It’s also — take my word on this — not funny. Excising a lot of both-siderism from the Politico article:
… “I’m stunned that a man like Bernie Sanders, who has clearly committed his life to making the country a better place, would get sucked into this very dangerous rhetoric, which perpetuates sexist and misogynistic stereotypes,” fumed Christine Quinn, the former New York City Council speaker who sits on Clinton’s New York Leadership Council and does fundraising for her campaign. “The candidate is supposed to set the tone, set the agenda. If Bernie Sanders does not want to be seen as someone who uses sexist language and perpetuates a dangerous sexist stereotype of strong women, then he should tell his people to stop. And if they don’t stop, he should fire them.”
Quinn, who ran for New York City mayor in 2013, said a recent Bloomberg Politics story that quoted Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver as joking that “we’re willing to consider [Clinton] for vice president … we’ll even interview her” was beyond the pale.
“Seriously? Seriously? The absurdity of that statement almost merits no response. How arrogant and sexist can you be? It’s not OK to let people with a long progressive record get away with being sexist.”…
I don’t think Bernie Sanders is (deliberately) sexist, but I do think his campaign staff needs to check themselves, maybe run those “jokes” past some actual double-X-chromosome staffer before sharing them with reporters.
It’s a repeat of Sanders’ #BLM problem… except I doubt the Sandernistas can claim that the Vermont population is 96% male.
Hercules Mulligan
I hate having to agree with Jon Chait on anything, but…this is what a lot of campaigns do? In 2008, AFTER Obama started winning delegates, Clinton said that they’d consider Obama for Veep.
I fully support Sanders’ decision to apologize for this, because it was inelegant and distracted from his campaign, but let’s not suggest that it’s some new, exciting insult. It’s campaigning.
pacem appellant
Our household these days is fun. The spousal unit is vehemently pro-Sanders (that’s the XX one). I am for Hilary (the XY contributor). It reminds me of when we were both Deaniacs. This election is way more fun to be a Democrat, at least during this primary. There’s no chance of a Kerry coming out of the primary, and the opposition has to chose between derp, derper, and derpest.
Baud
@pacem appellant:
That’s interesting because it’s opposite the polling I’ve seen.
Amir Khalid
Hmm. How will most-faithful Bernista Gedankenloses Heute* react to this one? I’m pretty sure you’ll be accused of favouritism towards Hillary. Although he might not call you a Republican, a member of Wal-Mart’s board of directors, or a slaver.
* I got the adjectival ending wrong earlier today. Them’s tricky things, German adjectival endings.
Art
One campaign suggests another candidate would be a good running mate as VP, and would even get interviewed.
So it’s sexist just because HRC is a female? Seems like some mighty thin skin.
Baud
When I first heard of this story, I thought it was the type of stupid controversy that happens during contested primaries. It may still be — I admit I’m not knowledgeable enough to fully understand how women perceive these comments. But the whole quote from the Bloomberg article does remind me of the type of attitude that got Hillary in trouble vis-a-vis Obama in 2008.
I can see how this might rub people the wrong way.
Frankensteinbeck
I admit, I don’t see the misogyny here. I say this not to dispute the point, but if anything to show that I am blind. Isn’t this just standard staffer-being-an-asshole-about-the-competition stuff? Everything else in the story suggests that these three viscerally hate Clinton and do not share Sanders’ view of this as a polite contest, but I hear no shortage of Clinton hate here. If they did compare her to Palin, that would be misogyny, but they just seem to be spewing bile.
Amir Khalid
On a more serious note, Bernie’s campaign staff need to be careful about not distracting from their man’s message. These oopsies are unprofessional; they make Bernie himself look bad.
Smiling Mortician
Dunno. Having read the linked articles, I’m not seeing the sexism. The post headline is provocative — except nobody aside from Anne Laurie is actually comparing HRC to Sarah Palin. The entirety of the trash-talk was standard political trash-talk: “Candidate X would make a good VP, maybe I’ll consider him” is heard in every run-up to the party’s nomination. Just seems like typical swiping at the front-runner — unless we assume that VPOTUS is now a girly thing to be.
ETA: What Frankensteinbeck said.
Trentrunner
@Frankensteinbeck: This is correct.
low-tech cyclist
@Frankensteinbeck:
I’m in the same boat. I’m open to the possibility that there’s sexism and misogyny here that, as a guy, I’m simply blind to. But if that’s so, can someone please fight my ignorance by spelling it out in small words?
J.D. Rhoades
I’ve always regarded one of the tests for whether something is sexist as “would they ever say that about a male candidate?” In this case, the answer is “Sure”.
This is the same bullshit the Hillaristas pulled off last time. Everything was misogyny, everything was a “slap in the face” to women.
Mobile RoonieRoo
As someone with XX chromosomes I read the article and i’m baffled. Why is that sexist? He’s being an ass but not sexist.
Frankensteinbeck
@low-tech cyclist:
Pretty much what I’m asking for, women to tell me what I’m missing, or if they agree.
Smiling Mortician
@Frankensteinbeck: So maybe I should have mentioned in my comment at #9 that I’m a woman.
Keith G
Come on.
Campaigns are big and, as often as not, a bit unwieldy masses of people. Folks in said campaigns say things that are ridiculous and unless there is direct evidence to the contrary, those things do not reflect on the candidate him or herself or the rest of the campaign.
If it is the case that it does reflect on the candidate…didn’t the 2008 version of Hillary’s campaign have an issue with a staffer bad mouthing Obama in insulting ways?
Oh wait, That was Bill.
Frankensteinbeck
@Smiling Mortician:
Yes, actually. It helps, since AL implies strongly that this is a ‘men can’t see it’ problem.
Baud
FWIW, I’m pretty confident that neither Clinton nor Sanders will be each other’s vice-president.
Smiling Mortician
@Baud: Yes, but will one of them be your VP?
In Baud we Trust.
R. Porrofatto
I have to agree with the above commenters. Arrogant, probably — the guy is a campaign manager after all. But sexist? I don’t see it, and with all the genuine, explicit misogyny coming from the GOP towards Hillary Clinton, this sounds a bit too much like standard over-the-top political (and very Karl Rovian) outrage to tar an opponent for being [sexist, racist, anti-family, fill in the blank]. The right-wing have been doing this for years against Obama, and it seems that Christine Quinn has learned the lessons well.
Bobby Thomson
Has a whiff of he-man woman hater to it. At a minimum, it’s step-on-a-rake stupid.
Anne Laurie
@Frankensteinbeck:
Palin’s candidacy poisoned the well. When three male staffers laugh about how a woman with Hillary’s qualifications “could be interviewed for our VP slot,” it’s gonna read as sexist.
And I read it as deliberately sexist, but I concede it may be one of those “why can’t You People take a joke?” overreactions. I mean, it’s quite possible President Obama likes fried chicken and watermelon, but those right-wing memes about the new 2009 White House state dinner menu were still racist in intent!
Baud
@Smiling Mortician: I’ll consider it. I’ll even interview them.
Smiling Mortician
@Frankensteinbeck: Yeah, and that attitude is supremely unhelpful, in my view. Talk about yer sexism.
Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
@Smiling Mortician: Summed it up.
p.a.
Since Bernie is running for President against her, it’s a given he thinks he would be a better Pres than Hillary. Is that sexist?
Omnes Omnibus
@Anne Laurie:
This might actually be the overreaction you mentioned.
Myiq2xu
*munches popcorn*
benw
Male Sanders supporter here. Most of the quote seems pretty harmless trash-talk until you get to “We’ll even interview her, ” which I assume is a shot at Clinton by suggesting Palin. That seems a little sexist in the same way that “sportscasters will only compare black athletes to other black athletes” is a little racist, but not off the charts horrible. But the response
makes me want to opt out of the whole discussion, because the answer is “a whole shit ton more arrogant and sexist!”
Myiq2xu
I would really like to hear John Cole’s opinion on this issue.
dogwood
Sexism aside, the Sanders people are on some very thin ice here. Bernie is a non democrat running for the democratic nomination for president. His people better watch themselves when it comes to disrespecting Hillary and the President as well. They don’t have the bone fides to do that. if Bernie wins the nomination, Sanders and his people are going to expect Hillary and Barack to raise money and stump all over the country for him. Yet, Sanders has never done the same for any democratic nominee. He’s a political free rider.
tom
Bernie already commented that it was a stupid thing for his campaign to say, that *should* be the end of it. The top dog acknowledged the mistake, let it go, if either campaign keep dribbling this out so it stays in the “news” will just hurt both of them, so they’re both at fault, Mr. Weaver and Ms. Quinn.
Baud
@Anne Laurie:
I really don’t see how your analog to racism against Obama fits here.
As far as qualifications go, there’s no one in the world whose qualifications are so good that they wouldn’t be interviewed for the Veep slot. Obama would be interviewed if we wanted to be Veep. The statement is, however, arrogant in tone, as I said above, and it may be similar to the type of arrogance women face all the time. I’ll differ to the women here on that.
p.a.
@Keith G: once she was behind in ’08, weren’t there some ‘dog whistle’ emanations from the Hillaty camp?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I agree, a certain cocky swagger seems to be pretty typical among campaign professionals, and this seems fueled by something personal– Devine in particular has been obnoxious more than once in the last couple weeks– but I don’t see it as sexist. I didn’t think it was racist when Bubba in ’08 suggested Obama could be HRC’s Veep, arrogant and already delusional at that point (IIRC), but not racist.
This, too.
pete
Empathy — it’s not an unattainable goal.
Another Holocene Human
Christine Quinn? You mean the Bloomberg protogee centra-Dem who promised New Yorkers more of the same and as they firmly rejected her, tried to shiv Bill De Blasio’s wife in public from the gay side?
She has zero credibility with me.
And while that guy may be tone deaf, making out his statement to mean he’s equating Clinton to Palin is a bit much. If it was sexist (and, not, say, negging the competition: “Of course I respect Mayor Quimby’s record, which is why I’d welcome him into my administration when I’m elected”), it was sexist in a subtle way, not an obvious, Donald Trump kind of way.
Baud
@tom:
Good. And agreed.
Frankensteinbeck
@tom:
I do think this is important. These guys are being assholes who don’t get that Sanders and Clinton are rivals, not enemies, but so far the candidates themselves seem to. It’s something I have greatly enjoyed about this campaign. While the GOP are screaming and showing their butts like baboons, our side are having a serious, issue-driven primary.
Another Holocene Human
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yeah, unlike other stuff Bill said. At one point in the campaign the Clinton camp thought they were still going to win in a squeaker and Obama was the fresh face who’d energized the Democrats and could now join them to victory. I think they were pretty pissy when they realized he was playing marbles for keeps.
Smiling Mortician
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, that’s pretty bad. Embarrassingly bad, actually.
JPL
@Art: That’s how I felt. It didn’t dawn on me, that anyone would compare Hillary to Sarah Palin.
gelfling545
@low-tech cyclist: I’m a.) female and b.) a Sanders supporter (although I’m fine with HRC if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination.) I saw the comment a few days ago & did not find it to be sexist nor did it ever occur to me that it could have anything to do with Palin.
I considered it to be a slightly backhanded way of saying “if I don’t get the nomination, she’s nearly as good.” That’s just me. I have no claim to speak for all females. Still, every campaign must bear in mind that there are those who are on the hunt for some umbrage they can take.
Keith G
Remember a previous “insult”
Democrats do play tough.
Another Holocene Human
@Frankensteinbeck: I guess the campaign ops see their career as dependent on winning, whereas for the candidates the incentives are different. (For candidates running is a risk; for operatives, it’s a job. And so on.)
Goblue72
1. There is no gender divide between Sanders and Clinton supporters. But there is an age one – https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/10/clinton-sanders-democratic-presidential-primary-caucuses/
2. Anything coming out of Christine Quinn’s mouth should be treated as suspect. She’s a corporate stooge who works for Cuomo and was tied at the hip to Bloomberg, and supported Ray Kelly’s racist stop and frisk policies. She came in a distant 3rd in the NYC mayoral race for a reason. She’s an old guard Clintonista of the kind everyone here was bagging on when those same characters went after Obama in 2008.
3. I’m sure we will continue to see this kind of ginned up faux-trage from the MAWWs this whole election season. Before they go back to shoving their way to the organic kale section at Berkeley Bowl.
4. Politics ain’t beanbag. This wasn’t a sexist statement. It was a fastball high and inside. The Clintonistas are classic front-runners. Throw a brushback pitch and you see how thin their skin is. This is exactly the kind of personality shit that will suppress turnout amongst the left.
JPL
@Keith G: The big insult was when Michelle mentioned that she had never been so proud to be an American. (or something like that)
lol
kc
Not seeing the sexism. Sorry.
Another Holocene Human
@dogwood: This is a damn good point and maybe part of the reason it’s more jarring than the normal campaign bullshit.
I think, on reflection, it also reads as sexist because the dismissal of who Clinton is just seems wrong. This guy is talking as if Sanders and Clinton are equal or thereabouts. Perhaps Clinton fresh off the Senate is. But this is the Clinton who was SoS. Clinton with decades put in for the Democratic Party. Sanders is just a crank from New England. Clinton vs Sanders is overmatched. But wouldn’t it just be like a sexist to completely dismiss a woman’s accomplishments. I suppose this is what is setting Anne Laurie and Quinn off.
Or it could just be pissing in the wind because Clinton is about to grind Sanders to dust and they know it.
Another Holocene Human
@JPL: I had so much respect for Michelle for saying that and could not for the life of me grasp the negative reaction.
The harbinger of what was to come.
Another Holocene Human
@Goblue72: It was so high and inside the umpire called a ball.
Iowa Old Lady
When a group of men are dismissive and minimalizing about a highly qualified woman, my antennae go up and I check for sexism. In this case, I didn’t see it in the smaller set of quotes but in the full set at comment 6, my back came up. Then it went down again, and I gave the guys the benefit of the doubt.
Until you’ve had women be in this position multiple times, so it seems like normal politics, sexism always feels possible.
ETA: What Another Halocene Human said.
Keith G
@JPL: One would think that there is not a friggin freight train load of real issues to try to hash out.
low-tech cyclist
@Anne Laurie:
Sorry, you lost me right here. Just because McCain was willing to make Caribou Barbie his veep choice, doesn’t mean that any woman veep candidate in the future is Caribou Barbie Redux.
Nope, still don’t get it. In the unlikely event that Bernie won the nomination, the veep slot would be the biggest prize they’d have to hand out, prior to winning the election.
Surely the Obama campaign interviewed Biden before Obama put him on the ticket in 2008. Was that demeaning to a man of Biden’s qualifications? Or is it only demeaning if it’s a woman?
The difference being that blacks eating fried chicken and watermelon is a blatant stereotype. Women being interviewed for Vice-President of the United States, not so much.
Goblue72
@Another Holocene Human: Calling into question whether your opponent has the chops for the nomination you are running for isn’t sexist.
It’s Politics 101. Folks really need to get over themselves.
sharl
@tom:
Here’s a link for Sanders’ response, in case AL wants to append it to the O.P. (my google-fu needs a tune-up, I had a heck of a time finding that). An excerpt:
MattF
@Anne Laurie: The absence of why-can’t-you-people-take-a-joke is actually a good sign. As is the fact that no one is pretending that comparing Clinton to Palin wasn’t a deliberate insult.
Another Holocene Human
That Jacobin piece is crap
Above it is a graph showing that more young people support Clinton. In fact, in every age tranche, Clinton is winning. All it shows is that more young people are undecided than middle aged people (who vote more frequently, so, like, whatever). Also, the olds are mostly undecided (interesting…).
The gender thing was not broken down by age so for all we know Sanders’ female fans are 80 year old Communist grannies. It did show that Hilary’s supporters were 3% more female than male (just above pop demographics) and Sanders were 3% (relative different, not absolute) less, but that may be within a margin of error that was not shown.
Total. Joke.
Smiling Mortician
@MattF: Who compared Clinton to Palin? Besides Anne Laurie, I mean.
Another Holocene Human
@Goblue72: I explained what AL’s ish is, but I guess you chose not to read my post, just react to it. “Those who have ears to hear…”
benw
@dogwood:
On the other hand, if Hillz wins she will expect Sanders to enthusiastically deliver his supporters and stump for her. I expect Obama is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. Although isn’t it bad form for the sitting president to stump?
@low-tech cyclist: agree totally.
Suzanne
@low-tech cyclist: This feels sexist to those of us who have been on the receiving end of headpats and condescension, which JUST SO HAPPEN to get thrown at women in male-dominated fields a lot. The statement in and of itself doesn’t seem to have any sexist content, but please remember that there is a larger context of smart, capable women being talked to like they’re idiots by men when they dare to compete.
I’m in a male-dominated field (AEC), and there are at least a few times a year when I have to deal with a contractor or and engineer who starts talking down to me, and then is shocked when I know what I’m talking about. There are still very, VERY few women leaders in this field. So this feels like a microaggression.
MattF
@Smiling Mortician: Oh, come on. It was a dumb insult, a mistake, and Sanders saw that immediately. But still an insult.
Another Holocene Human
@Keith G: Some people’s personality disorders come before all else.
Hence the white GOPer love for Herman Cain. The man who believes that waitresses should be paid $3/hr.
Baud
@benw:
Yeah, Obama will be limited in what he can personally do.
policomic
I’m sorry, but AL’s headline seems dishonest to me.
jl
@Baud:
Here is Sanders responding to the scandals of the day.
Says his campaign’s comments on HRC were inappropriate: between 2 and 4 min
Sanders deals with Rubio hooky from Senate (I found out that Sanders missed 4 percent versus Rubios’ 45+ something percent: 7 to 9 min.
AND BERNIE’S HONEYMOON IN USSR: 9 min to end.
FULL | Bernie Sanders Interview Recapping GOP Debate 10.29.15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysCKxrud72k
Another Holocene Human
@MattF: It IS an insult, but not in the way that AL stated. More stretching, more distraction. I should know, I do it too, make way too many unsupported logical leaps and then expect a room full of people to follow me.
It’s insulting because Clinton crushes Sanders, resume wise; it’s not Gary Hart vs Mike Dukakis here. But it’s not insulting because something something um 2008 something Sarah Palin.
eta: I still wonder if this wasn’t bravado/pissing in the wind. And at any rate, Sanders told him to stuff it.
J.D. Rhoades
@p.a.:
You mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPyeKe-EFf4
For the record, I didn’t hold Harriet Christian’s “inadequate black male” crack against Hillary. I was too busy holding the Iraq War against her.
eemom
Another XX vote for this is not sexist.
Amidst wondering why anyone would be so determined to argue sexism where none exists that they’d interject a Sarah Palin reference that no one made.
The faux wailing of sexism/misogyny from Hillbots in ’08 was insufferable. I’d actually hoped we’d be better than that this time around.
Smiling Mortician
@MattF: Not saying it wasn’t aggressive trash-talk. But I saw zero comparison to Palin, except from Anne Laurie. My take is that HRC can take care of herself — and if she’s anything like me, she’d rather not have people screaming misogyny in response to standard gender-neutral political sparring. And she’d probably also rather not have people on her own side explicitly comparing her to Sarah Palin in the process.
Another Holocene Human
@Amir Khalid:
Agreed. Especially when you through definite articles in the mix. I bet I could live there 2 years speaking German every day and still flub the fucking things.
Bobby Thomson
@Baud: I don’t understand the first sentence in your second paragraph.
Another Holocene Human
@Baud: Yeah. More obnoxiously insulting to Obama. Fuck you, random campaign operative, you stupid piece of shit.
Steve From Antioch
By any reasonable standard, that comments pretty mild trash talking.
And anyone who thinks that comment is sexist is just a fucking moron.
eemom
@Smiling Mortician:
THIS, exactly.
Baud
@Bobby Thomson:
Shorter: every Veep candidate will be interviewed, no matter how qualified they are.
I should have added, on the Dem side. As we all know, Cheney interviewed himself and determined he was the best candidate.
Ken
@Frankensteinbeck:
Pity that baboon butts draw more attention than discussions of issues. It motivates the media in exactly the wrong direction, since their business model is providing eyes to advertisers.
MattF
@Smiling Mortician: Well, it’s what I thought of when I saw the remark. Maybe that’s just me. But in any event, I’m fine with regarding it as youthful enthusiasm that crossed a line it shouldn’t have.
Suzanne
Another thing that might come off as sexist is the number of dudes who would assuredly assert that this isn’t sexist. Not, “Hey, I’m not seeing it, but I’d love to hear thoughts from women on this issue”. This is not calling out anyone here because the discussion has remained civil, which is nice. But very quickly, this becomes “You women are too sensitive”.
Keith G
Imagine if you will, a scenario years from now where professional sports teams are sex/gender integrated so that men and women compete on the same pitch, diamond, grid iron or court. Think of the issue of trash talking. Will there be outrage on the part of some distant observers when a male athlete blithely diminishes the skill level of an opposing female athlete?
Oh horrors.
Baud
@Keith G:
Hmm. That analogy also seems…unhelpful.
napoleon
Bull Shit,this isn’t sexist. Presidential campaigns have been saying stuff like this about people that are running against their candidate in a primary my entire 54 yo life.
God is Anne Laurie an idiot.
jl
Here’s Sanders trying to squirm out from under his campaign strategist’s BS.
I think Sanders is probably (just probably) sincere, though I wonder if he is sincere enough to shut down some of his staff’s BS (which is sometimes too ‘establishment’ to fit well with a supposedly anti-establishment campaign.)
Bernie Sanders: ‘We will respond forcefully’ to…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85mNkHekVXM
At the end Blitzer brings up whether the Sanders campaign has done opposition research on HRC (like what, do a search of media stories on HRC for last 20 years?) A little equivocation on both sides maybe on what ‘issues’ means.
Anyway, Sanders says no. Not sure if Blitzer as being clever or clueless in his use of the word ‘issues’.
pacem appellant
@Baud: We refuse to be pigeon-holed in our family. She is pro-Sanders because he’s an abashed leftist. I’m pro-Hilary because I’m unabashedly practical. When ever I hear good news for Sanders, I pass it along to her. When ever she hears bad news about Hilary, she shares with me. Totally fair and balanced ;-)
hitchhiker
It wasn’t about Palin. It was about laughing at HRC because the last time she thought she was going to get the nomination, the guy who beat her didn’t even interview her for the VP job.
Gratuitously insulting, given that that same guy went on to choose her to run the State Dept and sit on his cabinet. Also given that their candidate is trailing her by double digits everywhere except NH.
So . . . sexist? Well, in the sense that for some people the very idea of a woman commander in chief is a joke.
The problem is that when men make jokes about the possibility of a particular woman coming to power, you can’t tell if they have a general issue or a particular one.
If white people in HRC’s camp were mocking Obama’s chances, they would sound racist even if they were only referring to him & his particular qualifications.
Suzanne
@Steve From Antioch:
Irony. I wrote my above comment before seeing this one.
Look, you might not read it as sexist, and that’s fine—reasonable people can disagree—but a dude named Steve may not have the most credibility on what is and is not sexist. And it is probably sexist to dismiss the concerns of women who do know better as those of “fucking morons”.
Baud
@jl:
Wait, Sanders is saying he hasn’t done any opposition research in Hillary? That makes no sense.
Heliopause
70-some comments in and I assume it’s been pointed out a few dozen times by now that Clinton did the same thing to Obama in ’08.
Smiling Mortician
@Suzanne: Several of us in this thread who don’t see the alleged misogyny are women.
ETA: Third-wave feminism, folks.
johnnybuck
@dogwood:
And he probably won’t this time either.
jl
Here is Morning Joe’s invaluable contribution to public debate, starting at 2 min.
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski dubs Hillary ‘pathetic’ for playing sexism card
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXyzanKROss
Who watch’s this crap?
Beside being a minute of total BS, looks like Joe just cannot stand to allow his side kick to get more than two or three words out before he feels he just has to butt in and talk over her.
Why? Her BS is exactly as bad as his is.
I don’t see how anyone can watch this show. I only watch clips of the train wrecks. I could barely get through 3 minutes of this clip.
Baud
@Heliopause:
I did up top. It should also be noted that Hillary lost to Obama.
MattF
@A guy: The troll shows his ass.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
from the Politico piece
I’ll defer to the New Yorkers who remember this race better than I, but my recollection is that the pledge thing was a “turning point” only in that Lazio moved from being a longshot to a punch line, and the scene he made was less “bullying and aggressive” than desperate and pathetic.
Baud
@pacem appellant:
I hope for your sake Sanders wins.
Ken
@JPL:
Isn’t it interesting that in English “compare” can mean both “talk about the similarities” and “talk about the differences”? Huge differences. Pardon me, yooge differences.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Iowa Old Lady:
I think I’m at the same place — it doesn’t quite rise to the level of outright sexism, much less misogyny, but if a guy or group of guys said something like that in the workplace, they would get some side-eye from me and a little extra caution in the future, especially if we were supposed to work on projects together. It could be either a moment of stupidity or an early warning sign, so I would be a little cautious until I figured out which.
(Don’t worry, fellas, 90 percent of the time it turns out to be a moment of stupidity and it’s all forgotten in a week or two. But a girl still has to keep an eye out for that 10 percent before they can sabotage her.)
Rick Taylor
I think I remember Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election proposing that Obama could run as her Vice President.
Suzanne
@Smiling Mortician: And that’s fine. As I said, reasonable people can disagree. I myself have said numerous times that some of the times when the GOP trash-talks POTUS Obama, I don’t think they’re always doing so because of racist motivation or intent. it is frequently asserted on this blog that “they just can’t handle having a black man in the White House,” which I think is a facile and simplistic response. Sometimes it’s just because Obama is on the wrong team/tribe, and this shit ain’t beanbag. Sometimes, there’s racism lurking behind their words, and sometimes it seems to me that it’s just sour grapes.
What I do think is sexist, though, is when dudes straight up say what is and isn’t sexist without listening to women first.
Another Holocene Human
@hitchhiker:
Good point.
J R in WV
@MattF:
But who compared Hillary to Palin? Not Bernie’s people, unless I’m mistaken.
And didn’t McCain pick Caribou Barbie without much of an interview?
I don’t see much sexism myself, but I’m a fat gray-bearded ole guy… married 44 years to a tough outspoken union officer female, so whatevers.
JPL
@Ken: yoooge is an understatement.
dogwood
its bad form for a president to endorse in a primary. I expect Obama to raise a shitload of money for the nominee and do some targeted campaigning. Gore was criticized after the fact for his refusal to allow Bill Clinton to do some targeted stumping. As far as Bernie campaigning for Hillary, I don’t know how that would work out. He’s never bothered to do that in the past. Where was Bernie during the Bush years? How about the midterms of ’10 & ’14? He could end up being a loose cannon that gives her a lot of grief. One advantage that both Hillary and Barack had in ’08 is that they each knew the other could be trusted on the stump as a surrogate. Obama might have had concerns about Bill, but not Hillary.
Another Holocene Human
@Heliopause: Yes, and it was filed under “Famous last words”.
Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
@eemom: Seconded.
David Koch
I would think Sanders’s supporters would be furious with the Sanders’s campaign for considering Hillary as Veep seeing how much they hate her.
It undermines all their arguments that Hillary is a monster if Sanders sees her as ideologically compatible.
low-tech cyclist
@Suzanne:
OK, this makes sense to me. I have seen that sorta shit happen, and I can see the connection here. Thanks for opening my eyes a little.
Suzanne
@Mnemosyne (tablet): I’m probably close to where you are on the issue. It feels less like overt sexism than the kind of cockiness that lots of dudes seem to have, and women are more likely to have impostor syndrome or crippling self-doubt. It feels a little like this dude is saying that HRC can’t quite compete with his candidate, despite her arguably greater qualifications. It does not feel like someone discussing a competitor as an equal.
The issue of dudely confidence vs. women’s lack of confidence has huge impacts in the workforce and ergo society.
Another Holocene Human
@jl:
Because Joe is a sad, sad, insecure little man, and Mika is a mediocrity who sold her last shred of integrity for money.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
To be fair, I don’t think he had the star power then he does now (which I still don’t quite get). I think and hope he will be out on the stump, and if he’s as popular as polls indicate in New Hampshire, if he can to to Ohio and point out that Rob Portman is a servant of the billionaire class, that will be a good thing
ETA: @Suzanne: They do seem to have bought into some of the more excitable accounts of their own would-be insurgency. Sanders leads in New Hampshire, and some polls say that lead is narrowing, he’s more or less tied in Iowa, and trail by double digits in other states and national polls.
jl
@Baud: Well, look, it’s an interview with Blitzer, how the eff is anything going to make any sense by the end?
Blitzer was trying to get Sanders on record on whether he was doing oppo research on HRC, and Bltizer either cleverly or cluelessly used the word ‘issues’ equivocally, a secret list of issues meaning personal attacks and scandal mongering (not sure what anyone can come up with new on that front, though). It’s confusing since Sanders always uses issues to mean policy issues.
So Sanders is saying something like, I guess, waddya mean i just reeled off half a dozen issues we are going to debate with her, Secret ‘issues’?? …uuuhh… no I don’t have a list of ‘secret issues’.
I’ve noticed both HRC and Sanders give Blitzer looks like, ‘OMG what is this loon going to say next? Yeesh…”
David Koch
You guys aren’t getting it. Sanders’s supporters have been arguing for a year that Sanders is above Hillary, and now you guys are arguing he’s at the same level.
Baud
@jl:
Speaks well of both candidates.
David Koch
He’s not even gone and U guys already miss No Drama Obama.
Nate Dawg
This whole “sexism” thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever heard.
jl
@efgoldman: Sanders is a stubborn old coot, not a crank.
dogwood
@J.D. Rhoades:
I didn’t know that Harriet Christian was Hillary’s campaign manager. it’s interesting that people held Hillary’s decision to have Mark Penn as a campaign manager a sign of her bad judgement. It was a concern for me at the time. But it’s also apparent that Bernie hasn’t surrounded himself with the best either.
Suzanne
@low-tech cyclist: NP. Also, trash-talk is probably less prominent amongst women for a host of cultural reasons (women are more socialized to be “nice” and “polite” and “cooperative”), so it may come off as a little bit jarring. But HRC is tough. She wouldn’t be where she is if she wasn’t.
Steve from Antioch
@Suzanne:
If you don’t see how your statement that a poster with a male name is somehow less able to discern sexism that someone named “Suzanne” then you can just go and thoroughly fuck yourself because you are to fucking stupid to talk to.
David Koch
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Dogwood has a really good point. Sanders never filibustered any of Bush’s horse shit. Yet he never misses an opportunity to attack Obama, constantly aligning himself with the “he’sworstthanbushhesoldusout” crowd.
Brachiator
When Obama was running and won, I did not want him to consider HRC as a potential VP. I wanted him to kick her to the curb for the BS that the Clintons tried to pull during the 2008 campaign. That’s politics.
And despite some of the wailing, I was beyond happy that he did not make her his VP. Obama saved HRC’s political behind and preserved party unity by making her Secretary of State, and she rose to the challenge.
Right now, I support HRC, and I do not care about Sanders’ language. It is not a disqualifier. He and his staff can badmouth HRC within reason. It would matter to me if he backed programs that hurt women. It would matter if he did not have women on his staff as advisors. It would matter if he voted for programs that hurt women. It would matter if he had a history of abusing or disrespecting women. I am not seeing any of this here.
There might be a line with speech that he could cross that would be a problem, but I see no evidence of this in his long political career, and what has been reported so far is not even close to the line.
If HRC wins, she does not owe Sanders a goddam thing, not an interview or even a nod. And if Sanders wins, he does not owe HRC a goddam thing.
Nate Dawg
It’s kind of funny watching the Sandersista’s and Hillaryites barking at each other about civility….
This campaign doesn’t have a fraction of the vitriol the 2008 Obama v. Hillary battle did. Do you remember it? The PUMA’s, the Obots, NoQuarter, Lanny Davis, Larry Sinclair, Samantha Power . . . . it was a fight to the finish. A political death match.
I just don’t see it as being anything to get too upset about this go around.
MattF
Just read Ruth Marcus’ WaPo column, where she notes:
Sexist!
Baud
@MattF:
Haha. I bet she said flaccid, but the editors made her change it.
Bobby Thomson
@Baud: I guess that depends on what you mean by “candidate.” There’s those you reject out of hand at the top of the filter. Then winnowing, interviewing, vetting. Weaver was implying that she would make the cut for interviewing but only because Sanders is so magnanimous. After all, Obama never did.
Reflects very poorly on the Sanders campaign, and I’d be embarrassed mansplaining that it’s not about gender and why are you bitches so sensitive? Good for Sanders apologizing, but Weaver seems like a complete tool.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@jl: I’m grateful for the existence of Morning Joe if only for the moment when Zbigniew Brezcinski (My apologies for the spelling, if you’re reading, ZB), told Joe and Mika to their faces, on their own show, that their understanding of international politics was remarkably shallow
Smiling Mortician
@Steve from Antioch: Wow. And just when I was getting ready to say something about how much I appreciate a rational discussion about sexism involving several valid points of view. Thanks for ruining my plans.
Amir Khalid
Speaking of Sarah Palin, remember when presidential candidate Obama was invited to comment on Bristol’s first pregnancy? He refused; he said candidates’ families, and especially their children, should be off-limits. He even warned his campaign staff that bringing it up would be treated as a sacking offence. (Not that Sarah ever acknowledged this act of decency.)
I think that for campaigns seeking, like Bernie’s, to hold the high ground, some similar standard should apply for sexism, including remarks that seem to flirt with it. You, the campaign staffer, don’t want to go there. It takes the focus away from your candidate and why he’s running, where it should be, and puts it on you. It forces the candidate to waste time defending your words, or apologising for them, instead of making his case.
Suzanne
@Steve from Antioch: Please, explain to me some more about what it’s like to be a woman in a patriarchy. I need a dude to tell me all about it.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
He didn’t have star power then , because he never bothered to engage.
Baud
@Bobby Thomson:
He seems to be making more news than a good campaign manager should.
jl
After my very short, very convenience sample youtube survey of this Dem primary scandal, poring over, or at least playing all the through a few clips about it that had some entertainment value, and giving deep thought, i think this is pretty small bore stuff.
Inappropriate BS and cheap shots have come out of both HRC and Sanders campaigns.
I think there will be more of this since certain types of people on campaign staffs tend to talk trash, that is how they think about things. I also think that it will be forgotten by the campaigns and candidates the next day or two.
Unless the race becomes close, and it is no where near close yet. HRC still way ahead to get nomination. Unless it gets close, I think both candidates have more to win by blowing this stuff off than making big deals out of it.
Maybe that sounds cynical, but I think that is bottom line.
Other ‘unless’ is if one of the campaigns cannot control the trash talk coming out of their own campaign, which would signal a problem with them as an effective political leader.
Edit: and I don’t think the HRC Obama primary flaps ever really got out of small bore minor scuffle territory either, so maybe I am just an insensitive boor (a word and concept the BJ community surely understands).
HRA
I am XX. I vote for it not being offensive.
Another Holocene Human
@Suzanne: Well, I disagree. That their trash talk wasn’t over the line in other ways prior to Obama is probably quite true. But most observers agree that the depth of the Clinton hate was only appetizer to the Obama Derangement Syndrome.
When I see the stuff they say, I’m quite capable of sorting out the “we hate your team” stuff from the Obama is a weak dictator with no accomplishments who is ramming his agenda down our throats. The later comes from no other place than racism. It is fact free, content free, self-contradictory, and emotive.
Even though the GOP does severely and sincerely differ from the Dems on policy, the Gohmerts and Websters and McConnells rarely seem to frame their attacks in terms of values or policies. No, they go after Obama as a man.
Anne Laurie
@David Koch:
As a great many people have said before, Bernie Sanders is a much more reasonable person and politician than some of his most fervent supporters.
Suzanne
@Amir Khalid: Agreed 100%.
I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary, and I may vote for Sanders. I think both of them are great allies. It behooves both of them to stay far, far away from this shit.
Geeno
It was tone deaf. Most misogyny is delivered in that chuckling, condescending way. Of course some women are going to hear that man-splaining asshole they hate in that comment. Bernie’s supposed to be hip to stuff like that.
Glad to see that he is, and just stuffed that comment without offering apologies for it, but his people do need to stop undermining the message.
Keith G
@Baud: Is it?
I thought that the operatives involved in the quote were taking a bit of a shot at HRC, a bit of “Trash Talking”, if you will, as is often done in campaigning. We are fortunate to be in an era where campaigning for the presidency is not as male dominated as it has been. Inter-campaign barbs have always existed and quite often are quite personal in nature.
In a previous decade, one might easily have heard something like, “We’re willing to consider Dukakis for vice president … we’ll even interview him.” Or worse.
Does the introduction of gender diversity necessarily mean that a behavior once common and sophomoric has to be now seen as a behavior that is evidence of sexism?
Iowa Old Lady
@Amir Khalid: Another way to put that is to treat your opponent with respect. Argue, but respect. To my mind, Sanders has been doing that. His staff may need to be reminded because it’s not easy. As folks here point out, it’s not the norm.
In the long run though, it will help to elect a Democratic president which is my main concern.
David Koch
It’s as if they think it’s beneath them to ask Obama’s 70,000,000 million voters for their support.
eta: You don’t Hillary making this mistake. She’s out there every day asking us for our votes.
Another Holocene Human
You know, it may be convenient shorthand, but XX and XY don’t actually determine sex. A specific gene does, and it can jump. Also, some people have three copies of this chromosome. And gender is more complicated than your gonads (which may not match your blood typed sex anyway … and so we go on).
Suzanne
@Another Holocene Human: I disagree. I think some of it is racist. But I also think that they would say some of the same shit had HRC won, or had Biden won, or had anyone else who was a Democrat won. And I don’t think they would say it about a President Cain or a President Carson (threw up in my mouth typing that). Some of it’s racist, for sure.
Smiling Mortician
@David Koch: Sanders strategist Tad Devine is not very good at his job.
aimai
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: No, I remember that moment. It was a bullying and agressive move and from then he turned into a punchline. The hostility towards HRC in that election from the media and the republicans and from guys was palpable.
I don’t hold some of HRC’s supporters claiming that there’s sexism in Bernie’s camp against HRC.. And I try not to hold the fact that Bernie’s supporters are calling her a war criminal, literally, against Bernie. But the shit that is happening over at Kos where the bernie people are running riot with a toxic combination of self righteousness, rage, and spite is really something to see.
Nate Dawg
@aimai:
It still pales in comparison to the Obama v. Hillary fight. It’s a very small fraction of Sanders supporters, and it’s about a tenth as passionate as it was in 2008.
It’s almost as if everyone knows HRC is going to be the next president so they are being respectful . . . and maybe, just maybe, the overwhelming majority of Democrats respect her and are fine with that outcome.
That’s my read.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@David Koch: I’ve been reassured about the way she’s talked about Obama in this go around. I was worried that she and Bubba Bubble were still thinking Obama was a fluke in “their” party, but she seems to get that there those of us who consider ourselves Obama Democrats.
Suzanne
@Keith G: The issue is that the specific behavior that is common and sophomoric (cocky trash-talk) is socially coded as the realm of dudes, as women are socialized to be more polite and accommodating from very young ages (sugar and spice and everything nice). And the other social phenomenon of impostor syndrome, which afflicts women disproportionately, causes capable women to consider themselves incapable of competition and presents a significant barrier to women who want to break glass ceilings.
It would be better for women, and indeed, for all of us, if it stopped.
Smiling Mortician
@Suzanne: For the GOP, I think, it’s tribalism with political ideology as the primary determiner of tribe. Once you’re in the right wing, your “otherness” from the white male etc. norm fades except when it’s needed to highlight “diversity.” Meanwhile, the “otherness” of those on the left is magnified and used to its greatest possible advantage as a tool in maintaining tribal dominance. Obama was/is/forever shall be their first opportunity to pull out the big bag of Scary Black Man tricks, so naturally they went nuts with it. They’ll keep throwing the big bag of Hysterical Woman at HRC, too, and for the same reasons. It’s easy, and it’s lazy, and it works with a certain disgusting percentage of the population. But yeah. If they don’t have female/black/whatever to throw at the Dem, that won’t make them stop throwing shit. They’ll just have to throw something else.
bystander
Before we go deeply into the campaign season and we start parsing her vote for invading Iraq, I have to remind myself how I accepted that in 2008 and voted for her in the NY primary.
I always end up thinking that the real question is whether HRC would have invaded Iraq had she been POTUS on 9/11. I always feel pretty confident that she would not respond to an attack on the US by invading a completely unrelated country and deposing its leader.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I can’t say that I am an Obama Democrat. I can’t say I am an WJC or an HRC Democrat either. Or a Bernie revolutionist.
Might sound cold, and I always wish the politicians well in their personal lives (unless they are irredeemably depraved in that respect), but in their professional capacity, they are tools to get things done. When they are no longer useful or screw up to much or show that they are not up to the job, time for them to get out of the business and find another job.
And I don’t really care that much to get all wrapped up in anybody as an embodiment of my hopes and dreams.
Maybe I am just a cynical boor, or economics ruined my moral fiber, or I read too much Brooks and have become depraved.
Edit: that last is a joke, I never read Brooks unless the intertube blogs I trust alert me that he has laid an entertaining train wreck. I’m not so depraved as to read Brooks regularly.
Brother Dingaling
@Steve From Antioch: this right here. I am a Hillary supporter, BTW. This is some pretty harmless trash talk from a campaign behind in the polls by double digits. There have been plenty of comments along the lines of saying Hillary should take Bernie as a running mate, and this was just saying, no she can be ours instead. Come on, has no one seen the ending to Top Gun here?
Keith G
@Suzanne: I hear ya. I imagine it (like all societal behaviors) is of a time and it conditions, so therefore will change and/or disappear.
Iowa Old Lady
@jl: Yeah, I’m like that too. This isn’t personal. It’s business.
pat
Not sure if I see this as demeaning to Clinton, but can anyone seriously believe that a 72 ? year old guy would choose a 69 ? yo woman as veep?
Question marks because I’m not exactly sure of their ages, but they are really both pretty old……
chopper
still trying to figure out how the statement was a reference to palin. dickish to be sure tho.
My Truth Hurts
What a big juicy nothingburger.
Suzanne
@Smiling Mortician: Agreed 100%.
They are assholes, and they will use racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc etc etc etc to further themselves. What they hate most about President Obama is that he beat them, TWICE.
Which is why I loved it so much when he rubbed their noses in it at Nerd Prom.
Brother Dingaling
@Smiling Mortician: Actually I think their take on Hillary is that she’s cold, calculating, and conniving, not flighty and hysterical. She was a crypto-Communist way back when Barry Sotero was receiving his marching orders from Alinsky and the Weathermen
Lee
Not seeing it as sexist either.
Trash-talking in a extremely competitive environment? Absolutely.
To not trash talk because she is female, wouldn’t that be sexist?
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Suzanne:
I think it’s also a question of when we’ve reached a point of enough equality where people get the automatic benefit of the doubt when they say something stupid that could be taken as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. I’m not sure when we’ll get to that point, but I really don’t think we’re at it right now.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@jl: While I do like Obama, and I think I’d like him personally if we knew each other (same goes for HRC, always found Bubba off-putting but I recognize that most people find him charismatic, so there must be something there I’m missing), I’m very pragmatic about politics. That’s why I support Hillary Clinton. But I think I/we will miss Obama, the whole “no drama” thing, the ability to (mostly) resist Beltway panics, his skepticism about foreign intervention. Those are all areas where I worry about Clinton.
Suzanne
@Lee: It could be argued that, due to one’s general enlightenment on gender issues, the more egalitarian thing to do would have been to recognize that women face certain structural and cultural barriers to high leadership positions, and therefore not engaging in an aggressive, male-coded behavior that has been historically used to keep women out is best.
Your argument feels like the “I don’t see race!” argument.
Smiling Mortician
@Brother Dingaling: That was before she became genuinely powerful as SoS. Since then, they’ve tried painting her as weak and vulnerable whenever they get the chance, which isn’t often (think of her concussion, and how the GOP joked that “poor Hillary bumped her head” and wondered whether she might be too delicate to answer the Benghazi! committee’s questions). They were comparing her to a little girl playing sick to stay home from school.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I find Obama and Sanders very appealing personally. Though Sanders in more like the lovable old coot uncle way. But alas, they are not my buddies, they are political leaders, so I don’t care that much.
The Clintons less so.
And of course, I am in hopeless eternal luurrrvvv with Michelle Obama, but she chose that nerd dork for reasons I cannot fathom, and she won’t get into politics, it is hopeless and I am bereft, and I am going to off and weep about it for a while. Until Halloween party o’clock tonight, and then sugar HIGH!!!
SiubhanDuinne
@Ken:
To me, compare means “talk about the similarities” and contrast means “talk about the differences.”
Hence, “compare and contrast” essay assignments.
dogwood
What’s kinda funny about the original comment, is that if Bernie actually wins the nomination, he’s not going to have to worry about being magnanimous about who he “interviews” for vp. He’s going to find out that there’s a shortage of applicants. He’ll face the same problem if he is elected POTUS and has to start filling those cabinet positions.
J R in WV
@Steve from Antioch:
Dude, you have no room to talk, you can’t even spell English words that only have 2 or 3 letters. Suzanne is educated, well spoken, high-end professional, and you’re a LOON!
And no, I’m not going to tell where you did it wrong!
Stupid AND ignorant! Crude and arrogant with nothing to be proud of!!
Cervantes
@Art:
I agree. The accusation is ridiculous. It does not even have the excuse of being desperate.
Lee
@Suzanne:
And yours comes across as ‘you should treat females differently in a highly competitive environment because they might be offended by something you say’.
Suzanne
@J R in WV: Well, I’m educated.
@Lee: Actually, my point is that you shouldn’t do it at all.
muddy
I’m a woman. I thought it was a bog standard political remark used for any opponent. They always say that. If it matters, I prefer Bernie’s economic policies and want him to do well, but would prefer Hillary for prez for a variety of reasons.
ETA: Bernie has never run a negative campaign that I am aware of.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Frankensteinbeck: yeah. Not sexism. It is not the sanders camp that needs to do the checking.
David Koch
@muddy: neither has Pat Leahy or Howard Dean. They never have to because the stae is so overwhelming blue.
In 30 years in office Nancy Pelosi has never run a negative campaign. She doesn’t have to, San Francisco is so overwhelming blue.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Keith G:
“Good, hard working white people”
BobS
What a horrible statement! The sexism! The misogyny! Not to mention fostering this kind of discord among the troops when we’re just a few weeks away from our final push in The War on Christmas.
muddy
@David Koch: It doesn’t matter if the state is blue when you are speaking of the primary.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Lee:
As Suzanne said, being an overaggressive asshole is not necessarily the best way to do business, especially since it gives narcissists and sociopaths a leg up over both men and women who don’t necessarily think the workplace should be a blood sport.
By all accounts, Carly Fiorina has played the traditionally male game her whole career, and left the same destruction in her wake as hundreds of men (like Mitt Romney) have. Should we really continue to say that that behavior is so much more productive than any other possible behavior that women should be expected to be just as big of assholes as the men?
Maybe we should instead look at the behavior and decide if the cutthroat, take no prisoners corporate raider mentality currently at the top of the heap is the best way to run a society.
cokane
It’s a repeat of Sanders’ #BLM problem in that it’s a manufactured controversy, good lord libs, lighten up. That “we’ll consider her as VP” is standard campaign trash talk. Quite a leap to say it’s sexist.
Nate Dawg
I would prefer we liberals focused on real systemic inequality (wage gap, abortion, crack vs cocaine, sentencing, education) rather than trying to divine microscopic sexism/racism/homophobia in the statements of our political allies. I really liked how the Obama campaign *didnt* point out racism constantly (even though it was constant and even though they got accused of doing it constantly).
dogwood
@muddy:
Has Bernie ever been in a big-time campaign?
Cervantes
In passive voice, @Anne Laurie says:
To you. Evidently not to everyone.
Active voice helps surface this sort of distinction.
DTTM
America will not vote for a 74-year-old guy who is all spittle and spleen in his presentation of important issues because I doubt voters would want to be yelled at Alll The Time about things which most of us can support.
Style over substance is more important in these matters than the reverse. That’s just the way it is…which is why Betty C. was correct the other day: fear Rubio……..Sanders is a sideshow.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@MattF: LOL. He finally got banned? Crazy.
debbie
I think the Clinton campaign is overreacting, and I hope they’ll save this kind of response for when there’s actually a sexist or misogynist remark.
This sounds more like trash talking than anything else.
Suzanne
@Nate Dawg: While this singular comment is mild enough as to not really be worth all the discussion it will merit, I think liberals should certainly explore the small-yet-frequent inequalities that collectively marginalize women and racial minorities and LGBTs, etc etc etc.
Electoral politics and policy are not the only fronts of this war.
muddy
@dogwood: What does big time mean? A national contest? Yes clearly this is his first.
Nate Dawg
@Suzanne: It’s quite possible the policing of these increasingly microscopic micro aggressions actually harms the cause of social justice / equality more than it helps it. That is a possibility that should be considered.
Bobby Thomson
@Suzanne: that’s because it is the same argument.
Suzanne
@Mnemosyne (tablet): It’s worth noting that the GOP likes women as long as they’re either very much in line with the patriarchal ideal in terms of appearance and comportment (think Palin and Bachmann, who look conventionally attractive and talk about submitting to their husbands), or Fiorina types, who just act like the same sort of douchebags as the dudes.
Yet they are threatened by the Pelosis, the HRCs, the Gillibrands, and all the other women who don’t do that shit.
Omnes Omnibus
@debbie:
I didn’t see any official campaign members mentioned in the article.
Suzanne
@Nate Dawg: Sure, it’s possible. It’s also possible that it’s a version of “sit down and shut up”.
debbie
@Omnes Omnibus:
I was going by this:
Cervantes
@bystander:
Clearly, your confidence must be based on something other than the fact that she voted to do exactly that!
Omnes Omnibus
@debbie: I think those connections are pretty tangential. If the author had to go to someone like that to connect it to the campaign, I would say it was the individual speaking not the campaign. YMMV.
Tyro
@Baud: it’s supposed to rub people the wrong way. It’s to deliberately needle an opponent and get on the opponent’s nerves.
bin Lurkin'
@Cervantes: To be entirely fair, Hillary was fooled into supporting the IWR by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.. Who could possibly have predicted that?
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Suzanne:
Ruemara said in the thread above that the comment came across as smug, arrogant, and condescending, which is the same form that most sexist comments take. For me, it makes sense that it would be borderline for people about whether smug, arrogant, and condescending’s close personal friend sexist also came along for the ride or stayed behind this time.
David Koch
@muddy: what primary? He’s always run as an independent.
debbie
@Omnes Omnibus:
Fair enough. I’ll amend to say Clinton supporters shouldn’t overreact. There’s plenty of genuine misogyny out there to get pissed about.
Baud
@Tyro:
Fair enough. If that was the intent, no one can complain about the reaction.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cervantes: I would suspect that you know the difference between a vote in the Senate and the actual decision to invade.
dogwood
@muddy:
Maybe big-time is misleading. Has he ever been in a dog fight campaign in Vermont? My assumption has always been that Bernie gets elected easily in Vermont. That aside, Bernie’s problems arise from trying to maneuver through the mine field of a major party’s campaign process without any experience or familiarity with a diverse electorate. Patrick Leahy is from the same lilly white state as Sanders, but as a Democrat he knows the importance of African Americans to the party coalition.
Suzanne
@Mnemosyne (tablet): Agreed.
Cervantes
@debbie:
Ain’t that the truth.
Nate Dawg
@Suzanne: and it can be. But policing micro aggression is its own form of “sit down and shut up”. It can alienate well-intentioned potential allies, and given that we can do something about real systemic inequality and we can’t ever expect a micro-aggression free world, I prefer not to turn people off to the movement in a quixotic pursuit of a future where no one ever says anything aggressive ever.
That said, it’s all about style. Educating people with humor and grace about how their statements perpetuate hierarchies can be done. Not over the Internet, though, in my experience.
Cervantes
@Omnes Omnibus:
One provided cover for the other?
Suzanne
@Nate Dawg: I agree that it’s important not to alienate people. I just get reeeeeal sick and tired of hearing about how things that are small-yet-important should be set aside in favor of Something Else. First of all, we can fucking walk and chew gum at the same time, no?
Also, here’s the thing…. It’s all important. For example, I am very passionate about abortion rights. I’ve had an abortion. I vehemently oppose anything that would endanger or even inconvenience my exercise of that right. But…honestly, the microaggressions that potentially hold me back in my career may have even more impact on my life, and diminish my potential for enjoying full freedom, agency, and meaningful equality to dudes. If I get passed over for a promotion, or get a smaller raise, or even get told that I am not nice enough and have Bitchy Resting Face (which has happened), that has a long, cascading effect on my lifestyle and that which I can provide for my daughters. It is not unimportant. It slowly but surely poisons the water I swim in.
I realize that I will not live to see a microaggression-free world. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth discussing.
Kazanir
Weaver’s joke was daft (as I said on Twitter at the time) and Sanders was right to knock it down as inappropriate. Hopefully he can rein in the excesses of his top aides — the candidate himself is far better at dispensing rhetorical firepower at those who really deserve it.
That said, the seemingly media-wide effort to paint this as a majorly sexist misstep is a bit over the top. In particular, articles in The Week and by Amanda Marcotte bring up really weak tea accusations about Sanders and sexism from the 80s in order to try to paint a “this is a recurring problem!!!” picture which just has no basis in reality. (One of the cited examples is Sanders’ race against Madeleine Kunin, but she e.g. had very favorable things to say about Sanders here http://digital.vpr.net/post/madeleine-kunin-clinton-sanders-and-gender-stereotypes-leadership#stream/0 in spite of her support for Clinton’s candidacy.)
What frustrates me about this whole fooferaw is that we seemingly cannot avoid descending into the same bitter, recriminations-inducing rhetorical pattern that hit the 2008 campaign so hard. Sanders has been pretty good at keeping above this sort of thing and I hope he continues to do so. The Clinton campaign’s recent efforts to tar him as some sort of sexist over these nothingburgers bring back all the bad tastes in my mouth that are left from when she and hers were talking so much virulent trash about Obama 8 years ago. Trying to tar Sanders and his awesome message in order to win the nomination is going to leave the Democratic Party much worse off.
I also don’t think that someone like e.g. Zaid Jilani or the other vocal Sanders supporters on Twitter are representative. I doubt very much that most Sanders supporters feel like CLINTON IS THE WORST SHIT EVER — I certainly don’t.
I think Sanders would make a substantially better President than Clinton would, because I like his views on just about all of the issues more. He doesn’t have a history of triangulating away from stances or backing right-wing legislative movement in the same way Hillary does with welfare “reform”, criminal justice, and so on. He’s consistently fought the right people on economic issues that don’t get enough attention from the incorrigibly centrist Democratic Party. On the one issue where Hillary is significantly more experienced — foreign policy — she’s more hawkish than Obama and I consequently find her experience the opposite of a good reason to vote for her.
All of that said, I don’t buy into any of the right-wing bullshit that has been told about Hillary for 20+ years. I’m glad Sanders said what he did about the e-mail horse hockey. It is a bit ironic that this caused the media to universally report that she had an outstanding debate performance in spite of her terrible answers about Social Security, bank regulation, and war in Syria and Libya. But I still think she would make a substantially better president (by a country mile) than any of the GOP candidates, who are, almost universally, batshit crazy.
I just don’t understand why it is so controversial to observe that Sanders is obviously the more left-wing candidate, or to acknowledge that Hillary does have a long history of deleterious centrist compromises. And I dislike wading through an avalanche of bullshit every few days to have a discussion about those issues.
Cervantes
@Kazanir:
May I subscribe to your news-letter?
Nate Dawg
@Suzanne: That’s a really heartfelt and insightful response, and I’d never heard anyone make that connection before. Thank you for sharing.
Hoping the future *does* create a culture of tolerance, respect, and equality for everyone. I know I too would have benefited greatly from it.
feckless
This kind of bullshit over the top PC police smear makes me kind of hate Hillary. The comment wasn’t even negative, but Crooks and Liars smears Bernie “just like BLM”. This kind of shut up your not “X” crap makes me want to boycott this site.
If anyone is being sexist in this instance it is Hillary’s camp.
Remember when Hillary sponsored a Flag Burning Amendment to the US Consitution? How about her time on the board of directors of Wallmart?
Yeah she REALLY cares about progressive causes, like say the death penalty.
You know what’s really wrong? Having all your top donations come from criminal banking conglomerates and claiming to care about real people.
Bernie doesnt say “safe legal and rare” he says “legal” PERIOD.
Cervantes
@Suzanne:
Sexism can disfigure and destroy the lives of girls and women — and thereby the lives of boys and men as well.
Not every act of belitlement is sexist, even if the person being belittled is female.
I cannot imagine that you find either of those statements controversial.
As for the accusation featured in the post above, I’ve said enough already.
Jim, Foolish LIteralist
That’s a shame, cause from the rest of your comment your mind was wide open before you saw that thing Christine Quinn said made you hate Hillary.
Ruckus
@Suzanne:
It’s this. The small things matter. They make our lives shit when they happen. The big things usually hit us once in a while, the small things all the time. But they add up. And as you say they can have a huge affect on actually being human. They can cascade as well and can affect not just the person they are done to. I wish I could understand it, but I just don’t get what the person being offensive/bullying is getting from it. Power of some sort or at least perceived I’d guess. I wonder if this will ever change. Not in my lifetime, I’d bet.
That this happens to women and minorities far more often is a real crime. None of us chose to be born the physical way we are, but most of us get a choice to act and speak the way we do. That so many humans fail at this is mystifying. Maybe it shouldn’t be, look at all the republican contestants.
Nate Dawg
Hillary supporter: Something some guy said about Hillary was sexist*.
Random person: It wasn’t sexist, but now I hate Hillary.
=========
This doesn’t quite follow, (even if *it wasn’t actually sexist.)
dogwood
@Kazanir:
I don’t think it’s controversial to observe that Sanders is further to the left than Clinton. That seems pretty obvious. I quibble with the idea that simply having the right ideology will translate into being a more effective president. In fact, I’m skeptical of ideologues in general having leadership positions. In areas where the next president can make a difference, I fear that Sanders doesn’t have the political capital to herd the democrats. Obama can get squishy dems like McCaskill on board. I think Hillary might be able to do the same. Bernie? Not so much.
David Koch
@feckless:
promises, promises.
if this wasn’t sexist, then why did Sanders apologize?
mclaren
LOL!
This latest frantically futile attempt to generate a fake “rift” between Bernie and Hillary will go the way of all the other misinformation spewed out about Democratic candidates this year…straight into the trash can.
Both Bernie and Hillary are doing a stellar job of campaigning, and may the best candidate win.
Ruckus
@David Koch:
Because even if it isn’t sexist it isn’t good politics. It is politics, just not good. So he apologizes.
And if it is sexist or can be taken as such he has to or it turns against him. So he apologizes.
And as one read of this thread should show, he apologizes, it’s his only choice. Being who he is I believe that he is sincere. And is probably pissed at the grade school level of the comment.
Nate Dawg
But it is quite sad that some people are smearing Bernie as a “sexist” for ….. ? What, exactly?
(Not anyone on this thread, just in general, it’s happened.)
Kazanir
Well take the stuff about the “both sides shouting at each other won’t accomplish anything” comments Sanders made about gun control. This is a phrasing he’s used about gun control for a really long time. I happen to think its a good tenor to take with culture war issues in general — there are lots of sincere believers on either side and I think common ground could be found if it weren’t for the NRA whipping up their insanity. (I wish more people would take an inclusive tack like that on other culture war issues, while keeping the heat on real bad actors in the media, establishment, and plutocracy.)
Then Sanders uses that line in a debate in response to Hillary. Within days she’s not-so-subtly implying that for him to use that line was sexist, and getting media traction from it in some quarters.
Hillary knows full and well that his line wasn’t sexist. She knows that he’s been using that line for months because she ain’t dumb and her people have done their research.
All the people in the media know this as well, but proceed to dutifully record the horse-racey nature of this back-and-forth, writing articles about how “Sanders is on the defensive.”
It’s political kabuki. It’s kayfabe. Everyone is pretending its real. But it is cheap, unsubstantive point-scoring.
If Bernie has actual policies which are bad for women, or has actually done things which are sexist, then people can and should come out and say that. I would strongly prefer not to vote for such a candidate!! In the same vein, if they want to hit him about gun control they should by all means do so. (I happen to think Sanders should be embarassed/repentant about his vote on the Brady Bill and should be more aggressive about identifying the NRA as a problem actor in spite of his inclusive tone on this issue.)
But the Clinton camp is hitting him about theatrical bullshit instead of on policy.
That’s politics. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Nate Dawg
When politicians do this, they make light of the very real sexism/racism/homophobia that exists and makes it that much harder to combat it. It’s extremely cynical to seek a political advantage by purposefully misconstruing an innocent statement.
mario
you know, it’s ok for political operatives to pretend that this was some supremely sexist outburst (can you just taste the outrage from Quinn? please. vomit. ). That’s what they do so they can throw some crumbs to the rabble.
But it’s kind of embarrassing when a front pager on a big liberal blog falls for it hook, line and sinker.
Riggsveda
As an older woman who has experienced more than her share of actual, in living color discrimination and sexism, I call this faux outrage and bullshit. Did you read the article that the quote came from? Did you see why his staff jokingly made a comment about bringing Hils along as a possible VP? Do you remember the kind of genuine woman-hating garbage she had to deal with in her last primary campaign? Bernie has absolutely nothing to apologize for. If the political Epidermolysis Bullosa sufferers out there find something THIS innocuous to be outrage-worthy, I don’t think they’re going to make it through the general election in one piece. Save the dudgeon for something actually bigoted, or you’re going to see her whole campaign devolve into one huge undifferentiated freak-out.
David Koch
@Nate Dawg: C’mon. the statement was condescending. That’s why Sanders personally apologized. Sadly, Sanders has a sharper ear than his supporters.
Cervantes
@David Koch:
You must be joking.
Cervantes
@Kazanir:
@Riggsveda:
Could not agree more.
InternetDragons
XX chromosome person here. I don’t see the sexism, and I think the headline invoking Palin is cheap (and I’m putting that very nicely).
Cervantes
@mario:
Not OK by me — but I’d agree it’s not a surprise.
But at this point also not a surprise.
@InternetDragons:
Yes. You are.
Ella in New Mexico
I’m late to this pig-brawl, so I’m sure this is not an original thought but this is the biggest, stupidest, most made-up-bullshit controversy ever.
Saying you think your candidate would make a better President is POLITICS. Saying you’d interview your opponent for Vice Pres is POLITICS.
It’s not sexism. It’s not dog whistles. It’s not even outside the box of typical things said between two candidates in POLITICS. And Anne Laurie is dead wrong when she places this statement into the same category as the “President Obama likes fried chicken and watermelon right-wing memes about the new 2009 White House state dinner menu”. THAT was racism, clear and present, and far, far more disgusting and offensive in every way than political baseball commentary.
If you define sexism down so much that this pathetic statement throws you onto the fainting couch then you need to get a grip. If your’e a woman and someone infers you are not as qualified or capable or formidable as a male, then shove your competence, brains and guts into their face and prove yourself, don’t go running to NOW to whine that they didn’t look at you the right way because they’re sexist.
I say this as a woman who’s old enough to have experienced true, legal and institutionalized sexism when I was young. It was hard and unfair and I am betting I would be a different person today had I not been held back by that shit. But if I attributed every single thing that was hard or unfair or that I didn’t like to someone else being sexist I’d be pretty much nothing but a WATB–a whiny-ass titty baby. And I’m not that, and neither is Hilary.
You know, I understand all the die-hard Hilary supporters out there want their gal to win. They’re still angry about the fact that a black man got the Presidency before a woman did. So now they are gonna be damned if some old white guy beats her. But Jesus Christ get real–By divining “sexism” out of this statement, or any other that her opponents may utter that infers they are the better candidate somehow “denigrates women” and therefore Hilary Clinton makes you look like a bunch of craaayzees. Labeling bean-bag politics as sexist and demanding apologies feeds actual sexist beliefs by making it look like she’s such a delicate flower she can’t handle what every single man has to handle, that she somehow needs special rules for how you talk and act around her. BULLSHIT.
Jesus wait until you see some REAL sexism before you play the God-damned card, people.
Eric
Rather odd that this article doesn’t quote Symone Sanders given that she’s, you know, the fucking Press Secretary for the Sanders campaign.
Cervantes
@David Koch:
He was in the Senate for only the last two of Bush’s eight years. Look at who controlled the House and Senate in those two years.
Brandon
This post just makes me wonder if Anne Laurie is actually a sleeper agent for that secretive organization, ABH (Anyone But Hillary). Because my word is there anything that works to turn people off to her campaign faster than this sort of nonsense. Reminds me of the fake “lipstick on a pig” kerfuffle of 2008. Totally made up and trumped up (no pun intended) for the same purpose. And I write this as someone who is significantly more inclined to pull the lever for Hillary than Sanders because I find him and his brand of liberalism extremely annoying. If I can fault Obama for anything, I would say that he really is at fault for not helping to develop and promote a better bench of Democrats to succeed him. Because the two choices I am looking at right now are increasingly becoming unappetizing.