• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

Let me file that under fuck it.

Second rate reporter says what?

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When the time comes to make an endorsement, the pain of NYT editors will be palpable as they reluctantly whisper “Biden.”

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Maybe you would prefer that we take Joelle’s side in ALL CAPS?

Republicans do not pay their debts.

An unpunished coup is a training exercise.

The revolution will be supervised.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / More Idiocy From the Clinton Campaign

More Idiocy From the Clinton Campaign

by John Cole|  April 18, 200810:21 am| 252 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Via TPM, Hillary:

We were both asked some pretty tough questions. That’s part of what happens in a debate and a campaign. And I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked.

But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. And in fact when the going gets tough you can’t just walk away…

I think we need a president who can take whatever comes your way.

I willingly concede that should we have a national crisis in which the President is faced with the threat of hundreds of reporters questioning his/her use of lapel pins, then Hillary is who I want to confront that problem.

For every other crisis, I choose Obama. Hillary is turning into a Saturday Night Live routine.

By the way, does some enterprising reader with video editing skills want to go through all of the Clinton campaign whining about the media and splice it all together in one montage. I would recommend starting with the kvetch about being asked questions first in the debate and go from there. Have fun.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Get Involved
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

252Comments

  1. 1.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 10:26 am

    She is the piece of crap candidate who only a month ago was whining that she always got the first question in the debates.

    “Well,” she responded, her voice rising, “could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”

  2. 2.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

    I already commented on this in the other thread, but it bears repeating. What a dishonest, dishonest, shameless person Hillary Clinton is.

    Obama wasn’t complaining about the questions being tough. He was rightly pointing out that the questions were stupid.

    He likely wishes that there had been some intelligent, tough questions. I know he certainly wouldn’t be alone in that.

  3. 3.

    Grand Moff Texan

    April 18, 2008 at 10:40 am

    We were both asked some pretty tough questions.

    No, you were asked some stupid questions, which is why you were in your element. Even the audience booed the moderators. If that’s what you like, it’s no wonder you’re losing.

    And I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked.

    You can’t show me one inch of film where Obama complained. Not one. Obama, and the rest of the universe outside of FOX News and the Hillary campaign, is making fun of those idiots.

    Geeze, what a Republican.
    .

  4. 4.

    chopper

    April 18, 2008 at 10:46 am

    yeah! “do you believe in the american flag” is a tough, tough question.

    got to go sit in the audience of the daily show yesterday. i was so excited b/c i knew stewart was going to go off on the debate. wasn’t disappointed.

  5. 5.

    charlotte

    April 18, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Hillary Rodham Clinton = Lucy Van Pelt

  6. 6.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 10:54 am

    ThymeZone Says:

    She is the piece of crap candidate who only a month ago was whining that she always got the first question in the debates.

    “Well,” she responded, her voice rising, “could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”

    What amazes me about the Clinton people is that — from Day One — they consistently play a cynical “Opposites Day” game in which they deliberately lie about their campaign’s tactics and then expect the media and their supporters to just blindly suck it up.

    To be blunt, they remind me of the same crap you heard from Cheney when he would go on a news show and snarl stuff like, “We never said we expected to find WMDs in Iraq.”

    I am also getting tired of Hillary continued pretense that she was either the shadow-president, co-president or Apprentice-in-Chief:

    But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. And in fact when the going gets tough you can’t just walk away…

    Obama hasn’t touched this, perhaps reluctant to risk the ire of Clinton maenads who are convinced that since Hillary is Bill’s wife/soulmate/love muffin/ball and chain she is his rightful heir … uh, inevitable, once and future successor.

    And her “just can’t walk away stuff” may be more a subliminal, accidental reference to Lewinsky than to anything having to do with White House presidential experience.

  7. 7.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    April 18, 2008 at 11:00 am

    You guys just hate powerful women:

    In all seriousness, though, if Hillary wants to show how she does against tough questions, I wish some reporter would ask her how she calls being on the Wal-Mart board or First Lady “a lifetime of public service” or inquire if she regrets her vote to attack Iraq now that millions of Iraqis are dead or displaced, and Iraqi girls who have fled to other countries but can’t find jobs have been forced into prostitution. Or something along those lines.

  8. 8.

    Bob In Pacifica

    April 18, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Anyone else read up about the flag pin lady? Apparently, before ABC chose her she’d been interviewed by the New York Times. She’s had a tough life with her husband being disabled. She should be asking about healthcare, disability, welfare, unwise spending of federal funds for unnecessary wars instead of the welfare of the citizenry. So why is this woman so tightly focused on why the black man doesn’t have a flag pin?

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 11:08 am

    In all seriousness, though, if Hillary wants to show how she does against tough questions, I wish some reporter would ask her how she calls being on the Wal-Mart board or First Lady “a lifetime of public service” or inquire if she regrets her vote to attack Iraq now that millions of Iraqis are dead or displaced, and Iraqi girls who have fled to other countries but can’t find jobs have been forced into prostitution. Or something along those lines.

    Such questions would be the height of misogyny.

    I’m so god damn tired of this bullshit. There was a day and age when Republicans and Democrats would get up and lie to us about taxes and war and government spending and poverty levels and tort reform. Now they don’t even have the decency to get up and lie about shit I care about.

    Wasn’t Hillary running on the “Universal Health Care” Platform? What the hell happened to that? UHC was half the god-damn reason I even liked her to begin with. I haven’t heard to fucking words about her health care plan, much less her new-and-improved Iraq position or her budget proposal for 2009 or even her opinion on the state of the economy since Super Fucking Tuesday.

    She was supposed to be the all-substance, no-style candidate. The wonkish technocratic policy expert. She was supposed to play M to Barack Obama’s James Bond. Now? I’d have a hard time trusting her as city dog catcher given that I don’t even know what platform she is running on anymore, unless “I can beat McCain for real this time” is a policy platform.

  10. 10.

    mellowjohn

    April 18, 2008 at 11:19 am

    “What amazes me about the Clinton people is that—from Day One—they consistently play a cynical “Opposites Day” game in which they deliberately lie about their campaign’s tactics and then expect the media and their supporters to just blindly suck it up.”

    well, it worked for the bushistas.

    btw, will someone explain to my how anybody wearing a flag pin will make the flag pin lady’s life any better!

  11. 11.

    PaulB

    April 18, 2008 at 11:20 am

    But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House

    This part, at least, is quite true. What we saw on stage the other night is absolutely nothing like the pressures in the White House, which means that, even if you buy into her claims about Obama, it’s quite meaningless.

  12. 12.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

    And in fact when the going gets tough you can’t just walk away…

    Or you can cry. Or lie. Whatever works for you, Hil.

  13. 13.

    Arguing with signposts

    April 18, 2008 at 11:30 am

    Hillary Clinton was asked *1* hard question in the parade of B.S. that was the first 45 minutes:

    MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, we also did a poll today, and there are also questions about you raised in this poll. About six in 10 voters that we talked to say they don’t believe you’re honest and trustworthy. And we also asked a lot of Pennsylvania voters for questions they had. A lot of them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.

    Here’s Tom Rooney from Pittsburgh.

    Q Senator, I was in your court until a couple of weeks ago. How do you reconcile the campaign of credibility that you have when you’ve made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?

    That’s compared with at least seven questions for Obama re: bittergate, rev. wright, the flag lapel pin and william Ayers.

  14. 14.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Notorious P.A.T. Says:

    You guys just hate powerful women…

    It is odd, but somehow typical, that the Rebecca Traister piece in Salon falls into the standard victimization riff with its image of countless young white men seeking to bully helpless white women into supporting Obama. Strangely, none of these supposedly strong, feminist women are capable of having a conversation with a man about politics, or convincing them to support Hillary. Stranger still, some of these women are Obama supporters, but resent it when men seek to reinforce the Obama love.

    This kind of thing is nutty enough by itself. But then she veers entirely off the road into a weird racially tinged terrain with this bit:

    And even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots.

    I can just imagine the right wing nutcases now. Obama: Too Funky for America.

  15. 15.

    Rick Taylor

    April 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

    I remember when she said of New Hampshire, “I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice.” I really did find that moving, and I’m sure there is an engaging intelligent human being underneath there, the one policy makers see when they sit down with her, but it sure has been drowned. The political calculation is so obvious, it’s impossible to take her seriously when she talks like this.

  16. 16.

    MDee

    April 18, 2008 at 11:34 am

    I was thinking that if being President was a 24 hour debate then Clinton would be perfect for the job based entirely on policy wonkiness and 24/7 debates. She excels at those.

    However, that’s not how it works. Among a million other things:

    It requires hiring competent people (she’s proven disastrous on the score).

    It requires excellent management skills. (um, I don’t think I need to comment on this one. Oy.)

    It requires being able to change tactics and have a Plan B when Plan A isn’t working. See clusterfuck in Iraq and Clinton’s own primary campaign (“It will be over Feb 5th”) for examples.

    It requires not writing off half the country (those states don’t matter, Screw ’em) and instead engaging those who have grown bitter about their government using bait and switch tactics (Vote for us. Dems will take your guns away! Just ignore the fact your towns are dying and your jobs are being shipped overseas and gas is $4 a gallon while the oil companies bathe in money and the rich get richer while you stagnate.)

    It also requires, sad as this is to say, being likable. People will not vote for candidates they don’t like and/or trust. Kerry kicked Bush’s ass in the debates and what did that get him? All Reagan had to do was smile his grandfatherly smile and genially say “There you go again.”. I know I’m simplifying, but for some of the electorate it IS just that simple.

    This morning when asked what he should say when going out to canvass for Hillary, Clinton responded along the lines of “Oh, tell them I’m likable. Tell them I’m not as bad as I seem.”

    Sorry lady, you can’t have it both ways. Gleefully ripping into gutter politics one day and saying you’re just a really nice lady the is just how you seem. At the core: Two-faced. Liar.

    You enjoy the dirt. Any fool can see you are in your element when you’re dishing it. Those bright eyes, that slight smile that always seems on the verge of breaking out into a big ‘ol shit-eating grin when you think you or someone else has scored a kill shot. Hell, you barely concealed it before you went in for the “kill” with the Xerox comment.

    No Hillary, you are not really a nice lady. Nice ladies (or Christians, for that matter) do not derive pleasure in watching someone else being ripped apart by the same people who once ripped them apart. Cynical politicians hardened by Washington do that and they are not nice people either.

    You revel in gutter politics, it’s all you’ve ever known and hey, you’re good at it. But no one is going to buy, “I’m really nice.”, with the shit they see flying from your campaign. Your problem is that America is trying desperately to move on from those politics. Things are way too seriously fucked in this country for reveling in “the fun part”. That you don’t get that speaks volumes.

    There’s a reason your unfavorables hover in the high forties most of the time. You need to take some responsibility for that reason. Not everything in this world is a Republican/media plot against you. Sometimes you are your own worst enemy. Which is really saying something considering some of your enemies are the scum of the earth.

    Sorry for the rant. I needed to purge.

  17. 17.

    Dug Jay

    April 18, 2008 at 11:48 am

    More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data; he can’t even attract 70% of Democratic voters in a theoretical match up against John McCain. From today’s Rasmussen tracking poll:

    Just 68% of Democrats say they would vote for Obama against McCain. Twenty-three percent (23%) would vote for the Republican, 5% for a third-party option, and 4% are undecided. Clinton attracts 71% of Democrats. In that match-up, 21% would vote for McCain, 4% say they would vote for some other candidate, and another 4% are undecided. McCain attracts 85% of Republicans against Clinton, 82% against Obama, and leads both Democrats by double digits among unaffiliated voters.

  18. 18.

    ed

    April 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

    The vapidness of the Pennsylvania debate was captured completely in the flag lapel pin exercise. It was oh, so serious. Unfortunately, no one bothered to point out that neither candidate (or the moderators) was wearing a flag lapel pin, demonstrating it’s complete lack of relevance as an issue.

    If the Democrats come up with a woman candidate with Margaret Thatcher’s character (and useful policies), I’ll vote for her. Hillary is an unlikeable, mean spirited human being that cannot be trusted. That is why she can’t win.

  19. 19.

    NR

    April 18, 2008 at 11:54 am

    You realize that that poll shows Clinton doing worse against McCain than Obama does, right?

    Better trolls, please.

  20. 20.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 11:55 am

    More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data: he’s still polling ahead of Clinton. Obviously, he should concede.

  21. 21.

    Davebo

    April 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    A recent poll by the American Polling Consortium showed that, if the election were held today, most Americans would be confused as all get out.

  22. 22.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    April 18, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data; he can’t even attract 70% of Democratic voters in a theoretical match up against John McCain.

    I’m sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that someone–I can’t quite remember who–has been airing “red phone” ads implying Obama doesn’t have enough experience, has been going around telling people Obama is an elitist jerk, has been reminding people that Obama’s pastor hates America, etc etc etc.

  23. 23.

    jake

    April 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Shorter Hillary: “Stupid pointless questions are tough questions. In this time of crisis our country needs a leader so dim they are intimidated by stupid pointless events, and that person is me. My opponent on the other hand is such an elitist that he thinks stupid pointless questions are just stupid.”

    Jesus Bungejumping Christ. Someone wake up the guy with the hook.

  24. 24.

    Dug Jay

    April 18, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    NR: Better trolls, please.

    You do realize that the point of the post was to note that Obama couldn’t even attract 70 % of Democratic voters. In other words, Obama is a loser.

    Please. Smarter commenters needed.

  25. 25.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data

    Dug Jay – bad troll, or worst troll ever? I mean, p.luk and myiq have been using the same stale material for months, and they’re still better at this than you. Just give it up. Gumming people’s ankles with your toothless little jibes just makes you look pathetic.

  26. 26.

    John Cole

    April 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Someone want to go through and point out the states Huckabee won in which McCain could not break 50% of the vote even after he was the PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE?

    Jesus. The stupid, it burns.

  27. 27.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    April 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Ruh-roh – bad news for Dug Jay and MyIQ=-2:

    Ongoing Nomination Fight Hurting Clinton More Than Obama

    HRC supporters have “jumped the shark.”

    Clinton’s negative ratings are up to 54% – she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination.

  28. 28.

    wingnuts to iraq

    April 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Dug Jay, you realize that the difference in that number between Obama and Clinton is 3%, which is statisical noise.

    Clinton has the same “problem” too.

    Don’t worry, all Hillary’s social security collecting grandma dems will vote Obama.

  29. 29.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    Here

  30. 30.

    zzyzx

    April 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    You do realize that the point of the post was to note that Obama couldn’t even attract 70 % of Democratic voters. In other words, Obama is a loser.

    Obama polls 3 points worse than Clinton among Democrats in their respective head to heads vs McCain. However, Obama also manages to steal 3 points more from the Republicans than Clinton does. That pretty much breaks even.

  31. 31.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    What really jumped out at me, looking at that Salon piece, was the persistent reoccurence of the nasty cult meme; just check out the language used throughout the piece:

    fanatical support
    frantic fanaticism
    “I certainly have become far more of a fanatic”

    cultlike commitment

    “There is this Obama-mania, where these young men get glassy eyes and start spitting out vague things about how Barack Obama is going to save humanity. Really, have you seen their eyes? It’s this faraway look. It’s scary.”

    Obama-maniacs x 2
    Obama-mania x 2

    I have seen that look and wondered if, in the minds of some of his adherents

    “devotion to Obama”
    saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion
    falling earnestly in love with the senator from Illinois

    Obama worship
    “uncritical embrace”
    “idealistic longing”
    “a secular messiah who will bring us political salvation. There’s no sense of what is plausible.”
    “Obama was projected upon as the progressive redeemer. It’s a political fantasy.”
    “the intensity of that longing” x 2
    hissing fury
    the army of liberally minded Obama enthusiasts
    “expecting a lot more Obama craziness”
    if you’re not for him, you’d best be prepared to explain your deviation
    “There have been nasty, dirty things said about Obama -– insinuations about his religion and coded references about his race”

    And the terms:

    Fanatical: Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal; Holding especially political views that deviate drastically and fundamentally from conventional or traditional beliefs: extreme, extremist, fanatic, rabid, radical, revolutionary, ultra.

    Devotion: 1. Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle; 2. Religious ardor or zeal; piety.

    maniac: An insane person; Afflicted with or exhibiting irrationality and mental unsoundness: brainsick, crazy, daft, demented, disordered, distraught, dotty, insane, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mentally ill, moonstruck, off, touched, unbalanced, unsound, wrong. Informal bonkers, cracked, daffy, gaga, loony.

    mania: 1. An excessively intense enthusiasm, interest, or desire; a craze: a mania for neatness. 2. Psychiatry. A manifestation of bipolar disorder, characterized by profuse and rapidly changing ideas, exaggerated sexuality, gaiety, or irritability, and decreased sleep. 3. Violent abnormal behavior. See synonyms at insanity.

    cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

    That’s right, folks — they’re frantic fanatics, maniacs, unquestioning, devoted adherents, idealistic, uncritical, an earnest army worshipping a cult-like secular messiah.

    And don’t forget, “There have been nasty, dirty things said about Obama -– insinuations about his religion and coded references about his race”. No kidding?

    But whatever you do, just don’t look at Hillary Is 44, Talk Left, No Quarter, Rezko Watch…

  32. 32.

    jenniebee

    April 18, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Dug Jay isn’t in it for Hill vs Obama, guys – he’s got more of a Democrat vs. Any Republican Will Do mindset.

  33. 33.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    Here

    Wow, Sojourner. Obama should fire Chris Matthews, right away. Also, Clinton really should fire George Stephanopoulos.

  34. 34.

    John S.

    April 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Wow, Sojourner. Obama should fire Chris Matthews, right away.

    Wow, that’s some pretty weak concern trolling.

  35. 35.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data; he can’t even attract 70% of Democratic voters in a theoretical match up against John McCain. From today’s Rasmussen tracking poll:

    Did they do any matchups with McCain’s vice president pick?

    Because everybody knows that on a McCain ticket you ain’t voting for John, you’re voting for the VP.

  36. 36.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    John S.,

    What’s “weak” is letting “the bigots” decide your vote. I’m not voting against Hillary because she still brings up Jeremiah Wright, I’m voting for Obama because of his campaign.

  37. 37.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Obama should fire Chris Matthews, right away.

    Well this comment certainly speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

    LOL.

  38. 38.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    What’s “weak” is letting “the bigots” decide your vote. I’m not voting against Hillary because she still brings up Jeremiah Wright, I’m voting for Obama because of his campaign.

    Ah, yes. The lofty, always-rational Obama voter. Who absolutely is never swayed by emotions like “change” and “hope.” Who vote strictly on policy.

    Yeh, right.

  39. 39.

    Martin

    April 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    And that’s fair enough. I don’t think anyone has every denied that they are out there. Unfortunately they are now bookended by a comparable subgroup that asserts that every Obama supporter is sexist. Likewise there are the racists out there and their backstop of everything bad against Obama is racism.

    But the real question for the women is whether voting against Obama makes any sense at all. Nowhere in the Salon piece is there any accusation that Obama or his campaign said sexist things. I think the most damning evidence was ‘periodically’, which is quite a stretch, IMO. The salon piece is all a complaint against the media and others. Now, I understand that people may see that as having taken Clinton’s chance away here, but the alternative is to vote for Obama who seems to have no charge against him or vote for McCain who appears to have called his wife a ‘cunt’ in public on at least 2 occasions.

    I mean, is there any contest here? How sympathetic do we need to be to Clinton supporters that can’t figure this one out?

  40. 40.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots the inability of some idiots to tell the difference between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama is making it tough for some women those idiots to vote for Obama.

    Edited for accuracy.

  41. 41.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    oh boo-hoo. Obama’s supporters aren’t on the fucking ballot.

  42. 42.

    John Cole

    April 18, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Shrug. I remember distinctly that when I endorsed Obama, I wrote a number of reasons why I chose him and why I did not choose her. The fact that Hillary’s scummy tactics have only reinforced my decision to support him and confirmed what we would get with a Clinton Presidency are not my fault, and no amount of Sojourner’s dismissive bullshit is really going to sway me towards Hillary, either.

    When it really narrowed down to just a few candidates, I was leaning Clinton, as I never really cared for Edwards and thought Obama was a flash in the pan. She lost me, though. Not sure how insulting me is going to swing me back in her camp, but the real problem I have with her right now is that this is so futile. She is doing nothing but hurting the Democratic chances in the fall. There is no scenario for her winning the nomination without exploding the party.

    Her campaign’s descent into Rovian sleaze and SNL parody are also quite telling.

  43. 43.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    If the Democrats come up with a woman candidate with Margaret Thatcher’s character (and useful policies), I’ll vote for her.

    Uh, really?

    The woman’s major accomplishments were, in no particular order – wiping out Britain’s industrial base in order to destroy the Unions, nurturing the ‘Me-Me-Me and screw the rest’ culture of the ’80s, waging a jingoistic war to get re-elected, supporting the likes of Pinochet’s Chile, Saddam’s Iraq, and Apartheid South Africa, oh, and crippling the Labour Party to such a degree that it opened the way for a neo-conservative right-wing tosser like Blair to hijack the Party and continue Thatcher’s legacy.

    Seriously, that woman was a destructive force in this country and I wouldn’t wish anyone like her on anyone.

  44. 44.

    Davebo

    April 18, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Eye on the prize guys.

    Remember, McCain’s old lady is worth over a hundred million dollars and forced him to sign a prenup before she married him.

    If Cindy can’t trust John McCain, why should I?

  45. 45.

    Ivan Ivanovich Renko

    April 18, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    There was a day and age when Republicans and Democrats would get up and lie to us about taxes and war and government spending and poverty levels and tort reform. Now they don’t even have the decency to get up and lie about shit I care about.

    PotD, right there.

  46. 46.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Dug Jay isn’t in it for Hill vs Obama, guys – he’s got more of a Democrat vs. Any Republican Will Do mindset.

    Oh come now. Dug Jay is in it for the laughs. As spoofs go he’s consistently top-notch and deserves at least a Medal of Freedom for his sterling efforts.

  47. 47.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    no amount of Sojourner’s dismissive bullshit is really going to sway me towards Hillary, either.

    I’m not trying to sway you on anything. At the risk of getting TZ all fired up again, I remain dismayed that overt racism is immediately challenged and dismissed while overt sexism is met with a shrug.

    Just another indication of how backward this country is.

  48. 48.

    Calouste

    April 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    If the Democrats come up with a woman candidate with Margaret Thatcher’s character (and useful policies), I’ll vote for her. Like Hillary, Maggie Thatcher is an unlikeable, mean spirited human being that cannot be trusted. That is why she can’t win.

    Fixed.

    Btw, if you think double digit inflation is a useful policy, I have a bridge to sell.

  49. 49.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Ah, yes. The lofty, always-rational Obama voter. Who absolutely is never swayed by emotions like “change” and “hope.” Who vote strictly on policy.

    Actually, I hear it’s really a secret Muslim cult now, haven’t you heard?

    Seriously, nice job replying to “me” by instead painting a caricature of the “Obama voter”. You know what? I don’t know anyone who votes “strictly on policy”, and I had my doubts about Obama for a long time, but I settled on him after doing my homework on, you know, the candidate, not from listening to Chris freaking Matthews.

    Incidentally, it isn’t news and it isn’t new that Chris Matthews has some bizarre relationship with / grudge against the Clintons, and Hillary in particular. Someone mentioned it to me back in 2005, although I think I was clueless then because I hadn’t seen much of Matthews on TV. I had definitely noticed it for myself by 2006. I’ve seen some speculate that it’s because he didn’t get the press secretary job in the Clinton White House, but who knows why, really. However, I do know that it has nothing to do with the Obama campaign.

  50. 50.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    At the risk of getting TZ all fired up again, I remain dismayed that overt racism is immediately challenged and dismissed while overt sexism is met with a shrug.

    Uh, didn’t you just link to an article by Eric Boehlert where sexism was called out and challenged? Are you some kind of spoof or just really oblivious?

  51. 51.

    John Cole

    April 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    At the risk of getting TZ all fired up again, I remain dismayed that overt racism is immediately challenged and dismissed while overt sexism is met with a shrug.

    Just another indication of how backward this country is.

    I think part of the problem you are seeing is that you are conflating a lot of legitimate disgust for Hillary with sexism. If a guy was pulling the crap she has been pulling, I would call him an asshole, too.

    That isn’t to say there hasn’t been sexism, as any cursory viewing of Hardball on any given night will demonstrate otherwise. However, the folks who cry out sexism every time Hillary is attacked for being an asshole seem to miss, well, the fact that she is indeed being an asshole.

    Only an asshole would have piled on in the debates the other night and chucking in Calypso Louis Farrakhan for good measure (particularly when your opponent has graciously given you a pass on your Tuzla lies). Only an asshole would play up the “bitter” bullshit. Only an asshole would claim that Obama is not ready to be CinC but John McCain is. Only an asshole would keep going with no way to win.

    It is not my fault that the asshole in question is also a female.

  52. 52.

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop

    April 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    I already commented on this in the other thread, but it bears repeating. What a dishonest, dishonest, shameless person Hillary Clinton is.

    Again, welcome to the party — 16 years late. The GOP have been saying this about the Clintons forever, right? It’s funny how it only took them running against a more liberal Democrat to get the scales to fall from lefty eyes.

    That’s what intrigues me: Where does this race leave the Clintons? They went from the “heroic victims of the VRWC” to the “a-hole lying power-mad whiners … like the GOP always told us they were” in five quick months. What do they do next, and how will the next gen of Dems treat them now, especially if this fractures the party at the Convention and they lose the general nine weeks later? This could be the biggest fall from political grace in memory. Pass the popcorn.

  53. 53.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Uh, didn’t you just link to an article by Eric Boehlert where sexism was called out and challenged?

    Uh, one article doesn’t exactly constitute a groundswell, now does it?

  54. 54.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    I think part of the problem you are seeing is that you are conflating a lot of legitimate disgust for Hillary with sexism.

    I’m not conflating it at all. What I’m pointing out is that the sexist attacks on Clinton go unchallenged.

    That sends a really unfortunate message.

  55. 55.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Uh, one article doesn’t exactly constitute a groundswell, now does it?

    Move those goalposts! You claimed that sexism is shrugged off while linking to evidence that it isn’t. Now you’re claiming that the denunciation has to be a “groundswell” or it doesn’t count. The take-home lesson for you here is that if you’re going to make a sweeping and grandiose claim, be sure you can back it up. If you can’t, narrow your assertion to something that you actually can support. Otherwise you come away looking foolish.

  56. 56.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    You claimed that sexism is shrugged off while linking to evidence that it isn’t.

    Are you kidding me? The article made the argument that Matthews has been successful BECAUSE of his misogynist tendencies. Wow, what a punishment! What condemnation from the journalist community.

    Otherwise you come away looking foolish.

    Perhaps you should have read and understood the article first.

  57. 57.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    What I see, sojourner, is your glib dispersal of an aerosol “overt sexism” sort of language, but I don’t ever see any actual overt sexism that amounts to a hill of beans in this campaign.

    Where is this boogeyman “overt sexism” of which you speak?

    The fact that I can’t stand the bitch, and use a feminine pronoun to identify her, is not sexism. It’s just common usage. There is nothing sexist about “bitch” any more than there is about calling a man a “prick.” Women don’t get called “pricks” because it’s nonsensical usage, not because they are somehow not eligible for that sort of calumny by virtue of their physical equipment. But I digress.

    I don’t hate Hillary because she’s a woman, I hate her because of who she is and what she stands for. For her behavior and her ethics. For her smarmy insistence that being President by Injection makes her qualified for the job.

    The only thing I find sexist around here is you and a few other people spraying that can of sexism bullshit around whenever you have no actual argument.

    Your “sexism” crap is about as useful as lukasiak’s “electability” bullshit. And as tiresome, and as annoying.

  58. 58.

    Doug H. (Fausto no more)

    April 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Would it be less sexist if we called her “asshole”?

  59. 59.

    myiq2xu

    April 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Hillary must have really kicked ass the other night, because nobody wants to discuss that subject.

    It’s just “waaah, waaah! The questions were stupid”

    The worse Barack Dukakis Obama does, the more intense the fanboiz’s haka.

  60. 60.

    John Cole

    April 18, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    I think using the word “bitch” is sexist, and would not use it, myself.

    Not to mention, it provides cover for Hillary acting like an asshole, because she can play the victim card (legitimately) when you use loaded and sexist language.

    If asshole is too crude for you, try jerk.

  61. 61.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I think part of the problem you are seeing is that you are conflating a lot of legitimate disgust for Hillary with sexism. If a guy was pulling the crap she has been pulling, I would call him an asshole, too.

    That isn’t to say there hasn’t been sexism, as any cursory viewing of Hardball on any given night will demonstrate otherwise. However, the folks who cry out sexism every time Hillary is attacked for being an asshole seem to miss, well, the fact that she is indeed being an asshole.

    You saw this with racism some ten or twenty years ago. A black guy would get beat up by the LAPD or a famous athlete would get charged with murder by the LAPD or something something racial something LAPD after the Lakers own the Championship and – while there was a great deal of racism to go around – people were playing the race card so often that it lost meaning. So people just started tuning it out.

    Hillary has had some seriously messed up sexist attacks against her. And she’s had some rather veiled sexist attacks come at her. And she’s had policy attacks that get labeled as sexist because she doesn’t know how to answer them better. But the end result has been a non-stop chorus of “non-Hillary voters are sexist” and now no one gives a crap anymore.

    Obama, on the flip side, has kept the racism rhetoric has close to the chest as he’s been able. In the middle of Rush-style “Magic Negro” songs and tasteless jokes and “accidental” mispronunciations of his name, I’ve never once heard Obama actually call someone a racist. His campaign has been pretty good at letting the racist comments stand on their own merit without having to flag them for the inattentive. Couple this with the fact that the GOP and various Obama haters have been getting rather loud and explicit in their vulgarity, and its easy to see who is seriously anti-skin-tone and who is just interested in talking politics.

    Hillary played out her hand too soon. Obama can use his race as an asset well into 2012 if he doesn’t feel the need to use it as a trump card.

  62. 62.

    Martin

    April 18, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    I think part of the problem you are seeing is that you are conflating a lot of legitimate disgust for Hillary with sexism. If a guy was pulling the crap she has been pulling, I would call him an asshole, too.

    Yep.

    Using ‘San Francisco’ as a smear.

    Accusing Dems of being elistist, which helped take down the last two Dem presidential candidates from the right.

    Ranking voters as ‘significant/insignificant’ or being in ’boutique’ states. (Which is what Rush had piled on after 2000 and 2004 as why the Dems don’t care about the midwest. He’s right – Penn politics don’t care about the midwest).

    Supporting the lie that FL was powerless against the DNC and going on the record that she wouldn’t support a revote while Ickes refused to talk about seating delegates because there was plenty of time for a revote.

    Accusing caucus states of being undemocratic.
    Standing up for FL/MI voters (which I have no qualms with) and then talking about how she is leading in popular vote, which omits voters from almost a dozen states (which I have a huge problem with, especially the hypocrisy of it).

    There has been this consistent effort to either blame voters or excuse them away. She has been totally self-serving on the issue of protecting voters, since she only protects some and ignores others. She has been publicly contradictory on FL/MI revotes while accusing Obama of being the one blocking the vote.

    Putting McCain ahead of Obama as qualified to be CinC.

    Again, I don’t mind that she attack Obama’s positions. I mind that she is actively trying to turn FL/MI voters against the party in order to achieve her goals. I mind that she is telling Democratic voters that they don’t matter or aren’t as important or aren’t democratic. I mind that she is validating right-wing frames on topics like patriotism, elitism, and liberalism (SF) by using them herself. I mind that she put McCain ahead of a member of her own party.

    This kind of stuff isn’t all that uncommon from past primaries, but that’s the ‘change’ that Obama has been offering us – to change how we do this, to focus on stuff that matters because it’s important and not get into this petty shit. Change isn’t an emotional issue as Obama presents it, it’s a procedural issue. I know a lot of people don’t get that.

  63. 63.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Where is this boogeyman “overt sexism” of which you speak?

    Frankly, I’m not surprised at your reaction. You’re already on record as claiming the right to make sexist comments against a woman you don’t like.

    What you don’t want to understand is that by doing so, you belittle more than the woman you are attacking.

  64. 64.

    Billy K

    April 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Change isn’t an emotional issue as Obama presents it, it’s a procedural issue.

    That’s really observant. Did you come up with it?

  65. 65.

    Doug H. (Fausto no more)

    April 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Hillary must have really kicked ass the other night, because nobody wants to discuss that subject.

    I’m sure you’ll suck it up if Gibson and Snuffleupagus spend the first hour of ABC’s Clinton/McCain debate discussing Marc Rich.

  66. 66.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    But the end result has been a non-stop chorus of “non-Hillary voters are sexist” and now no one gives a crap anymore.

    Actually, most of the women I know do give a crap.

  67. 67.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Perhaps you should have read and understood the article first.

    I did. Let’s recap.

    Sojourner: everyone shrugs off the sexism directed at Hillary. Look at this article by Boehlert criticizing the media for doing so.

    Josh E.: Uh, you just linked to an article criticizing media sexism to support the claim that nobody criticizes media sexism. Kind of a contradiction there.

    Sojourner: NO! Groundswell!

    The article made the argument that Matthews has been successful BECAUSE of his misogynist tendencies.

    No, the article made that assertion. There wasn’t much of an argument. To actually buy that argument you’d have to ignore the inconvenient fact that Matthews and Hardball have been around for a lot longer than this election cycle. Boehlert also contradicts his thesis by pointing out how horrible Matthews was to Gore in 2000. Gore, last time I heard, is not a woman.

    Better Hillbots, please.

  68. 68.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Soj, I agree that yes, there has been sexism directed towards Clinton, and it’s awful.

    However, what has happened over the last little while is that some of Clinton’s supporters have been viewing any and all criticism of her through a filter of gender.

    I know it’s not pleasant to have sexism directed at you. Believe me, I know. However, I also know that it’s not pleasant to be accused of being sexist when your complaint with an individual has nothing to do with their gender. Someone on this very site recently accused me of faking my gender — they evidently could not believe that a woman would not support Clinton, and accused me of misogyny.

    Feminism is about being allowed to make your own choices. You and I have long been in agreement on that. And I very, very strongly resented the implication by those individuals, and by many of Clinton’s supporters at large, that I was betraying my gender by not supporting the female candidate.

    Sexism is very real. And yes, Clinton has had more than her fair share of it directed at her. However, when her supporters get up in arms over such things as that “periodically” kerfuffle (which I know you thought was utterly foolish, as did I), then all it does is cause a deeper division, because people really do NOT like being called sexist when they are being no such thing. It puts up some rather large walls.

    Perhaps this is why accusations of sexism are now generally met with crickets chirping. Accusing someone of being sexist is a pretty serious thing. And sadly, many of Clinton’s supporters cried “wolf” when they were seeing wolves, chickens, hamsters, a leaf skittering along the ground, and even the odd wallaby. So, nobody is listening to their cries anymore, even if some of them are legitimate. It sucks, but that’s what happens.

  69. 69.

    Dennis - SGMM

    April 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    The “sexism” charge is just a handy way to deprecate every criticism or question regarding Clinton as well as the critic or the questioner. Your misgivings about Clinton can’t possibly be grounded in logic, reason, knowledge or experience because you’re just a sexist. This relieves the Clinton supporter of the burden of considering the criticism or question, or of making a reasoned response to it. It also relieves them of the great burden of examining their own beliefs.

  70. 70.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    This is a tiresome evasion.

    These hypothetical “some women” would be total fools if they would not vote for Obama because of the spiteful remarks of a two-bit pundit with absolutely no connection to Obama or to his campaign.

  71. 71.

    Davebo

    April 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    “I’m with Harry Truman on this — if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen,” [Hillary] told voters while campaigning in Pennsylvania. “Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen.”

    Wow, that’s pretty sexist of her! Barefoot in the kitchen?

  72. 72.

    Tim F.

    April 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Frankly, I’m not surprised at your reaction. You’re already on record as claiming the right to make sexist comments against a woman you don’t like.

    What you don’t want to understand is that by doing so, you belittle more than the woman you are attacking.

    Let’s play a game of spot-the-fallacy.

    1. Some Hillary critics are sexist, ergo Hillary critics are sexist.

    2. Some Obama critics are racists, ergo Sojourner is a racist.

    If you can correctly point out why criticizing Obama doesn’t make you a racist, Sojourner, then you will invalidate your own comments more or less throughout this thread. Or you can insist that you didn’t commit a single fallacy and accept that you’re a racist. Whichever way is fine with me.

  73. 73.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    You’re already on record as claiming the right to make sexist comments against a woman you don’t like.

    You’re a fucking liar.

  74. 74.

    Rick Taylor

    April 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Again, welcome to the party—16 years late. The GOP have been saying this about the Clintons forever, right? It’s funny how it only took them running against a more liberal Democrat to get the scales to fall from lefty eyes.

    Guilty as charged. John who crossed over has been saying this for a long while, but I never knew what he was talking about. And it took Hillary running and loosing against another Democrat and seeing how she responded. If she’d won early on like everyone expected, I’d still be clueless. I’m sure she would have been quite gracious in victory.

  75. 75.

    lou

    April 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Ah, yes. The lofty, always-rational Obama voter. Who absolutely is never swayed by emotions like “change” and “hope.” Who vote strictly on policy.

    Wow, strawman much?

    Hear the latest conspiracy theory going ’round? It’s straight out of the Rove playbook. The theory is that Clinton doesn’t think she’s going to win new converts with her attacks — that she hopes her attacks grind down the Obama supporters enough that they stay home on Tuesday.

  76. 76.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Oh! I get it.

    a) Insert groundless claim – I think the low-IQ one is a wee bit touchy about being spanked (politely) by Glenzilla.

    b) Insert sneering non-quote – “Waaah, for God’s sake please ban me so I can give this shit a rest! Waaah!”

    c) Insert walkaway snap-line – But that’s what you get when you’re stupid enough to favour a candidate’s gender over their electability.

    Wow. I’m spoofing an automated ‘How to be a prick online’ program. Time to slide off the chair and wait for November, methinks.

  77. 77.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    What you don’t want to understand is that by doing so, you belittle more than the woman you are attacking.

    I understand the subject perfectly, and considerably better than you do.

    First of all, this “sexism” that you shriek about constantly is a strawman in the context of this campaign. I’ve watched it closely from the beginning, over a year now, and I have seen no evidence of any actualy sexism anywhere.

    You conflate pronouns with sexism, for one thing. Sexism, as you are pimping it, is about categorial discrimination against women. The idea that women in general and because they are women are …. unfit, less able, not suitable in some way or another. Who has made such a claim WRT to Hillary Clinton? Name the commenter on this blog who has even suggested such a thing.

    You’re a liar, sojourner, and a demagogue. You have a hangup about sexism, or else you are just being a troll.

    Do you really want to have this argument with me? Because for one thing, your point, whatever it was, is going to be lost to a cloud of dust that is just about you trying to make this about me. For another thing, you are going to lose any argument you have with me about this subject because I am right about it and you are wrong.

    But if you really want to go down that road, then let’s go. I’m ready and quite in the mood to today to take it on.

    You can start by pointing out the references to any actual sexism employed here …. or for that matter, anywhere else …. against Hillary Clinton in the context of this campaign. Actual sexism, which you might want to read up on before you shoot from the hip since you seem to have no fucking idea what it is.

  78. 78.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    congratulations, Hillary, your nonstop negativity has put both Dems behind McCain, nationally.

    good fucking job. you should be proud. such a Democratic standard-bearer.

  79. 79.

    Wilfred

    April 18, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    That’s what intrigues me: Where does this race leave the Clintons? They went from the “heroic victims of the VRWC” to the “a-hole lying power-mad whiners … like the GOP always told us they were” in five quick months. What do they do next, and how will the next gen of Dems treat them now, especially if this fractures the party at the Convention and they lose the general nine weeks later? This could be the biggest fall from political grace in memory

    For once I agree with Lambchop. My hope is that President Obama purges them and their crowd from Washington for good. In fact a great deal of her support comes from the people who will be on the outs when Obama gets in – all those FOB and FOH who’ve grwon fat and rich in Washington for the last 16 years. I think Obama is going to throw them all out on K Street, along with the Republican whores. The alliance of the Clintons and the Right makes perfect sense since it is they and their allies who have shared the spoils of politics for quite some time. They’re all a bit terrified of what change will mean for them. Fuck them all.

  80. 80.

    nightjar

    April 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    I’m no expert of sexism and probably harbor more than know. But it seems in the context of a presidential campaign the operative questions might be — is the woman strong enough–is the woman smart enough– can she think in a cool manner and not too emotional. Or slight variations thereof. I don’t here anybody claiming Hillary doesn’t meet the above criteria. The problem is with her ethics and trustworthiness and maybe a corporatist mindset. These are usually not associated with sexism. At least I don’t think so.

  81. 81.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Some Hillary critics are sexist, ergo Hillary critics are sexist.

    That’s your argument, not mine.

    I’m sure there’s a name for that fallacy.

  82. 82.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    This is why people cannot stand Hillary Clinton.

    Apparently her “I can go more negative than you can” approach the last few weeks has backfired, her own negatives are up, and her campaign has decided to do a 180 the weekend before the Pennsylvania vote: Do the warm and fuzzy routine. Appear to be “nice.” Remind people how nice you are.

    Good Gawd Almighty. This hideous chameleon is going to do yet another impersonation, yet another round of schtick to bamboozle people.

    Any wonder why people hate her more every day?

  83. 83.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    No, the article made that assertion. There wasn’t much of an argument. To actually buy that argument you’d have to ignore the inconvenient fact that Matthews and Hardball have been around for a lot longer than this election cycle.

    Okay, name a journalist, any journalist that received any sort of condemnation with teeth for sexist comments. For example, getting booted off the air for a week or two.

  84. 84.

    Svensker

    April 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    The EEEL says:

    This could be the biggest fall from political grace in memory. Pass the popcorn.

    Ever hear of Dubya? From 80% positive, to 28%.

    And, yes, the Clintons have lots of problems, and I’m no Hillary supporter. But at least Bill Clinton knew how to run the country without ruining it.

    Others seem more tolerant of your anti-Clintonism. Maybe like ex-smokers are very intolerant of smoking, as an ex-Republican I’m very intolerant of people who are still carrying water for the authoritarian torturers.

    And, as much as I hate what Hillary is doing right now, I’d still vote for her over McCain in a NY minute. Dubya has made me loathe his Party so much, it will be decades before I could even consider voting for a Republican again.

  85. 85.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Okay, name a journalist, any journalist that received any sort of condemnation with teeth for sexist comments. For example, getting booted off the air for a week or two.

    Shorter sojourner: Where’s the feminist outrage? Where? WHERE?

    I feel your bogus pain, soj. Really. Those decades of lynchings in the South where women were strung up from trees just for looking the wrong way at a passing negro, that’s what burns inside you, right?

    Good christ on a hotdog bun. You’re insane.

  86. 86.

    libarbarian

    April 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    The deep-seated loathing you see has nothing to do with sexism. People loathe hillary Clinton for the same reason that they loathe Commodus in “Gladiator” – because there is nothing worse in this world than a person who combines ruthless cruelty to others with incessant pathetic whining about their own troubles and tribulations.

    She acts horribly offended if you accuse her of trying to exploit racism but then plays the “sexism” card whenever she can. She attacks Obamas integrity and character without mercy and then cries “Shame on You” when Obama criticizes her policies.

    She is a bully and a coward. She is the kind of devious subhuman snake who will stab you in the back with a poison dagger while, simultaneously, complaining about being the victim of your underhanded tactics.

    I’ve met people, mostly men, like Hillary Clinton plenty of times before and I despised them as much as I despise her. Ever since I was a young kid playing sports I have held a special kind of disgust for those people who are quick to play dirty but even quicker to complain when other people do the same thing.

  87. 87.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    First of all, this “sexism” that you shriek about constantly is a strawman in the context of this campaign. I’ve watched it closely from the beginning, over a year now, and I have seen no evidence of any actualy sexism anywhere.

    So you have no problem with the things that journalists said in the article I sited?

  88. 88.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    I feel your bogus pain, soj. Really. Those decades of lynchings in the South where women were strung up from trees just for looking the wrong way at a passing negro, that’s what burns inside you, right?

    Ah, here it is. TZ’s famous argument that if it isn’t as bad as racism, then it’s perfectly okay. White women have not suffered as much as blacks, so say what you want.

  89. 89.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    The “sexism” charge is just a handy way to deprecate every criticism or question regarding Clinton as well as the critic or the questioner.

    ex-fucking-actly.

    and it’s reached the point where as soon as i see the words “sexist” or “sexism” in a comment, i skip the rest.

  90. 90.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    TZ’s famous argument that if it isn’t as bad as racism, then it’s perfectly okay. White women have not suffered as much as blacks, so say what you want.

    Nooo, nice try, but you should know better than to try to put words in my mouth. I spit them right out and you will get stuff on you that way.

    I am not saying “say what you want,” I am saying that YOU are full of SHIT.

    Hardly the same thing. You are deliberatly — for effect, and knowing that you are lying while you do it — confusing ordinary dislike of somebody with real misogyny, and you are the one who is really demaning women by doing so. You are making a mockery of the issue you think you are standing up for.

  91. 91.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Again, welcome to the party—16 years late. The GOP have been saying this about the Clintons forever, right? It’s funny how it only took them running against a more liberal Democrat to get the scales to fall from lefty eyes.

    Actually it was GW Bush.

    Had GW Bush not behaved the same way, I might not have noticed the behavior as so appalling.

    Seriously, that’s really what this is all about. It’s too bad you aren’t man enough to apologize for Bush, though.

  92. 92.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Some Hillary critics are sexist, ergo Hillary critics are sexist.

    That’s your argument, not mine.

    I’m sure there’s a name for that fallacy.

    And this isn’t spoof?

    My hairy balls! It has to be.

  93. 93.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Grr, new keyboard make Thyme type no good.

    “demeaning”

    “deliberately”

    The crappy sentence construction? I have no ready excuse at the moment, but some woman is probably to blame.

  94. 94.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Perhaps this is why accusations of sexism are now generally met with crickets chirping.

    By the males I know. Not by the women.

    You may not see as much of it in Canada but the news coverage is full of it. It needs to be challenged because it is, quite simply, wrong.

    Also, if the guys on this blog want to know why so many women are sticking with Clinton, this is one reason. Which will, predictably, be followed by accusations that these women are stupid and ignorant.

    And the Democratic primary keeps on a-rollin’ down the road.

  95. 95.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    No, the article made that assertion. There wasn’t much of an argument. To actually buy that argument you’d have to ignore the inconvenient fact that Matthews and Hardball have been around for a lot longer than this election cycle.

    Okay, name a journalist, any journalist that received any sort of condemnation with teeth for sexist comments. For example, getting booted off the air for a week or two.

    Absolutely irrelevant. Matthews and some others cited in the article are both [Bill and Hillary] Clinton haters and sexist. Maybe some of them should be thrown off the air.

    But to suggest that purging sexist commentators is in any way, shape or form essential for Obama supporters to demonstrate good faith with respect to being against sexism is absurd.

    The only people I’m aware of who were suspended was the goon who referred to Chelsea as being pimped out and Randi Rhodes, who made crude remarks about Senator Clinton during some personal appearance.

    I am not aware of any pundit, commentator or reporter who has been chastised, suspended or reprimanded for making racist or sexist comments during this campaign.

    And while it is debatable whether someone should be booted off the air for delivering their political opinion — even if sexist or racist — it is clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions that voters have to make in the remaining primary elections, or in the general election.

  96. 96.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Hardly the same thing. You are deliberatly—for effect, and knowing that you are lying while you do it—confusing ordinary dislike of somebody with real misogyny, and you are the one who is really demaning women by doing so. You are making a mockery of the issue you think you are standing up for.

    I wasn’t talking about “real misogyny”. I was talking about sexism. You’re the one who chose to compare it to people hanging from trees.

  97. 97.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    myiq is a special kind of stupid

  98. 98.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Okay, name a journalist, any journalist that received any sort of condemnation with teeth for sexist comments. For example, getting booted off the air for a week or two.

    This is a joke, right? Or has someone stolen Sojourner’s handle and is pretending to be incredibly uniformed? David Shuster. He was suspended for two weeks.

  99. 99.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Also, if the guys on this blog want to know why so many women are sticking with Clinton, this is one reason. Which will, predictably, be followed by accusations that these women are stupid and ignorant.

    I’ll say, misguided, not stupid or ignorant.

    Because, they (and apprently you) are so determined to make this campaign about making up for perceived sexism that they can’t see the realities of the situation … and haven’t got the sense to realize, you hitched your wagon to a complete asshole. That’s John’s perjorative, not my preferred one, but it fits and it’s accurate.

    You hitched up to an asshole of a person to be your star, and it’s just killing you to see the result explode in your faces. I have a co-worker right here who practically burst into tears when I told her how much I hated Clinton.

    “B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but you’re a Democrat!” Yeah? You’re goddam right I am, and I was a loyal democrat a long time before you were born, I told her. And I know a phony and a lying sack of shit when I see one, and if it’s a Democrat, I am allowed to say so. The pain she felt was real, but the problem is, it was dysfunctional. She got so wrapped up in the “finally, a woman” thing that she didn’t bother to observe that she had picked a woman who is widely, and rightly, despised.

    Now, that’s a human mistake. But trying to wrap “sexism” around it, that’s not a human mistake, that’s manipulation.

  100. 100.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    I was talking about sexism

    No, you are avoiding talking about sexism. YOu just want to use it as a slogan.

    Please, talk about it. Show the actual sexism, please.

    Where is it? In the campaign? In the press? In this blog?

    Spell it out, let’s get a good look at it. Point by shocking point.

    Show us the horror.

  101. 101.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Absolutely irrelevant.

    I argue that sexism is tolerated. I’m challenged on this so I ask if anyone has ever been punished for it. You claim that this is irrelevant.

    Huh?

  102. 102.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Also, if the guys on this blog want to know why so many women are sticking with Clinton, this is one reason.

    perceived sexism is met by women siding the female candidate.

    why side with the female candidate?

    because she’s female.

    who’s sexist?

  103. 103.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    David Shuster. He was suspended for two weeks.

    I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.

  104. 104.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Okay, name a journalist, any journalist that received any sort of condemnation with teeth for sexist comments. For example, getting booted off the air for a week or two.

    I don’t think your argument has a whole lot of merit, for as others have noted, the anger at Hillary has been because of her actions and tactics, not because she is a woman.

    I’m sure you are hypersensitive to such comments, but you are ignoring a wealth of evidence to the contrary of your position.

  105. 105.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    You hitched up to an asshole of a person to be your star,

    I thought you were an Obama supporter? That’s who I voted for in the primary.

    Whoops. Another stereotype.

  106. 106.

    Dennis - SGMM

    April 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Just want to interrupt here with a quick “Thank You!” for this thread. You see, I was doing a crossword puzzle and I was stuck on a nine letter word meaning “tedious and dogmatic.”

  107. 107.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.

    The appropriate response was “Doh. you’re right, I forgot about that.”

    This statement just indicates that you aren’t being honest, and are trying to fabricate an argument from nothing.

  108. 108.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    The appropriate response was “Doh. you’re right, I forgot about that.”

    You’re an expert on pimps?

  109. 109.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    I thought you were an Obama supporter? That’s who I voted for in the primary.

    Whoops. Another stereotype.

    Careful, or I will have to suggest that you argue like a woman. { ducks }

    Noooo, you hitched your wagon to a star in this sexism thing, not necessarily because she is your favorite candidate. This has nothing to do with Obama v Clinton, it has to do with a sort of retail feminism gone off the track.

    Bashing Hillary is not sexist, it’s politics. I’ve seen no sexist basis for it. You haven’t presented any.

    So …. isn’t it time to move on to another imagined outrage of some kind?

    You are too smart for this nonsensical argument.

  110. 110.

    Josh E.

    April 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.

    Well, Clinton supporters were loudly claiming it was. Perhaps you weren’t one of them.

    And, as Brachiator points out, Randi Rhodes was canned after she used sexist language to describe Clinton and Ferraro.

    So, since we’re playing this game, please point out the journalists who have been fired/suspended for using racist language about Obama? Otherwise one inclined to play these games might conclude that you have the racism/sexism issue precisely backward.

  111. 111.

    Pooh

    April 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    I’ve met people, mostly men, like Hillary Clinton plenty of times before and I despised them as much as I despise her. Ever since I was a young kid playing sports I have held a special kind of disgust for those people who are quick to play dirty but even quicker to complain when other people do the same thing.

    HRC=Bruce Bowen? Intriguing.

    (I note that he also appears to be on his last legs)

  112. 112.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.

    Oh, come on!

    This has got to be spoof. It simply has to be.

  113. 113.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    I’m sure you are hypersensitive to such comments, but you are ignoring a wealth of evidence to the contrary of your position.

    Nope. Speaking from experience, not hypersensitivity.

    I am not a Clinton supporter, I’m not defending her actions or those of her supporters. The thing about sexist language is that it attacks someone’s gender using language that belitles that gender. So why are you guys surprised when people of that same gender feel that it belittles them as well? Duh.

    That is, of course, the essence of sexism.

    You guys want to turn it into a Clinton versus Obama thing. That’s an argument I’m not making. So good luck with that.

  114. 114.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

    I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.

    Yeah, like your mom!

    I’m sorry? Too mature for this thread? I’ll try to dial it down a bit.

  115. 115.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    This has got to be spoof. It simply has to be.

    smells like lazy trolling on a late friday afternoon, to me.

  116. 116.

    Cain

    April 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    So the national gallup poll seems to show the race tightening between Hillary and Obama according to TPM today. Hillary’s strategy is working? Our boy is going to be limping into the general election it seems.

    cain

  117. 117.

    J. Michael Neal

    April 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    But the end result has been a non-stop chorus of “non-Hillary voters are sexist” and now no one gives a crap anymore.

    Actually, most of the women I know do give a crap.

    All of the women I know are upset about the misogynistic coverage. They also all voted for Obama, except my mother, whose only choice was Undecided, and my sister in State College, who will be voting for Obama.

    I have an aunt who says that she hates the way that strong women are always portrayed as a bitch, and one of the reasons she’s incensed at Hillary Clinton is because that stereotype is only reinforced when the first serious female candidate for president is, in fact, a bitch.

  118. 118.

    GeoRockstar

    April 18, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    first myiq tried to claim to speak for the poor and downtrodden and now, Sojourner is speaking for women. You know what? Robin Morgan does a much better job and is more coherent, while still *wrong*. As a woman, I find it *sexist* of Hillary to play into all of the female stereotypes: crying, badgering, “acting like a victim”, scolding, etc. And you can try to point out that these are normal for any person, but I live less than an hour from Germany and you don’t see Merkel doing any of this bullshit. there are plenty of sexist (and racist) pigs here and women still win elections. on their merits, not on their sex.

  119. 119.

    dmbeaster

    April 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    The GOP have been saying this about the Clintons forever, right? It’s funny how it only took them running against a more liberal Democrat to get the scales to fall from lefty eyes.

    I see, I guess I should have been for impeachment for lying about a hummer. And for murdering Vince Foster.

    Or maybe it wasn’t scales that failed to persuade liberals about the “case” against the Clintons.

  120. 120.

    Genine

    April 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I’m with you there, Krista. I’ve been accused of being sexist, a concern troll and worse when I point out that not all Hillary criticism is sexist. The whole “periodically” crap really got me attacked when I said I didn’t think it was sexist. In fact, the last few months have shown me I am not really a feminist if that’s what feminism is about. I am for gender equality, dignity, respect and autonomy and the rest of it. But I no longer consider myself a feminist. I just have a different perspective.

    Hillary Clinton has had a lot of sexist attacks thrown at her and it is truly awful. But I don’t personally know anyone who is against her due to her gender. It’s been due to her behavior and the behavior of her campaign. And I have no doubt there are those that won’t vote for Hillary due to her gender, just as there are those that won’t vote for Obama because of his race.

  121. 121.

    nightjar

    April 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    I called GWB a son-of-a-bitch the other day. Then promptly apologized to myself for belittling myself. It’s all so confusing sometimes.

  122. 122.

    Z

    April 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    I agree that their has been overt sexism coming from some quarters. I’ve called it out, when I haven’t been so late to the party that lots of others have. And while misogyny is the more egregious, I want to point out that I consider it sexist to vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman, just as I consider it racist to vote for Obama because he is black. If we are going to discuss sexism, let’s hash the whole thing out. This is the biggest dispute I have with second wave feminists. It may have been necessary, back in the day, to be a female partisan, but it isn’t today. Today, it is just wrong. I want to be treated EQUALLY, not differently, because I am a woman.

  123. 123.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    Absolutely irrelevant.

    I argue that sexism is tolerated.

    That’s not what you argued at all. You argued that “some women” needed to be persuaded to vote for Obama by seeing some undefined — and irrelevant — denunciation and rejection of sexist pundits.

    White women have not suffered as much as blacks, so say what you want.

    Do you realize how pointless it is to try to create a hierarchy of oppression?

    Do you realize how appallingly and typically condescending and racist your statement is here? Your segregated vision of sisterhood here apparently splits black women, white women and others into arbitrary “communities” in which their relative degrees of suffering can be contemplated.

    Do you realize how insulting your appropriation of “Sojourner” is to the memory of Isabella Baumfree? The historical Sojourner Truth rejected narrow categories in considering human rights:

    “One of the most unique and interesting speeches of the Convention was made by Sojourner Truth, an emancipated slave. It is impossible to transfer it to paper, or convey any adequate idea of the effect it produced upon the audience. Those only can appreciate it who saw her powerful form, her whole-souled, earnest gesture, and listened to her strong and thrustful tones. She came forward to the platform and addressing the President with great simplicity:

    May I say a few words? Receiving an affirmative answer, she proceeded; I want to say a few words about this matter. I am a woman’s rights [sic.] I have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that? I have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.

    As for intellect, all I can say is, if woman have a pint and man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full? You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much – for we won’t take more than our pint’ll hold.

    The poor men seem to be all in confusion and don’t know what to do. Why children, if you have woman’s rights give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won’t be much trouble.

    I can’t read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again. The lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus wept – and Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him. Man, where is your part?

    But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between a hawk and a buzzard.”

    Her words here, “You will have your own rights, and they won’t be much trouble,” could also be a reply to those who would oppose gay marriage.

    All in all, she sounds much more like the Magical Unity Pony than does Senator Clinton. Perhaps those hypothetical reluctant women voters should bear this in mind.

  124. 124.

    w vincentz

    April 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Just got my new tee shirt from the screen printer.
    It says:
    “I’m BITTER!
    So should Hillary be.

    in small print:

    If Bill doesn’t want to fuck her, I’ll just say, FUCK HER!”

    Big print:
    Vote Barack!

  125. 125.

    Tony J

    April 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    smells like lazy trolling on a late friday afternoon, to me.

    Well, yeah. But it’s after ten in the evening here and I’ve been goggle-jawed at the barrel-scraping “Somebody please kill me!” earth-scorching on display here. It simply has to be spoof. You can’t spout that kind of Darrellesque numbnuttery and really mean it.

    Hang on, has John started with a new year of students? I smell an extra-marks project.

    Luckily, I’ve got a contract with Hyphen-Are-Us, so it’s not like I’m missing any worktime by wondering.

  126. 126.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    You guys want to turn it into a Clinton versus Obama thing. That’s an argument I’m not making. So good luck with that.

    Because…

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    Good luck with that.

  127. 127.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    April 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    I think using the word “bitch” is sexist, and would not use it, myself.

    Not to mention, it provides cover for Hillary acting like an asshole, because she can play the victim card (legitimately) when you use loaded and sexist language.

    Thank you for saying that. I couldn’t agree more. For just this reason I do not and will not use the B-word, here or anywhere else; as far as I’m concerned, it is right down there with the N-word that was “buried” a little while ago.

  128. 128.

    Jen

    April 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    And sadly, many of Clinton’s supporters cried “wolf” when they were seeing wolves, chickens, hamsters, a leaf skittering along the ground, and even the odd wallaby.

    Krista is right, and cleek is right, that the wolf is so worn out as soon as I see “sexist” these days I just sigh and skip it. That’s unfortunate, but true. And I have the official TZ Stamp of Womanitude to go along with my other stamps, too.

  129. 129.

    The Other Steve

    April 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    I am not a Clinton supporter, I’m not defending her actions or those of her supporters. The thing about sexist language is that it attacks someone’s gender using language that belitles that gender. So why are you guys surprised when people of that same gender feel that it belittles them as well? Duh.

    Ok, enough games.

    can you please point to me something said from Obama that you feel is sexist? Or even something said by myself?

    I don’t like being attacked for something I didn’t do. You can understand why this might piss me off and evoke a strong reaction.

  130. 130.

    les

    April 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    As usual I don’t get it. This is because Obama is responsible for the sexism? Or is this another renounce/disclaim/repudiate thing? Or is Obama supposed to withdraw, because absent all the horrible sexism Clinton would be winning like she was supposed to? How the fuck is all this alleged feminism relevant to anything about voting for Obama?

  131. 131.

    Z

    April 18, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    w vincentz,

    That is completely lame. If I could reach through the screen, I would smack you.

  132. 132.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    Could we get some examples of these bigots and their offensive statements?

    Sorry, Soj, but it’s hard to take these arguments seriously when the sexism you’re decrying seems to be largely in the abstract.

  133. 133.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    For just this reason I do not and will not use the B-word, here or anywhere else; as far as I’m concerned, it is right down there with the N-word that was “buried” a little while ago.

    If we’re going to F-word-ing get into parsing G-D C-U-R-S-E-W-O-R-D-S, then I’d say that the closest parallel to the N-word is actually the C-word. Also, usage and intent can change the percieved offensiveness, as can certain alternate word forms or dimunitions.

  134. 134.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    The thing about sexist language is that it attacks someone’s gender using language that belitles that gender.

    Then give us an example of the sexist language that’s been used. I notice that you completely ignored my larger point about how many Clinton supporters have shot their own candidate in the foot by conflating any criticism of their candidate with sexism. This may be a significant part of the reason why the legitimate instances of sexism are being ignored by the media and by many others.

    Does institutionalized sexism still exist? Yes.

    Are all individuals who do not approve of Clinton latent sexists? No. And THAT is causing a huge issue.

    There are a lot of people out there who do not approve of Clinton. And if you polled them as to their rationale behind it, I would bet that the reasons that can be directly linked to sexism, would fall in the single-digit percentages.

    However, there are a very large number of Clinton supporters who claim that the only reason that anybody could dislike Clinton is because they’re a sexist. And therein lies the problem.

  135. 135.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Sorry, Soj, but it’s hard to take these arguments seriously when the sexism you’re decrying seems to be largely in the abstract.

    Did you read the article that I cited?

    The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said Clinton “look[ed] like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” The way Bill Kristol on Fox News said that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were white women, and “[w]hite women are a problem, that’s, you know — we all live with that.” The way CNN’s Jack Cafferty likened Clinton to “a scolding mother, talking down to a child.” The way Fox News’ Neil Cavuto suggested Clinton was “trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image.” The way MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson announced that “when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” The way Christopher Hitchens on CNBC described Clinton as being “sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'”

    This is the kind of thing that I have a problem with.

    Are you guys claiming that you don’t have a problem with these kinds of comments?

    That it’s okay to discount a woman as “bitchy” rather than addressing the content of what she has to say?

    That white women are a problem “we all live with”?

    That a knowledgable woman can be dismissed as too “tough and bitchy”?

    That it’s okay to dismiss a passionate argument given by a woman as shrill?

    Is this the kind of talk you guys are supporting?

  136. 136.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    This may be a significant part of the reason why the legitimate instances of sexism are being ignored perpetrated by the media and by many others.

    I wish it was that simple. But the Chris Matthews crowd has been using general Hillary antipathy to act like a misogynist prick. Once you burn out the word “sexist” every time someone disagrees with your Iraq foreign policy or your domestic health care agenda (not that we’ve discussed either of those two things in months), you enable all the actual sexists to come spilling out of the woodwork.

    I can run off and and talk about how shrill Hillary talks or have a discussion about whether her daughter had a boob job now because both these topics carry the same amount of sexism as talking about Hillary fund raising.

    And – knowing our wang-centric media – if they’ve got the choice to talk about boobs or fund raising, which do you think they’ll steer towards?

  137. 137.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    That is, of course, the essence of sexism.

    That’s just a complete lie.

    If you are going to sit here and insist that the use of a feminine pronoun (let’s say, “bitch”) is the “essence of sexism” then the conversation has deteriorated into farce.

    Sexism, the real kind and not the kind you are peddling, is about serious and categorical discrimination, not about petty carping over semantics. My calling Hillary a bitch is no more sexist than somebody calling a guy a prick. The only difference is that women have decided that they can play this horseshit game and get away with it.

    Well, go ahead. It’s a fool’s game as far as I am concerned. If you really cared about the status of women in the society, you’d find something meaningful to bitch about. And before you go off on that word, keep in mind that in the real world where real people talk about real things …. it is perfectly common and acceptable to say that a man is “bitching” about something, and it doesn’t impugn his manhood to say so.

    Of course, men understand language better in these areas. We can say more to each other with a grunt or a look than a roomful of cackling women can say in four hours of gum-flapping.

    Heh.

    Heh heh.

    Oh fuck, where’s my helmet …..

  138. 138.

    nightjar

    April 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Meanwhile, another ride on the Poll-o-coaster.

    We go up.

    We go down.

  139. 139.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Here’s some more. Are you okay with these?

    featured a Photoshopped image of Clinton sporting “She Devil” horns while discussing Republican efforts to demonize her;
    repeatedly likened Clinton to “Nurse Ratched,” the scheming, heartless character from the mental hospital drama One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest;
    described her laugh as a “cackle,” suggested she was “anti-male,” “witchy,” and was on a “short … leash”;
    referred to Clinton as “Madame Defarge” and described male politicians who endorsed Clinton as “castratos in the eunuch chorus”;
    compared Clinton to a “strip-teaser,” wondered whether she was “a convincing mom,” referred to Clinton’s “cold eyes” and the “cold look” she supposedly gives people;
    claimed that “some men” say Clinton’s voice sounds like “fingernails on a blackboard.”

  140. 140.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    If you really cared about the status of women in the society, you’d find something meaningful to bitch about.

    Of course, I don’t really care about the status of women in the society. Of course, I have no understanding of how the language is used as a weapon. Be it to put a woman in her place, to mock a gay person, or to isolate a person who isn’t white.

    Please, please tell me more since I have absolutely no experience with these matters. I’m sure you know more since you have first-hand experience with these issues.

  141. 141.

    cleek

    April 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    However, there are a very large number of Clinton supporters who claim that the only reason that anybody could dislike Clinton is because they’re a sexist. And therein lies the problem.

    there are also a large number of Clinton supporters who claim that Obama “disenfranchised” FL and MI by (…hand waving… somehow) preventing revotes there; these same people also know that Hillary has no way of winning the nomination by anything but a behind-closed-door backroom deal, even with the FL and MI numbers as they currently stand. that this would in effect “disenfranchise” everyone who voted in a Democratic primary is A.O.K. with them.

    in other words: their cries of “sexism!” and “disenfranchisement!” look exactly like political tactics, and look nothing at all like fervent exclamations caused by offenses to deeply-held principles.

    these people are frauds; and they cheapen the efforts of those who fight actual sexism and disenfranchisement by misusing the words for their own self-serving ends.

  142. 142.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    This is the kind of thing that I have a problem with.

    Tell it to the Goracle, or John McWindsurfsalot FrankenKerry, or Barack the Magic Negro. Oh boo-hoo! Your Democratic Candidate is being publicly mocked by the right wing pundits. Welcome to the party. Here’s your tiny violin and miniature sheet music.

    We all put up with this shit. Just be grateful your nominee doesn’t regularly get confused with America’s most wanted terrorist by the Associated Fucking Press. This is not new. This is not hatred or derision reserved solely for your candidate. The media’s mistreatment of the Democratic Party of the last six years has been catalogued ad nausem. And I’ll tell you a little secret. You don’t see Cindy McCain suffering this kind of attack. Or Kay Bailey Hutchenson. Or Condi Rice. Or Harriet Miers. Or Sandra Day O’Connor.

    They aren’t hating on your woman for being a woman. If Clinton put a little (R) in front of her name, I guarantee the vast majority of this bullshit would disappear in a puff of BBQ smoke and Aqua Velva. Media elites would be falling over each other to fluff the strong, brave, independent woman that is Hillary Rodham Clinton – kinda like how they repeatedly fawn and praise and donutify Saint McCain.

    And this isn’t Obama’s fault. The evil San Fransisco Lie-bruls do not – in fact – control the media. The hook nosed New York Jews control the media. Everyone knows that. So stop playing into the GOP game and quit being offended by meaningless bullshit. Take the insults and the cat calls in stride. Don’t go down in a wreck like Kerry or play into the stereotype like Gore. Treat America like its composed of adults and you will be pleasantly surprised and rewarded.

  143. 143.

    John Cole

    April 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    This thread sucks. I am starting a new one.

    And W vincentz, I don’t mean to be harsh twice in one day (and I wasn’t trying to be with the links thing earlier), but your t-shirt sucks and will make you look like a jackass. Not helpful to the cause, man. Not at all.

  144. 144.

    Zifnab

    April 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    This thread sucks.

    Your mom sucks and I am starting a new one.

  145. 145.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Here’s some more. Are you okay with these?

    No, of course I’m not. And, to be fair, I thought you were referring to Obama supporters, not idiot talking heads.

    I still don’t understand what any of this has to do with Obama. Gasbags in the media being mean to Hillary makes it hard to vote for him? Seriously?

  146. 146.

    Z

    April 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Sojourner,

    Of course that stuff is awful! I wish Clinton supporters didn’t see that as a reason to support her candidacy, though. It isn’t logical.

  147. 147.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Barack the Magic Negro. Oh boo-hoo!

    So tell me, which journalists have used that language?

    Point out exactly where there have been overt racial attacks by journalists.

    As to the Barack is a Muslim crap. Even C-Span corrects its callers who make this absurd claim.

    So you’re saying, you don’t have a problem with using this kind of language to attack a female candidate?

  148. 148.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    I wish Clinton supporters didn’t see that as a reason to support her candidacy, though. It isn’t logical.

    Agreed. So let’s make it harder by building a groundswell of outrage in response to these comments. Let’s make it harder for Clinton and her supporters to hide behind sexism by making it go away.

  149. 149.

    Tom in Texas

    April 18, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    So you’re saying, you don’t have a problem with using this kind of language to attack a female candidate?

    We. are. saying. that. those. statements. weren’t. said. by. Obama.

  150. 150.

    Brachiator

    April 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Brachiator Says:

    Notorious P.A.T. Says:

    You guys just hate powerful women…

    Back in 2006, Rebecca Traister was pondering whether it was important for women to support Clinton just because she was a woman, not because she was either powerful or even particularly honorable (Hillary is us).

    Meanwhile, the women who no longer see themselves or their political beliefs in Clinton, but have worked their whole lives to amend the single-sex backwater of American presidential history, are increasingly hamstrung in their feelings about her. They must ask themselves whether they should turn their backs on Clinton or whether this rare, flawed opportunity for progress is better than none at all.

    For some, the choice is already made. Fourteen years after praising Clinton, Molly Ivins penned a column titled “I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President.” “Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her,” Ivins wrote. “Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.” …

    [For others] … there is no denying that the possibility of a female president — or even a female candidate — is a big deal. It may not make sense, it may be irrational, but it would mean something serious to have a woman leading this country for the first time in America’s history. No matter who the woman is….

    In the online magazine Sirens, journalist Allison Hantschel expressed her own guilt about the fact that while she is “unexcited,” “uninspired” and “indifferent” about Clinton, she is “nagged by the feeling that this makes me a bad feminist. After all, a woman president, any woman president, is a victory for womankind, right?”

    Isn’t it ironic that the MUP is offering Democrats the alternative that some hoped that Hillary might represent?

  151. 151.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    We. are. saying. that. those. statements. weren’t. said. by. Obama.

    I never said he did.

    Has this blog become so narrow that there’s no room for outrage as to how the candidates are covered? Or is there only room for outrage when it’s against Obama?

  152. 152.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    please tell me more since I have absolutely no experience with these matters

    { dons armored vest }

    Good lord, you do argue like a woman. Nobody is telling you that you have no experience in the matter. I’m telling you that you are going about what you are trying to do, the wrong way.

    Your insistence on taking what people say and turning it into something else isn’t exactly helping your cause in this argument.

  153. 153.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    Of course, I have no understanding of how the language is used as a weapon

    Oh sure, only women know about language being used as a weapon.

    And women NEVER actually use language as a weapon, do they?

    Nah! Nahgonnahappen.

    /headsmackhand

    /deskface

  154. 154.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    Your insistence on taking what people say and turning it into something else isn’t exactly helping your cause in this argument.

    I’m sorry. I thought you were lecturing me on what the “real” issues are that women should care about. You know, something about “meaingful issues to bitch about.”

    If you weren’t, what were you saying?

    And yes, I was having some fun with you. I always enjoy having a white guy tell me about discrimination since I grew up in an era when I was almost always the only woman in a meeting room full of white guys.

  155. 155.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Oh sure, only women know about language being used as a weapon.

    How convenient that you left out the part about gays and minorities.

    I hope you didn’t hurt your head too much when you had that unfortunate encounter with the desk.

  156. 156.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Has this blog become so narrow that there’s no room for outrage as to how the candidates are covered? Or is there only room for outrage when it’s against Obama?

    So it’s hard to vote for Obama because there’s not sufficient outrage among his supporters about sexist comments from dickhead pundits?

    This argument is making me dizzy.

  157. 157.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    The way Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said Clinton “look[ed] like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” The way Bill Kristol on Fox News said that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were white women, and “[w]hite women are a problem, that’s, you know—we all live with that.” The way CNN’s Jack Cafferty likened Clinton to “a scolding mother, talking down to a child.” The way Fox News’ Neil Cavuto suggested Clinton was “trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image.” The way MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson announced that “when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” The way Christopher Hitchens on CNBC described Clinton as being “sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.’”

    That is disgusting. However, those asshats aren’t necessarily Obama supporters either. They’re just asshats. And unfortunately, anybody who doesn’t support Clinton is being tarred with the same brush.

    And in regards to your second batch, most are pretty awful, but I’m not getting any sexism out of this one:

    referred to Clinton’s “cold eyes” and the “cold look” she supposedly gives people;

    Sorry. Not seeing any sexism in that. We use that same term for our Prime Minister and his cold “shark eyes”. Do you honestly, in the bottom of your heart, believe that the aforementioned term is sexist? Really?

  158. 158.

    John D.

    April 18, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    referred to Clinton’s “cold eyes” and the “cold look” she supposedly gives people;
    claimed that “some men” say Clinton’s voice sounds like “fingernails on a blackboard.”

    While I’m not “fine” with any of the examples you gave, how, exactly, are the phrases I’ve quoted above “sexist”?

    “Cold eyes”, as a matter of fact, is much more commonly used to refer to males, in my experience. As is “cold look”.

    “fingernails on a blackboard” is only sexist if there is not, in fact, a difference in vocal range for the average human being. She has a much higher voice than her opponent. That is a fact, and noting a fact is not sexist. Common metaphors, like “fingernails on a blackboard” to refer to something unpleasant, are not, in and of themselves, sexist. Using a metaphor that more closely maps to reality is, in general, considered more evocative than one that does not fit.

    Now, I would not use that phrase for her voice. The harmonics I hear from her, especially when she is genuinely angry, strike me more along the lines of styrofoam squeaking against itself. It’s pitched slightly lower and seems to lack the “shriek” you get from fingernails on a chalkboard, which I don’t get from her. But I — personally — find her voice extremely high-pitched, somewhat nasal, and distinctly unpleasant to listen to. None of that has to do with her gender. It has to do with her VOICE. This is not sexism. This is personal experience.

    Please stop conflating all criticism — even unfair criticism — with sexism. They are distinctly different things. Much like all criticism of Obama is not racism. Most of it, in fact, is not. Ferraro’s comments were; though I did not find them denigrating, they were purely racist.

    A large part of the problem is that the words racist and sexist have a large negative connotation. If you make a comparison based upon race or gender and attribute some ranking based upon that comparison, you are being racist/sexist. That’s the fucking DEFINITION of those words. It doesn’t have to be insulting in terms of the ranking — Ferraro pretty much said that Obama’s race was a boon, not a hinderance to him. It’s still a racist statement.

    Saying “I don’t like her.” is not sexist. Saying “I don’t like her hairstyle.” IS NOT SEXIST. Saying “I don’t like her because she’s a woman” is.

    I’m saying “I don’t like Hillary. I dont like the campaign she’s run, I don’t like her choice of advisors, I don’t like her comments, and I don’t like her tactics.” None of that has one whit to do with her gender. It all has to do with her ACTIONS. And those, Sojourner, had damn well better be fair game to criticize.

    If you honestly believe that they are not, let me know and I’ll dump you in the pie filter.

  159. 159.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    And, TZ, I’m still waiting for you to weigh in on whether you consider it acceptable to make those comments about Clinton or any other woman.

    Which is, of course, the whole point of my argument.

  160. 160.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    However, those asshats aren’t necessarily Obama supporters either.

    I never claimed they were.

    I have to admit that I find it incredibly funny (in a sad way) that a blog that is almost unanimous in supporting a progressive candidate is incapable of expressing even a modest amount of outrage in response to overt sexism. Regardless of what they think of the recipient of the attacks.

    I provided a link to an article that demonstrated the outrageous behavior of some journalists in terms of how they described a female candidate. I never claimed that Clinton had a right to defend all of her actions on the claim of sexism. I never claimed that Obama supported these statements. I never claimed that anyone on this list was guilty of these statements.

    The result: I have been pilloried for a variety of reasons, including being a troll for Clinton. Of claiming that all attacks on Clinton are sexist. All of which is total bullshit.

    Doesn’t being a progressive mean that sexism, racism and anti-gay slurs are unacceptable regardless of who is the target?

    What, exactly, do you guys believe in?

  161. 161.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    I think Sojourner’s problem is that the racism charges against Hillary seem to get traction, yet sexism charges against Obama are dismissed out of hand. This just pisses people like Sojourner off because it’s just not fair (in their opinion) that Obama gets to benefit from decrying attacks of racism but Hillary gets nothing out of charges of sexism.

    It might have something to do with the fact that every time I see someone say that they will never vote for Hillary, there will sure as hell be someone coming along shortly who will attack what that person said as sexist. No matter how you say that you are against her policies, her decisions or anything of substance, it is dismissed and the person is accused of being sexist.

    When someone falsely dismisses the objective findings of someone on why Hillary is not presidential material as sexist, the conversation is over. If you cry “WOLF! WOLF!” day in and day out, people are going to ignore you once they see that the charges are false (yet again). You do yourself a disservice to your cause when this happens because you are cheapening the sexism charge to the point that any legitimate opinion is challenged as sexist. This is patently ridiculous, and you will be properly derided as a disingenuous twit.

    You are your own worst enemy. Heck, that would make a great campaign theme for Hillary. ;)

  162. 162.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    You are your own worst enemy. Heck, that would make a great campaign theme for Hillary.

    How am I, an Obama supporter, my own worst enemy?

    Are you arguing that a legitimate argument cannot be made that there have been sexist attacks made against Clinton?

    Why is it so difficult to agree that there have been sexist attacks on Clinton while, at the same time, arguing that a lot of her actions have been bullshit?

  163. 163.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    I provided a link to an article that demonstrated the outrageous behavior of some journalists in terms of how they described a female candidate. I never claimed that Clinton had a right to defend all of her actions on the claim of sexism. I never claimed that Obama supported these statements. I never claimed that anyone on this list was guilty of these statements.

    You did provide the link. And many of us here agreed that most (although not all) of the statements were heinous.

    So, if I’m reading you correctly, your main issue is that people on this blog (both the proprietors and the commenters) are not adequately decrying the overtly sexist statements that other people, including media pundits, have made about Hillary? I just want to be sure that this is what you’re saying, as there has been a lot of round-and-round, resulting in many of us talking past each other. And a lot of arrows have been flung, some by you, and some by those with whom you were arguing.

  164. 164.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Sorry. Not seeing any sexism in that.

    Come on, Krista, you’re not seriously arguing that because you don’t agree with every argued point that, therefore, the entire argument is wrong?

    Are you?

  165. 165.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    You did provide the link. And many of us here agreed that most (although not all) of the statements were heinous.

    Really? I must have missed those.

    Yes, I am arguing that the outrage has, to say the least, been muted.

  166. 166.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    Please stop conflating all criticism—even unfair criticism—with sexism. They are distinctly different things.

    I’m not. I put some specific examples on the table.

  167. 167.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    I always enjoy having a white guy tell me about discrimination

    Um, it’s in the dictionary. All races and genders can read about it. Sexism too.

    “Categorical discrimination” is not exactly rocket science, you don’t need a black, Hispanic or female decoder ring to figure it out.

    And saying that a woman voice sounds like fingernails on a blackboard is not categorical discrimination. It’s descriptive, and aimed at an individual, the very opposite of sexism and categorical discrimination.

    LBNL, calling her voice “fingernails on a blackboard” is an insult to fingernails on a blackboard. Give me the blackboard, it doesn’t make me cringe as much as her voice does.

    But my point is, it’s her voice. Not the voices of all women. Tell me that you get that.

  168. 168.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    I don’t know where you are, soj, but out here in Arizona it is that time on a Friday known as Beer Thirty.

    Let’s put this argument to rest for a while, whaddya say?

  169. 169.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Come on, Krista, you’re not seriously arguing that because you don’t agree with every argued point that, therefore, the entire argument is wrong?

    Are you?

    Oh goodness no. I was arguing nothing more than what I said: that most of those statements were truly jerky and sexist, but that I’m really not reading any sexism into the “cold eyes” bit and I was curious as to how someone could.

    Really? I must have missed those.

    Zifnab Says:
    I wish it was that simple. But the Chris Matthews crowd has been using general Hillary antipathy to act like a misogynist prick

    tbone, Z and John D. also said that they were not happy with those statements, and most everybody else has already left the thread.

    However, somebody brought up a point, which I think bears repeating. There are those jerks who will use gender-based language when insulting Clinton. However, that being said, it’s still doubtful as to whether their antipathy towards Clinton is solely because of her gender.

    And I think that is part of why your arguments may have received the reception that they have. Many people here dislike Clinton because of her actions and her words during this campaign, not because she is a woman.

    And yet…and yet, each and every one of us has been told, either directly or indirectly, that the only reason we do not like Clinton is because we are sexist. We’ve been told this not just by Clinton’s supporters, but by those even within the Clinton campaign.

    And it may be unfair, but when one is insulted over and over by an individual and their supporters, it makes it very difficult to muster up any righteous indignation when an unfair attack is leveled against that individual. I’m in no way saying that she deserves to be referred to using sexist terms. But I am saying that her behaviour (and the behaviour of her campaign and her supporters) towards Obama’s supporters have made it incredibly difficult for us to have any sympathy towards her for what, in the grand scheme of things, is simply idiotic statements by idiotic pundits.

  170. 170.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    But my point is, it’s her voice. Not the voices of all women. Tell me that you get that.

    Same question for you as for Krista. If you disagree with one piece of an argument, does that mean you disagree with the entire argument?

  171. 171.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    And I’m with TZ. It’s definitely beer-thirty. :) We can pick this argument up again later. I’m sure it’ll come back up at some point, and I promise to never call you names and to always try to be fair. Deal?

  172. 172.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    I don’t know of any other recourse here other than drinking ourselves into a stupor.

    To be continued on the morrow ……

    A pleasant evening to all.

  173. 173.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    Let’s put this argument to rest for a while, whaddya say?

    I’m on my second glass of wine.

    At last we agree!

    Best wishes to you and Krista for a great weekend!

  174. 174.

    Cassidy

    April 18, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    So you’re saying, you don’t have a problem with using this kind of language to attack a female candidate?

    Abso-frickin’-lutely! If she can’t handle some classless name calling by right wing pundits, then how do you seriously expect her to govern an entire goddamn nation? If the leader of the free world gets her panties in a wad over some mean names, then she needs to step down…quickly.

  175. 175.

    Martin

    April 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    I always enjoy having a white guy tell me about discrimination

    I’m a white guy. I’m also an atheist. When I was around 9 or 10 some guy asked about something (I forget) and I replied “I don’t believe in God”. He stepped forward and angrily stuck his finger in my face and told me that someone should kill me soon because all children get into Heaven, but after that I’m going to Hell.

    And do you really think that white gay men have never been discriminated against? Or Jews? Or white men with disabilities?

    I’m not trying to argue, but you need to get off your little soap box there and stop acting like only women and blacks can be targets of discrimination.

  176. 176.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Abso-frickin’-lutely! If she can’t handle some classless name calling by right wing pundits, then how do you seriously expect her to govern an entire goddamn nation? If the leader of the free world gets her panties in a wad over some mean names, then she needs to step down…quickly.

    I have made no comments about how Clinton handles this. I was simply expressing my own personal outrage.

  177. 177.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    I’m not trying to argue, but you need to get off your little soap box there and stop acting like only women and blacks can be targets of discrimination.

    I never claimed that they are the only ones discriminated against.

    I find all forms of discrimination outrageous.

    Do you?

  178. 178.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    How am I, an Obama supporter, my own worst enemy?

    Are you arguing that a legitimate argument cannot be made that there have been sexist attacks made against Clinton?

    Why is it so difficult to agree that there have been sexist attacks on Clinton while, at the same time, arguing that a lot of her actions have been bullshit?

    Disregarding your ‘… I, an Obama supporter, …’ because it has nothing to do with what I said, and if you carefully and honestly read what I clearly stated above, you should be able to understand why you are your own worst enemy regarding drawing attention to alleged sexism.

    I am not arguing that there have not been sexist attacks against Hillary, am I? I am saying that among the legitimate incidents of sexism against her, there has been many, many other conflated ‘incidents’ of sexism. I hope you understand the story of the boy who cried wolf like I do, because that is the best example of how people who run around falsely crying “SEXISM!” are making the word next to worthless.

    One fine point that you may want to note; hard core Obama supporters defend Obama, hard core Hillary supporters defend Hillary, and the people in the middle may or may not defend either, both or neither. You come in here and first attack people who say anything against Hillary as sexist and accuse Obama of sexism, then you change tactics and point to statements in the media by media personalities that you consider sexist and then you decry the ‘fact’ that Obama supporters are not calling it out.

    It is not my job to defend Hillary as I am not a supporter of hers. If something egregiously sexist is pointed out here then I may see it and agree. But to assume that every single point made by every single pundit must be decried by people like me is ludicrous.

    You defend who you want, and I will defend who I want. It is that simple. Your whole conversation here has been a huge waste of time and a distraction from the real issues that are out there. If you are pissed about sexism in the media, then go attack it at its source. Whining here is not accomplishing anything, it is just a huge waste of time.

    Now, it is motorcycle-30 here and my butt is itching to hop on it and ride! Afterward is the time for setting up my bombing run (shot glasses loaded and lined up with B-52’s ready to drop). Stick sweet goodness!

  179. 179.

    Darkrose

    April 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    It is odd, but somehow typical, that the Rebecca Traister piece in Salon falls into the standard victimization riff with its image of countless young white men seeking to bully helpless white women into supporting Obama.

    And, of course, black women and anyone who identifies as Latina, Asian, or Native American are invisible.

    That must be why I support Obama! He’s the Magical Unity Pony, and I’m a unicorn!

  180. 180.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    As I was reading this thread, this quote popped into my head:

    John McClane: I’ll tell you what your problem is, you don’t like me because you’re a racist!
    Zeus: What?
    John McClane: You’re a racist! You don’t like me because I’m white!
    Zeus: I don’t like you because you’re going to get me killed*!

    Sojourner: I’ll tell you what your problem is, you don’t like my candidate because you’re sexist!
    Everybody Else: What?
    Sojourner: You’re sexist! You don’t like Hillary because she’s a woman!
    Everybody Else: We don’t like her because she’s sabotaging *our side*!

  181. 181.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    I hope you understand the story of the boy who cried wolf like I do, because that is the best example of how people who run around falsely crying “SEXISM!” are making the word next to worthless.

    I never claimed that all attacks against Clinton are sexist.

    It is that simple. Your whole conversation here has been a huge waste of time and a distraction from the real issues that are out there.

    Too bad for you that you consider addessing discrimination a waste of time.

  182. 182.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Sojourner: I’ll tell you what your problem is, you don’t like my candidate because you’re sexist!

    Somebody obviously hasn’t been paying attention!

    LOL.

  183. 183.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Krista covered every point I’ve tried to make (and several others I also agree with) so I won’t cover the same ground. Sufice to say I think Hillary has been the target of some really disgusting remarks, but I don’t think that’s a good reason not to vote for Obama.

    I’m on my second glass of wine.

    I’m on my sixth beer, and I resent your blatant anti-hoppism, you elitist. ;)

    Cheers!

  184. 184.

    PeterJ

    April 18, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    The idea of ‘everything you don’t condemn, you approve’ is stupid beyond belief.

  185. 185.

    ThymeZone

    April 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Soj, one last thing. I apologize for calling you a liar earlier.

    It was uncalled for, I take it back, and apologize.

    Cheers,
    ppg

  186. 186.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    Sojourner: I’ll tell you what your problem is, you don’t like my candidate because you’re sexist!

    Somebody obviously hasn’t been paying attention!

    Yes, I stopped “paying attention” to your posts about halfway down. “Tedious and dogmatic” about covers them. Oh, and “moving the goalposts;” I noticed that, too.

  187. 187.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Sufice to say I think Hillary has been the target of some really disgusting remarks, but I don’t think that’s a good reason not to vote for Obama.

    Agreed. Which is why I never made that argument. I voted for Obama in the primary. But that does not mean I can’t be outraged when there are very real sexist attacks made on Clinton. That’s why I’m a liberal/progressive.

    I cannot abide Condi Rice. But I also would not tolerate sexist attacks on her.

  188. 188.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    I’m on my sixth beer, and I resent your blatant anti-hoppism, you elitist.

    Sorry, my wine elistism is showing!

  189. 189.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Soj, one last thing. I apologize for calling you a liar earlier.

    Which is why you remain on my favorite posters list!

  190. 190.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    Yes, I stopped “paying attention” to your posts about halfway down. “Tedious and dogmatic” about covers them. Oh, and “moving the goalposts;” I noticed that, too.

    Whatever. My only hope is that you never find yourself on the receiving end of sexist attacks. They’re not much fun.

  191. 191.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    tBone Says:

    Krista covered every point I’ve tried to make (and several others I also agree with)

    It’s not easy being this wonderful, but we endure…

  192. 192.

    AkaDad

    April 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I can’t believe I just spent an hour reading this thread. All I can say is none of you bitchez better accuse me of sexism. ;-)

  193. 193.

    Soylent Green

    April 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    There are other prominent women in the Democratic Party whom I admire and respect and could see myself supporting in a presidential run. Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Jennifer Granholm, and Kathleen Sebelius come to mind. Suppose one or more was contending for this nomination.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have such a choice? Then we men could not choose Hillary and not be labeled sexist.

    Someday we might be choosing from a pool of men and women and whites and blacks and Hispanics and Asians and Natives. Branding someone as either racist or sexist when they’re not will not get us there any faster.

  194. 194.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    Whatever. My only hope is that you never find yourself on the receiving end of sexist attacks. They’re not much fun.

    You’re too late; I already have–and many times over the years, too. I’ve also been attacked for my race, my weight, my nationality, my religion and my political opinions, and guess what? Apparently unlike you–I can tell the difference between sexist attacks, other kinds of attacks and legitimate criticism.

    But thank you for your concern-trolling.

  195. 195.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    ? Then we men could not choose Hillary and not be labeled sexist

    Who is labeling you a sexist for not choosing Hillary?

  196. 196.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    But thank you for your concern-trolling.

    Ah yes. Someone disagrees with you so therefore, that person is a troll.

    Have you considered becoming a progressive? Progressives are open to alternative points of view.

    Something for you to consider.

  197. 197.

    borehole

    April 18, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    Sojourner, do you think maybe the reason people here haven’t expressed what you would consider the appropriate amount of outrage over sexist attacks by the likes of Matthews, Barnacle, and Hitchens is that they’re all considered to be despicable, woman-hating sacks of crap by anyone with a lick of sense? Am I supposed to parse the latest OBL tape for hints of anti-Semitism while I’m at it?

    Swear to God, all this misogyny talk makes me wanna punch some chick right in the boob.

  198. 198.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    But thank you for your concern-trolling.

    Ah yes. Someone disagrees with you so therefore, that person is a troll.

    That’s “concern troll,” please. Your “hope” that I “never experience sexist attacks” oozes saccharine insincerity, and is ill-informed in any case.

  199. 199.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Swear to God, all this misogyny talk makes me wanna punch some chick right in the boob

    Sounds like you have anger issues. Have you considered therapy?

  200. 200.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Agreed. Which is why I never made that argument.

    I’d say that “the bigots are making it difficult to vote for Obama” is within spitting distance of that argument.

    Given that I’m on my 7th (8th?) beer now & I’m an agreeable drunk, though, I will bow out & wish you a good weekend.

    It’s not easy being this wonderful, but we endure…

    I don’t know how you even manage to get out of bed in the morning, carrying such a heavy burden.

  201. 201.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Swear to God, all this misogyny talk makes me wanna punch some chick right in the boob.

    /bangs head on desk.

    Dude.

    Not. Helpful.

  202. 202.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Ok, so where are we now, or has the discussion shifted at all?

    …so you want me to denounce Bill Kristol, Fox News, Neil Cavuto, Tucker Carlson, Christopher Hitchens? Er, yeah, where have you been, they’re detestable right-wing douchebags who say stupid shit, and what else is new.

    So what’s the argument now — right wing douchebags still say stupid shit, film at 11, and therefore, it’s harder for women to vote for Obama?! Geez, if only Obama had spoken out against that gotcha mentality of our media and the pettiness our politics.

    Oh wait, he did.

    As for Hillary, she didn’t, but in her defense, she was way too busy playing petty gotcha politics at the time — she’s got a nomination to win, you know, a Democratic opponent to kneecap…

    P.S. I’m not personally too fond of Mike Barnicle, either, regardless of where he might actually fall on the political spectrum. Jack Cafferty, on the other hand, I think is generally not that bad, he appears to have some good instincts, at least.

  203. 203.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    That’s “concern troll,” please. Your “hope” that I “never experience sexist attacks” oozes saccharine insincerity, and is ill-informed in any case.

    Ah, anyone who disagrees with you is a concern troll.

    Feel better now?

  204. 204.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    I don’t know how you even manage to get out of bed in the morning, carrying such a heavy burden.

    It’s the price one must pay.

  205. 205.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Geez, if only Obama had spoken out against that gotcha mentality of our media and the pettiness our politics.

    Oh wait, he did.

    Oh wait. I never questioned Obama’s position on this issue.

  206. 206.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Geez, if only Obama had spoken out against that gotcha mentality of our media and the pettiness our politics.

    Oh wait, he did.

    Oh wait. I never questioned Obama’s position on this issue.

    Oh wait. You said that the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.

    So if Obama’s position here doesn’t matter, then what the hell does?

    Guess I had it right the first time.

    Now keep on trolling without me, you’ve already ruined this thread.

  207. 207.

    Ted

    April 18, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Swear to God, all this misogyny talk makes me wanna punch some chick right in the boob.

    /bangs head on desk.

    Dude.

    Not. Helpful.

    Agreed. WTF is that?

    Borehole? How do you like your balls? Maybe you could lay off the hitting-women shit. Domestic violence makes me wanna blow the head off of pricks who say shit like you just did.

  208. 208.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    That’s “concern troll,” please. Your “hope” that I “never experience sexist attacks” oozes saccharine insincerity, and is ill-informed in any case.

    Ah, anyone who disagrees with you is a concern troll.

    There you go, attacking a strawman yet again. (Goes and adds “illogical” to “insincere,” “saccharine” and “tedious and didactic”.) The candidates are all lucky I don’t base my opinions of them on people like you.

  209. 209.

    borehole

    April 18, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    Ah, fuck. I’m too big a fan of Krista’s threadwork to chalk that one up to the reader’s tin ear for irony.

    Sorry. Had more or less this exact same discussion with a bunch of women at work today and a similar joke went over like gangbusters.

    Hmmm… maybe saying something 180 degrees out of character is funnier when people actually know who you are.

  210. 210.

    nightjar

    April 18, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    I can’t believe I just spent an hour reading this thread. All I can say is none of you bitchez better accuse me of sexism

    A few months ago, I was commenting on pro-Obama liberal blog and I use the word “slut” to describe Hillary’s political behaviour. It was a poor choice of word even though I was clearly speaking of politics not sexual behaviour. Well, as you can imagine about 10 women Obama supporters tore into me from all directions. I held out for about an hour and finally surrendered by apologizing and amending my statement to “political whore”.

    They all thanked me for admitting my sexist ways and said political whore was just dandy with them.

    Go figure.

  211. 211.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    So if Obama’s position here doesn’t matter, then what the hell does?

    I never considered Obama to be a bigot. Do you?

  212. 212.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    There you go, attacking a strawman yet again.

    I cited an article with specific instances of sexist language. That’s your idea of a strawman?

    WTF?

  213. 213.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Hmmm… maybe saying something 180 degrees out of character is funnier when people actually know who you are.

    That, and people can’t see your facial expression nor read your body language. ‘Tis the hazard of the internet.

    Good to know you’re not into boob-punching, though. That shit hurts.

  214. 214.

    Dug Jay

    April 18, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    According to tomorrow’s Times, Obama admits that he is a bit of a misogynist, at least when it comes to white chicks. Why am I not surprised?

  215. 215.

    nightjar

    April 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Dug Jay Says:

    According to tomorrow’s Times, Obama Dug jay admits that he is an idiot bit of a misogynist, at least when it comes to white chicks. all the goddamn time Why am I not surprised?

  216. 216.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Sojourner Says:

    There you go, attacking a strawman yet again.

    I cited an article with specific instances of sexist language. That’s your idea of a strawman?

    No.

    Ah, anyone who disagrees with you is a concern troll.

    is the specific example of strawman fallacy I referred to. Now that article you’re referring to, I would have called an example of a Red Herring fallacy, but I think you’re too disorganized to be trying to distract me on purpose.

  217. 217.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Ah, enough of this. BSG is on.

  218. 218.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    I never considered Obama to be a bigot. Do you?

    I don’t, and therefore, I have no problem with voting for him.

    Checkmate.

  219. 219.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    is the specific example of strawman fallacy I referred to. Now that article you’re referring to, I would have called an example of a Red Herring fallacy, but I think you’re too disorganized to be trying to distract me on purpose.

    Red Herring fallacy? I specifically brought up the article as something I wished to discuss. So much for the Red Herring fallacy.

    Funny how you choose not to address the article on its own merits.

  220. 220.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Checkmate.

    For what?

    But if it makes you happy, then by all means consider yourself the winner. Whatever floats your boat.

  221. 221.

    rachel

    April 18, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Oh Lord, it was a red herring. Screw this; I’m joining Krista.

  222. 222.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    For what?

    Indeed.

    it makes you happy, then by all means consider yourself the winner

    I think we were all losers here.

  223. 223.

    borehole

    April 18, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    No, Krista, just severe self-flagellation in the aftermath of a botched joke. Which is its own kind of boob-punching.

    I’m tellin’ ya though, in front of a live audience? KILLED.

  224. 224.

    Sojourner

    April 18, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Oh Lord, it was a red herring. Screw this; I’m joining Krista.

    Smart choice

  225. 225.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Oh Lord, it was a red herring. Screw this; I’m joining Krista.

    Srsly. I’ve had more productive conversations with ELIZA.

  226. 226.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    I never claimed that all attacks against Clinton are sexist.

    Some of your claimed cases of sexism have already been debunked here in this thread. Fellow Hillary supporters are using sexism to dismiss everything said about Hillary, no matter if it is a male or female saying it. Enough said. End of story.

    Too bad for you that you consider addessing [sic] discrimination a waste of time.

    I don’t consider it a waste of time, I consider the time you have spent here decrying sexism, as you define it, a waste of time. If it is pundits, go to the pundit. If it is someone specific, address them directly. Don’t just come in here and issue a blanket statement of sexism and expect to be taken seriously.

    In other words, if you see sexism here, call the person out. If you see it elsewhere, go there and call it out. I note that out of 225 current posts, you have made 54 of them. Almost one out of four posts in this thread is yours.

    If you have not made your point by now, you never had one to make.

  227. 227.

    John S.

    April 18, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Srsly. I’ve had more productive conversations with ELIZA.

    Perhaps your negativity towards a woman named ELIZA is indicative of your misogyny. Tell me more.

  228. 228.

    Cassidy

    April 18, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Lightweights…beer, wine…try the Patron bitchez!

  229. 229.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    John S.,

    I checked to see what ELIZA thought about Soj’s comments, and she gave up pretty early:

    Soj: Perhaps you should have read and understood the article first.

    ELIZA: You’re not really talking about me, are you?

    Soj: Frankly, I’m not surprised at your reaction. You’re already on record as claiming the right to make sexist comments against a woman you don’t like.

    ELIZA: We were discussing you, not me.

    Soj: What you don’t want to understand is that by doing so, you belittle more than the woman you are attacking.

    ELIZA: Does it please you to believe I am attacking?

    Soj: Actually, most of the women I know do give a crap.

    ELIZA: Say, do you have any psychological problems?

  230. 230.

    Krista

    April 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Oh Lord, it was a red herring. Screw this; I’m joining Krista.

    Seeing as I’m going to bed, this could get rather interesting.

  231. 231.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 18, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Pb (Lead ;) ), ELIZA would have given up and committed suicide (by running a low-level format on its partition).

    ;)

  232. 232.

    tBone

    April 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Seeing as I’m going to bed, this could get rather interesting.

    I now consider this thread completely redeemed.

  233. 233.

    Genine

    April 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Maybe its because of my own recent experience, but I don’t think Sojourner is a concern troll. I think, initially, her argument wasn’t made very articulately, but she has explained herself many times over since then.

    I posted on Shakesville once that I thought a few phrases they found to be sexist weren’t sexist and boy did I get crapped on, heavily. I was labeled and called names and I explained ten times what I meant. They were even claiming I said things I didn’t even say. It was truly insane. Suddenly me talking about a few statements became talking about all statements. My argument about inane parsing became a condemnation about feminism and women. I was truly disgusted.

    Yes, some Clinton supporters may not vote for Obama because they feel there isn’t sufficient outrage over sexist remarkes pundits have made. But that is their problem. My recent experience has shown me that, with some Hillary supporters, unless you’re temperament is a carbon copy of theirs, they will never be happy.

    Maybe some people are up in arms because its hard being called a sexist by a certain segment of people just for not liking Clinton. But, unlike my experiences on some other blogs, most of the commenters here seemed to have backed down a bit as more understanding comes to light.

    But while I see where Sojourner is coming from, I do not wholly agree with her argument. But, though I do not like Clinton, I am against sexism and the sexism that she has been shown. (Which isn’t as much as Clinton supporters claim)

  234. 234.

    Pb

    April 18, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Genine,

    If you’ve figured out what her argument is, then do you think you could explain it to the rest of the class? Because, really, I didn’t see any progress on this between my first comment to Soj and my last.

  235. 235.

    Genine

    April 18, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    lol. Well, what I *think* Soj is saying is that a lot of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama because he and his supporters haven’t shown enough outrage on behalf of sexism. Therefore, Obama is enjoying his male privilege and, if elected, will probably not do anything to better the lot of women. I think this argument is bullshit and (I could be wrong) I don’t think Soj buys it either, but that perception is there. I read it and argued about it many times.

    I think we all agree that sexism is wrong and, I think, Soj’s argument is that if we were more vocal about that then many (not all) Clinton supporters would trust Obama more and be more willing to bridge differences. It’s all a perception thing, which is important. Of course such sexism isn’t attributed to Obama himself, except “periodically” (*eyeroll*). But like the perceived behavior Clinton supports helped turn people off from her. The perceived behavior of Obama supporters turn people off from him. Unfair, but true.

    But, I do not like to coddle such behavior. Anyone with half a brain knows Obama is not sexist. And, no matter what you say, some Clinton supporters will never be happy with what you say and will twist everything because they hear what they want to hear. At least, that’s been my experience. Also, people who like to be offended annoy the crap out of me anyway.

    When someone argues with me that Obama saying “I think she can run as long as she wants to” is sexist (Yes, a few women complained about that) I do not bother to argue. It can only go downhill from there. Instead I work towards justice and equality for all and let them think what they want to.

  236. 236.

    Martin

    April 18, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    I never claimed that they are the only ones discriminated against.

    I find all forms of discrimination outrageous.

    Do you?

    Yes. But you dismissed TZ with that comment as though he wasn’t qualified to discuss it with you. It was a bit prejudicial.

  237. 237.

    betamu

    April 18, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    Genine, you are an angel of mercy!

  238. 238.

    Martin

    April 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Yes, some Clinton supporters may not vote for Obama because they feel there isn’t sufficient outrage over sexist remarkes pundits have made.

    I don’t think Sojourner is a concern troll either, but I’m not sure what the point of her argument is. There is no logical connection to outrage over sexist remarks by pundits and voting for Obama. That’s like not voting for Obama because of who won the Super Bowl or not voting for Clinton because the grocery store was out of Cheerios. I’m not saying there won’t be people that make that decision, but when they’re so far out in the weeds that they can’t even remember that there was a road they were following there’s really no point worrying about them – they’re not going to find their way out and there’s no way to steer them back. You need to concentrate on the folks that can be reached.

  239. 239.

    Genine

    April 19, 2008 at 12:02 am

    Thanks, Betamu. *blushes* I just try to be understanding. I could be wrong, like I said. But that’s the way I’m reading Sojouner. Others, even Sojouner herself, might disagree.

  240. 240.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 19, 2008 at 12:10 am

    Of course such sexism isn’t attributed to Obama himself, except “periodically” (*eyeroll*).

    Not to take too much of an exception, but here is an example of what I read at the Hillary Pump Stations that are inconveniently located throughout the intertubes:

    God, he is such a sexist. In that video, he’s like analyzing her. He has almost a sneer when he talks about her. Why does anyone like this man?

    College girls who support this loser need to go back to highschool. They can’t even recognize sexism when it is staring them in the face. Obama’s a sexist pig, and look at the sexist language the press always uses about Hill. She’s always “attacking” him. Pigs.

    What an arrogant, sexist, and elitist pig. He just keeps getting worse.

    Hillary has to win or I’ll be voting for McCain.

    About Obama and rappers:

    Who are these members of Obama’s amen corner? Many are the industry’s leading lights, who have become rich and famous thanks to the willingness of liberals like Obama to ignore or excuse their glorification of sexism, drugs and violence. Without this kind of collaboration they would just be unemployed thugs instead of millionaires.

    Maybe Obama supporters are tired of this crap, especially when they are the target of a false accusation after seeing their candidate slandered with it repeatedly? When someone comes in with a sexism complaint, legitimate or not, they may get derided immediately. We are sick of this shit, and people are going to react against it. Despite what those who are against sexism/misogyny may think, this crap flows both ways. Illegitimate claims of sexism/misogyny are cries of “WOLF!”, and they hurt the cause of eliminating it.

    That is my point.

  241. 241.

    Genine

    April 19, 2008 at 12:11 am

    I agree with you on that, Martin. Totally. Like I said, anyone who thinks “She can run as long as she wants to.” is sexist- there really isn’t a point to arguing with them.

    There is an element, though, that is swayed by such people and that perception might be reinforced by the perception of silence from Obama and Obama supporters on the issue of sexism. I am a bit torn about those people. But I don’t think we should coddle them or dignify the outrage of the insane element. I honestly don’t know what to do about that. I think of logic and how some arguments are illogical, but not everyone does that. They get triggered and have emotional reactions, it’s happened to me. But, at some point, one needs to calm down from hysteria and look at things calmly and that is not my responsibility or the responsibility of other Obama supporters.

    It’s a fine line and every point counts in this election. I really would like Obama to win by a large margin both in the nomination process and in the general. At the same time, though, I don’t want to dignify stupidity.

  242. 242.

    Genine

    April 19, 2008 at 12:14 am

    CL,

    I do not think Obama has ever been sexist. The eyeroll was because I thought the whole “periodically” mess was silly. I do not think that or any of the other samples you provided are examples of sexism.

    Believe, there is a reason I get called a sexist troll, even though I am a woman. lol

  243. 243.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 19, 2008 at 12:17 am

    On another note, Jane Hamsher has a line she won’t cross but Hillary has.

    I am glad she sees the way she does. When Hillary is pissing off her supporters, she is in trouble.

    There is a diary at Kos about it.

  244. 244.

    Conservatively Liberal

    April 19, 2008 at 12:28 am

    Genine, I was being ‘tongue in cheek’ in my ‘disagreement’ with you. ;) While I find blatant (or deliberately subtle) sexism abhorrent, this stuff that is going on now is nothing more than an irritating background noize that will go away soon, but not soon enough for me. I have heard enough about misogyny and sexism in the last couple of months to last me a lifetime.

    That I am not the only one who feels this way is what is sad to see. Real sexism and misogyny gets shoved to the side when false flags are dropped all over the place. That is not right. That is why people like Sojourner are hurting rather than helping. Their intentions may be well and good, but their timing is not. So they come off as concern trolls to many, including me.

    In a case like this though, the concern troll may be doing damage to the cause that they may not be aware of. Like above, some people get hung up on the ‘troll’ and miss the ‘concern’ part. Not all concern trolls are equal, just like all trolls are not equal. Concern trolls generally come in two flavors; honest and sincere, and deliberately disruptive.

    I think Sojourner fits in to the former, but sometimes acts like the latter.

  245. 245.

    Pb

    April 19, 2008 at 12:36 am

    Genine,

    what I think Soj is saying is that a lot of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama because he and his supporters haven’t shown enough outrage on behalf of sexism.

    Well Soj has apparently been citing stray comments by right-wing pundits, the sort of idiots who blather on about thse things at Fox News. Last I checked, it was Hillary that wanted to have a debate on Fox News, not Obama. It was Hillary’s campaign and her supporters who have been praising the coverage over at Fox News, not Obama and his supporters. And why, exactly, should Obama and his campaign be defending Hillary and her campaign on anything now? He’s been quite cordial, but no matter what he says, she’s been throwing him anvils as per James Carville’s classic advice. When was Hillary defending Obama on race, and when was she defending herself on sexism?

    Therefore, Obama is enjoying his male privilege and, if elected, will probably not do anything to better the lot of women. I think this argument is bullshit

    As far as I can tell, it’s entirely bullshit, especially that last part. I don’t think I’d buy into it even if I didn’t know anything else about Obama, but fortunately for me, I do. How hard is it to research a candidate, again?

    Also, people who like to be offended annoy the crap out of me anyway.

    Yeah, I’ve run into that before too — I don’t get it, and I certainly don’t like it. It seems like a totally adversarial and manipulative way of interacting with people that has zero potential to actually get anywhere, which is precisely how far such people get with me.

    When someone argues with me that Obama saying “I think she can run as long as she wants to” is sexist

    LOL. Of course, had he said the opposite, it actually would have been sexist. Therefore… yeah, I would do better talking to ELIZA instead.

  246. 246.

    Genine

    April 19, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Ah, I see, CL. My bad. I understand. I think Sojourner is coming from a good place, though. I could be wrong, but I sense some sincerity there.

    I am off to bed now. Nice chatting with you all. :-)

  247. 247.

    Genine

    April 19, 2008 at 12:50 am

    I’m with you Pb, and that is the reason why I do not buy Soj’s argument. I do not want to reward behavior like that. Let them be angry and let look like fools.

  248. 248.

    Pb

    April 19, 2008 at 1:00 am

    night, Genine!

    About Obama and rappers

    Here’s Obama talking about hip-hop:

    I love the art of hip hop. I don’t always love the message of hip hop. There are times when even … with the artists I named — the artists I love, you know — there’s a message that is not only sometimes degrading to women; not only uses the n-word a little too frequently; but also something I’m really concerned about, it’s always talking about material things. Always talking about how I can get something. How I’ve got more money…

  249. 249.

    slightly_peeved

    April 19, 2008 at 2:54 am

    I think, initially, her argument wasn’t made very articulately, but she has explained herself many times over since then.

    General rule of the internets:

    If you go on to a site, and have arguments with the commenters about that site where – on every single damn occasion – you spend half the time talking past one another and re-clarifying your position, or (and this is the worst) replying by saying other people didn’t understand your point, you are:

    a) on Obsidian Wings (no offence – they seem to like it, and that’s cool),
    b) a troll, or
    c) you’re in the wrong damn blog for your conversation.

    If you are outraged that people do not share your passion for the topic, c) is probably the one. In this case, it is better to find a blog better suiting your interests, or starting your own blog.

    Too bad for you that you consider addessing [sic] discrimination a waste of time.

    The internet is, almost in its entirety (and in particular in the case of this thread), a waste of time. You want to do something important? Get off the computer. It can sometimes be a _fun_ waste of time; that is its redeeming feature.

    I shall now go and look at humorously-captioned pictures of cats.

  250. 250.

    Cain

    April 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Slamming MoveOn.org was a tactical mistake especially using the words of Rove. Judgement, Hillary. Real smart.

    cain

  251. 251.

    wobbly

    April 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    I finally got a chance to watch the whole debate on tape.

    It was a travesty.

    She handled it much better than he did.

    That’s a fact.

  252. 252.

    Pb

    April 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    She handled it much better than he did.

    She ‘handled’ what better, the moderators attacking Obama? Yeah, she joined right in! And when given the opportunity, Obama chose not to. So if that’s ‘better’, then… yeah, congratuations, if the election’s going to be about trying to destroy the character of Democrats, then she’s better at it. Now how does that help her, again?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Mousebumples on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:10pm)
  • TBone on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:10pm)
  • WaterGirl on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:09pm)
  • Marcopolo on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:08pm)
  • Redshift on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:08pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!