. . . I think it is not an unreasonable claim to state that many people who found themselves to be die-hard Clinton supporters identified personally with Clinton. For many of the feminists and older women who made up Hillary’s unwavering core of support, a rejection of Hillary was a rejection of themselves- they saw Hillary being subjected to the kind of abuse that they themselves have suffered, they identified with the concept of the glass ceiling and identified with much of the real and perceived sexism. . . . [T]hey saw things that I simply would not see, because of who they are and what they personally have experienced. In short, when Hillary lost, or they listened to some jackass on CNN debate whether it was appropriate to call Hillary a bitch, it was a personal loss or as if they had personally been called a bitch.
For Obama, many of the supporters identify with a movement, a need for something different, a need for change, and a sense of community. The Obama campaign recognized this difference, and masterfully used social networking to build a vibrant community. When Clinton made her fateful “white people” or “RFK assassination” remarks, it was an outright breach of community and societal norms . . . which would help to explain why Obama supporters recoiled in horror at the remarks. When Republicans tried the hackneyed old “appeaser” nonsense, it was like the folks in the community who opposed the war in 2003 and beyond were being called traitors or in league with the terrorists again. When Hillary seized upon the “bitter” remarks for political advantage, it was as if the entire community was under assault for being “elitist.”
(Emphasis supplied.) It is funny to see the double standard expressed so clearly. Whatever it was that Clinton supporters objected to was due to their "personal identification," not a reasonable view of the events. Whatever it was that Obama supporters objected to was due to an "outright breach of community and societal norms."
Whenever Clinton exploited an Obama gaffe for political gain, an "entire community was under assault." Of course in this worldview, Obama NEVER exploited anything said by Clinton in an unseemly way. The funny thing is Cole really believes this. He became a true believer. My own view is that these were two politicians, doing what pols do. None was better than the other in their behavior.
But that is off the beaten path to my point - which is the confirmation of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny. I do like one thing John inadvertently admits, that the shocking sexism and misogyny that was displayed by the Media and others, including bloggers, did NOT constitute "outright breach of community and societal norms." John cites one of Melissa McEwan's many examples of sexism and misogyny she posted (she was the unofficial keeper of the sexism and misogyny roundup this campaign season) and, as he admits - he did not see a pattern of behavior there that "breach[ed] community and societal norms."
This to me is the very essence of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny. That what McEwan documents is NOT considered a "breach of community and societal norms." Cole unwittingly makes my point on this subject.
Speaking for me only
Comments closed
