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.
ThymeZone
She is the piece of crap candidate who only a month ago was whining that she always got the first question in the debates.
Krista
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.
Grand Moff Texan
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.
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.
.
chopper
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.
charlotte
Hillary Rodham Clinton = Lucy Van Pelt
Brachiator
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:
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.
Notorious P.A.T.
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.
Bob In Pacifica
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?
Zifnab
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.
mellowjohn
“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!
PaulB
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.
Josh E.
Or you can cry. Or lie. Whatever works for you, Hil.
Arguing with signposts
Hillary Clinton was asked *1* hard question in the parade of B.S. that was the first 45 minutes:
That’s compared with at least seven questions for Obama re: bittergate, rev. wright, the flag lapel pin and william Ayers.
Brachiator
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:
I can just imagine the right wing nutcases now. Obama: Too Funky for America.
Rick Taylor
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.
MDee
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.
Dug Jay
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:
ed
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.
NR
You realize that that poll shows Clinton doing worse against McCain than Obama does, right?
Better trolls, please.
Pb
More very bad news for Obama in the latest polling data: he’s still polling ahead of Clinton. Obviously, he should concede.
Davebo
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.
Notorious P.A.T.
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.
jake
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.
Dug Jay
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.
tBone
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.
John Cole
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.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
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.
wingnuts to iraq
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.
Sojourner
Unfortunately, the bigots are making it tough for some women to vote for Obama.
Here
zzyzx
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.
Pb
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:
And the terms:
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…
jenniebee
Dug Jay isn’t in it for Hill vs Obama, guys – he’s got more of a Democrat vs. Any Republican Will Do mindset.
Pb
Wow, Sojourner. Obama should fire Chris Matthews, right away. Also, Clinton really should fire George Stephanopoulos.
John S.
Wow, that’s some pretty weak concern trolling.
The Other Steve
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.
Pb
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.
Sojourner
Well this comment certainly speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
LOL.
Sojourner
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.
Martin
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?
Josh E.
Edited for accuracy.
cleek
oh boo-hoo. Obama’s supporters aren’t on the fucking ballot.
John Cole
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.
Tony J
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.
Davebo
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?
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
PotD, right there.
Tony J
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.
Sojourner
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.
Calouste
Fixed.
Btw, if you think double digit inflation is a useful policy, I have a bridge to sell.
Pb
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.
Josh E.
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?
John Cole
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.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
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.
Sojourner
Uh, one article doesn’t exactly constitute a groundswell, now does it?
Sojourner
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.
Josh E.
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.
Sojourner
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.
Perhaps you should have read and understood the article first.
ThymeZone
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.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Would it be less sexist if we called her “asshole”?
myiq2xu
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.
John Cole
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.
Zifnab
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.
Martin
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.
Sojourner
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.
Billy K
That’s really observant. Did you come up with it?
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
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.
Sojourner
Actually, most of the women I know do give a crap.
Josh E.
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!
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.
Krista
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.
Dennis - SGMM
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.
Brachiator
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.
Davebo
Wow, that’s pretty sexist of her! Barefoot in the kitchen?
Tim F.
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.
ThymeZone
You’re a fucking liar.
Rick Taylor
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.
lou
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.
Tony J
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.
ThymeZone
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.
cleek
congratulations, Hillary, your nonstop negativity has put both Dems behind McCain, nationally.
good fucking job. you should be proud. such a Democratic standard-bearer.
Wilfred
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.
nightjar
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.
Sojourner
That’s your argument, not mine.
I’m sure there’s a name for that fallacy.
ThymeZone
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?
Sojourner
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.
Svensker
The EEEL says:
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.
ThymeZone
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.
libarbarian
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.
Sojourner
So you have no problem with the things that journalists said in the article I sited?
Sojourner
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.
cleek
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.
ThymeZone
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.
The Other Steve
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.
Tony J
And this isn’t spoof?
My hairy balls! It has to be.
ThymeZone
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.
Sojourner
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.
Brachiator
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.
Sojourner
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.
The Other Steve
myiq is a special kind of stupid
Josh E.
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.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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.
Sojourner
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?
cleek
perceived sexism is met by women siding the female candidate.
why side with the female candidate?
because she’s female.
who’s sexist?
Sojourner
I’m not sure if “pimping” is sexism since there are male prostitutes.
The Other Steve
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.
Sojourner
I thought you were an Obama supporter? That’s who I voted for in the primary.
Whoops. Another stereotype.
Dennis - SGMM
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.”
The Other Steve
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.
Sojourner
You’re an expert on pimps?
ThymeZone
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.
Josh E.
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.
Pooh
HRC=Bruce Bowen? Intriguing.
(I note that he also appears to be on his last legs)
Tony J
Oh, come on!
This has got to be spoof. It simply has to be.
Sojourner
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.
Zifnab
Yeah, like your mom!
I’m sorry? Too mature for this thread? I’ll try to dial it down a bit.
cleek
smells like lazy trolling on a late friday afternoon, to me.
Cain
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
J. Michael Neal
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.
GeoRockstar
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.
dmbeaster
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.
Genine
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.
nightjar
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.
Z
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.
Brachiator
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.
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:
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.
w vincentz
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!
Tony J
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.
Pb
Because…
Good luck with that.
Notorious P.A.T.
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.
Jen
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.
The Other Steve
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.
les
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?
Z
w vincentz,
That is completely lame. If I could reach through the screen, I would smack you.
tBone
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.
Pb
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.
Krista
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.
Sojourner
Did you read the article that I cited?
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?
Zifnab
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?
ThymeZone
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 …..
nightjar
Meanwhile, another ride on the Poll-o-coaster.
We go up.
We go down.
Sojourner
Here’s some more. Are you okay with these?
Sojourner
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.
cleek
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.
Zifnab
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.
John Cole
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.
Zifnab
Your mom sucks and I am starting a new one.
tBone
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?
Z
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.
Sojourner
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?
Sojourner
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.
Tom in Texas
We. are. saying. that. those. statements. weren’t. said. by. Obama.
Brachiator
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).
Isn’t it ironic that the MUP is offering Democrats the alternative that some hoped that Hillary might represent?
Sojourner
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?
ThymeZone
{ 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.
ThymeZone
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
Sojourner
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.
Sojourner
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.
tBone
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.
Krista
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:
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?
John D.
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.
Sojourner
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.
Sojourner
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?
Conservatively Liberal
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. ;)
Sojourner
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?
Krista
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.
Sojourner
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?
Sojourner
Really? I must have missed those.
Yes, I am arguing that the outrage has, to say the least, been muted.
Sojourner
I’m not. I put some specific examples on the table.
ThymeZone
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.
ThymeZone
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?
Krista
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.
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.
Sojourner
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?
Krista
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?
ThymeZone
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.
Sojourner
I’m on my second glass of wine.
At last we agree!
Best wishes to you and Krista for a great weekend!
Cassidy
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.
Martin
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.
Sojourner
I have made no comments about how Clinton handles this. I was simply expressing my own personal outrage.
Sojourner
I never claimed that they are the only ones discriminated against.
I find all forms of discrimination outrageous.
Do you?
Conservatively Liberal
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!
Darkrose
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!
rachel
As I was reading this thread, this quote popped into my head:
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*!
Sojourner
I never claimed that all attacks against Clinton are sexist.
Too bad for you that you consider addessing discrimination a waste of time.
Sojourner
Somebody obviously hasn’t been paying attention!
LOL.
tBone
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 sixth beer, and I resent your blatant anti-hoppism, you elitist. ;)
Cheers!
PeterJ
The idea of ‘everything you don’t condemn, you approve’ is stupid beyond belief.
ThymeZone
Soj, one last thing. I apologize for calling you a liar earlier.
It was uncalled for, I take it back, and apologize.
Cheers,
ppg
rachel
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.
Sojourner
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.
Sojourner
Sorry, my wine elistism is showing!
Sojourner
Which is why you remain on my favorite posters list!
Sojourner
Whatever. My only hope is that you never find yourself on the receiving end of sexist attacks. They’re not much fun.
Krista
It’s not easy being this wonderful, but we endure…
AkaDad
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. ;-)
Soylent Green
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.
rachel
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.
Sojourner
Who is labeling you a sexist for not choosing Hillary?
Sojourner
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.
borehole
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.
rachel
That’s “concern troll,” please. Your “hope” that I “never experience sexist attacks” oozes saccharine insincerity, and is ill-informed in any case.
Sojourner
Sounds like you have anger issues. Have you considered therapy?
tBone
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.
I don’t know how you even manage to get out of bed in the morning, carrying such a heavy burden.
Krista
/bangs head on desk.
Dude.
Not. Helpful.
Pb
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.
Sojourner
Ah, anyone who disagrees with you is a concern troll.
Feel better now?
Krista
It’s the price one must pay.
Sojourner
Oh wait. I never questioned Obama’s position on this issue.
Pb
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.
Ted
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.
rachel
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.
borehole
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.
nightjar
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.
Sojourner
I never considered Obama to be a bigot. Do you?
Sojourner
I cited an article with specific instances of sexist language. That’s your idea of a strawman?
WTF?
Krista
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.
Dug Jay
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?
nightjar
rachel
No.
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.
Krista
Ah, enough of this. BSG is on.
Pb
I don’t, and therefore, I have no problem with voting for him.
Checkmate.
Sojourner
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.
Sojourner
For what?
But if it makes you happy, then by all means consider yourself the winner. Whatever floats your boat.
rachel
Oh Lord, it was a red herring. Screw this; I’m joining Krista.
Pb
Indeed.
I think we were all losers here.
borehole
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.
Sojourner
Smart choice
Pb
Srsly. I’ve had more productive conversations with ELIZA.
Conservatively Liberal
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.
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.
John S.
Perhaps your negativity towards a woman named ELIZA is indicative of your misogyny. Tell me more.
Cassidy
Lightweights…beer, wine…try the Patron bitchez!
Pb
John S.,
I checked to see what ELIZA thought about Soj’s comments, and she gave up pretty early:
Krista
Seeing as I’m going to bed, this could get rather interesting.
Conservatively Liberal
Pb (Lead ;) ), ELIZA would have given up and committed suicide (by running a low-level format on its partition).
;)
tBone
I now consider this thread completely redeemed.
Genine
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)
Pb
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.
Genine
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.
Martin
Yes. But you dismissed TZ with that comment as though he wasn’t qualified to discuss it with you. It was a bit prejudicial.
betamu
Genine, you are an angel of mercy!
Martin
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.
Genine
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.
Conservatively Liberal
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:
About Obama and rappers:
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.
Genine
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.
Genine
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
Conservatively Liberal
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.
Conservatively Liberal
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.
Pb
Genine,
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?
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?
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.
LOL. Of course, had he said the opposite, it actually would have been sexist. Therefore… yeah, I would do better talking to ELIZA instead.
Genine
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. :-)
Genine
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.
Pb
night, Genine!
Here’s Obama talking about hip-hop:
slightly_peeved
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.
Cain
Slamming MoveOn.org was a tactical mistake especially using the words of Rove. Judgement, Hillary. Real smart.
cain
wobbly
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.
Pb
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?