home

Demanding Respect

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:31:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ellen Goodman writes:

It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks - "Life's a B - -, Don't Elect One." Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, "it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful." Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Left blogs used to see themselves as watchdogs against the Media. They abdicated that role in this campaign, blinded by their hatred of Hillary Clinton. Instead of denouncing the sexism and misogyny, they were silent. They malignly accepted the sexism and misogyny. They have been stained by their silence. More . .

An ironic result is that Barack Obama, acting as a politician does when his opponent is being unfairly attacked (I really do not hold Obama responsible at all unlike some of you) - said nothing, is paying the price to some degree for the actions of his Media supporters and blog supporters. It is not fair. But politics is not fair. Goodman suggests:

. . . Obama needs to talk directly to women in this fragile, slip-sliding, backsliding economy. Getting even requires winning respect.

"It would break my heart," said Clinton, "if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours." Well, I'll hold the half-full cup lightly in my hand. But let's remember how good women are supposed to be at multi-tasking. It's not so hard to root for Obama and work on leveling the field for the next women.

This is good advice - for Obama and for folks who care about women's rights and who were rightly outraged by the sexism and misogyny on display in this campaign.

Speaking for me only

< NBC On Sexism And Unfair Media Coverage: Who, Me? | Responding To Criticism >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Demanding Respect | 201 comments (201 topical)
    It should be easy (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    for Obama to convince us he cares about our concerns.

    After all, we're low-hanging fruit, right?

    Fruit, yets (I prefer to be thought of as (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    a peach).

    Low-hanging....nahhhhh.  We're not going to be easy to get picked off!

    Parent

    I swear, (5.00 / 20) (#10)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    every time some media jack@$$ like Matthews opens his mouth and garbage like this comes out, I get more and more angry.

    The silence from Obama, and the Democratic Party in general, is deafening.

    I partially blame Obama, but mostly, I blame the party "leaders." They should have stood up for Hillary, but had they done so, she might have actually beaten the fix.

    And you know, we couldn't take the risk of Hillary actually winning, now, could we?

    Parent

    self-preservation (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST
    All Dems should speak out against this kind of media, not only because it's the right thing, but because it will eventually turn on YOUR side.

    Parent
    It Would Be (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:29 AM EST
    if, indeed, Obama actually does care about those concerns.  But the growing body of evidence seems to indicate that his only real and continuing concern is the cultivation of the image and power of Barack Obama, movement leader and politician.  I have yet to see him really follow through or demonstrate true leadership qualities in anything on the nationalstage, so why now would he make the concerns of anyone else a priority?

    Parent
    that's because he is currently (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    running for president.

    Parent
    I don't blame Obama directly. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    But after the way his campaign handled l'affaire McClurkin, I don't always give him the benefit of the doubt when he remains silent.

    what is l'affaire McClurki? (none / 0) (#34)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:11:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama did fundraisers (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    with a howling homophobe named Donnie McClurkin.

    Parent
    I looked for info (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    I couldn't find what this guy said.  I know he said something but can I get the story?

    Parent
    See also (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    here Notice where he said what he said.

    Parent
    Thanks what a wing nut (none / 0) (#101)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    There is nothing worse then using yourself(or often allowing yourself to be used), to attack a group you belong to.  In my mind it is the definiton of a sell out (see Connerly).  As an Obama supporter, I can say that having such a man ay one of your events, is shameful.  

    Parent
    I am far more interested in (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    what Obama does going forward.  for example the faithfest at the convention.
    it better not include Donnie or anyone remotely like  him.
    and I expect that it will.

    Parent
    Donnie McClurkin. (5.00 / 17) (#45)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    Obama did not disavow the statements of a homophobic African-American preacher and gospel singer that he invited to headline a big South Carolina fundraiser.  He was warned in advance, repeatedly.

    Basically, my view is that he allowed homophobic remarks to stand, for fear of depressing African American support in South Carolina.

    It's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to possible use of sexism for political ends, more to the point, remaining silent about sexism that tends to help his campaign.

    Parent

    Obama claimed at the time (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:42:46 AM EST
    that he didn't know McClurkin's views when he invited him to be part ofthe gospel tour.

    But, upon finding out, he REFUSED to remove him from the tour.  At the time Obama said McClurkin would only be there as an entertainer and would not be there to express his anti-gay views which Obama said he personally didn't agree with.

    When the event actually happened, McClurkin did his anti-gay rant anyway despite Obama's promises that it would NOT happen.

    This issue drove me away from ever being able to vote for him.  You know if this McClurkin had been revealed as having racist views, Obama would NOT have said...well he's just there to sing, so let's not worry about his views.  He would have been thrown under the bus immediately.

    What it showed to me is that Obama's view is that racial bigotry is more of a problem than anti-gay bigotry.  And, that since anti-gay bigotry MIGHT be rooted in religious beliefs, then we have to be tolerant of the people who hold those views.  But, we certainly wouldn't ever have to be tolerant of someone who holds racists views.  

    It's pure hypocrisy

    Parent

    I don't remember Obama saying "he (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    never knew" in advance.  In any event, it is clear he was warned before McClurkin took the stage, well in advance.

    Parent
    his campaign's response (none / 0) (#194)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    was that they hadn't "vetted" (sound familiar) McClurkin enough and had they known, they wouldn't have invited him.  Now, I'm not saying I believe them.  I actually think they invited him because as a very popular gospel singer he could assist in bringing the SC black religious voters on board.  And, they wouild have invited him even if they KNEW his anti-gay opinion because the majority of the audience they were goimg after shares that opinion.

    Parent
    An interesting postsript to the McClurkin (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    fiasco is Obama's non-response on Rev. Wright's statements that the federal government may have invented AIDS to destroy African Americans.

    Obama's response to the Wright debacle was not immediately to refute Wright, but to give a speech on racism, as if only white people were offended by Wright, and as if Wright never made a statement that spat in the face of every gay man who died early in the AIDS epidemic.

    Parent

    I am quite sure (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    obama made himself a participant.

    MLK had a dream.

    Who was it who said "in dreams begin responsibilities."?

    It's not ironic that Obama... (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    is paying the price.  He should!  And he will!

    He reaped the benefits (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    Of course he should pay the price.  I don't see any irony in that.

    Parent
    I do not think he did reap benefits (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    I felt that by February, his Media supporters and blog supporters were doing him serious harm.

    Parent
    he won (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    he reaped the benefits

    Parent
    correlation does not equal (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    causation.

    Parent
    I don't think there were political benefits (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    to the sexism and misogyny on display in the media.  Assuming it was done with the intention to give Obama an advantage (a pretty big assumption), IMO it was counterproductive.  It hardened support for Clinton.

    Parent
    White male vote (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    I noticed he did his 'kitchen sink' etc. statements when he was going in to states when he was trying to improve his white male vote.  The tactic changed according to the demographic he was going after.

    Parent
    if you are referring to the kitchen sink (none / 0) (#172)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    strategy that description originated in the Clinton campaign.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    Attributed to one anonymous aide, and not only does everyone take it as gospel, but they decide it's now fair game to use it as the official label.  Nice media we have.

    Parent
    No, I am referring to the Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    strategy.  Before crucial states, where Obama was behind in the white male vote, he would stand on a podium and make his statements, claws come out, throwing the kitchen sink etc.  Not the phrase, the strategy.... media went along with it also.  They would note how Obama was weak in the white male vote and then run clips.

    Parent
    benefits? (none / 0) (#91)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    serious question here - not trying to be provacative.

    But why is it assumed that the sexism and misogyny actually hurt Clinton electorally?

    Did anyone who might possibly have voted for HIllary decide not to because they heard these slurs and turned away from her?

    Are not these slurs merely an expression of the ugliness of some people who would never have supported her in any case?

    I think the REACTION to these things however, were a very big help to Hillary. One could argue that without the rallying response to the "crying" episode in NH, perhaps she would have lost NH - and that might have ended things back in Jan. AS the campaign went on, there seemed to be quite a large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts that probably was a big electoral benefit.

    So is it really true that all this nastiness hurt her chances in any way - or did they, ironically, actually help her. Were there people who may not have been thrilled at her as a candidate but who wanted to support her as an exemplar of a credible woman candidate?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    First, ask yourself if you think any of the racism in the campaign could have possibly hurt Obama electorally.

    If so, then try to think through why you believe that.

    Then, see if you can transfer the reasoning over to the realm of sexism.

    Parent

    trying to convince people that (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    America was "not ready" for a woman or an African-American candidate is the harm as I see it. Since Dems are less bigoted, in general, but that gets trumped by wanting to win the general.

    My thoughts on this are evolving.

    Parent

    Inferences (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    Tben, I also refrain from provocation.  However, would you stand by your inferences if the word "racist" replaced "sexist," and the word "racism" replaced "misogyny.  Of course, we would have to replace "Obama" for "Clinton."

    The crying thing ---- if you remember, there were no tears.  Emotions?  Yes, but that topic for another day.

    Parent

    yeah, thats (none / 0) (#135)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    why I put "crying" in quotes. Its referred to that way, even though there wasnt any real crying.

    As for the racism - I dont really know. On the surface I must say - no. I find it hard to see how racist statements actually cost Obama votes.

    Maybe some statements - like Obama being compared to a preacher, as opposed to a potential president, or being referred to as akin to a symbolic rather than a real candidate - maybe some of these comments could work to support a frame under which Obama is not to be taken seriously. And comments to Hillary like "iron my shirts" could do the same in that direction.

    But there does seem to be (thank goodness) vigorous pushback from a lot of these incidendents, and pushback against a lot of other incidents that seem less problematical (electorally  - they may still be problematical morally). And all this pushback probably does actually help the target of the original statement.

    I dont know if it is just ranting, or whether there is a credible case to be made, but I do see a fair number of Clinton supporters trying to push a "we wuz robbed" line, and the sexism discussion seesm to enter into that. Frankly, I dont see that at all. I dont think you can blame sexism for her loss, or anything else beyond choosing (at least originally) a bad message given the zeitgeist, and bailing on all those caucus states.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    the same can be said about the opposite effect.  What about the possibility the outright sexism reinforced the idea that it was acceptable and allowed people to feel justified in not considering her for reasons that should not even be considered?  Do you really expect us to believe that it only helped her and there was no negative impact on her electorally?  Do you understand the basic underlying concepts of bigotry?  


    Parent
    why exaggerate my argument (none / 0) (#148)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    I didnt say there was no effect. I wondered what the NET effect was. THere was undoubtedly a rather larger positive effect from the pushback. And there may well have been some negative - I am not sure how much, I just see lots of people assuming it was somehow determinative, and I cant quite see why.
    Add up whatever the negative was, and the positive effect from the pushback, and what is the bottom line? I dont know. But I could see that it may well have been a net positive in terms of the number of votes she recieved in the end.

    Parent
    I did not exaggerate (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    these are your words with my emphasis added:

    I think the REACTION to these things however, were a very big help to Hillary. One could argue that without the rallying response to the "crying" episode in NH, perhaps she would have lost NH - and that might have ended things back in Jan. AS the campaign went on, there seemed to be quite a large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts that probably was a big electoral benefit.

    So is it really true that all this nastiness hurt her chances in any way - or did they, ironically, actually help her. Were there people who may not have been thrilled at her as a candidate but who wanted to support her as an exemplar of a credible woman candidate?

    I think your argument is weak.  She did receive support from those offended by the sexist treatment.  Do you provide anything quantifiable to support that the "large rallying by anti-sexists and anti-misogynysts" transferred into a "big electoral benefit?"  No and further, you did not even allow for any possibility of the negative impact it had on her electorally.  

    Personally, I think there has been a large outcry about the sexism in the campaign by people who recognize it was wrong.  The media has been promoting the idea that Hillary and her supporters are using it as an excuse for her loss.  I think the media is unwilling to accept their own sexist behavior and not so ironically, are trying to blame the victims instead.  It is reprehensible  but not surprising.    


    Parent

    He encouraged that bigotry and fed it soundbytes (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM EST
    His message was that he wouldn't be one of those politically correct new BFFs -- he couldn't stand the old racist b!tch either, thus cloaking the attacks in virtue.

    Gosh, where to even start -- flinging the china? Describing her campaign as a workout or spring training when the candidates were actually tied?

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#71)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    Are you talking about this grandmother thing?  

    He didn't encourage bigotry, why would that help him?

    Parent

    He benefited by the "bigotry". (4.42 / 7) (#168)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    He set the stage so that anyone - any one - who says something he doesn't like, they call racist and no one challenges them on it.

    I mean - they tarred and feathered the only 2-term Dem POTUS in 40 years as a racist (which was a HUGE lie) and from that point on, they sailed along leaving everyone who questioned anything about Obama in their wake...labeled, forever, as a racist.

    Obama and friends have set race relations back 50 years.  Some uniter!

    Parent

    simply not true (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    show me one time that Obama, or anyone in his campaign called Bill a racist.

    There was a charge that he played the race card, which I think he did, but that is enormously different than calling someone a racist.

    And so you not only exaggerate absurdly the charges made against Bill, you then try to pretend, yes, pretend, that such ridiculous charges have been leveled agaisnt everyone in the world who criticizes Obama.

    This is absurd nonsense.

    Parent

    thats sexism, or bigotry??? (none / 0) (#139)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    ARe you equating any criticism of Hillary with sexism? People cant criticize her now? OR make fun of her and her campaign? without being labeled a bigot?

    Parent
    No, and stop bringing up (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    this strawman argument.

    It's a poor argument in any case, but particularly on this site where people know what they are talking about and have the resources to back up their arguments, it's just baiting.

    Parent

    i dont understand your comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by tben on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    you seem to agree with me that it is not bigotry, and a charge like that would be a strawman.

    But I was responding to someone who made just that charge - it wasnt me that brought it up. So why are you criticizing me?
    What is your point exactly?

    Parent

    Benefits: the race for SDs (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    I think that Obama reaped subtle benefits from the CDS, sexism, and misogyny in the media in the race for SuperDelegates, if nothing else.  Had the media been more evenhanded, more open to self-examination regarding its own sexism, and less outrageous in its anti-Clinton diatribes, she might have had a better shot at influencing the Super Delegates in her favor.  Perhaps it wouldn't have put her over the top, but with a more favorable decision regarding Michigan by the RBC, she would've had a better shot with them.  

    It's so remarkable to me that Clinton won the contests from March forward pretty overwhelmingly, while losing the fight for SDs pretty overwhelmingly during that period.  If the DNC more concerned about HRC's constituencies, and especially women voters, I think she would've had at least a more fair hearing by the Village insiders, and a better shot at making her case.

    Parent

    Reap the benefits? (4.81 / 22) (#26)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    Sexism is what made him the media darling.  It's what got MSNObama and CNN and all their little minions on his side.  Sexism is what made Donna Brazile a "credible" commentator.  Sexism got all her supporters, Carville and Begala, kicked off of CNN while his supporters were given free rein even AFTER tipping their bias by saying things like "uncommitted but not undecided".  Sexism is what allowed Obama to get away with calling her divisive and catty and mendacious while SHE got raked over the coals for suggesting he doesn't have the experience to be CIC.  Sexism is what got the DNC and all their buddies out in force to oppose Hillary through the nearest weapon they could find.  Sexism is what makes the RBC result both unremarked upon and even the tiniest little bit credible.

    Every time the conversation was about "the roolz" and how she was cheating and whining it was REALLY about sexism because it was really about WWTSBQ.  Sexism didn't benefit him?  It made him a credible candidate for president and it made him the nominee of the party.  That people fought back against it and that Hillary achieved some success against doesn't make it not true.  It just means we lost the battle.

    Parent

    Yes. I agree with you. (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    100%

    Parent
    I am sorry (none / 0) (#30)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    But Obama was the target of aweful racism in this campaign.  He tried to deal with it.  In fact, he lost many votes for it, and Hillary gained votes for it.  Hillary lost votes because she was a woman, and he gained votes because of it.  Neither of them spoke out to stop this.  Stop with this this notion of purity of a candidate.  They are politicians period.  

    Parent
    Is this comment directed to me? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    I love both Hil and Obama. I think they both have flaws, as do I.


    Parent
    No (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    I am just tired of this notion purity made by many at TL.  Of course the come back is, look at the Obama people.  Okay, I looked, saw some stupidity.  That doesn't excuse some of the comments made here.

    Doesn't this discussion of sexism need to be started by someone who experienced it.  I really wish Hillary had done that.  Unfortunately she did not.  Maybe the push should be to have Michelle Obama start this discussion?

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 14) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    If Hillary had discussed sexist, there would have been the largest outcry in history of 'victim', 'whiner', 'trying to silence the media', etc etc.

    She was screwed no matter what she did. That's how the sexism game is played.

    Parent

    exactly (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    it was a trap
    ironically I think McCain watching and learning from this will not step into the angry old man trap they are now attempting to set for him.

    Parent
    Clinton did call out sexism in the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    And at least in comments that I read, she was ridiculed as being a sore loser.

    Parent
    Hillary did (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    start the dicussion, by running, and she also contributed to it greatly with her concession speech.

    Parent
    Respecfully (none / 0) (#114)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    Certainly she mentioned it.  But she needs to have a sex/ gender speech like Obama's race speech (which I really wish he could do more about).   What was good about this speech was that it was a good starting point for more discussion.  It talked about the distrust and the many layers of racism and how it divides us.  I think for many us(and certainly not all of us), it made us feel that we as a nation had a place at the table to discuss racism (and it just wasn't a black thing).  This is what we need from her or someone to take this NEEDED discssion in a constructive way forward.  I feel personally, like the gender discussion has no rutter and no leader to help guide it forward right now.   I really think Michelle Obama should be pushed into this role.

    Parent
    This is SUCH a dishonest (5.00 / 12) (#127)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    post.

    Look, do you really imagine that Hillary would not have been pilloried by the very critics who were savaging her throughout the primaries for "playing the victim card" and "whining" about sexism, if she were to have brought up the issue in the primaries?

    These critics won't accept that there was sexism NOW, after the fact, when nothing is at stake in the nomination selection. It is simply unimaginable that they would have stood for it during that process.

    Really, blaming Hillary -- Hillary! -- for not speaking up against sexism is simply disgusting.

    What everybody with even a smallish amount of honesty will realize is that, when one is involved in a contest like this, it is ALWAYS outside, more disinterested parties who have the real clout to call out unfair tactics. They are the ones who have that responsibility, precisely because those who are the victims of the unfair treatment can be so easily dismissed as simply grinding an axe.

    That is why it is despicable that no leader in the Democratic Party spoke up, and virtually no one in the supposedly "objective" media.

    Parent

    It was not a dishonest post (none / 0) (#134)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    Sorry.  I am not blaming anyone.  It is a comment with no fault, it is just a hope of what we can have in the future.

    Parent
    Yes, the old double bind (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    When Hillary complained about unfair treatment she was roundly excoriated.  Remember the SNL skit and the raking over the coals she got for objecing to her treatment during a debate.  Remember her objecting to Shuster saying she was pimping. out. her. kid. and the way the NBC boys viciously attacked her in a debate.

    She brought NONE of this on herself.  NONE of it.  Yet, the burden is on HER to have "the speech" about gender.  Yet every time she even alluded to the sexism in this race, she was excoriated.  But it's her fault because she couldn't effectively talk about the sexism.

    Yet, Obama belongs to a Church which attacks Clinton on the basis of her sex and her race, a Church which uses the word "whitey", and when people object to that, that's racism. But it's fixed by the. best. speech. evah. about race.  Obama put himself in the position to have to defend people around him who said racist and sexist things.  THAT was the impetus for the. best. speech. evah.  And by doing so, by defending his association with Jeremiah Wright he somehow takes the high ground?

    Hillary is victimized by sexism.  She is attacked and vilified through her gender.  But it's HER fault for not giving the best. speech. evah. on gender.  She defends herself against not doing anything wrong and it's HER fault.  It's HER fault for bringing it up.  It's HER fault for not defending herself against sexism better.  It's HER fault for daring to female while running for President.

    Parent

    During the race (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    if Hillary had delivered such a speech, it would've been percieved as piggybacking onto what Obama did.  It would have been recieved as part of a sexism v racism competition.

    Obama's race speech emerged out of a very particular set of circumstances.  Clinton has no gender version of Reverend Wright.

    Clinton's comments on sexism were delivered at a very important juncture (transferring her support to Obama) and delivered without view to immediate personal political gain (unless she was trying to be VP, I suppose).  The timing was right and her credibility was optimized.  Now I wonder if she gave a speech would anyone listen...and she is not famous for her speech making as Obama is.

    The Michelle Obama chapter of Sexism 08 will be a different one but still quite interesting.  I don't think she can just take the baton from Hillary.  But I'm sure she will have something interesting to say about being a successful black woman and the expectations and stereotypes she faces in communicating to the American people.

    Parent

    Do you realize just (5.00 / 11) (#119)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    how rich it is to suggest that Michelle Obama, who didn't say boo about the sexism from which her husband benefited, should "lead the discussion" against sexism?

    Trust me, coming out of her mouth, such criticism of sexism is only going to infuriate Hillary supporters more.

    Parent

    Isn't this the same as what many say about clinton (none / 0) (#173)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    I hear, "she stood by her cheating man, she is not a feminist".  I don't see why Michelle Obama would not be a good voice to bring both race and gender together.

    Parent
    You can't seriously (4.20 / 5) (#174)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    be comparing the two.

    Michele Obama is no feminist because she not only stood by an watched her husband benefit from sexism, she  participated in it herself. "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

    Feminism has nothing to do with Hillary standing by Bill, except in the sense that it was HER CHOICE to do so, and feminism is about choice (in more ways than abortion, of course - it's about having choices in how you live your life).

    Parent

    I think I just did seriously compare the 2 (3.00 / 1) (#175)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    Michelle Obama I am guessing would define herself as a feminist.  But you can go ahead and be the authority.

    Parent
    Whatever (3.66 / 3) (#192)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    Obama also calls himself a new kind of politician.

    He's obviously not - so that makes two of them who are not what they say they are. Or what you imagine they would say they are.

    I can back up my dismissal of MO as a feminist with proof. You and Michelle? Not so much.

    Saying so doe not make it so. Actions speak louder than words.

    Parent

    Michelle Obama (4.20 / 5) (#176)
    by tnjen on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    ...referenced the very thinking you criticized ("she stood by her cheating man, she is not a feminist") and used sexist tropes and stereotypes as a weapon against Clinton very early on when she said, "If you can't take care of your own house, how can you take care of the White House."

    Michelle Obama needs to stay far and away from leading any timely conversations on gender/sexism.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#178)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    I wasn't saying that this line of thinking is right, I was just responding to a comment about Michelle, and I personally still think the logic holds.  That being said, I offered up someone who could try to bridge this discussion and make race and gender a common discussion point.  Who do you recommend?  

    Parent
    Obama could have. But it's too late now. n/t (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST


    Parent
    What notion of purity? Address the instances (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    ... on encountering them. It's a false pretense that major media and fauxgressive blogs assaulted Obama with the number and degree of bigoted attacks leveled at Sen. Clinton.

    Parent
    I have no desire to get into (none / 0) (#137)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    A bigotry match.  I certainly respect your view that she was attacked, and take it seriouslly.  It is a fight that I will join you in in a heart beat.  Tell me what to do and where to sign up.

    Parent
    I just did n/t (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM EST


    Parent
    what does n/t mean? (none / 0) (#171)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST


    Parent
    n/t means 'no text' (none / 0) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:41:31 PM EST
    so people don't think you made a mistake when a post is all title.

    Parent
    Nobody Here Has EVER Claimed (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    that Obama was not the target of racism.  But the people who displayed that racism were called on it...everyone except Obama himself, who used it quite effectively against Bill Clinton.

    You're using the racism aimed at Obama to justify the sexism aimed at Clinton.  

    Lousy argument.

    Parent

    Further... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    The racism leveled at Obama did NOT come from members of his own party, as did the sexism aimed at Clinton.  

    We expect bigotry from the wingnuts.  To see it coming from fellow Democrats is more than many of us can bear.

    As soon as I can get to the City Clerk's office they won't be my fellow Democrats any longer.  

    Parent

    OT, but (none / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    But Obama was the target of aweful racism in this campaign.  

    This is demonstrably untrue.

    Parent

    The left blogs (5.00 / 27) (#6)
    by wasabi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:55 AM EST
    "The Left blogs... Instead of denouncing the sexism and misogyny, they were silent. They malignly accepted the sexism and misogyny. They have been stained by their silence."

    I could have accepted the silence of the Left blogs, but there WAS NO SILENCE.  They piled on, and for that I can never forgive them. I do not know how they can possibly claim to be progressives.

    Ick. You aren't kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 20) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    And so the left can no longer claim the high road in any of these matters. And THAT is the horrible, high price that will be paid now.

    For example, the attempts to drum up outrage amongst women against McCain because he supposedly called his former wife the c-word (still haven't seen the evidence for this, but let's assume he did it), kind of fall flat when we have heard that word and much more levelled at Hillary and other women BY DEMOCRATS. How are we supposed to care anymore? They all do it. (Not defending McCain, can't stand him, but you get my larger point I hope.)

    Parent

    I for one (5.00 / 12) (#44)
    by talex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    will never go to dkos or Josh Marshall, or Atrios ever again.

    First off they don't deserve my or our clicks that bring money to their sites. To even go their to lurk is to help fill their coffers and they do not deserve that ever. If they could care less about knowingly rejecting and insulting 1/2 of the Progressive blogosphere then they don't deserve our traffic and the money that comes with it in any form.

    And lastly they have nothing original to say. It's not like one cannot find the same news or commentary on that news in other friendlier environs. And what does Kos or Atrios or Josh have to say anyway? None are great visionaries or political astute anyway. If they were politically astute they would have not knowingly divided the Party.

    I hope others here take the same view. In the past we have denied the MSM our eyeball because of their antics. Now it is time to deny those blogs who insulted us and tossed us aside our eyeballs also. They deserve to lose traffic and the money that comes with it.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    but some of the diarists are good.

    Parent
    we will (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    take your word for that

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:37:04 AM EST


    Parent
    If they were (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by talex on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    worth reading they would be somewhere other than dkos IMO. All that are left are the Clinton bashers and the cool-aide drinkers so what is worthy of reading?

    Parent
    Yeah I'm not sure what left blogs (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    BTD was reading.

    I left HuffPost because of the sexism, which was especially apparent in the comments but hardly absent from the columns.

    And, not being particularly hip, I'd never heard of DKos until this campaign, and I was on that site not 45 seconds before I realized it was worse than HuffPost.

    They were also bad for other reasons -- not well written, badly reasoned, steeped in Kool Aid, but silent?

    I love the phrase 'malign acceptance of sexism' because it addresses the behavior of the DNC and other Democratic leaders, but elsewhere I think it should be the 'malign endorsement of sexism.'

    Parent

    Or even (5.00 / 8) (#113)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    the 'enthusiastic expression of sexism'.  Some of the stuff the so-called Left blogs published looked like it was lifted straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with a few nouns changed.

    Parent
    Finally, a mini-backlash (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    against all the sexist crap. It is a little late and not pervasive enough, imo.  But I am glad to see any kind of backlash.

    Saying that his daughters would benefit 'someday' (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    ... from the lessons learned through his own campaign's opportunistic benefit of the sexist onslaught they encouraged against Sen Clinton defies credulity.

    This is the minefield the Obama campaign now stands in: all those unexploded bomblets can be set off at a distance by Obama's real opponents without blowback on themselves, or the ordnance will go off as he walks towards the Repugs to offer them free rides on the Unity Pony.

    I think it's a bit simplistic to say (2.00 / 4) (#14)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    that he benefited from the media sexism. He probably did sometimes, but there was a HUGE cry of support for Hillary when Chris Matthews and dKos posters were such pigs after Hillary got emotional...and her campaign really took off after that. It humanized her and they looked mean. Also, I think Hillary herself was galvanized by the experience and her campaign became sharp and it became obvious that it was about more than her. So, I think the jury is out about who the sexism benefitted.  

    Parent
    Simplistic: the target 'benefits' were a gift (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    This is an idiotic stance on the issue, but you have minimized what actually went on and trivialized it, so sophistry points for you there.

    Otherwise it's like claiming the target of a mugging really came out ahead because s/he got an ambulance ride out of it.

    Parent

    That wasn't what I was saying (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    your misrepresentation of my stance is indeed an idiotic "straw man".

    You don't know me at all. I defended Clinton over at dKos all the time. Here I defend Obama. I hope you don't mind the mirror.

    Parent

    Who cares what you do at the Cheetoh blog? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    Or the "valuable" service you provide to protect Obama here? (And btw, he doesn't need it.)

    The historically unprecedented barrage of bigotry aimed at Sen Clinton unfairly achieved such a pitch that it created a media chorus for her to withdraw, ultimately, and unfairly driving her from the race.

    You are unqualified to serve as high and mighty defender of Clinton at the Cheetoh place or Obama here.

    Don't quit your day job.

    Parent

    I disagree, (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    Can you please show examples of the "HUGE cry of support"  that followed the NH show of emotion??? I did not see anything but negative coverage then and later in the rehash.
    I also think you are failing to get the order of things right, HRC showed more emotion to the public, but that act or the coverage of that act, did not galvanize her. It simply gave those willing to look honesty at her an insight into her existing commitment.

    Parent
    and that is what she needed (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    because after that, she was no longer considered as stiff and calculating. The narrative changed, IMO.

    It simply gave those willing to look honesty at her an insight into her existing commitment.


    Parent
    Revealing language (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    Coigue,  your language is so revealing.  "It is what she needed" ??????   Is it like a good whupping was needed to get her into better shape?

    Reminds me of the Olberman quote about taking her into a back room and only [he] comes out.

    Parent

    no. it doesn't actually reveal anything about me (none / 0) (#197)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    you have a bad case of confirmational observation skills. That is, you remember and make note of what confirms your own worldview.

    And you misunderstood me, besides. I was speaking specifically about the quote that I listed.

    Parent

    at dKos (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    many people spoke out against the sexism and were hammered. They left galvanized. I spoke out against it there too.

    I also think it hurt Obama among women, and what hurt Obama, helped Clinton.

    Parent

    Just to be clear (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    the, 'HUGE cry of support' to which you refer was in actuality some posters at one website?  

    Parent
    Ask me about the Cindy McCain (5.00 / 11) (#115)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    diaries.

    There's a diary up right now cheerleading Michelle Obama, spouse of a Dem candidate.  Two top of the rec list Cindy McCain diaries earlier(March IIRC) were of an entirely different type.  I don't think anyone claimed in those that "any attack on Cindy McCain is an attack on all women".  That might have been because they were attacking Cindy.

    It's not misogyny, it's Hillary.  It's not misogyny, it's Cindy.  If it's Michelle?  Then it's misogyny.

    I need a score card to keep this all straight.

    Parent

    I hate Cindy (none / 0) (#162)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    but it's because she is a republican. How's that for bias?

    Parent
    There has to more than that for me. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    I couldn't go around randomly hating every Republican.  Ridiculous!

    Parent
    you're right (none / 0) (#195)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    I hate her because she is running for first lady as a Republican. That should narrow it down some.

    Parent
    one examplewithin my experience (none / 0) (#104)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    and people need to make up their mind: is it important what the blogosphere does or isn't it?

    Parent
    It is. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    Lazy "journalists" who watch the blogs.  That's one.

    The echo chamber effect that causes people to assert unverifiable BS as Known Truths.

    The silencing effect of abusive commenters.

    The worst effect IMO is that instead of broadening the information presented, the Obamafication of blogs has narrowed it.  Increasing bias and information suppression is never good for a democracy.

    Parent

    yup. (none / 0) (#160)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    And it has created pockets of Hillary support that do the same thing. But this isn't as damaging, since she is no longer running.

    Overall, it's a social pathology.

    Parent

    It is. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    Lazy "journalists" who watch the blogs.  That's one.

    The echo chamber effect that causes people to assert unverifiable BS as Known Truths.

    The silencing effect of abusive commenters.

    The worst effect IMO is that instead of broadening the information presented, the Obamafication of blogs has narrowed it.  Increasing bias and information suppression is never good for a democracy.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 13) (#49)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    'the jury is out about who the sexism benefitted.' Good grief. Well it sure didn't benefit her, nor any other woman.

    The sexism did what it always does - gave license to hating her, demeaning her, and making a laughingstock out of her.

    Parent

    I guess what I meant was (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    that her reaction and the reaction of those who recognized the sexism benefitted her because I felt she (and they) became galvanized and pissed off. It was more of the way people reacted to it that benefitted her.

    THose that took the license to hate her, probably hated her from the beginning.

    Parent

    it seems to me (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    the outcome of the primary makes it pretty clear who was hurt and who was helped.

    Parent
    not really. (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    correlation does not equal causation. This hurt Obama.

    Parent
    on one level (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    I agree with you. it hurt him.  I dont think you or him or  his campaign know just how much it hurt him yet.
    but
    I hate to keep saying it but he WON.
    so clearly the short term goals were met.

    Parent
    It can be argued (none / 0) (#103)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:48 AM EST
    that he would have won sooner if the sexism had not been so rampant.

    IOW, there are other hypotheses here.

    Parent

    It could also be argued (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    that he wouldn't have won at all if the sexism hadn't been so rampant.

    Parent
    yup. that can be argued too. (none / 0) (#111)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST


    Parent
    It could (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    but not legitimately.

    Parent
    because you disagree. (none / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    shrug. not too convincing, I am afraid.

    Parent
    yes, I see your point coigue (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    But I think I still disagree on the outcome.

    It's true that some were galvanized and pissed off at the treatment, but that was such a small percentage. As usual, when these things occur against women, only some will speak out and they just never get the same traction on the outrage meter as when racism occurs. It just doesn't happen. Female solidarity against sexism never compares, for example, to black solidary against racism. I don't why, but it's a fact. Fear maybe, I don't know. And so it continues.

    Parent

    It drove her out of the race to be President (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    A historical milestone for nation and world.

    She was the most qualified remaining candidate in the field.

    Obama is a weak leader for these times and may simply be a placeholder for worse to come.

    This isn't just about feelings. Think about the magnitude of what his own and media bigtry have wrought.

    Parent

    The MSM drove her out of the race (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by nellre on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    Not the voters.
    In spite of the fact she'd won the popular vote the MSM and DNC counted her out. I suspect many voters switch to Hillary because anger over this abuse.

    Parent
    With much help from the DNC n/t (none / 0) (#201)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST


    Parent
    The massive misogyny (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:08 AM EST
    from the media and blogs, and silence from the DNC leadership, validated and encouraged sexism just about everywhere.  It made it ok for ordinarily sane and liberal people not to vote for her regardless of policy or leadership qualities because she's a b*tch.

    Her campaign didn't take off after that stupid NH 'narrative' about winning because she got emotional.  She always had a strong campaign.  I'm sorry, but losing Iowa did not, as half the MSM gleefully declared, indicate a campaign in tatters.

    And as much damaging power as the misogyny had this campaign, I'm pretty sure Clinton was already plenty galvanized to run for President.  She's been planning for it for over 8 years.  It's not something you do casually.

    Parent

    Paragraph 1- I agree 100% (none / 0) (#98)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    paragraph 2: Her campaign changed after NH. Perhaps galvanized wasn't the right word. She seemed human to many who until then did not like her. I also feel that the sexism was exposed in a way that refected poorly on the peretrators, and I think over time she embraced the historic nature of her success.. This helped her. And I agree about Iowa...the media wanted to declare the race over many times. I consider it akin to sports color (only we are talking about the presidency and it is more serious)

    paragraph 3: I agree with you here to, sorry if my comment suggested otherwise.

    Parent

    Coigue (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    reading your further comments I just realized what I was really objecting too.

    I disagree that she benefitted from the misogyny.  But let's say for the sake of argument I agree.

    My answer to that is 'So?'  It does not excuse it.  It does not lessen the effect of it for either Clinton or any person on earth who has been harmed by its validation (or in some cases, celebration).  It does nothing for people who would like to eradicate it.

    Parent

    You are 100% correct (none / 0) (#130)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    it does not excuse it.

    However, I agree with whoever said that "light is the best antiseptic" so, in a way we don't benefit from the sexism, we benefit from the exposure of it. Make sense?

    Thank you for speaking to me in a thoughtful way.

    Parent

    there may have been some (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    cries of support for Clinton over this, but there were EQUAL cries against Clinton that she was whining and trying to have it BOTH ways, etc

    Parent
    It was also used against her (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    women supporters... they belittled the voters by saying they are only voting for her because she's a woman, because they feel sorry for her, that they were gullible and falling for the manipulation etc.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 20) (#12)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:52:56 AM EST
    Obama should not have remained silent.  It was a test of judgment, values, and morals.  And, IMO, he failed.  Even if you believe Obama didn't participate in or fan the flames of the sexism (and I don't), he deliberately and consciously kept his mouth shut in order to benefit from it.  

    If Hillary had done the same with racism, people would STILL be calling for her head.  Indeed, IIRC, people ARE still calling her a racist and holding her responisble for what Ferraro said, for example.  Sauce for the goose and all that.

    If the "malign acceptance of sexism" is bad in the blogospheres, it's worse in the politicians who are supposed to lead a nation that is 51% or 52% female.  You're d*mn right I hold him responsible for what he did.  He's responsible for it.  And none of this "that's politics" excuses or justifies it.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 10) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM EST
    And I really don't understand why he stayed silent. Politically, he would have scored so many points with women and others if he had spoken out. There really was no downside that I could see, and I think it was really stupid of his campaign not to speak out. Imagine if he had made a nice statement against the Shuster 'pimp' comment about Chelsea, decrying that kind of smearing of the candidates' kids and women in general with that term - everyone would have loved that!

    Parent
    Inaction (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    Dr.Molly, I liken the silence of Obama on the sexism issue to the many "present" votes or absences when critical issues were being addressed.

    It speaks to pattern -- something to be anticipated when future events erupt and action is expected I fear.

    Parent

    I find it interesting (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    After the media basically decided that everyone in Kentucky and West Virginia is a racist, there was a meme going around that Hillary ought to come out and say "If you're voting for me because you refuse to vote for a black person, I don't want your vote."

    Oddly, there was never any discussion whatsoever of whether Obama ought to make a similar statement regarding people who vote for him because they refuse to vote for a woman.

    I don't think it's just because the media thinks sexism is not as big a deal as racism, although that's part of it.  By and large, I simply think these people don't even realize that there are actual, live voters who don't think a woman ought to be President.  I guess if you asked them, they'd acknowledge it's true, but I get the impression the thought just never crosses their mind.

    Parent

    There are pies to throw at both camps (2.33 / 3) (#15)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:57:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Typical deflection (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:22:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Typical of whom? (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    WHo do you think I am?

    Parent
    Typical of everytime this subject comes up (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    Everytime sexism comes up, it is deflected by 'there is plenty of bad on both sides' thereby changing the subject and silencing the anger. I didn't mean to single you out, or say it was typical of you, so I apologize if it sounded like that. But it's a typical thing that happens every time this comes up.

    Parent
    every time this (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    argument is used about "both sides" i ask to see the examples ofthe racism being used BY THE MEDIA.  There was none.  You can't excuse sexism used BY THE MEDIA by pointing out racism that was used in blog comments or by non media supporters.

    Show me any instance of a racist statement made by a member of the media.

    Parent

    It's true though (none / 0) (#89)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    and it bears mentioning. I think there were problems with both sides BUT the wider culture participated in the sexist part, so it was worse.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    Fake evenhandedness (4.60 / 10) (#19)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    is really unattractive.

    Parent
    I wouldn't know (2.33 / 3) (#20)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    and neither would you, because you (and I) can only see from our own perspectives.

    If i posted the same thing at dKos, I would get the same response.

    Parent

    The self-evident instances have been archived (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    And referenced here. You can't pretend the onslaught did not occur, or that seeing it or ignoring it was a matter of subjectivity.

    Parent
    Nobody's pretending it didn't occur. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    coigue's just, to my eyes anyway, pointing out that the nastiness went both ways during the primary.  And IMO s/he's right.  Very few people have clean hands here.  That doesn't excuse anybody, on either side, though.

    Parent
    Show me the lawn jockeys that were trotted out (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    If you can present the racist onslaught both in degree and number you might have a stronger case.

    Otherwise the "nobody's innocent here" claim is just another way of trivializing what went on.

    Parent

    Obama is a Muslim...that's a huge one (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    but do we really need to rehash them here for your benefit?

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    Obama could have won points by talking about the contributions that American Muslims have made and sticking up for religious tolerance in general.  Heck, he could have made a joint statement with his pastor.  Two birds with one stone.

    A bold move!

    Or instead of standing up for a religion that is unfairly maligned and scapegoated, he could shield himself with his Christian faith which was safely mainstream.

    Since this is Obama we are talking about, any informed person knows which choice he picked.  

    Parent

    sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    agreed. :-(

    Parent
    Being a 'Muslim' is a slur? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    Even if he isn't a practicing Muslim and it's erroneous as fact, you'll have to explain why you regard being a Muslim as a slam.

    Parent
    I don't, actually. (none / 0) (#149)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    but if you want to talk about accepted forms of bigotry in our country, that one's almost as accepted as anti-atheism bigotry.

    Parent
    plase show me any time that anyone (none / 0) (#196)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    in the MEDIA made a claim that Obama is a Muslim.

    Parent
    This is getting off topic... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    ...but just for the sake of argument: "hard working Americans, white Americans."  Obama's not a Muslim "that I know of."  Billy Shaheen openly speculating that Obama was a drug dealer.  If that had been Lou Dobbs instead of Sen. Clinton (or, in the latter case, a surrogate), what would you think about it, honestly?

    The crap went in both directions, and both sides did what you do in a political campaign -- they ignored stuff harmful to their opponent whenever possible.

    Parent

    Zero for three. And you're out. (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by echinopsia on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    ..but just for the sake of argument: "hard working Americans, white Americans.
    "

    Right, so all the exit pollsters are racist too, for reporting that white working class voters aren't voting for Obama. Next?

     

    Obama's not a Muslim "that I know of."

    Oh please. This has been debunked so many times. See Eric Boehlert: "Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim." Next?

    Billy Shaheen openly speculating that Obama was a drug dealer.

    This too has been debunked: did we not talk about GWB's drug use? Did we not talk about WJC's "I never inhaled'? Why is it racist all of a sudden to discuss Obama's admitted drug use?

    Got anything REAL?

    Parent

    Oh yeah and P.S. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    I agree that sexism is still more "socially acceptable" than racism. I've known that long before this race.

    But I don't hold Obama responsible for that. He has his own burdens to bear, frankly.

    I give him the benefit of the doubt NOT to compare my burden (of being a woman) with his burden (of being a black man). Too many people love to revel in the comparison, and I think it only benefits the racists and the sexists.

    Parent

    Then why say it over and over (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    every time sexism comes up?  The average response time for 'but there's racism too!' to a criticism of sexism must be like 2.3 seconds.

    Parent
    Exactly valhalla (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    And it has become so predictable. That's what I was trying to say upthread (inartfully) - it feels like a silencing ploy.

    Parent
    Because when sexism = Obama's fault (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    it's time to say something...because we are then delving into how the primary went, and it went negative for both.

    If you are talking about the media's part, etc..then I won't say that.

    Parent

    Because it's time to move on TOGETHER. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    And that can't happen if each party thinks it is the only one that is justifiably aggrieved.

    I should note that by "move on" I don't mean "forget all about it."  Sexism and racism are both products of white, heteronormative patriarchy and IMO they're best combatted in tandem.  So I think we should have a national discussion about them as two sides of the same coin, not as distinct grievances competing for attention.

    Parent

    The tacit endorsement of the sexism (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    by the DNC is its own worst enemy.  Many of us have no plans either now or in the future to "move on".  Some things are unforgiveable, including blatant betrayal by a party that was supposed to be about human rights.

    Parent
    from paganpower at NQ (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    WomenCount.Org has had it. And they are determined to keep their voices relevant and loud. In fact they have made a decision. They will not rest until they hear from the Democratic party and its nominee about how they will:

    • represent the 18 million Americans who voted for Hillary;

    • acknowledge Hillary's 35 years of experience;

    • reform a flawed nominating process, especially caucuses;

    • address the flagrant, often hostile, gender bias in the campaign;

    • assure parity to the 52 percent of Americans who are women;

    • apologize for their public silence in the wake of the
    outrageous attacks leveled by Father Pfleger against Hillary;

    * and support the issues we hold dear, such as health
    insurance for everyone, a good start for all children, a strong economy,
    and a smart environmental policy.

    Parent

    Moving on? (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by margph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    Agreed, TSnow.  Moving on to me means accepting that our DNC, our Democratic party, is no better than the Republicans.  What a travesty of democracy were the RBC/DNC actions.  This Unity thing is not going to work out,in my opinion

    After more than 20 years as an activist, I am not donating one thin dime this election cycle.

    Parent

    coigue and pegasus (5.00 / 7) (#140)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    I hear what you're saying about wanting to move on and bad stuff occuring on both sides but, with respect, I reject all of your premises.

    I reject the false equivalence of racism and sexism both being played equally during this campaign. It just did not objectively happen that way. There was WAY more sexism, and it was legitimized by the left WAY more often.

    I reject the relativist notion that there is no objectivity about what happened, and that the bad stuff is in the eye of beholder.

    I reject the idea that we should just move on and that, in doing so, some wonderful combatting of sexism will now occur.

    I reject the idea that democrats will now have a wonderful and fruitful national conversation about sexism. Democrats reveled in it actually.

    Sorry. I won't forget. And I won't go along.

    Parent

    Molly: replies: (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    paragraph 2: The sexism was worse in third parties. Hands down. I do not attribute the bulk of it to Obama, nor do I attribute the bulk of the racism to Hillary.

    paragraph 3. there is little objectivity about this race yet, but it is getting better...at least at this site.

    paragraph 4 and 5: I agree to an extent, but I also think that the sexism that was aired is at least there for everyone to see...it's documented. Usually it's secret and shoved under the rug (personal experience)

    paragraph 6: suit yourself.

    Parent

    Then stop dismissing the sexism or what occurred (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    Acknowledge the number and intensity of attacks on Sen Clinton rather than minimize them or their equal occurred against Obama.

    When was the media chorus telling the black candidate to withdraw because of race-based infirmity?

    Parent

    Move on together!?! (5.00 / 11) (#147)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    Move on with rank sexists and gender-baiters?  Move on with people who EVEN NOW can't face up to the sexism in this campaign?  Move on with a DNC and Democratic Leadership that STILL denies its complicity in the sexism that systematically handicapped Hillary's campaign?  Move on with people who still, right now, in this VERY thread minimize and dismiss the sexism by saying inane ... things like "correlation is not causation"?

    If we ran a race and you ran on the track and I ran through four feet of sludge and mud and you won, you COULD admit that the sludge and mud slowed me down. Or you could point to how I wasn't wearing the right shoes to run through the sludge and mud, therefore it was MY FAULT I lost.  Guess which approach has been, by and large, decided upon?

    Move on?  Sure, I'll do that.  But I'm not going anywhere with the people who've engaged in this behavior.  If you are the persons I've described here, be VERY clear -- our interests are no longer aligned no matter what you think Obama or McCain will do as president.

    Parent

    please show me the racism (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    that the MEDIA participated in.  Don't defend the media's participation in sexism by pointing to some racist comments on a blog somewhere.


    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    you dont stand by smiling while this stuff goes on in your name and then raise you eyebrows and say gee, Im so sorry, I had no idea, these are not the supporters I knew.
    it doesnt pass the smell test.
    The biggest (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    irony I see in all this is that Obama has now given license to the GOP to attack Michelle vigorously by his passive behavior during the primary. He's also given them license to put out racially tinged things due to his OVERreaction to any criticism and calling it "racist".

    Oh Lord, the Dems COMPLETELY empowered the media (5.00 / 13) (#36)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:15 AM EST
    They might as well have handed it a weapon and said, "Fire at will".  
    This brand of Democratic party is just so incredibly stupid that it shouldn't be around sharp objects.  I just get this sense that the party is destroyed but that we haven't seen how catastrophic the damage is yet.  
    We may not see the full impact before the convention but it won't be long after that before we see the whole ugly mess.  
    What a shame. We could have won in a landslide this year.  

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:59 AM EST
    "Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers?"
    they knew this and they used it.

    Parent
    I am so sick of this (none / 0) (#39)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    There was no over reaction.  I am sorry but these comments are moving farther from left.  What is your evidence.  We (black people) wanted him to call out all the racism we saw, but we knew he couldn't do that because that would make him the standard angry black man.  
    I personally find this claim of that Obama race baited, racist.

    Parent
    Sorry, (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    but you aren't really serious are you? Remember the SC memo from the Obama campaign that twisted benign statements into supposed "racial epithets". Obama's campaign continually race baited after he lost in NH. You're just ignoring it because it's convenient but I'm sure the GOP will be reminding everyone of this behavior over the next several months.

    Parent
    I hear ya (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    I really wanted Obama to call out Jesse Jackson Jr. for saying "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina," but I guess the man had his reasons.

    Parent
    I can't believe sometimes how easily (5.00 / 14) (#116)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    Obama played the media and his supporters and surrogates.

    It was Obama that set up the conditions for accusations of Clinton race-baiting, and that started right after Clinton won the NH primary.  Where were the campaigns headed next?  South Carolina.  And what did they do right before that primary?  Sent out a 4-page how-to memo to make sure there would not be word uttered by the Clintons that would not be labeled racist.  And why did they do this?  Because they could not take the chance of losing momentum by losing in SC, and they had to undermine black support for Clinton in order to ensure victory.

    The actions that took place there sent out a strong message: say what you will about Obama, but do so at the risk of being labeled a racist.  And it worked; the last sentence of your comment is proof positive of that.  He didn't have to be the angry black man, because he had others, in all quarters, doing it for him - that many of them were white was just perfect.

    At the same time, he could use all the dog-whistle language he wanted to go after Hillary; it was okay to talk about "the claws coming out," and "periodically, when she's feeling down," and the media loved getting permission from the candidate himself to be even more overt in their sexism.  Strange how one could not use a word like "arrogant" when talking about Obama, lest it be branded a synonym for "uppity," but there were no words that were verboten where Clinton was concerned.  People chuckled over "Iron My Shirt" and "Bros Before Hos," but I cannot even imagine what the response would have been to "Shine My Shoes" or "Obama Lawn Jockey;" heads would have exploded.

    It's all right there - if you choose to see it.


    Parent

    A smart Obama would have defended her (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:08:32 AM EST
    Then, he could have looked like a decent human being with principles.  He could have demonstrated empathy because he has had to face racism so he would presumably know how it feels to be judged by appearance rather than content of character.  

    Instead, he said nothing.  AND he accused her and her supporters of racism.  

    Do I blame him for using the overt sexism to his advantage like any normal politician would?  No, but I certainly wouldn't credit him with being any kind of change agent.  His actions say otherwise.  

    I dont buy for a second that (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    Obama or at the very least the Obama campaign is not responsible.  I absolutely believe that it was a part of the plan from day one.  it was coordinated and it as well executed.  and Obama benefited from it.
    he won.  
    I think most people who saw it happen from my point of view, which is one of great respect for the Clintons, will recoil from any attempt he makes to make nice.

    just as it is now (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    the plan to try to make McCain out to be some dotty, dangerous, possibly psychotic old man who may even be mentally ill.
    the same people and the same methods are being used.

    Parent
    Capt (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    did you ever find a site for discussion of gay issues to replace AmericaBlog?  I would be interested in finding a place since i won't go back there again.

    Parent
    not so much (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    JoeMyGod is pretty good on some issues but I find  him annoying on others.
    ditto if you find someplace great pass it on.

    Parent
    It's nice of Ellen Goodman to write this (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:33 AM EST
    buy why didn't she write it a month ago?

    Instead, she sat silently, just like Howard Dean did.

    There are no clean hands in the media or the DNC.  They all tacitly endorsed until it was too late.

    prec isely (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    its a Scott McClellan, Colin Powell redux.
    now that we can write a book and make some money we absolutely HATE what happened.
    dont make me sneer.

    Parent
    Bleh (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    The whole thing reminds me of drug addiction, and those who depend on the addicts to - well, to stay addicted and screwed up. It's all so enticingly dysfunctional and codependent, but someone always benefits, so it's crucial the addiction and dysfunction and codependence remain perfectly intact.

    And in this case, the beneficiary is Obama. Why should he do anything? He knew good and well it was going on, but it was all to his benefit, so why not feed the fire - under the wraps of his campaign, of course.

    I see this kind of crap go on here all the time. It's one of the hazards of living in a place with high rates of drug and alcohol addiction. And ultimately, it always comes out that everyone involved is benefiting from the dysfunction in some way, even if they're unable to even acknowledge it to themselves.

    The amusing part, though, is how quickly they've pulled back and tried to act like they didn't participate! Oh, not us! Not us! No, we need you!

    Then, they fall right back into it, lambasting anyone who doesn't rejoin their troops as a traitor, voting for McCain!!

    Um, no. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. It's doubtful that changes any time soon.

    But it's crystal clear now how they really feel about females. And I ike myself much too much to go anywhere near that.

    cookiebear!!! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    Hi howareya!

    Parent
    zomg! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    You!

    I'm totally insane right now. :D I'm closing on a house Monday, and am busily packing up this place to move there.

    I've become a land baroness!!!

    True, I feel somewhat predatory because I'm taking  advantage of a crashed real estate market and low interest rates. But I just love land. Can't have enough of it.

    How are you? I'm so glad to see you here.

    Parent

    I am glad SOMEBODY is benefitting! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    I am good, I am starting a new business doing GHG emmissions assessments for local businesses. Fun stuff!!!

    Parent
    Well, there's a practical aspect to it (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    Paying a mortgage is going to cost me about the same as commuting.

    I've been planning this for a long time, though, and was just waiting for the tipping point, which thankfully coincided with a collapsing r.e. market and low interest.

    In a sense, I'm also managing GHGs by doing this.

    Good luck with your business - that's as stressful as buying a house - probably more so. But it's timely.

    Parent

    I've got excellent and established (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    partners, so I think it won't be as stressful as it might be.

    Thanks cookiebear.

    I am still renting, so I'll have to live vicariously through you on the house issue.

    Parent

    Undo the damage with little effort. (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by Silhouette on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM EST
    Obama is an unwitting part of a bigger picture that includes an orchestrated attempt to stonewall Hillary Clinton from appearing on the ticket this Fall.

    They know who is easy and who is hard to beat. Obama saw that remaining silent while Big Media "little-girled" Clinton into falling behind in delegates (NOT popular vote) was to his advantage.  So yeah, he kept his mouth shut and still does..

    However, Obama does not officially have the nomination.  That's why he is "The Presumptive Nominee".  It is PRESUMED he will take the delegates in August...but not guaranteed.  Hillary's campaign meanwhile is not ended, but SUSPENDED.  That means there's still a chance that superdelegates can change their minds.

    Our group has seen several waffling already. They are coming to realize that their support of Obama is a reflection of quite assention to sexism and it's making them nervous amongst the increasing waves of negative feedback they're getting from their consituents (you and me).  In other words, they want to have a job next time their term comes up for re-election and they're starting to think of their own destiny, if not the destiny of our nation and the plight of women.

    Having once been an Obama supporter myself, I have changed my mind.  I did this by watching his ambivalence to sexism among other things like being patently under-qualified standing next to Hillary for leader of our nation.

    Get involved right now: today.  Email The Obama Expatriates at silhouette@suddenlink.net to get ideas on how just a few minutes a day on your PC can get more superdelegates to reconsider their passive stance of discrimination against the largest voting constituency in the US:  

    Women.

    ex-supporter here, too (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:53:56 AM EST
    I feared Clinton running for years.

    All they really accomplished politically with me is to make me much more sympathetic to her - so much so I voted for her in the primary, just to mess with them. Then again, she was the foregone favorite here.

    The rest, though - yuck. Don't even want to be around them.

    Parent

    The Left Blogs were SILENT... (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    Boy is that an understatement.  Many of the A list left blogs actively participated in the sexist comments and if they didn't participate, they certainly encouraged it.

    And the idea that it's OK for the Media to participate in te sexism because some commenters on sime blogs somewhere made racist comments is just the height of hypocrisy

    I couldn't disagree more with this (5.00 / 11) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    "it's not so hard to root for Obama and work on leveling the field for the next women."

    It's mighty hard, and probably much too hard for me.

    Support for Obama is saying it was ok.  Or at best, it just wasn't that bad.  It was ok for the Dem leaders to stand silent, to celebrate its effects, to remain in what was at best a state of cluelessness about what was happening.  It was ok for MSM to go wilding across the airwaves and the internet.

    With power comes responsibility, and with great power comes great responsibility.  It's not ok to stand down just because injustice doesn't touch you directly, or worse, benefits you.  Obama wants to be the leader of the free world.  Yet he couldn't manage a single 'hey, that's not cool'?  When it would hardly have cost him anything?

    I was able to support the long line of Democratic candidates who I really didn't like for 24 years because while their priorities were not what mine were, my interests were in there somewhere.  But to support that which I do detest, and which devalues me as a person, is a bit too hard.  That is the only way they've left me to fight back.

    So sorry Ellen, I love ya the other 364 days of the year, but not on this point.

    "Demanding Respect" (5.00 / 14) (#124)
    by Leisa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    One can't have it if it isn't there in the first place.  The primary season revealed to me that many progressives, liberals and even other women have been desensitized to the ugly faces of sexism.  It is as they do not even recognize what is happening.  The blatant disrespect of sexism seems to be a normal everyday accepted phenomena.  Why question the the actions of the club (more like a Frat house IMO) that you want to be a part of?

    BTD said (emphasis mine):

    An ironic result is that Barack Obama, acting as a politician does when his opponent is being unfairly attacked (I really do not hold Obama responsible at all unlike some of you) - said nothing, is paying the price to some degree for the actions of his Media supporters and blog supporters. It is not fair. But politics is not fair.

    I can understand his silence because he is a politician, however, he has always claimed to be different and better, he is not politics as usual.  He has tried to paint himself as a more enlightened being who will transform politics.  Many people want to hold him to his words because that is what we want.  So far, I feel let down because I do not see it happening with Obama in charge.

    I also believe that he participated in making some rather derogatory statements about Hillary based on her sex as well. So, not only was he silent when he heard sexist statements, he also participated in the sexist game to some degree IMO.

    BTD said he does not think it is fair to hold Obama accountable for his silence (that's what politicians do).  I disagree, mostly on the premise that Obama has promised change and a better way of being in our country.  To me, that includes being above disrespecting someone based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age or belief system.  To me, if Obama is going to lead this change he speaks of, he must speak up when he sees or hears the misguided stereotypical remarks that are made about all of the groups of Americans... So far, All I hear a crickets unless he is demanding that I respect his wife.

    To BTD's point, (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Lena on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    I would raise it a notch. Amongst the blogger boys, it wasn't just a malign acceptance of sexism, it was the active encouragement of it, and willingness to throw women's issues overboard, in pursuit of the nomination of their favorite (and the defeat of the wicked Hillary).

    It wasn't just that they accepted Keith Olbermann's sexism, the revelled in it, they celebrated it. It's why I can't vote Democratic this year, just like other Democrats who are disgusted by the sexism of so many in our party, including those at the top. This is just the nadir of a bad 8 years for Democrats.

    I'm sure this point has been made (I haven't read the comments yet though).

    Clinton Started a Movement (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by pcronin on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    Summary of a worth-read commentary at CNN

    Some interesting stats re women in gov't offices: 71st in the world in political representation ... stuck at 22% of state legislature representation for over a decade.

    Yikes! Even I thought we'd come further than that.

     --peniel

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/wilson/index.html

    Commentary: Clinton started a new political movement

    By Marie C. Wilson

    The common feeling in America is that women have made it, but we rank a paltry 71st in the world when it comes to women's political representation. We have only nine female governors and have been stuck at an average of 22 percent of representation in state legislatures for more than a decade.

    But the good news is that Clinton's candidacy marks the starting point of a new political movement, one that finally brings women of all backgrounds into the political spotlight.
    ~~~~~~
    Marie C. Wilson is the founder and president of the White House Project, dedicated to empowering and increasing the number of women in leadership. She is the co-creator of "Take Our Daughters to Work Day" and the author of "Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World."

    We'll have to wait and see (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    if it has any effect in getting women elected.  A woman on this site stated she didn't vote for Clinton because she knew 'this' was going to happen to Clinton and didn't want her to continue to be attacked while in the WH.  For me, if Obama gets elected with the woman's vote, it says nothing has changed.  It's one big 'sigh' of acceptance.

    Parent
    1000% Absolutely agree! (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MMW on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    "For me, if Obama gets elected with the woman's vote, it says nothing has changed.  It's one big 'sigh' of acceptance."


    Parent
    Yes. After reading the responses of the (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    (male) heads of the media, it is clearer to me than ever.  If Obama is elected, women lose.  Will there be ways we also lose under a McCain administration?  Sure.  But there are times when a stand must be made.  We have reached that time.  If we do not say no to the media and the DNC after all that has happend this year, women will lose our voice, and any leverage, for geneartions.

    Please give the Reclusive Leftist a read.  She has a great post on Archimedes and that oh so important topic of leverage.  

    (I would be happy to provide the link if someone would explain how to accomplish that.  thanks).

    Parent

    Too late (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    It won't matter because women, too many of us, have stopped listening.  I don't read Obama's speeches, watch his internet videos or TV news.  I don't intend to watch the Democratic convention or care about the November election.  The women I know feel the same way. We may be a minority, but we will make a difference.

    Obama's silence... (4.91 / 12) (#31)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    Obama should have broken his silence about the treatment of Clinton when the "fairy tale" and MLK/LBJ crap started getting traction.

    but his campaign actually encouraged that kind of talk.

    IMHO, as damaging as the overwhelming misogyny was, far worse was the coverage implying that the Clinton's were racists -- and that has to be laid directly at Obama's doorstep.

    I also think that, as valid as the focus on sexism in the media is right now, its really an attempt at misdirection.  Most of the vicious treatment that Clinton was subjected to was not "sexist" per se -- it was just pure, unadulterated bile directed at Clinton.  

    the Obama campaign did te same throughout (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:34 AM EST
    the primary.  All the way to the RFK assaination comment.  They first sent email out to all the media to make sure the media would do the "assasination" interpretation.  Then conveniently on Sunday or Monday issued a statement saying they take Clinton "at her word" that she was just talking about the timing of campaigning in June.  Of course they had already purposely done all the damage they needed to and then conveniently claim that they took the high road and never accused her of anything....

    Parent
    The one sentence in Goodman's piece (4.87 / 8) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    that I am not sure how to read is, "Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers."  

    Is she saying that shaming the media messengers (something I'm really not sure it is possible to do, actually) would be a great way to get even, or is she saying that the by-product of getting even is shaming the media messengers?

    I have to admit that when I saw it in the paper this morning - she's syndicated in my local paper - I hesitated before reading it, wondering if it was going to be another hit piece on Clinton and her supporters, and was more than pleasantly surprised to find that it was not.  It is unnerving to realize that I now exhibit behaviors that are reminiscent of dogs who fear they are about to be kicked.  Not a good feeling.

    Kudos to Goodman for writing this; I'm still not sure there is anything that could actually shame the hacks that now dominate the media, but they surely are in need of a comeuppance.

    Very nice piece Armando. (none / 0) (#11)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:52:25 AM EST


    That's an abuse of the rating system as you know (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:00 AM EST
    If you disagree, say so on the merits or don't comment.

    The Left Blogs (none / 0) (#95)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    I think there was a lot of left-blog criticism of sexist remarks, especially ones made at MSGOP by people like Chris Mathews and Tucker Carlson.  Most of the front pagers at blogs I read jumped all over Mathews's sick comments about Clinton only being taken seriously because "her husband messed around",  the snickering about her having breasts; David Shuster's talk about "pimping" Chelsea out, the general media scoffing at Clinton getting emotional in New Hampshire after calling her unfeeling.

    I mean, Mathews and Shuster were forced to issue on-air apologies and that didn't happen because David Broder was out there demanding that they apologize.

    Of particular distinction in the left blogosphere was, of course, digby.  But plenty of others (including people at TL) did as well, including kos.

    Unfortunately, a lot of the left-blog criticism of Mathews, Shuster, et al. was opportunistic payback to people (especially Mathews) that left-blogs had it in for to begin with.  The community-moderated blogs didn't do a very good job of moderating their own comments for sexist comments.

    A-blogs just wanna own the narrative (none / 0) (#151)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    ... instead of opening doors and windows by which divergent facts can challenge the dominant narrative.

    For a while, blogs made big media wince at the darts of contradiction.  Nowadays, they're just scar tissue on big media's back.

    Inserting Apathy. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Silhouette on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    "It won't matter because women, too many of us, have stopped listening.  I don't read Obama's speeches, watch his internet videos or TV news.  I don't intend to watch the Democratic convention or care about the November election.  The women I know feel the same way. We may be a minority, but we will make a difference."~ Too Late (above)

    This is the most ridiculous stance a person could take.  And this comment in particular makes me wonder if GOP strategists aren't posting here under assumed "liberal" identities.

    They want us to think it's too late.  HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN IS ALIVE AND FULLY READY TO BE VOTED FOR OR AGAINST IN THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION.

    This message of apathy can be dangerously contagious.  If we don't write our superdelegates between now and then the "presumed" nominee will become the "actual" nominee.

    Wouldn't it be hella funny to watch the GOP squirm when we, through emailing our representatives, effect a turnover at the convention pro-Hillary?

    Don't EVER EVER let comments like these convince you you cannot make a difference.

    Write.  Write now, write often until August.

    Or don't complain..

    Demanding Respect | 201 comments (201 topical)