realized that being in liberal male bastions, they had to fall in line with the dominant paradigm.   I have to say, I was shocked at also their desire to throw more venom than necessary.  Frankly, I am disappointed and find it to be intellectually dishonest.  

    Fool's gold: the closer you look, the worse he is (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:56:18 AM EST
    A few weeks ago, I could have supported either candidate. With Obama, he looks good from far away squinting. :-)

    He's fluff and continues to appeal (for different reasons) to people who don't look too closely and who haven't been tossed off the bandwagon for expediency yet.

    This whole sexism "remorse" thing? He used the 'older' white straw woman to marshall the vitriol and contempt of the groups he needed to power ahead, then run out the clock.

    But he needs his straw women more than we need him.

    Parent

    Cynthia Rucci (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:40:29 AM EST
    was the woman that went on Bill O'Reilly last week. Kimberly Myers was the other one. Basically, they were going to defect and not vote for Obama.

    Here's the video of that:

    Clinton Supporters Lay It On The Line

    When my wife mentions that she is a feminist. (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by phat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:30 AM EST
    Or when she mentions that I am a feminist, when she is at work, people clam up. People get nervous and upset.

    I've learned a lot about people I knew and trusted in these past few weeks.

    It's very disappointing and pretty much framed by promises made to me as a child. Promises have not been kept.

    I can't even guess as to the mindset that inspires the Obama supporters who refuse to admit or understand the sexism that has defined this contest.

    I have to admit, I'm a little startled by it. I never would have expected the leadership of the local, regional and national Democratic parties, nationwide, to have given in to this. But it seems they may have.

    It discounts all of the work my mother did in the 50s, 60s and 70s and I'm very much ashamed.

    That makes me very, very angry.

    Kerry wanted McCain as veep (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by catfish on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:49:22 AM EST
    I've been mulling over this thought for weeks: I know I'm supposed to be mature and vote Obama if he's the nominee. But McCain is more appealing. Why?

    It was only four years ago we were hoping Kerry could get McCain to be his veep.

    Just not buying Obama is a safer bet than McCain.

    "We were hoping"?? (1.00 / 1) (#207)
    by shoephone on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:00:33 AM EST
    Maybe you were hoping McCain would be Kerry's VP. I never had such a noxious idea. McCain would be friggin' disaster for this country. Boggles my mind how people think that voting for McCain is going to teach Obama a lesson about sexism. If McCain wins in November say goodbye to your U.S. Constitution.

    Parent
    Senator Obama Was One Of The Biggest (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:50:02 AM EST
    proponents for the "magical September" when all of his Republican colleagues were going to join hands with the Dems to set a time table for the withdrawal from Iraq. Who can forget his great "sound bite" of "Only 16 Votes To End The War." Of course, Senator Obama was once again distorting reality and deceiving his supporters. Sixteen votes in the Senate would have done absolutely nothing all by itself. Without first obtaining 68 additional votes in the House to overturn Bush's veto, the bill to set a time line for Iraq would not even reach the Senate floor. But hey, it made a great sound bite and made him look like he was doing something rather than just kicking the can down the road.

    I skipped to the end here because (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:52 AM EST
    this thread already has over 160 comments and I don't want to get locked out.  I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before or not.

    One of the things that most disappointed me was the interview with Katie Couric.  Katie threw little softball/feminine questions at her like "Do you take vitamins?"  Hillary had the most earnest look on her face like she was prepared to answer really tough questions and instead, she was hearing these dumb*ss "topic light" questions.  

    Anyway, after Katie asked "Do you take vitamins?" I almost expected Katie to ask "Do you take hormones?  How has menopause affected you?"  

    Not only would no male candidate for president ever have to hear such stupid questions, I doubt the media would even ask the First Ladies such dumb questions.

    Poor Hillary.  Poor us.  :(    

    And another thing... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:09:57 AM EST
    that really ticks me off about that article is that all opinions they quoted on the "it wasn't sexism at all" side are academics and other 'experts' but for the "yeah, it's sexism side" it's just a bunch of plain folks.

    And ok, I know this is my first post here and I shouldn't throw stones, but ksh, are you one of the 400?  Sure sounds like it.

    One of the things that bothers me the most (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:09:12 AM EST
    is reading or listening to "guys" tell me that the sexism wasn't that bad or that blacks have it worse than women so they are owed a presidency moreso than women are.....like it isn't a job, it is some form of payback for injustices.  It's all very vulgar to me reading all the justifications and shoulds and the how comes it was all okay or wasn't "enough" for me to be upset about.

    The irony... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:16 AM EST
    they refer to her as "Mrs.Clinton".

    This quote, (4.90 / 10) (#13)
    by suisser on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:15 PM EST
    Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender.

    Really struck me as a perfect summation of exactly what has been so very wrong about this whole campaign.

    Obama DID make race a centerpiece of his candidacy, YET he only "led something of a national dialogue" because he was backed into it by Wright.  Obama wanted race on the table but as only as his to use, off limils to all others. The Wright mess forced his hand and then, as fast as the urge to "dialogue" came upon him it mysteriously vanished.

    Clinton on the otherhand did not blather on about being a woman, I mean dah... she IS one. But she wove issues concerning women into her policy and her speeches and her whole candidacy.

    How can someone write that and be taken seriously??

    The quote is nothing more (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:57 PM EST
    than still another way that the author makes up in order to raise Obama up, and put Hillary down.

    It is simply the author's  -- and the media's -- blinding bias finding another absurd argument by which to express itself. It has no important basis in reality.

    Parent

    It started before Wright (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:23:37 AM EST
    Well before. Obama ran on race, even as he claimed to be post-racial. Clinton did not run on gender, because she knew that she would be torn apart if she did. She got torn apart anyway, so it might have been a mistake. Who knows. I'd rather that she did what she did - run a fair campaign. At least there is somebody in the Party I can trust.

    Parent
    A Notice ht the same time, Obama distanced himself (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:59 AM EST
    from his race because he's "post racial". Notice his absence from the Black SOTU, MLK events, etc. When have you seen him with other prominent AA's during this campaign? Michelle seems much more honest about her race from what I've seen. She doesn't seem to be playing both sides of it.

    I think Hillary walked a fine line of being proud of her gender and making it part of her campaign, but not letting it be central. Which to me was ok because she was experience and had a resume to stand on. I did notice at times you could see the media shifting away from 2 historic candidates to 1 and she would try and pull herself back into that discussion. Obama didn't have as much to run on, so hope, change, unity (post racial) kept his "historical" going. And of course the media was more than happy to go there with him. I can't remember the last time I heard them refer to her run as being "historical". Lately it's been about when she would "surrender", or "steal the nomination" etc. Lordy, the comments they came up with, you would think she was a pirate.

    Parent

    Again (4.75 / 4) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    During the Oscars, Jon Stewart did some schtick about the Dem Primary, about how it was great to have two real candidates instead of just the black and women presidents we seen in movies protecting us from asteroids.

    Problem is Jon Stewart was WRONG.  Pathetically wrong.  He is comedian but he enjoys some credibility on some matters and he got this one wrong.

    Denis Haysbert in 24.  Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact.  The only woman president we've seen in popular culture was a brief sitcom Commander in Chief with Geena Davis.

    Sort of what I kept saying over and over again a few months ago.

    Sisko came before Janeway.

    The black man with a mystically whimsical connection with these entities called the prophets came before the kick azz woman getting her family home.

    What're  you gonna do?

    Make a choice.

    Voting for Obama CONDONES what happened.  It says it was OK.


    There's The New Battlestar Galactica (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Blue Jean on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:22:15 AM EST
    Where Mary McDonnell is the President.  Ironically enough, she's accused of stuffing the ballot box to keep her younger, less qualified male rival from being elected President.  He wins the election, and we flash forward--to the disaster he's overseen.  

    Funny how life imitates art. ;-)

    But fear not, my fair ones; "24" will soon have its first female President.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by miriam on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:02 AM EST
    This is a defining moment for American women.  If we vote for Obama we simply condone what has majorly helped to make him the nominee.  And we condone the Democratic leaders who have remained absolutely silent in the face of the most outrageous attacks on a woman.  Obama smirked when his audience booed Clinton's name.  He has treated her dismissively: "You're likeable enough, Hillary."  And then snubbed her when she reached out to Kennedy after he endorsed Obama...to name just a few insults.  

    Women are the main workers in campaigns and GOTV efforts.  We're now expected to just dutifully march to the tune of the male drummers?  I don't think so.  It's time to say "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."  And mean it!    

    Parent

    Honey, I've changed! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:43 AM EST
    Sweetie.... And cutie...

    And now Obama tells a few rich supporters to be "nice" to Clinton supporters.

    Sweetie we already knew about; "Cutie" is here. Seems like a pattern....

    Parent

    I'm Not Sure That's True (4.20 / 5) (#103)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST
    First, because the war vote has been such a small part of the smearing of her.  It doesn't explain the desire by so many in the Obama camp to completely destroy her when many of them voted for the war themselves (Tom Daschle) or otherwise supported it (Josh Marshall) and that people like Daschle will be part of an Obama Administration.  It also doesn't explain why so many of the people now supporting Obama were such strong Edwards' fans.  Or how Chris Dodd, who voted for the war, could actually say that one of the reasons Obama was better qualified to be president than Clinton was his war opposition.  And I don't remember Kerry being smeared for his war vote or considered unacceptable.  For some reason, this sin is forgivable in every candidate except Hillary Clinton.  

    Second, even if she had somehow managed to be the nominee, she would be painted as weak by the GOP because she's a woman.  Because you know how weak we are.  And make no mistake, since day one Clinton has run a campaign to become president, not just the nominee.  It's why she's so much stronger on the Electoral Map than Obama is.

    Sexism may be part of it (none / 0) (#122)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:47:45 AM EST
    I agree that the GOP would have happily used all forms of sexism to go after Clinton as I am sure they will use all sorts of racist attacks against Obama, that is what the GOP does.

    I still think that the war is a far bigger part of it than some people realize.  Leading up to Iowa, the Clinton campaign did not come off as the group that would end the war.  Obama did a very good job of tapping into the anti-war sentiments and I think he used that to win Iowa.  Once Obama won Iowa people started taking him seriously and he was able to stay in the race until super Tuesday.  After super tuesday the race favored him and he took advantage of it.

    Of course sexism plays a role in Hillarys loss, just like age will probably play a role in McCains loss, but in the end McCains support of a hundred year war and his "bomb Iran"comments will probably do more harm to him in the general election that the fact that he is a very old man.

    People are smarter than most of us give them credit for and while a few people are going to make judgements based on age race or sex; most people are going to look at the issues, and right now Iraq is a big issue.

    Parent

    Best way to go after McCain (none / 0) (#142)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:07:15 AM EST
    The best way to go after McCain is challenging him on Iraq.  It would be hard for someone who voted for the war to challenge McCain as he could come back with something to the effect of "you got us in the mess and I(a war hero) am the best person to get us out.

    Someone who did not vote for the war is in a much better position to challenge McCain.  Maybe it was just luck that Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote, but he is not saddled with a very bad vote to authorize a war in Iraq.

    The general election is going to be about the war and all the Bush screw-ups, by being around DC for the least amount of time Obama is in a good position to critisize those screw-ups without trying to explain his involvement in them.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by dissenter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:10:49 AM EST
    And the guy who thinks we are losing Afghanistan because we don't have enough Arabic translators over there and too few agriculture specialists in Iraq is going to get us out?

    What planet do you live on?

    Parent

    Tranlaters might really help (none / 0) (#153)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:13:45 AM EST
    Seems like a few translaters might help with winning the hearts and minds.

    Iraq is a lost cause and the sooner people realize it and end the debacle the better it is for the country

    Parent

    Take a tip (5.00 / 6) (#169)
    by dissenter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:22:40 AM EST
    From someone that actually works in Afghanistan. We are not LOSING because we don't have enough ARABIC translators. They don't speak ARABIC for one - it is dari, pashto and farsi.

    We are not losing IRAQ because we lack agriculture specialists. Do you people just overlook the fact that Obama hasn't a friggin clue as to what is going on over there? That might be fine for you but some of us whose lives depend on s commander in chief that has some competence and has at least basic grasp of the issues strongly disagree.

    That man is unfit and unqualified. Yes, Iraq is lost  and probably Afghanistan too...but it isn't for those reasons. Obama can't seem to grasp the real reasons. And for every person in the war zone that is not a small problem. It is life and death.

    Can you?

    Parent

    Perhaps. (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Iphie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:24:01 AM EST
    But not Arabic translators in Afghanistan. Just think about that for a second.

    Parent
    Looks Like Your Knowledge About Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:56:31 AM EST
    is about as deep as Obama's knowledge. Taking a little time to verify if he actually knows what he is talking about might be beneficial.

    Parent
    The Best Way To Challenge McCain (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:03:46 AM EST
    might just be on the economy. The best way to challenge McCain might be to actually understand the issues well enough to discuss them in a debate. The best way to challenge McCain might be to have the ability to talk to small town and rural folks rather than insult them in front of big money donors.

    Parent
    I dunno... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:50:34 AM EST
    ...about this:

     For some reason, this sin is forgivable in every candidate except Hillary Clinton.

     I'm not sure that's true.  If, in fact, that was the case, Edwards would have performed much better in the primary...maybe he would have won something.  

     Many of the Obama supporters who were for the war were also displeased by the Clinton administration.  I don't think they can be tarred as sexist simply because they lined up for Obama.  

     The war was a big issue.  Including people who supported the war in one's administration is quite different from selecting one for the nomination.

    Parent

    posted answer in the wrong place (none / 0) (#150)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:11:01 AM EST
    I posted an answer to your post above it by mistake

    Parent
    yIkes (1.20 / 5) (#146)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM EST
    Maybe I'm too young (although I'm not young at all) to understand the way older women see this race.  In fact, I feel that giving Sen. Clinton my vote because she's a woman is nearly anti-choice.   I resent being told by others that sexism undid Hillary Clinton.  I've been a working woman since the 1980s and I don't see it.

    Yeah, I remember the two day spree on her cleavage and the remarks about her voice, but she ran a bad campaign based on outdated theories and had no game plan after Feb. 5. She told George Stephanopolous it would be over Feb. 5. She hired and overpaid a pollster as her chief strategist. She ignored caucus states. Her husband got compulsive on the campaign trail. Frankly, though I hear she's warm and personable in private, she wasn't able to translate that on the campaign trail. She emphasized First Lady experience at the expense of Senate experience and got caught lying about Bosnia. She lost on her own merits.

    AS for the media being easier on Obama, jeez, Rev. Wright & Ayers? The length of time it took the media to come to the obvious conclusion that Clinton couldn't win by any metric? Then the willing repeat of goal post moving talking points?

    Those "feminists" who plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee should get comfortable with a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe and a prolonged presence in Iraq.

    It's a tribute to Clinton's tenacity that she's still in it, but it's time to give in gracefully. I didn't make up my mind until I was in line to vote and I did it based on coat tails and how her campaign was run. I applaud her effort, but taking it to Denver would probably still result in Obama being the nominee, albeit the nominee of a seriously weakened party.  Hillary Clinton is a Democrat first, a candidate second.  She will be quitting soon and will do it with great grace.

    "Grace" (4.50 / 8) (#161)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:17:30 AM EST
    Syn. Subservience.

    Women who know their place are almost always graceful, don't you think?

    You were doing pretty well with the new "nice" there 'til the last line.

    Parent

    I think.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:47 AM EST
    ..that's an overgeneralization.  Senator Clinton had many dedicated female supporters.  The issue of media bias, though, is also hard to separate from the Clinton years, the issue of sexual mores surrounding his presidency and her unique role as First Lady.    

    It's all (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:13:40 AM EST
    Over generalizations.

    The question is why didn't women unify behind Clinton to the tune of 95% (see AAs and Obama) and, yes, there's probably a thousand different reasons why that is.

    I just offered one of them.


    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#97)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:38 AM EST
    it's because we aren't sexist.  We don't vote with our vaginas.  We vote for the person we consider the best candidate, without regard for gender.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:13 AM EST
    The media was very sexist.

    Toodles.


    Why is Bob Shrum in that piece? (none / 0) (#77)
    by ajain on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:01 AM EST
    I cant for the life of me understand why he is considered an earnest voice. He is stupid and divisive and idiotic and pretty bad on TV. Atleast from where I sit.

    Also, what does Bob Shrum know about women candidates and what they go through in order to portray themselves in a world that sees them through a skeptical prism? He is just useless and should not be talked to.

    He was on MTP This Morning (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:14:28 AM EST
    Bob Schrum. He was being very dismissive about Hillary, making fun of her in a "strategist" way, and brown nosing Tim Russert because Tim was one of the faces of the media in the Oregon campaign ad.

    He's never said anything that carried enough logic for me to think he's worth being a media spokesperson.


    Parent

    Schrum, the 7-time loser (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by shoephone on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:52:43 AM EST
    has no right to dismiss anyone else's campaign strategy.

    Parent
    A Thought Experiment (none / 0) (#135)
    by Siguy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:06 AM EST
    I've posted this basic idea before, but I want everyone here accusing the Obama campaign of sexism to think about something for a second:

    Remember how you felt when Hillary and Bill's comments after South Carolina were torn apart as potentially racist? Remember how you felt when pundits spent two weeks asking if Hillary had played the race card and then bullied the campaign into limited Bill's appearances? And remember how you felt when Geraldino Ferraro's controversial but not racist remark got tons of attention?

    Okay, now try to put yourself in the shoes of an Obama supporter and think about what they think when they read someone say that Obama is a chauvinist because he didn't look up when Hillary was speaking in a debate, that he's a race peddler who tricked blacks into hating the Clintons, or any of the other issues that have popped up here.

    I'm not trying to say that there has been no racism or no sexism in this campaign at all, but I think there's actually been almost none from the candidates themselves. What we have here are two very special candidates who each absolutely broke down barriers, but because of that, because we have a black man and a woman running for president, many things that would've ordinarily just been dismissed were suddenly blown up into big issues by the media and by each campaign's supporters.

    Hillary Clinton did not play the race card, and Barack Obama did not run a sexist campaign. There are plenty of individual things each person might have done that could be considered wrong or disagreeable, but that's just not what this campaign was about.

    I'm sure I sound condescending here, but I'm just trying to ask that you take a step back and ask if you really think Obama is a chauvinist or a misogynist and if so, why specifically do you think that? Just think about how ridiculous all the Obama-supporters who think Hillary's somehow a secret racist are, and then think about how little evidence there really is for either charge.

    Please clarify (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:09:40 AM EST
    Obama says -
    1. She is likeable enough.
    2. Her claws come out
    3. Periodically when she is down she hits out.
    4. She threw the kitchen sink at me.
    5. She likes twisting the knife (with actions).
    6. Her foreign policy experience is sipping tea with foreign dignitaries.

    The above statements are top of the mind recall.  Almost all of them define Hillary as some viscious Female.

    His surrogates-

    1. She will say or do anything to win.
    2. She used her tears to win NH.
    3. She is where she is because of her husband.
    4. She is Glen Close of fatal attraction.

    Mind you all the above were spoken by surrogates not supporters.

    Parent
    Supporters are surrogates (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:05 AM EST
    Them's The Clinton Rulez, so them's The Obama Rules (especially when you consider that Axelrod is an astroturing expert). At some point, somebody's going to do a content analysis of all the OFB comments and conclude that, yes, they were authored in some warehouse in Omaha....

    Parent
    And the worst (5.00 / 4) (#211)
    by daria g on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:05:48 AM EST
    The GOP meme --> You just can't trust her.  She is so power mad, she'll do anything to win.  Axelrod said himself she'll literally do anything to win the nomination.  The Obama campaign has been pushing this since the primaries got started.  There is certainly a strong sexist undercurrent to this notion, that of a duplicitous woman, a madwoman who'll stop at nothing.  The media's happily run with it.. so have the blogs.. so have many liberals unconcerned with adopting talking points straight from Rush Limbaugh.

    Parent
    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Siguy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:20:52 AM EST
    I'll respond to your examples, but like I said, my point is more to think about how ridiculous the racism charges ring in your ear and then wonder to yourself "How could so many people think Hillary played the race card..." The fact is, she didn't, and I don't believe Obama played the gender card either.

    First of all, and this is just my honest opinion, examples 1, 4, 5, and 1 are not at all sexist. She is likeable enough is a sort of strange, straight insult, that i don't see any gender effect in. Kitchen sink is a common phrase, and if you're saying it's a reference to the concept of women belonging in the kitchen, I really feel you're stretching just as badly as Obama supporters who claim every word out of Hillary's mouth is some subtle dog whistle to racist voters. She likes twisting the knife, well, jeez, maybe I'm naive but I didn't know there was any gender concept behind that at all. And the she will say or do anything to win is just a basic political charge, nothing more.

    Now I can see sexist wordings and BS attack stuff in the other examples. That doesn't mean I think Obama was trying to unfurl a sexist attack, but I can totally see it (especially the ridiculous Glenn Close thing). But, and this is exactly why I asked that people remember the race issue, I think most of this stuff is just mountains made out of molehills. Little statements and misstatements and maybe even sexism in our language that's being blown out of proportion because of the unique nature of these two candidates. When I heard him say periodically when she's down she lashes out, I immediately thought he was talking about her polling, that she attacked him whenever her poll numbers dropped. Later when people said it was sexist, I understood why and could see it, but it certainly wasn't my first impression, and I don't believe it was the intent behind the statement.

    There has been sexism in this campaign, and there has been racism, but neither of these candidates is a racist or a misogynist.

    Parent

    It would be highly unlikely (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:38:21 AM EST
    Obama, being the smart politician that he is, or any other poiltician would use blatant sexist language to attack Hillary. They would be very smart with the language.
    She is likeable enough alongwith Obama's initial meme that since she has a high dislikeability factor hence he is better is , whether you believe it or not, a blatant play at gender prejudices. Pols after polls initially had shown that Hillary's high dislikeability was mainly to do with negative gender perceptions of powerful female. The polls were public and it is too much of a stretch to imaging that Team Obama had never seen it and hence were innocent of highlighting dislikeability.
    Kitchen sink is a common phrase but never before has the term been overused like in this campaign.
    And regarding twisting the knife. I believe you have seen the video right, where Obama says some thing like 'Hillary  is in her element when she has to twist the knife and then the twisting motions in case somebody failed to understand. What was this twisting knife analogy for - she out debated him in the ABC debate.

    My basic contention against Obama is that he has mostly attacked Hillary on her supposed character flaws rather than her policies whereas Hillary has mainly attacked Obama on his skill sets and policies. Now tell me which is the more honourable way of doing politics.

    Parent

    I doubt this (none / 0) (#206)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:59:13 AM EST
    My basic contention against Obama is that he has mostly attacked Hillary on her supposed character flaws rather than her policies whereas Hillary has mainly attacked Obama on his skill sets and policies. Now tell me which is the more honourable way of doing politics.

     What character flaws? The media certainly dredged up Clinton fatigue, but he can no more be blamed for exploiting that (to the extent that he did...he was pretty careful) than she can be blamed for the likes of:

     "You get to choose your pastor."

     To me, to the extent that sexism must be subtle to be present in the campaign, racism must also be subtle.  It is a Democratic primary after all.

     I think that one can agree that sexism played a part in this nomination, particularly in the media, but so did race, and pretty openly, particularly as Senator Clinton appealed to "white" and "working class" voters.  Those may be electability attacks and fair game, but then you are legitimizing sexist attacks as well.

     The media is hypersensitive about race, and less sensitive about sex.  With that I agree.  Beyond that it is fairly hypocritical to blame the campaigns...they played to their strengths, and these weren't straight white men running.

    Parent

    Some of that... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Siguy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:03:19 AM EST
    I think some of what you're saying is fair but some of it is not. You say that Obama knocking Hillary's likability is a knock on her gender and you base that on a loose connection between her high negative ratings and her gender. Now I agree with most democrats and reasonable people that Hillary was hideously vilified in the 90s by a disgusting, misogynist Republican party that basically accused her of murder on more than one occasion.

    But I think it's very unfair to claim that Obama knocking her high negatives is a sexist thing to do.

    A lot of what you're saying isn't really about sexism, and it's generally reasonable criticism, but this whole thread is dominated by the concept that Obama ran a sexist campaign to win the nomination.

    I think both candidates have attacked on both character and policy issues. When Hillary said this week that Obama can't win hard-working whites and she can, was that really a policy criticism or a "skill sets" criticism? It's just like his claim that her unfavorable rating was bad for the general election. It's an electability argument. Way back when when her campaign brought up his Kindergarten essay to try to portray him as power-hungry, was that not a character attack?

    I don't think any of that stuff was wrong. It was just campaigning, and campaigning is bloody and not very attractive to look at. What disturbs me is the idea of John McCain being elected president and further destroying the Supreme Court because life-long democrats think their nominee is a misogynist.

    Parent

    Sorry, Sweetie (5.00 / 8) (#158)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:50 AM EST
    Are you feeling periodically down tonight? Put your claws in, stop cackling and being shrill. If you can't take care of your own house, you don't belong in the White House. I know you have 99 problems, but a b!tch ain't one of them. You're likeable enough. You can stay in the race as long as you want to.

    Parent
    You are either uninformed (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:18:24 AM EST
    or want to play naive, or are condescending.  It only takes a little effort to understand that Obama, with the help of the DNC, played the race card.  BO's statements that Hillary was throwing the "kitchen sink" or that she "periodically attacks to boost appeal" are sexist remarks. Let's just say I'll be happy to vote for McCain.  That's my gift to BO and the Democratic Party.  And when I vote in November, I'll will wipe my shoulders and my shoe.  That will be done in memory of BO.  The finger will be in the open, not my face.

    Parent
    Oh, come on (1.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:28:31 AM EST
    Obama has been walking on eggshells around her and you know it. Here is a younger black man going up against an older white woman. You honestly don't see how the imagery alone hurts Obama? You think he's going to exacerbate his problem with sexist attacks, or attacks of any kind? The guy has literally been on pins and needles the entire election. Recall how Edwards attacked Hillary. Obama has not even come close to duplicating that, even under constant provocation.

    Parent
    Please! If anybody has been walking on (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    eggshells it is Hillary. Ferraro's Obama comment was so overblown that KO had a meltdown in TV and tried to compare Hillary to David Duke because of guilt by association. Comparitively Obama was and continues to get a free pass on Wright's racist sermons. We are being constantly lectured that there is no guilt by association here. Hillary's various ad's were scrutinizede for racist overtonnes, undertones etc. It came to such a head that Obama supporters started saying that Hillary saying she was more electable was a coded racist attack.


    Parent
    Obama's words (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Iphie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:18:35 AM EST
    "When she's feeling down, periodically she attacks" and "when the claws come out." Has Hillary said anything remotely similar about Obama using comparable racist tropes?

    Remember how the media and other Democrats jumped all over Joe Biden when he made the comments about Obama being "clean" and "articulate"? Did Obama's remarks about Hillary elicit any sort of condemnation from the media or the Democratic Party?

    The situations are not comparable.

    Parent

    Groan, not another Self Help troll (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    Obama is a sexist jerk. Really. His record is littered with egregious, obvious and up-front bigotry that is dismissive, trivializing and overtly contemptuous of women.

    It's there in his treatment of Sen Clinton and past political rivals, in his shabby treatment of his own mother and grandmother, and his off-putting manner with women in the press.

    There's no comparison to anything equivalent from Sen. Clinton's campaign or from the media.

    Parent

    sexism v. racism (none / 0) (#139)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:03:11 AM EST
    IMHO the sexist attacks against Clinton and her campaign (Ms Ferrato got treated very unfairly I thought) paled before the blatantly racist attacks against Obama and the entire Rev. Wright matter.

    There was sexism, yes; but even more so there was and is racism.

    Did these balance each other? I don't know; I can't tell.

    If I had to list the reasons why in the end I wasn't thrilled with Clinton (though I think she's very capable), her position vis à vis Iraq would be #1.

    FISA #2.

    Jeralyn, I'm sorry but Hillary has been a very disappointing Senator -- not Dianne Feinstein yet, but on her way there.

    You should acknowledge this.

    Comments now closing (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:27 AM EST