Political Misogyny

"Ogged" (whom I still have never met in person, in spite of Scott Eric Kauffman's and Tedra Osell's attempts to convince me that he is not personally dangerous) makes a good observation:

Unfogged: Not watching cable news, and not reading any feminist blogs regularly, my appreciation of the misogyny Hillary Clinton faced was mostly abstract and I was a little surprised at the intensity of the anger some women were expressing over her treatment. I don't want to get into another argument about why she lost, etc. etc. Just watch the compilation below to get a better sense of where some people are coming from.

Comments

[anne]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

May 22, 2008

Hating Hillary
By Andrew Stephen

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target....

[anne]

"Not watching cable news, and not reading any feminist blogs regularly, my appreciation of the misogyny Hillary Clinton faced was mostly abstract and I was a little surprised at the intensity of the anger some women were expressing over her treatment."

Phooey; look to Matthew Yglesias et al.

[anne]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/#comment-38169

July 5, 2008

At an Obama event in LA, Oprah asserted - with Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver onstage - that we are post-feminist now, and to prove it - Oprah told the crowd - we didn’t have to vote for Hillary, because we had succeeded - we were liberated and to prove it we could move past the women’s movement…we could be done with all that sisterhood stuff and be guilt-free to vote for Obama instead of Hillary! Now, I never thought all women should or would vote for Hillary, but Oprah’s post-feminist “logic” showed that she is out of touch! Oprah and other elites may not experience the real harm that sexist dsicrimination imposes on millions of women in their everyday lives, but I can tell you that I witness sexism in my business EVERY day....

— Mary Sweeney

[anne]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/

June 5, 2008

Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge
By Judith Warner

Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of “Sex and the City,” the movie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy imploded?

Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I’m not so sure....

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime.

In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.

Which brings me back to “Sex and the City.”

How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole being is to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves, a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree I haven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the first incarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how baby boomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does “Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coating it all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, and squeakingly desperate girl cheer....

[Me, I am nothing if not all girl-cheer.]

[anne]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/

“Sex and the City” is the perfect movie for our allegedly ever-so-promising post-feminist era, when “angry” is out and Restalyne * is in, and virtually all our country’s most powerful women look younger now than they did 20 years ago....

Earnestness is so unattractive (in a woman).

* Restalyne?

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/michelle-goldbe.html#comment-117841280

June 6, 2008

Blogs I have read daily since 2004 and found unreadable because of offensive misogyny since November 2007: Daily Kos; Talking Points Memo; comments in Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum) - not blog itself; Eschaton (last 2 months). Now that the selection of Obama is settled, maybe I can safely return. The hate will now turn on McCain. Voice of sanity throughout: Bob Somerby on Daily Howler.

-- MaryLou

[Matthew Yglesias: I will never return.]

[Matt]

Being a Hillary unsupporter, I am as guilty as the rest. All is fair in love and politics. What you saw were men, who did not like Hillary policies using the most convenient tool to stop her, sorry, but it was just too easy.

Pelosi, a rabid progressive, would have gotten my support because she is just what I wanted in misogyny, an angry grandmother bringing her broom to Congress.

[anne]

What I have understood to my astonishment initially and take now as commonplace, is the extent to which self-styled progressives set about destroying Hillary Clinton in the most intensely sexist of manners. The attempt at destruction was there is the beginning and only grew ever more intense not lessening even when the nomination of Barack Obama was assured.

Simply listening to public radio or watching public television or the BBC, there has been a litany of sexist fierceness directed against Clinton. A former Democratic governor of Virginia a day ago speaking of Clinton as a thug would speak, and on, and on.

Conservatives were never the least concern of mine, self-styled progressives were the concern. I will not forget and along with friends I am not forgiving, because the attacks on Clinton as a woman were attacks on me.

[ed]

"Conservatives were never the least concern of mine, self-styled progressives were the concern. I will not forget and along with friends I am not forgiving, because the attacks on Clinton as a woman were attacks on me."

It's been pretty bad at times. Really horrible from the So-Called Liberal Media chuckleheads. Were there any specific attacks from the Obama campaign?

[anne]

Having sought to destroy Clinton month on month, immediately a pitiable bunch of men find a sad comment made by a woman in addressing John McCain and happily plaster the comment (uncensored) from supposed progressive blog to blog. I am suddenly supposed to forget the months of sexist attacks by supposed progressives, and become all "bad, bad, bad." All that did was make me even more furious at the imitating bloggers, and I did not think I could be more furious.

I get it, however, and I got it without reading (shudder) "feminist" blogs. I get it.

[howard]

anne, our host accused hillary clinton of having a "character problem" and cited (of all people) greg mankiw as a witness:

[But McCain's introduction of gas tax hysteria *is* a "character" issue; do you think Greg was wrong to say so? And Hillary Rodham Clinton's joining him was not good news at all...]

it was perhaps our host's lowest moment ever, but my question is, why in that case are you still here? what exempts our host from your scorn?

PS. i believe that mary lou is incorrect about both talking points and eschaton; matthew, on the other hand, has indeed been indefensible on clinton, completely indefensible.

[anne]

"Were there any specific attacks from the Obama campaign?"

Astonishingly, yes, and even without trying to pay attention there were 2 separate attacks by public officials (former and present, respectively) on public radio yesterday. These heard during short drives. And, I never read conservative blogs or turn to conservative radio or television.

My sense is there is a growing anger that will be abiding. Judith Warner's web column for the New York Times immediately became the most read column-article. Responses (thank-you notes) grew so quickly, the response line was closed.

[anne]

Thank you, Howard.

I am furious, furious at Brad DeLong. I pleaded with DeLong to stop the attacks, but the attacks continued. The furtherest I was attended to was when a line in a post complaining thay Hillary Clinton had gone from being Eleanor Roosevelt to Huey Long was deleted. Of course, a quickly subsequent post used George Wallace for comparison.

[anne]

Correcting, for precision:

I am furious, furious at Brad DeLong. I pleaded with DeLong to stop the attacks, but the attacks continued. The furtherest I was attended to was when a line in a post complaining [that] Hillary Clinton had gone from being Eleanor Roosevelt to Huey Long was deleted. Of course, a quickly subsequent post used George Wallace for comparison.

Howard, I have learned to always accept your judgment.

[elliottg]

I'm flabbergasted. Please be more specific with your specifics because your hearsay doesn't seem quite reliable at the present time.

[anne]

The first insult I heard yesterday was from former Virginia governor Douglas Wilder, the second insult was from a state legislator-state campaign chair whose name I do not remember possibly because I only wanted to turn away from public radio.

I could care less whether I seem reliable, by the way.

[Colin Danby]

Howard, are you referring to the link here
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/ta-nehisi-coate.html
to
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-praise-of-gas-tax-hysterics.html
as "perhaps our host's lowest moment"?

[elliottg]

Anne's so fond of the NYT archives. Hilary turned out to be divisive, unelectable and "radioactive".

The Clinton Surprise

Tags: conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton

The shocks just keep on coming:

Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field with 51 percent of the vote.

She beats Barack Obama by 24 percentage points among black Democrats.

She is projected now to beat Giuliani – or at the very least to be in a statistical dead heat with him in the general election.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. According to the received wisdom of those in-the-know here in Washington, Hillary was supposed to be divisive, unelectable, “radioactive.”

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07collins.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 7, 2008

What Hillary Won
By GAIL COLLINS

As the sun was sinking on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the nation’s wounded feminists were burning up the Internet....

“The passion is very intense,” said Muriel Fox, a retired public relations executive in New York who was one of the founding members of the National Organization for Women. “It’s very much a feeling that Hillary has not been respected.”

Feel free to make fun of them. The women of Fox’s generation ought to be used to it by now. The movement they started was the first fight for equality in which the opposition deployed ridicule as its most lethal weapon. They won the ban on sex discrimination in employment by letting a conservative congressman propose it as a joke. When they staged their historic march in New York in 1970, they heard themselves described as “braless bubble-heads” by a U.S. senator and were laughed at on the evening news.

They had always seen a woman in the White House as the holy grail. Now their disappointment is compounded by the feeling that Clinton’s candidacy was not even appreciated as a noble try.

“She stayed in and showed she could take it. I feel she’s taken this beating for us — the abuse and the battering and the insults,” said Fox....

Here’s where the sexism does come in. If Barack had failed in his attempt to make history by becoming the first African-American presidential nominee, you can bet we’d have treated his defeat with the dignity it deserved. Even if he went over the deep end at the finale and found it hard to get around to a graceful concession.

For a long time, Obama supporters have seen party unity as something that Hillary could provide by capitulating. It also requires the Democrats to acknowledge what she’s achieved. If that makes them feel like wimps, let them take it out on John McCain.

Clinton is very much a product of the generation that accepted a certain amount of humiliation as the price of progress. She wrote in her autobiography that when she ran for president of her high-school class against several boys, one of them told her she was “really stupid” if she thought a girl could be elected president. She lost, and later, the winner asked her to head a committee “which as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work.” She swallowed hard, accepted and, she admitted, really liked organizing all the school parades and dances and pep rallies.

This is one of the things you have to admire about Hillary Clinton. She still enjoys the work.

Over the past months, Clinton has seemed haunted by the image of the “nice girl” who gives up the fight because she’s afraid the boys will be angry if they don’t get their way. She told people she would never, ever say: “I’m the girl, I give up.” She would never let her daughter, or anybody else’s daughter, think that she quit because things got too tough.

And she never did. Nobody is ever again going to question whether it’s possible for a woman to go toe-to-toe with the toughest male candidate in a race for president of the United States. Or whether a woman could be strong enough to serve as commander in chief.

Her campaign didn’t resolve whether a woman who seems tough enough to run the military can also seem likable enough to get elected. But she helped pave the way. So many battles against prejudice are won when people get used to seeing women and minorities in roles that only white men had held before. By the end of those 54 primaries and caucuses, Hillary had made a woman running for president seem normal....

For all her vaunting ambition, she was never a candidate who ran for president just because it’s the presidency. She thought about winning in terms of the things she could accomplish, and she never forgot the women’s issues she had championed all her life — repair of the social safety net, children’s rights, support for working mothers.

[howard]

elliottg, that's in the neighborhood, but the prof had an actual post called something like "hillary rodham clinton has a character problem,"

[So you disagree with Greg Mankiw when he says that John McCain's gasoline tax pander demonstrated his "mendacity with a trace of condescension"? (See http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/hillary-rodham.html.)

If you want to say that this issue makes you rank McCain above Obama well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think much of it.]

in which he references the mankiw in greater detail (i'd look around for it but i'm about to go out). you'll note (if and when you find it), that i commented that citing greg mankiw reveals a character problem and suggested that perhaps the prof might not want to go down that path (our host, after all, being a pioneer in noting that no one leaves the bush administration with their reputation enhanced, but mankiw is, after all, a member of the guild).

anne, as always, you are too generous to my typing....

[anne]

"Hillary turned out to be divisive, unelectable and 'radioactive.' "

There is a venal stupidity on the part of supposed progressives, that knows no end. What is necessary is to just keep on finding more ways to insult Clinton, and that will make me swoon and become "your gal." Can I swoon and be your gal?

[jerry]

I'm flabbergasted. Please be more specific with your specifics because your hearsay doesn't seem quite reliable at the present time.

In the interest of keeping this seminar-like elliotg, I'll note that a review of your comments in the past 24 hours reflects mostly hearsay and innuendo.

[anne]

Who won South Dakota, kind Sir, for I am too young and pretty to stay up so late and never did learn the results of the final primary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 6, 2008

Vote by Numbers
By NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON

IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Here's what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people's politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.

That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain. The polls were compiled by realclearpolitics.com and include states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

I followed the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie.

In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. Kerry's states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.

In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton's column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.

In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him....

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/ugliness/

June 5, 2008

Ugliness
By Paul Krugman

Read the first paragraph of this, * then read this, ** and you'll have the essence of what happened in the Democratic primary campaign.

* http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/06/random-thoughts-about-the-democratic-primaries/

The US primary season is over, but for the final shouting. Senator Clinton has lost. She deserved to lose. She ran an ugly campaign. Just one vignette. When asked (again) on the CBS show 60 Minutes whether she believes Obama is a Muslim (a ludicrous rumour spread by right-wing bloggers and media in the US), she replies: "No, no why would I — there's nothing to base that on — as far as I know". She said this with a strong emphasis on the last 'I'.

-- Willem Buiter

** http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip *** at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ&e

-- Eric Boehlert

[jerry]

gnrei,

Personally, I thought that Clinton was a bit of a carpet bagger myself, however, considering she got elected and then re-elected with some pretty nice margins (55 to 43 and then even more overwhelmingly at 67 to 31) I figure that compared to millions of New Yorkers, I am just a dumbass. (Making you perhaps, a double.... )

If you want to become a senator, try convincing millions of people to vote for you. If you are upset she may have had a hand up in terms of name recognition or financing that election, I agree with you completely and will join you in your campaign to make sure that the well-known or rich are not eligible for office.

(By the way, regardless of what you think of him, John McCain's response to charges that he was not an Arizona native was amazingly great. Total pwnage.)

[Q the Enchanter]

"Sexism sells." Well...

I don't think these ugly expressions of misogyny were the problem. What they were was a window on the problem.

Any person sympathetic to such rank misogyny was never going to vote for HRC anyway. Besides which, those statements may even have galvanized support for HRC among women. So the *direct effects* of these expressions may actually have redounded to HRC's benefit.

The greater problem, then, is that these expressions reflected an ever-present bias that infected the coverage of HRC *generally*. Add to this powerful filter the extant, reflexive anti-Clintonism among the more conspicuous media players, and you all but guaranty that everything she said, every decision she made, would be given the most uncharitable spin possible, and that only the basest motives would be attributed to her.

[Maynard Handley]

"
If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him....
"

Oh for fsck's sake, anne. What exactly is your complaint?
You spend all your time telling us that America is so tragically sexist, as evidenced by how HRC is being treated, then you give us articles like this that presume to show that HRC is more popular than Obama.

What exactly is your argument? "Sure, Americans hate black people more than they hate women, but I'm not black, so I not only don't care, I think it is worth gotterdammerung to make sure my group get mine and they don't get theirs. By the way, I'm not racist."

[save_the_rustbelt]

Wow, the self-destruction of liberals begins here.

Everybody take a deep breath.

HRC overplayed the gender card and got beat. Gender? Who knows.

If BHO overplays the race card (or if progressives do it for him) he may get beat.

Attacks on JM based on age won't go over well either.

Neither talking heads or bloggers represent the majority of voters in America. The majority are too busy working and raising families to get involved in these screaming matches. They want policy.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Confession:

I have an old man crush on Erin Burnett.

If I were only 30 years younger......

Sigh.

[Emma Anne]

Wow. Good video. Not fun to see all of it gathered together like that. :-(

I have avoided most political blogs for the last several months because of the extreme nastiness on the part of supporters of both candidates. Now I expect I will visit most of them again. I think I am done with Daily Kos forever, though. In most places it was the commenters who were unendurable, but at DK it was the front-pagers - just vicious.

And by the way - I was not a Hillary supporter. I was for Edwards.

[anne]

No; I have not in any way complained about Barack Obama, though I am not pleased with a couple of recent foreign policy addresses. I am only pointing out that an aspect of unfair treatment of Clinton was constantly pushing her out of the campaign when lots and lots of voters wished otherwise. The threat was that were she not to leave and leave with "grace" and leave when it was insisted she leave there would be no place for her in politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/opinion/05thu1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 5, 2008

It's Over. Now It Begins.

The Democratic Party has chosen Barack Obama, and that left Hillary Rodham Clinton with a choice.

The news on Wednesday — that she planned to withdraw by week's end — encouraged us that she was making the right one: to exit this race in a way that unifies her party and begins to repair her political legacy, rather than further delaying the vital debate over who offers the vision, ideas and leadership to be the next president.

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton and supported her right to fight for the Democratic nomination while there were still votes to be cast. The long and grueling primary campaigns left no doubt about the depth of her intelligence, the strength of her will and the power of her ideas. But they left many Americans with nagging doubts about her character because the greater blame for the campaigns' negativity fell on Mrs. Clinton.

If she withdraws by the end of the week and throws her considerable support to Mr. Obama, as her aides say she plans to do, she has a chance to start to allay those doubts....

[I have no doubts.]

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07collins.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

June 7, 2008

What Hillary Won
By GAIL COLLINS

Here’s where the sexism does come in. If Barack had failed in his attempt to make history by becoming the first African-American presidential nominee, you can bet we’d have treated his defeat with the dignity it deserved. Even if he went over the deep end at the finale and found it hard to get around to a graceful concession....

"Even if [s]he went over the deep end at the finale and found it hard to get around to a graceful concession."

Huh???

[jerry]

"Neither talking heads or bloggers represent the majority of voters in America. The majority are too busy working and raising families to get involved in these screaming matches. They want policy."

Yep (and thank god!)

[Maynard Handley]

Right anne. At the very same time that the Fox News world is going bezerk regarding how Obama's "acting black" is equivalent to being a terrorist (google "terrorist fist jab") we are supposed to believe that, if he had failed, he would have been treated gently and with respect.

Ever thought that maybe the reason people say "Even if he went over the deep end at the finale and found it hard to get around to a graceful concession." is because this was the way she behaved? HRC's non-concession concession, where she refused, the first time round, to actually say decent things about Obama and accept the process, was not what most of us consider a graceful concession. Neither was the ridiculous complaining about the Florida and Michigan delegates after the matter had already been settled.

If you want to make up some storyline for your favorite candidate, go with "fighter to the end". But don't complain when other people point out, quite reasonably and honestly, that she did not go with the storyline "gracious loser".

[anne]

Emma Anne, agreed.

Erin? A fine Portuguese name.

[anne]

There was absolutely no reason for Clinton to leave the campaign before the convention, as with candidates in the past, and there was no reason not to have continued arguing over policy with Obama. Graciousness is not simply leaving. Ronald Reagan remained in the campaign to the convention, though losing. So did quite a few other candidates. Nothing wrong there, at all.

Obama needs to be pushed on policy, pushed on foreign and domestic policy. I am not interested in simply acceding on policy that worries me. Clinton changed policy stances in being pushed, which is important.

[jerry]

"HRC's non-concession concession, where she refused, the first time round, to actually say decent things about Obama and accept the process, was not what most of us consider a graceful concession."

You can find the actual speech here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=7897

You'll note the second paragraph:

"I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So, we are grateful, and it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished."

[jerry]

"Neither was the ridiculous complaining about the Florida and Michigan delegates after the matter had already been settled."

I am not sure when the matter was settled. It seemed reasonably controversial that the DNC stripped them of their votes when the written rules was for their votes to be reduced by half. And reasonably controversial to note that five states had broken the rules and only two punished.

There are many analyses out there showing how easily we might lose Florida and Michigan to McCain, and a large factor in the voters minds was how the DNC dealt with Michigan and Florida. In both states then, it seemed odd that Obama fought to keep any sort of revote from occurring.

There are also of course the questions of whether the voters in Florida deserved the disenfranchisement granted to them by the Republican governor.

After seeing Gore, Kerry, and even Edwards fold too soon, I was very pleased to see Clinton fighting for votes, even if that meant she changed her position over time for political reasons. That's why it's called politics. She played it pretty well, as did Obama who played it well when he was fighting to make sure that new elections could not be held.

[jerry]

Oh, regarding how it was settled.... The process allowed for appeals to a rules committee, then a credentials committee, and possibly even further on the floor. If the original decision "settles" the matter, why the need for these further venues?

[skylights]

I guarantee you won't see an end to this type of commentary until there are just as many women in positions of power as men.

[ed]

I still haven't heard Obama or anyone directly associated with his campaign make any sexist remarks. Nothing worst than "sweetie," anyway. (Which should be noted, but isn't more than petty, latent sexism.)

[Maynard Handley]

jerry, what you say is very interesting, and not at all what I heard.

Can you point to an article that talks about the five states you mention, and how the process was handled? Certainly the impression I got was that way back when, at the beginning of the year, everything was done by the book. I'd be interested in hearing the extent to which this was not so, why it was not so, and who it was that drove the decisions in such a way as not to follow the rules.

[jerry]

ed, check out Jesse Jackson Jr., campaign co-chair, on January 8th: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfG-SxYCusQ

I think it's way too easy to label "misogny" or many of the other "anti-" labels. And I don't like stating someone "hates" something else as hate is just a strong word and makes for an easy ad hominem attack. And I think identity politics groups do go to the well too often to declare someone who disagrees with them an inveterate "hater" or "anti-" or misogynist.

But Jackson's comments here, if not misogyny, are clearly sexist, and are clearly playing the gender card and all that entails.

If you want more, check out the talkleft archives, this example though came by way of Washington Monthly by Steve-O in the comments with a computer.

[anne]

The point is not hearing, because the sexism has long been there. No matter, the need now is for me to be convinced there is a reason to vote for Obama, a need I would never have thought about months ago. I need to find Barack Obama policy that is increasingly in line with the ideas of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Either I will be enthusiastic about Obama policy, domestic and foreign, or I will not vote for President. Lately, I have not been enthusiastic over domestic policy stances and been worried about foreign policy intemperance or unfairness.

These months have been too jarring for me to play at all nicey nice unless I am well satisfied; even so, women's interests such as universal health care had better be emphasized at least as much as have been the interests of foreign lobbying groups. No more "girl-cheer" for me.

[jerry]

I am not sure where the definitive article is. But this google certainly leads to lots of discussion about it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Rule+11++DNC+primary+Iowa+New+Hampshire+South+Carolina

There was lots of discussion of this at a variety of sites, including talkleft up until last weekend when, for whatever reason, Clinton conceded on this line of argument. That's certainly her choice, but it was not made clear why their campaign folded on that argument, it seemed a very legitimate complaint.

I have my beefs with Armando of TalkLeft but both he and Jeralyn did a very good job of describing the various processes in the campaign, Armando from the viewpoint of an Obama supporter and Jeralyn from the viewpoint of a Clinton supporter.

[jerry]

anne,

I am pretty confident you'll be able to find the reasons you need. I just wanted to point out an interesting one I heard on the radio yesterday, and that's the composition of the Federal Reserve.

The dems have not been filling vacancies and in 2010 Bernanke's position can be renewed or changed. Do we want an Obama there listening to someone like a DeLong or do we want a McCain there listening to a Gramm?

If you decide not to vote for Obama, I think you're making a mistake, but I think it would be a good idea to vote either Libertarian or Green in an attempt to help establish any real third party capable of getting federal matching funds and getting on the debates.

[anne]

What should have happened had Clinton not been bullied out of the campaign, is a spirited vying on issues to August with further definition by both candidates. Obama was going to win the nomination, but I would have had the sense that Obama supporters can be fair and sympathetic especially to women who had been repeatedly slighted for months. Now I have no such feeling, but am angry. Also, I have important unsettled policy issues.

What about the speeches on Latin America and the Middle East, which I found jarring? Are we going to be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? What of Somalia? What of Pakistan? Are we going to be bullying Venezuela and Bolivia and Ecuador? I am not willing to turn aside. What about universal health care and Social Security?

No compromise for me anymore, there has been too much meanness by supposed progressives for compromise. Compromise would mean women can be belittled, and women's needs ignored, and that is impossible.

[anne]

Yes; I would almost certainly vote for Ralph Nader. But, John McCain as President strikes me as being a person who listens and who can be negotiated with and there will be a Democratic Congress. What is not going to happen however is for anyone to take my support for granted.

Jesse Jackson, by the way, remained in the campaign to the convention; which I am sure was an excellent choice for being heard clearly.

[anne]

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

May 22, 2008

Hating Hillary: Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
By Andrew Stephen

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presidential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent....

[save_the_rustbelt]

Any other year I wouldn't care about a Democrat meltdown, but this is an odd year and I would like the Democrat to win.

The meltdown, however, seems to be well underway.

Sigh.

[elliottg]

No, the meltdown is confined to a few. There are very few reasons to vote for McCain over Obama. The same goes for McCain vs. Hilary (except the way she ran her campaign for the last three months). The Democratic nomination process was for the presidency this year. Any other year I might worry and might not be telling anne that it's fine with me if she wants to take her ball and go home.

This year the economy is in recession. Bush is below 30% approval. The Iraq War continues. The deficit is crippling. Gas will not retreat to below $3.50. Obama will be able to outspend McCain 3 to 1 at a minimum. Congress is Democratic so the legislative agenda can't be fashioned to embarrass the candidates. That's not even getting into the fact that McCain is old and short.

[Maynard Handley]

anne @ 2:13 "No compromise for me anymore"
anne @ 2:23 "John McCain as President strikes me as being a person who listens and who can be negotiated with"

Right. Then, when Roe v Wade gets overturned by the right wing justices McCain nominates, you'll be able to stew in your righteous fury for another fifteen years. Of course that result will not be your fault --- who, in fact, could have imagined in 2008 that McCain would appoint right-wing justices. No, it's obviously the fault of "the system" and the evil male masculine men and their penises who run it. Certainly no-one could blame anne and her unwillingness to live in the real world of compromise.

[Cranky Observer]

Back in February I was steeling myself to vote for and contribute to Clinton, just as I had voted, contributed, and worked for Kerry with a cheerful face although I didn't much like him. I was also purged from TalkLeft, where I was a charter member of the comments group (created my userid in the first 3 days that Jeralyn had comments open) by Armando the foulmouthed egocentric Wal-Mart lawyer who claims he is the intellectual centerpoint of progressivism. My sin, among others, was daring to question Hillary Clinton's meaning in voting for AMUF and then Kyle-Lieberman. Still, I was preparing the suck it up and work for the Dem nominee.

I had (and have) my concerns about Obama, but when he surged I was relieved. A candidate I could work for rather than be forced into working for. Still, I was prepared to vote for Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, whoever won.

So here we are. Obama won. And I am still being berated by those who preferred Senator Clinton. The problem being that I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that I or anyone else can say that would satisfy those doing the berating. Drawing on Lincoln, even if Obama handed the nomination to Hillary and I allowed anne to drain my entire bank account, sell my house, and give all the money to Clinton she would not be satisfied. She would still feel disrespected. So I don't see much point in engaging in these threads.

Here is my view anne: Either Senator Clinton's vote in favor of AMUF was a cold political calculation to vote for war for political gain[1], or she really supports the PNAC/Lieberman "stir the beehive, kill some rag-----" theory of US hegemony. Either way I think she is disqualified from being the /Democratic/ candidate for President. She was free to leave the Democratic Party, join the Lieberman for Lieberman Party, and run openly on a "more war" platform. She chose to run as a Democrat. I, and many many others, chose not to vote for her. Either work for the selected candidate or go elsewhere. And YOU stop disrespecting, insulting, and talking down to ME because that is exactly what you are doing.

Cranky

[1] I will ignore the possibility that she was so stupid and naive as to think that the AMUF was /not/ a vote for war, because that theory is truly disrespectful of Senator Clinton's intelligence and political ability.

[elliottg]

This is Hilary Clinton's words. Does anne want to argue that Obama doesn't want these things?

"We all want an economy that sustains the American Dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries and still have a little left over at the end of the month. An economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared.

We all want a health care system that is universal, high quality, and affordable so that parents no longer have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn’t just an issue for me – it is a passion and a cause – and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured – no exceptions, no excuses.

We all want an America defined by deep and meaningful equality – from civil rights to labor rights, from women’s rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families.

We all want to restore America’s standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq and once again lead by the power of our values, and to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming. "

[SARAH]

EVERYBODY CALL JAMES CLYBURN AND TELL HIM WHAT YOU REALLY THINK OF HIS PEOPLE AND THEIR "N"OMINEE

[jerry]

Armando the foulmouthed egocentric Wal-Mart lawyer who claims he is the intellectual centerpoint of progressivism

Yep. And that's a relatively moderate sentiment....

Cranky, I am very sorry and distressed even to hear you were purged.

[Colin Danby]

Hillary Rodham Clinton did the right thing today, Rustbelt, and most of her supporters are sensible people.

The sad part is that misogyny in media coverage and elsewhere (the subject of Brad's original post) is a serious problem and merits better attention. But when anti-Obama dead-enders use that charge opportunistically, sweepingly, and with a corresponding failure of moral seriousness, it undermines that effort and emboldens the gratuitous feminist-baiting we see from Maynard H.

[anne]

"Either work for the selected candidate or go elsewhere."

Vile sexist bully; so it goes.

[Cranky Observer]

>> "Either work for the selected candidate
>> or go elsewhere."

> Vile sexist bully; so it goes.

Interesting in that not only did you fail to respond to a single one of my arguments (dismissive condescending disrespect one might say) you also left off the 2nd half of that subparagraph in your quote: "Either work for the selected candidate or go elsewhere. And YOU stop disrespecting, insulting, and talking down to ME because that is exactly what you are doing."

Cranky

[anne]

"Either work for the selected candidate or go elsewhere."

Vile sexist bully; so it goes.

[Stuart]

Anne,

I used to think you were a fairly sensible person. Of late you seem to have lost your mind. As bad as sexism is in our society, racism is worse. Anne, seven generations ago your ancestors weren't slaves.

[jerry]

Well, irony of ironies, don't forget that Obama's ancestors were never slaves in America, in fact, quite the opposite is apparently true.

Am I a white guy, yet another angry white guy as some radical feminist (and overly politically correct academic liberal bloggers claim in order to dismiss my ideas), or am I a second generation american who lost family in the concentration camps and the gulags whose parents suffered from some of the same covenants that kept blacks out of neighborhoods and whose parents fought in the civil rights movement?

In the meantime, I think that playing "victim olympics" and fighting for who was most oppressed is a mugs game. Obama won, which is good. It's not good though because african americans are more oppressed than everyone else, because that leaves to us having to sort and prioritize or presidents based on which group has been more oppressed.

There should be nothing progressive or liberal about playing oppression olympics.

You don't actually know anything about Anne's ancestors do you?