home

Hillary To Speak Out On Media Sexism And Misogyny

Greg Sargent reports:

Hillary also suggested that she would soon be making public statements about the media coverage of the campaign, as well as the ways "women were discussed," saying that she would "be doing more on that as we go forward." . . . Hillary . . . suggested that she'd be making public statements soon about the media's treatment of her candidacy.

Speaking of the campaign, Hillary noted that "there were a lot of other aspects to it that people are asking about. A lot of real concerns about some of the ways we were portrayed in the media and the way women were discussed." "I will be doing more on that as we go forward," Hillary said.

I welcome Senator Clinton's contributions to this important discussion.

Speaking for me only

< FISA Update: Waiting For Obama | Steny Surrender Live Blog >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good for her (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    some will claim it is sour grapes and while I don't watch much msm because it is useless, it seemed that every time i turned it on there was a gratuitous improper comment.  Mediamatters does a good job of reporting some issues of the press, i wish they did more, beyond them who is watching this group?  

    The same people who scream sour grapes (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    ...would have complained about her "campaigning on gender" if she had brought this up during the campaign. She actually made very few comments on sexism during the campaign, but I still see some people saying that she tried to manipulate voters into choosing her because she was a woman. Irony is so ... ironic.

    Parent
    lots of revisionism of the campaign going on (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM EST
    History is written by the victors, after all.

    Parent
    LOL! Now they say it's because she's STILL (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    trying to have Obama lose for 2012 and that she should shut up about the sexism. My Lord. I didn't realize Derangement lasted this long!

    Parent
    who is saying that? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    Read the commenters (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    at the linked Greg Sargent post.

    Parent
    i see (3.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    the same can be said about Hillary supporters here.  What commenters are saying have little to do with the issue at hand in my opinion.  What is of grave importance to me is that certain news people were consistent in their misogynistic statements and what is anyone going to do about it?  Who polices them, them?

    Parent
    Newspeople? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    As a long-ago graduate of the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication (yes there is one at WSU), I'd say we have few 'newspeople' but lots of talking heads.

    Who polices them?  We do.  And their sponsors.

    Some of us do something about it...and have done for years and years.  Clearly not enough, though.

    You?

    Parent

    not lately no (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    too many other priorities, but the msm is bloody awful...

    Parent
    I hope you're not advocating.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:26:46 PM EST
    for speech police monitoring the airwaves, or for the FCC to "do something about it"...I think that cure is worse than the disease, my friend.

    Let the consumer police it...if people didn't watch these arseholes the advertising revenue would dry up and they'd be bagging groceries in no time.  And protests/boycotts of advertisers would speed things up even more.

    Parent

    Although "free airways" is a fact and (none / 0) (#119)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    broadcasters are bound to communicate in the public interest, do they?  Pitiful little of that going on.  The companies are required to provide free air time.  Perhaps we need to require them to honor their committments to the public good and then we wouldn't have to try to "police" them.

    Parent
    hell no (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    i want them to police themselves relative to journalism.  As far as i am concerned msm is dead and it is an embarassment to watch.  Give us the news with some deep analysis, not rally around the flag crap they gave us in the lead up to the war.  BBC works for me and doesn't get me all steamed up with juvenile sensationalism.  you know me better than that bro....

    Parent
    I do, I do.... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    more than anything just throwin' it out there my man, after you asked "who polices them?"

    What we need to do is stop calling entertainment "journalism"....Fox/Msnbc/Cnn, it's all strictly entertainment.  

    I hate to say it...until PBS gets the ratings of the entertainment posing as journalism on the "news" channels, I don't think we the people really want news, we want crap.  And crap is what we get.

    Parent

    Seems to me (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    that because Hillary will apparently be making joint appearances with Obama at the same time these issues are coming up, it will be more difficult to call her a sore loser.  Not that that will stop the true haters, of course.

    Parent
    hope you saw my apology yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:34:22 AM EST
    I agree, I don't think it is sour grapes, some will call it that, what is most important though is what the press says about it being that they were the primary offenders who reached the largest demographics.

    Parent
    Me too, (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    and Hillary has definitely earned the right to say anything she wants on this subject.

    However, I do wish she will also call out the Democratic party leadership and the Obama campaign for their role in condoning and gleefully riding the wave of misogyny.  That, I think, is the critique that would have the most impact.  

    Not gonna happen. (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:45:37 AM EST
    I expect her POV to be that sexism & misogyny hurts all women and to focus less on her own experiences and more on other women's experiences.

    I also expect her to come out in support of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain by saying that all women in the public eye deserve to be treated with respect.  

    (Frankly, I'm already sick to death of the Cindy McCain bashing on the blogs and it's barely begun.  I hope the various blog watchers are keeping an eye out for that.)

    Parent

    The sexist treatment of Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    began in her days as first lady, so I hope and expect her to address it on behalf of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain as well.

    She does not have to make it all about herself, and I'm sure she won't, even if she gives examples from her campaign.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    She will not make this about herself.  Those previously offensive Obama supporters had better not say even one word about whining.

    They have never given her a chance or any credit for anything she's done.

    Enough.  Listen to the person and learn something.

    Parent

    Listening is a skill (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    that the Ogeneration have not mastered.

    Ask the teachers.

    Hell, ask their parents.

    Parent

    Ask the teachers and parents' parents... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    and they'd sing the same tune..."kids today don't listen!".  I'd bet Mary said the same about Jesus.

    Shoot..."Bye Bye Birdie" came out in '63.

    Kids!
    I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!
    Kids!
    Who can understand anything they say?
    Kids!
    They a disobedient, disrespectful oafs!
    Noisy, crazy, dirty, lazy, loafers!


    Parent
    Yep! A favorite! (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    "Why can't they be like we were...
    Perfect in every way,
    Oh, what's the mater with kidz toodaaaaay?!?"

    Parent
    Its a steep learning curve (none / 0) (#120)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    born of inexperience.  Its gone on forever, however, each generation seems to have more and more vestiges of privilege so I really do think the latest generation is less tolerant of discomfort and sacrifice than those of the previous generations.

    Parent
    We're all products of our.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    enviroment...if today's middle-aged and senior folks have a problem with the youth they should take it up with the person in the mirror...they taught 'em most everything the youth know.

    Tolerance of discomfort and sacrifice is learned behavior.

    Parent

    I could argue with that. Tom Brokaw's (none / 0) (#145)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:46 PM EST
    book, "the greatest generation" chronicles the incredible sacrifices made by people born in the late 1910's through the 1920's as people who didn't start out with much and sacrificed enormously throughout the depression and then WWII. These are not people who coddled their children.  My parents and their siblings were part of that generation and they were thrifty, principled and hardworking.  They did not teach their children the art of entitlement.  

    Parent
    Oh, c'mon! (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    Hillary + sexism => SOSs whining instantly.  (Plus instant references to racism and Obama, even if neither subject is raised.)

    aka   knee => jerk.


    *[SOS: stereotypical Obama supporters.]


    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by kelsweet on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    racism is always brought up by the Ocamp whenever sexism is brought up, even MO did it on the view the other day, I was disappointed that she couldn't comment on the sexism by itself, which was the question afterall.

    Parent
    Pelosi not addressing sexism: (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by kelsweet on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    i suspect they haven't wanted to talk about it for fear of having to face the charges of race baiting as well. Even tho many refuse to admit it happened it most certainly did, and I for one wish it could be talked about openly too. and the Clinton's should be publicly praised for the work they have done for all minorities, so that the ones who are too young to remember will know how much they owe the Clinton's.

    Parent
    A-freakin-men! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    Bigotry in action: Obama can speechify about race (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:25:21 PM EST
    ... and it supposedly makes him the second coming of MLK (who Obama couldn't hold a candle to as an activist, visionary or speechmaker).

    But should Hillary talk about the daily onslaught of misogyny during her historic run for the Presidency -- and a consierable barrage of overt slurs directly from Obama, as opposed to the cutesy ginned up charges of racism and faux outrage from the Clueless Class -- she's whining and playing the gender card.

    THAT, my friends, is bigotry in action from hot and uncodified from Club Obama.

    Parent

    And Obama's was a defensive speech (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    because of his mentor and pastor.

    It's quite different for Clinton to speak out, and to do so now.  Comparisons are signs of ODS.

    Parent

    Finally (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Panhandle on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    I wish she would have made some kind of speech on the subject during the campaign. It struck me as a wasted opportunity that she didn't do this during the primaries.

    Choosing to exploit (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:13:02 AM EST
    Something like this for political gain is always a difficult decision.

    Some more easy for others I guess.


    Parent

    It would have (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:27:29 AM EST
    been interpreted as whining.

    Imagine the mocking speeches from the pulpit with that as raw material.

    No.  Not during the campaign.

    And even in defense of Michelle/Cindy, Hillary will be criticized for speaking up and speaking out.

    And that is why all honest observers who care about this issue know in their heart of hearts that it would make a huge difference for women everywhere - including prioritizing policy of importance to women and children - for Hillary to be the president at this time in our history.

    Just a damn shame to miss this opportunity.

    Thank gawd I have no grandchildren at risk in the Democratic Party's gamble this election.  Not my party any more...

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    Just another way to kick her. She didn't make a speech that would have quadrupled the attacks on her, so she missed an opportunity.

    Parent
    Glad to hear this (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    And it will be good to hear from her again. I miss hearing her perspective on issues because I came to value it so. Hers truly has become an important voice among our nations' "leaders."

    On the topic of the media's abysmal treatment of real-life women in politics, what on earth is wrong with MSNBC? Seriously, who runs that organization? How old are the producers and directors? How many would rather work for MTV?

    Just look at the promo they did this week for Michelle Obama's new PR rollout. They had to pull it and re-do it to remove "inappropriate artwork." Gee, ya think?

    Note the sexy silhouettes of Michelle.

    I wonder if... (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by OxyCon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    ...Greg Sargent feels a little awkward covering this subject, considering his employer.

    Did you see the comments on TMP??? (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    Regardless of the positivity of her message they're claiming Clinton victimization. My lord the woman said to UNEQUIVOCALLY support Obama and they STILL hold on to the derangement.  What lunacy. The article makes me want to vote for Obama. The stupid comments make me want to not.

    This might be impolitic to point out (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    But my epiphany appears air tight.  Hermetically sealed.

    Without getting into which is worse, without making a decision on that, one can still make, without any qualifications whatsoever, the following statements:

    1.  No one will ever criticize someone for speaking out against racism.  Not without earning a punishment.

    2.  One may criticize another for speaking out against sexism.  One may be given a reward.

    This is the functioning dynamic as it exists respective to these issues.


    Well said! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kmblue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    and I must agree.

    Parent
    I must disagree (none / 0) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    But what do I know as a black guy

    Parent
    Ummm... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    ...do you have a wife?

    ...a sister?

    ...a mom?

    Ask them.

    Parent

    Arrgh... (1.00 / 5) (#63)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER STOP THIS?

    (yes, I mean all of you, on both sides)

    Good grief.  Is it so flippin' hard to believe that discrimination might just have been a complicating factor on both sides of the campaign?  That maybe some of the nastiness you view as discriminatory was just that: nasty?  That some of the {race|sex}ism you DON'T see is viewed by the other side as real and inexcusable?  That maybe the world is bigger than you and your favorite candidate's travails?

    The primary is over.  It sucked.  But you have to get over it.  This endless recrimination cycle is driving me insane.  And it won't fix anything, ever (c.f. Palestine).  So stop it.  Work to fix it, but for goodness sake stop whining.

    Parent

    Overreact much? (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    Good grief...are we all taking our meds on schedule?

    Or perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?

    If not, I'm calling your mom.  You definitely need a timeout.

    Parent

    Nope, not getting over it (5.00 / 13) (#68)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    and disgusted by your standard tactic of switching the discussion to another topic.  Stop it.  

    You got your speech on racism.  STFU and listen to this one.  

    Parent

    Could it just possibly (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    be that they're both subcategories of a general dehumanizing trend?

    Naw, couldnt be. The group I self-identify with just HAS to have suffered more than the group you self-identify with. Otherwise, Im going to get very angry. Now STFU!

    Parent

    Off topic is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    so wait for a thread about racism.  Do you get that?

    Parent
    Completely (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    I just dont see it as as off-topic as you do.

    But a little personal martyrdom is worth all the solidarity in the world.

    Parent

    Nonsense. You're acting the martyr (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    and I don't find your self-focus worthwhile at all.

    The topic is a speech on sexism.  Speak to that.

    Parent

    Sexism (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    is a huge problem in this country, whether YOU PERSONALLY have a problem with it or not.  It's not just about this primary, but it played a huge rule in the primary.

    And face it.  Racism is tabu in the media while sexism is not.  Therefore the sexism was worse.

    We'll stop when the sexism ends.  So brace yourself because you're going to hear about it for a lifetime.

    Parent

    You know I feel (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    The exact same way about racism.  I will stop talking about it, when everyone else does.  

    BUT I will never do it at the exclussion of other oprressed groups.

    Parent

    Wholeheartedly agree... (none / 0) (#121)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    ...but my response above to your "what do I know...I'm a black guy" re ask you wife, sister, Mom was quite serious...if you were.

    Why?  Because black women have both experiences...racism and sexism.  How very clear that was at the Howard U. forum (at which Hillary appeared and answered questions...and got a standing, rousing ovation from the black women in the audience with her response to a very telling question re women and AIDS...her answer being even more telling about Hillary's understanding and values re racism/sexism.

    The guys in the audience (mostly AA) applauded politely and looked bemused.  The women jumped up and down and went nuts cheering Hillary.

    Parent

    I read a report on Asian news before the (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    end of the primary.  Indonesian men were excited about Obama's candidacy because they thought he would pay more attention to their part of the world.  Women were excited because Hillary had been such a beacon for women all over the world and because women are so universally oppressed in those societies, they felt she would make a difference for BILLIONS of women.  So, there is the major reason for wanting a woman in the presidency.

    Parent
    It IS a huge problem. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    So much so that we shouldnt have to wait until one of the most powerful women in America is (questionably) victimized by it for it to become a topic of conversation.

    Do we have to wait until Chelsea catches a piece of shrapnal before Iraq becomes relevant again? Im starting to think so.

    This is like those 48 hrs shows that tell us time and time again that the only REALLY distressing homicides are the ones in which some wealthy plastic surgeon chops up his wife.

    Parent

    Sure. (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    When the sexism dries up and blows away, I'll be happy to shut up.

    Why on the Great Orange this week, I got to see the "Cindy McCain is a homewrecker!" meme.  The single woman who was pursued by the married man is the homewrecker.  Sexism marches on.  

    Parent

    Hee hee... Anydem is an SNL skit come to life (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    Where the actors inflict increasingly painful injuries to themselves, like bamboo shoots under their fingernails, while saying, "Owwww, I HATE it when I do that!"

    "This endless recrimination cycle is driving me insane."

    The poor thing, you can just imagine the agony: "No, no, not TalkLeft... must stop hand... must stop hand... OW OW OW OW OW OW!!!!!!

    Parent

    Sexist comment (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    Stop trivializing anger about sexism as whining. Have you ever had to deal with it? Have you ever helped do anything about it? A little voice tells me that you would never tell people that are angry about racism to stop whining.

    Parent
    I just did (none / 0) (#135)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:30:59 PM EST
    Did you read the message?  The careful framing to make sure that no statement (nor part of a statement, even) is directed at either side?  No, clearly not.  Which is exactly the problem I'm talking about.

    I'm not trivializing anything.  Anger is fine, but not when it blinds you to legitimate concerns of other people.  At that point, it just becomes selfishness, which I (perhaps unjustly) characterized as "whining".  But yes: I see a lot of selfish anger on this forum.

    Parent

    Stop assuming people are like you (none / 0) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    Maybe it's more important to you to elect a democrat than to speak out against sexism, but others feel much differently. And who died and made you the judger of selfishness? I could just as easily say you're the selfish one since you don't work against sexism. Just let people have their issues.

    Parent
    One last bit (none / 0) (#143)
    by anydemwilldo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    I dare say I do work against sexism.  I just don't see getting into a "my discrimination is worse than your discrimination" flame war on the internet (which, if you check back up the thread, is what I was replying to) as doing anything but hurt that goal.

    I think if we met and compared notes, you'd find that I'm very much in agreement with you about most things.


    Parent

    Please stuff your Arrgh... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by katana on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    Oh, please, spare us yet another one of your hall-monitor lectures.  We are not pupils in a noisy corridor, and you are not the principal's fresh-scrubbed little pet sent here to keep order.

    You seem to believe that you are the only grownup in the vicinity, and anybody who makes a comment you deplore must be a child.  Let me disabuse you:

    So far as I know, children don't post here, and rage  is not whining, especially if that rage has been stoked by the contemptible remarks (and behavior) of not only those in the media but of those--like you, and your condescending brethren--who have been that ugly media's enthusiastic enablers.

    This endless recrimination cycle is driving me insane.  

    The solution to that is simple: go away.

    If there's one thing I'd be glad to get over, it's you and your interminable and ignorant hectoring.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#79)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    Talk about the other like it doesn't exist or people discount it.  That was my point.  I am SO tired of others doing that here.  

    I have no problem talking about sexism.  Lets be at it.  Buy my respone was not to that discussion, but to a statement about one being never objected to.

    Parent

    Good, then let's stay on topic. Thanks. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    Sam, tell me how you felt when you were (none / 0) (#129)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    repeatedly told that Hillary's supporters were mostly women over 65?   Did you dismiss them as old hags, not important to the "new government" of fresh new ideas?  The over 65 group was solidly in Hillary's camp, but Obama began losing women quite dramatically at 40 years of age. However,focusing on the old women (who are  reviled in this society) was part of the sexism meme practiced by the O camp.

    Parent
    I didn't see that (none / 0) (#138)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    My mom was a Hillary supporter (fit the demographic perfectly: White, Female Neurosurgeron, 50ish (going on 35 :), passed over by men, etc.).  She supported Hillary because she was a woman and felt her pain, and liked her policies and I supported Obama because he was black, felt his pain and liked his policies.   I did't see the hag stereotype, because I always thought the major demographic for her was my mom 40-55.  I just assumed that many white people over 60-65 regardless of sex would not be okay with a black president (NOTE- I don't think of this as racist- I not sure why, I just don't).

    Parent
    Having a black president was not a problem (none / 0) (#141)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    for me. I grew up in CA and HI. I think women over 40-45 had enough personal history to understand what a woman president would do for the world of women. See my comment on the Asian news story. But if you ever join a men only (mostly young men) and listen to the ageism and understand the attitude about older women you will see what I saw. Your situation is unique because you have a high achieving mom. By the way, I have always been in the trenches for the black community and have a couple of bi-racial second cousins.

    Parent
    I've heard plenty (none / 0) (#49)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    of people citicizing people for speaking out against racism.  Maybe you should say many in the media will not criticize someone for speaking out against racism.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    that's exactly what I meant.  Those criticizing people for speaking out against racism are not welcome in the MSM or in the mainstream of whats considered acceptable discourse.

    Criticizing people for speaking out against sexism is welcome and accepted into the mainstream.

    Parent

    Even by women like Cammy Brown! (none / 0) (#130)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    I'm being selfish (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:29:40 AM EST
    but I don't want her to speak too much about this subject.  I want her to run for POTUS again.  

    She has every right to do it though and she can bring attention to the problem like no one else.

    I don't understand why she can't do both (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    If the misogyny is not addressed, her future runs for POTUS will have the same type of media coverage.

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    but during the campaign it would have weakened her to call it out while it was happening.  I admired how she ignored it and fought harder.  I am not saying it is right or at all fair but if she wants to be POTUS that fight has to be led by someone else.  Maybe I am too cynical.  I hope I am wrong.

    Parent
    I see what you mean now (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    Yes, she would have been slammed for it during the campaign - unfairly, but slammed nonetheless. I think she can lead the fight against it now though, and pave the way for a future run.

    I think she underestimated the sexism in the media and even the Dem party before, and didn't realize a feminist message would still have such resonance.

    Parent

    I think we ALL (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by abfabdem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    underestimated the amount of sexism in the Democratic Party!  I will never get over it.  We were supposed to be better than that, but we turned out to be as ugly as the Republicans.  Such a message of hope and unity that is!!  What a sham and a what a shame.

    Parent
    I am now happily an independent for (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    the reasons you cite.  My party left me.  They weren't the good guys after all.  The FISA vote adds insult to injury.

    Parent
    I don't think she's (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    planning on running for POTUS again.  I think she's hoping that Obama wins 2 terms.  By then she'll be TOO. OLD.

    Parent
    Well.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    she'd be younger than McCain is now!

    Guess you didn't get the memo:  70 is the new 50.

    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#60)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    when you're female.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    Female.
    68.
    A Clinton.

    Might as well not bother.

    Parent

    Don't be so sure. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    Women are always underestimated...or haven't you heard?

    And the older we get, the more we are underestimated...as you, if you're lucky, will discover one day.

    The thing is...we have money and we have votes...we have LOTS of money and LOTS of votes.  It is a mistake to make women angry...especially we cranky older ones with long memories and Irish ancestors.  We identify with the underdog almost every time and we vote...early and often.

    Parent

    Good luck with that (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    notion!

    BTW:  I went to WSU, graduated in 85 with a Political Science degree.

    Parent

    Ah... (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    a young cougar! (5-6 years younger than my son, anyway, which makes you young to me).

    So, Theresa..."inSnow2" refers to what, then?  You're now in the Himalayas?  Maine?  

    Mt. Rainier?  (Mt. Tahoma)?

    Parent

    excellent! (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM EST
    I hope this leads to an ongoing dialog over this issue. I think the only way to move the MSM away from all the women hate they clearly have is through shame. Well, mostly shame from viewers to force change through the all mighty dollar. Embarrassment works somewhat as we saw when SNL gave them a small glimpse of what they were doing. So getting this out in the open and discussed is the way to go.

    The down side of course is that sexism is so pervasive and accepted in society, it will be hard to have a constructive dialog. But I think if anyone can get that started, it's Hillary.

    I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    If I can stand either MSM reaction to whatever she says.  Either they'll still be on the 'WHAT sexism?' train or now that the primaries are over they'll flip on a dime like Dean and be all smirking and self-congratulatory that they are addressing this important issue.

    Plus it just highlights what was the lowest point of this whole campaign for me.

    There is no one who could talk about sexism in the campaign with intelligence and credibility but Clinton.  But watching her can only make me mad that all the gloating, insipid perpetrators won anyway.

    Parent

    I hope she is very specific (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    in her usual thorough manner. She is so good at explaining things.  I am looking forward to her presentation. The comments she made to John Heileman were spot-on. (See BTD's post to the Heileman article earlier this week)

    I suspect there will be a movement... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by sander60tx on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Both NOW and Emily's list have petitions regarding sexism and the media.  I'm glad that Hillary will speak out about it more.  I think we must create an uproar equal to that surrounding racist remarks every time sexist remarks occur in the media.  It occurred only a few times in the campaign, but it should happen every single time, until the media feels the pain enough to stop it.

    NOW Media Hall of Shame (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Nike on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    Viewing their clips all at once is really yucky. Not a lot of good faith msm people out there.

    I would like to see a blog roll Hall of Shame, since the internet offenders have been much worse.

    Remember the Samantha Powers response: things like that "she's a monster" were put out there and then retracted in a way that was clearly deliberate insofar as the slur allowed thousands of O supporters to come and say, yeah, well she is one....


    Parent

    This would be fun. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    Google on
    Hillary
    +
    "she deserved it"

    and see which blogs show up.

    That is stereotypical abuser-speak.  "Well, yeah.  What I did wasn't good - but she deserved it.".

    Parent

    "It occurred only a few times"?! (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    Uh, more than 100 times.  There are blogs that were counting the media crap.

    Of course, I also wish she would say something about the coded crap that Obama said, but that won't come from Clinton.  So I will make it my mission to never forget -- and to keep reminding others who think he is a "progressive" on women's issues.

    Parent

    I think you missed more than a few (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    Fortunately you can catch up by reading Melisa McEwan's series at Shakesville beginning with the latest, Hillary Sexism Watch Part 107: Just a Pair of Titz Edition.  There are probably more but this should get you started so you can be more fully abreast (pun intended) of the times sexism occurred.  

    Parent
    After a 15 year hiatus from (none / 0) (#133)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    NOW, I just joined again.  I am going to join Emily's list also.  We need more women in politics not less.  Unfortunately the number of women in political life is going down.  The kind of money that Obama raises sends a chill through women considering campaigning.

    Parent
    Wouldn't it be great (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    if we as the people could file a class action lawsuit against the MSM for interfering with the election, for bias and misogyny, for...

    war crimes and misdemeanors (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by ClareAK on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
      I don't see how it will be anything but trivialized by the MSM as well as by all those progressive cheerleaders who hated Hillary so much they chose not to see anything wrong with misogyny as long as it was directed at HER.
      As for those people who have spoken up about it? Sour grapes...'menopausal malcontents' was a descriptor I read in comments somewhere.
      The Clinton-hatred  was so interwoven with the Obama-love that it is hard for some people to sort it out.  Progressives decry sexism and misogyny so therefore what they engaged in CAN'T be sexism and misogyny because they are Progressives and they don't do that.   What's that phrase  about some behaviors - it's ok if you support Obama.
      Clinton  does not strike me as a person who will be content with having a bone tossed her way. She doesn't seem like the kind of person who will be "grateful" for the opportunity to talk about this, and "gracious' enough to not get too hard-hitting.
      I miss that strong voice.  I want to hear it again.
      I read today that it was a big deal that the UN passed a resolution calling the use of rape by armies a "war crime"... This was news? this was not previously seen as a war crime? I realized how far there is to go.
     

    Campaigning fo Obama (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:58:53 AM EST
    I am a cynic... she's is addressing the issue because it's important but also being a good Democrat and healing the party.  The comments on the Sargent piece are interesting... Clinton needs to let it go.  har!  

    Clinton will be campaigning with Obama next week.  

    [Obama's campaign disclosed the joint appearance.... after announcing that he would .....reject some $85 million in public financing..... That announcement opened him up to a flood of criticism and dominated the news cycle.

    Thus, Obama's campaign sought to redirect attention by putting word out a full seven days in advance that Obama and Clinton would campaign together.]

    For me, the tone of the campaign has not changed.  Using Clinton is the same way Obama has used people throughout the campaign and the media goes along with it.  I would imagine BTD likes the way the media plays along, but I am tired of it.  Still, just me...I also don't like how Clinton goes along with this.  It's manipulative.


    I can't bring myselft to read (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    those comments.  They are what drove me away from TPM, and I was a faithfull reader there for years. I see they still don't get it.  

    It is manipulative.  I expect that from politicians, but it seems like it used to be less obvious.


    Parent

    Well, thank goodness for that (5.00 / 12) (#30)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    because Stabenow, McCaskill and Boxer sure as hell will not.  When asked about the misogny Hill faced on Morning Joe, they broke into the usual "both Obama and Hillary faced prejudices and over came them".  Now I sort of think Obama was the golden child of the media and they found racism where none existed, but that is neither here nor there.  There is zero reason to embark on a tit for tat rather than own up to the fact that Hillary faced unabashed misogny and it was wrong.  Why can't these women recognize that?  I really have to wonder.  Ignoring it is so bad for all women everywhere.

    By the McCaskill made a special point to say her daughter had convinced her to do what was "right" rather than what was "safe", and endorse Obama, because we all know it was safe but wrong to endorse Hillary.  LOL.  Graceless winners.

    Gag me (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    Even Boxer went along with that?


    Parent
    Oh, no -- not Boxer, too (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    I agree with you; I hoped for better from her.  Well, then, one less Dem on the list to admire.

    The list is down to almost no one now.  Good thing I'm no longer a Dem.

    Parent

    On another list (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    they're calling this the "lady senator's anti-sexism luncheon club" -- where they have their tea sandwiches with the CRUST ON.  I agree with their take.

    That the senators didn't form such a club when it mattered for an election shows just how effective and "powerful" such a club is.

    What a joke.

    Parent

    Yup. Well, you see, teenagers (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    can see it is safe but wrong to endorse Hillary.  Actually, I think this is totally inline with the narcassism generation(note, not every young person fits into that category).  I read somewhere that when my generation(I'm 35) was asked how many thought they were above average, 30% said they were.  This generation, 70% said they were.  Heh.  And, with parents like these, one can see why.  Actually, lots of Obama's sd's sited their children's preference as the reason they endorsed.  One even relied on the wisdom of his seven year old.

    Parent
    Great, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Sunshine on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    I hope she talks about it freely, this is not about Obama, it's about women... It was Obama supporters that said some of the most crude remarks that I have ever heard, it was not Obama....  
    It also should be talked about by women, men do not understand and during the primary the only people that were commenting about it was men, women that have worked their way up in politics or journalism have done so by being one of the guys and one talk about sexism or misogyny and you're not one of the guys any more....
    Women need to take their lumps and talk about misogyny in public and forget about being called a whinner...

    This is good news (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    The treatment of Clinton by the media - mainstream and left wing - was one of the most disgraceful episodes I have witnessed.

    The fact that these media and bloggers are in such denial that they were part of it - "who -us?" - makes a statement by Senator Clinton all the more important.

    It will take courage on her part. She will be condemned for it.
    Maureen Dowd has already written her column about it, I'm sure.

    And if the Obama campaign could own up to at least their passive complicity in it, it would go a long way to making his candidacy more palatable.

    Will never happen (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:13:05 AM EST
    this part

    "And if the Obama campaign could own up to at least their passive complicity in it, it would go a long way to making his candidacy more palatable. "


    Parent

    Yeh, "periodically," Obama could use (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    declawing, but it's not gonna happen.  I think he really thinks she's sh*t on his shoe.  

    But I have saved all of those videos, all of those comments, for my women's history class next spring -- after the election is over, so I can safely talk about it in a classroom without getting called up and called out myself for, y'know, whining. . . .

    Parent

    Invite me! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    We need to open up (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Sunshine on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    Women are trained to keep their mouths shut about this, it's not only Hillary that should talk about it, it's the other women out there who have the ability to be heard that should also speak out...  We should all speak out or this will never stop...

    Yep, my Congresswoman (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    gets no more money from me, no vote from me again.  She was a fiery speaker on this when in the state legislature, but she backed Obama -- so nary a word about the treatment of Clinton and women from her.

    If I could withhold a vote from every woman in Congress, as none spoke about it, I would.

    Parent

    Wasn't her treatment self-evident? (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Exeter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    Why does she have to be the one that says the coverage was at best sexist and at worst mysogynist?  Now the headline will be "Hillary claims sexism and mysogyny," when it should be "Sexism and Mysogyny marred candidacy of first serious female presidential candidate."  It's a distinction with a very important difference.

    I want to see 100 women (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    in Congress and in politics generally standing with Clinton -- as the dozens of generals did, bless them.  I agree that she should not have to stand there alone to let the media make this all about Hillary.  Their comments were about all of us.

    Parent
    It will be hilarious to look back in 20 years (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Exeter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    at the coverage of Hillary in this race.

    Parent
    I'll tell you who will stand with Clinton, (none / 0) (#136)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Sheila Jackson.  And maybe even Maxine Waters.  

    Parent
    As usual.... (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST
    calling her "Hillary" repeatedly, belittling her verbally. if Sargent repeatedly referred to Sen. Obama as "Barack" without other reference I can hear the howling that would ensue.

    thanks BTD, for referring to her as "Sen. Clinton"
    which is her title, and she is entitled to its use.

    Thank Goodness (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by nell on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:35:49 AM EST
    I miss hearing Hillary's perspective every single day. The disgusting sexism that was launched at Hillary and at all women during this primary season filled me with a rage I never even knew I was capable of on a daily basis. The way she was treated - the way all women were treated - during this campaign is simply shameful. And while I am guessing she will limit her comments to the media, I must say that I hold the DNC equally responsible.

    The DNC could have stopped this at any point - had they spoken up and threatened to boycott MSNBC, in the same way Democrats began a sort-of boycott of Fox, I am positive MSNBC would have changed their coverage really quick and CNN would NEVER have let it get to the level it did on their network. Dean could have said the DNC would withold all interviews with MSNBC until their behavior changed, and I promise they would have changed. But neither he nor any of the other spineless Democrats said a word. For that, I will never forgive, and I will never forget. My eyes are opened. Without respect for women (and for all people) as true equals, none of the other good deeds Dems do will mean a thing to me.

    Because MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    helped the DNC get what they wanted.  Why would the DNC stop it, if it's helping them?

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by nell on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    even more sickening. They weren't just so spineless that they didn't speak out, they were glad that it happened becuase it helped influence the election in the direction of their chosen one.

    Like I said, never forgive, never forget - even if I am the lone woman marching and screaming until this November and beyond to make sure the DNC is held accountable for their despicable lack of leadership and to ensure that no woman who dares to run for office is treated this way again.

    Parent

    Yesterday on race to the whitehouse (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    the panel discussed this. They all asked " well why is she doing this to Barack's campaign?" Rachel Maddow (for once) spoke up and said that it probably has nothing to do with the election. Of course the men hooted and said "Well why now? Of course it's about the election". Rachel rightly pointed out that if she waited until after the  election, no one would be listing. Good on ya Rachel. Nice to see you back, if only for a moment.

    Rachel Maddow would be (none / 0) (#137)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    a good replacement for Tim Russert.

    Parent
    Reeks Double Standard 1, 2, 3.... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    Double Standard#1
    Since Obama has come out telling Republicans not to smear his wife, it will be telling to watch how he handles Clinton's discussion of sexism going forward. If he had said something when he was still running against her he'd have some basis for excluded himself from the group who allows misogony, but he doesnt' and neither does Edwards.  

    Double Standard #2
    One media example: Roland Martin had something to say about "white men" being the problem in regard to sexist comments about Michelle Obama. Does anyone recall Martin ever speaking up for Clinton in that regard?

    Double Standard#3

    While the Speaker of the House was telling us there would be no joint ticket, she said nothing  about the treatment Hillary was getting. The Speaker, as a woman, other Democractic senators and representatives are not speaking out? Why, because it's all about winning in November?

    This is more offensive and worrisome than any swiftboating Republicans ever did.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    Lives on and on....

    Read the comments posted below the TPM article.

    "how dare she do this...why is she whining and playing victim again...AND MY FAVORITE...she should just be talkling about OBAMA not herself" (because of course everything is about Obama)

    It's so funny (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    because it shows how really limited their thinking is.

    Obama, the blogs, the DNC and the MSM (not nec in that order) have driven long-standing Democrats away from the party because of the rampant sexism in this campaign.

    Hillary is the only one without blood on her hands, and the only one who can persuade any of them to come back.  This is a talk that has to be made, and has to be made by her, if their Precious doesn't want to lose their votes, and the DNC doesn't want to permanently lose those longstanding Democrats.

    Disclaimer:  I'm looking forward to seeing her speak, but they lost me back in March and then compounded my disgust since then, so it won't work on me.  But I'm sure others may be persuaded.

    Parent

    Hillary will be campaigning with Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    next week.  She is a good Democrat and soldier.  

    Parent
    I hope she kicks @ss and names names (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    I have freaking HAD IT. I did not think it was possible to be even more angry and disillusioned about the rampant sexism than I was during the primary, but The Hillary Treatment just continues on unabashed and even gains steam in some quarters. Nothing has changed - the issue is brought up, and commenters on the blogs deny it happened, ridicule it, or silence the issue by deflecting the talk to racism or something else, including commenters here, all the time. They simply cannot stand to admit the reality of what happened. It is nothing more than the unwillingness to give up the standard old male privilege of keeping the right to bash women, left and right. It's never going to stop, is it?

    She's got nothing to lose now. They will never stop being hateful to her, they never have. The only difference now is men on the left are doing the same thing men on the right did to her. So I really hope she let's them all have it - the MSM, the lefty blogs, the DNC, all of them.

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#82)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:31:01 AM EST
    in the New Yorker:

    "Competitions among grievances do not ennoble, and both Clinton and Obama strove to avoid one; but it does not belittle the oppressions of gender to suggest that in America the oppressions of race have cut deeper. Clinton's supporters would sometimes note that the Constitution did not extend the vote to women until a half century after it extended it to men of color. But there is no gender equivalent of the nightmare of disenfranchisement, lynching, apartheid, and peonage that followed Reconstruction, to say nothing of "the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil" that preceded it. Nor has any feminist leader shared the fate of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. Clinton spoke on Saturday of "women in their eighties and nineties, born before women could vote." But Barack Obama is only in his forties, and he was born before the Voting Rights Act redeemed the broken promise of the Fifteenth Amendment."

    Here we go again. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    Patriarchy is incomparable to racism.  Two different orbs.  There is no doubt that Hillary faced unabashed sexism at the hands of the media and others, and there is doubt that hurts every woman everywhere.

    Parent
    "Patriarchy is incomparable to racism." (none / 0) (#85)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:42:26 AM EST
    Agreed

    Parent
    Right, and I hope you agree (none / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    one is not more ok than the other.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#90)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    or other forms of discrimination for that matter

    Parent
    Two seperate orbs (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    Eh?

    And if they're united by similar underlying assumptions about pecking order dominance and submission and prejudices concerning "roles" within that pecking order, that's somehow irrelevant?

    To me the real seperate orbs are the ones occupied by those who insist on seperate orbs and those who look for the connections.

    Parent

    "There is no gender equivalent"? (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    More evidence as to why I may discontinue my New Yorker subscription -- after many decades.

    That is just a stupid, uneducated statement.  For one thing, let's think about the fact that the majority of African Americans were women, also disenfranchised by the 15th Amendment.  And the incidence of rape in slavery, as well as afterward, was rather a nightmare for them -- as it and domestic violence and many other crimes against women remain so for many women of any race.

    As for no feminist leader sharing the fate of assassination, it is defined as murder of a leader -- so it is a somewhat circular statement, isn't it?  But black women were lynched, too -- after the same 250 years as bondswomen in peonage and unrequited toil, etc.

    It drives me nuts that statements about African Americans are almost always made as if all were men.

    And the New Yorker does not know the name of Inez Mulholland, who died for the suffrage cause?  The names of Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, Doris Stevens, and many others imprisoned and tortured by our government for the suffrage cause?  

    I won't even go near the last sentence. . . .

    Parent

    There is this (none / 0) (#89)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    "Clinton was right to say that from now on it will be "unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States"--and that, in large measure, is her doing. But the Speaker of the House is a woman; and there are, at the moment, sixteen women in the Senate and eight in the nation's governors' offices, the pools from which Presidential candidates are usually drawn. There are two African-American governors, only one of whom was elected to that office. There is one African-American senator--and seven months from now that one may have a different job."

    Parent
    Could we please (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    have one, a single solitary discussion about the rampant sexism in this campaign without bringing the competition with racism into it?

    Just one.  As a matter of fact, I dare you, to just not talk about racism for just one thread.  If you can't bring yourself to discuss sexism because of whatever reason -- you don't think it exists, you agree with Castellanos that some women are just b*tches, whatever -- just one time, leave it alone.  Beyond anything else, it is a mark of poor argumentation to constantly hijack the conversation and deflect deflect deflect.

    The thread is not about Hillary's speech on racism.  It is about her talk on sexism in the campaign.

    If anyone wants to talk about how 'divide and conquer' has worked against oppressed groups, or how by looking to commonalities among kinds of oppression can be used to combat oppression, I'm totally game.  But in another frakkin' thread, please.

    Parent

    You've got a deal (none / 0) (#95)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    so long as threads about FISA, McCain's failures, or the weather are not converted into bash Obama forums

    Parent
    Inapt comparison (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    However, I do promise that if Obama drops out of the race, I will never question his ability to lead on the Democratic political issues of the day ever again.

    Cross my heart and hope to die.

    Parent

    And there you have it (none / 0) (#100)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    Let's continue as we were

    Parent
    As you were (none / 0) (#101)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    "Some people interpreted this to imply that it was her gender that denied her the prize. Only she knows whether she meant it that way, or whether that's what she believes. In such a close race, of course, almost any factor can be viewed as decisive. But it's hard to find anyone who will dispute that if she had not voted to authorize the Iraq war, or if her delegate-hunting strategy had been as astute as her principal opponent's, or if that opponent had been a slightly more ordinary politician, or, perhaps, if her campaign messages had been more coherent and less negative, then she would have breezed to the nomination and made history all by herself."

    Parent
    Very apt comparison (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    but we'd just sink into swoon and waste away if we ever practised any evenhanded self criticism around here, wouldnt we?

    Venting and thunderous indignation are the order of the day.

    Parent

    I hope we will (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    see a higher percentage of African American and women in elected positions soon.  

    One point that I might take issue with in your comparison between the numbers of each group holding elected office is the percentage of the entire population that each group comprises.  Women make up a much larger percentage of the population than African Americans so that should be considered when looking at representation for an apples to apples comparison.  And there will be some overlap with African American women too.    

    Parent

    Very good point (none / 0) (#98)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    and for the record, they aren't "my numbers."

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#106)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    I didn't have any quibble with the numbers, just that we also need to consider the percentages by which each group is represented too.  Obviously, neither have the number they should by their respective percentage of the population.  

    Parent
    Yeah, riddlerandy (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    I think we get by now that you can't stand the speaking out against sexism.

    Parent
    Yep, I guess human bondage and beatings (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    and humiliations, murder, rape and torture to women and their children, simply don't exist or they don't count.  What has been done to women in the name of marriage is simply too difficult a task for even the New Yorker to examine.

    Parent