The ComPost has a really sophisticated, sexist piece on Hillary Clinton’s close circle of advisers, that simultaneously makes the point that the Clinton campaign operates in what I once heard someone describe as the “Davos Bubble.”
Here’s some of the subtle sexist imagery, adding up to a portrait of power mad, controlling womyn, just for a taste:
Fifteen years after Clinton first brought these women together at the White House, the “board” has officially reconvened to help map her unprecedented effort to follow in her husband’s footsteps. They are acutely aware their work is making history. Once seen as a tight little sorority, today the group — happily self-described as “Hillaryland”– is at the center of a front-running presidential campaign. Never have so many women operated at such a high level in one campaign, working with a discipline and a loyalty and a legendary secrecy rarely seen at this level of American politics.
Older and tougher, they have formed a closely knit Praetorian Guard around Clinton that plots strategy, develops message and clamps down on leaks. But their extraordinary protectiveness also contributes to an ongoing perception of insularity around the candidate and the campaign.
And here’s the bubble of insulation and inflexibility part:
But this kind of allegiance can exact a cost. Clinton’s disciplined operation, closer to the model employed by President Bush than to the freewheeling style of her husband, can seem deaf to dissonant voices and unexpected political developments.
“I would have to say the disadvantages outweigh the advantages,” says William Mayer, a political science professor at Northeastern University who studies presidential campaigning. “You run the risk of a groupthink mentality often taking hold of something, and you’re slow to realize things are not going well.”
The ultimate problem with the piece is not that it describes the insularity of the Clinton network, but that it feels the need to make this an issue about women, and not just about political professionals. It’s very sophisticated, but extremely sexist.
That’s Donald Graham in the photo above, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Washington Post Company.
Related posts:
- Does Obama’s 2008 Campaign Have a Lesson for Saving Healthcare Reform?
- Guttmacher Institute Slams Misuse of Own Study on Abortion and Insurance Coverage
- GWU Study: Yes, The Stupak Amendment Would End Coverage of Abortion Services Over Time
- Nineteen Dems Draw Line Against Reproductive Health Coverage, Still Mum on Public Option
- Why We Need Genuine Campaign Finance Reform





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Hi Pach. The Post is a neo-con rag, these days…with some decent reporters still hanging on.
Pachacutec is da man.
(I hope I’m not being sexist by saying that.)
afternoon all!
The only good thing about the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..inionsbox1
Christy gets a shout-out and Bush proves what a complete ass he is. Again.
Well, There are some good folks there even if the editorial section is a has been. Froomkin mentioned Christy and FDL today in his column.
Thanks for saying that, Pach.
Hey Pach!
FYI and a couple of nits:
First sentence: letter a is missing from “mkes the ppoint” and letter q added to “heqard someone.”
On this post and the one a few days ago with the jpg of Lindsay Graham, I can see the picture on the front page but it does not load on the thread page. I am running a G4 iBook with Safari browser and OS 10.4.9 and 10 (just upgraded today to 10.4.10)
T’anx, eh?
I didn’t find any helpful hints for the kitchen, tho.
And here’s the bubble of insulation and inflexibility part:
Hmm, that phrase reminds me of a certain pundit/reporter class…people who used to report the news, but now prefer to report their own opinions of the news.
HMMM, any one else have the picture covering up the top left corner of the text?
dakine01 @ 7
Me, too. I’m told it’s WordPress, not us.
Haven’t read the article yet, but I saw the WaPoO’s front-webpage photo. Aren’t Penn, Wolfson, and some other guy who used to be President near the top of the Clinton inner circle? What’s the Post’s point, depicting Hillary’s campaign as a womyn-only operation?
I think it’s sexist to depict the campaign this way. And why assign the story to the gossipy Lois Romano anyway? She couldn’t write a hardnews lede if her life depended on it.
Hillary is #3 on my list..but if this “the Praetorian Guard of crypto-lesbians” bullshit pisses off enough women to get out and vote for Hillary…I will enjoy the thought of fundies shitting their pants.
Nevermind.
it should be pointed out that donald graham is a BIGTIME neo-con and a true believer:
tight little sorority
oh, that’s subtle
where are the damn fashion hints?
If gender is a suitable lens for WaPoO to critique the Clinton camp, here’s hoping we get a religion-focused peek at the gurus in the Romney campaign. And ethnicity: how many Italians are advising Rudy?
Got some T and A in the article?
“They are acutely aware their work is making history…”
What kind of history?
Trying to put a conniving, fence-straddling, opportunistic politician in the white house, simply because she happens to be a female?
I AM READY FOR A LADY PREZNINT.
But not this lady; not after all of her soixante-neuf with the neo-cons who’ve dragged us into this misery.
And not after she won’t even admit that it was a mistake for her to vote to enable the invasion.
And not after she’s pandering to the mouthbreathers, by trying to pack the “failure” onto the Iraqis.
And not after a fool can see that she can’t win. She won’t pick up 2% of the people who voted for bush in the last election, and there are a TON of conservative democrats who aren’t pissed enough at george bush and the GOP, to vote for her.
Everytime someone flacks for her, they’re doing the republicans’ work for them.
Never SEEN so many democrats wanting to make Karl Rove as happy as a clam.
And he will be, if we’re stupid enough to nominate Clinton.
“Davos Bubble.”
Maybe that should be Davos Bubbas
I can hardly wait for the 20th century
Honestly, I like eating Hungry Man dinners and farting loudly and drinking beer at the Redskins tailgate and whistling and catcalling women while I wear a construction hat*, and that article was sexist even for me.
* Author does not wear a construction helmet at work, but rather a tweed jacket with elbow patches. The Author also notes that he does not engage in public flatulence. Also, he catcalled a woman once, and she laid him out with a haymaker.
rwcole @ 19
Oh no! Alert the Wisconsin perfesser!
nomolos @ 21
got a timetable on that?
But everybody knows that journalists give their money to Democrats. MSNBC says so!
Got some hummingbirds kickin the shit out of each other outside the window- mean little fucks!! Take THAT- POW.
Where’s the secrets about “What men LOVE in bed”?
Donald Graham looks like Tony Randall? Who knew?
OT – Nader on Hardballz
Elliott @ 25
Sometime around January 20, 2049 maybe?
rwcole @ 28
Evil!
dakine01 @ 30
anytime after 2012 is moot, anyway
The House Judiciry on CSpan3 is cooking.
Women are “what” percentage of the population???
Elliott @ 17
There were none dressed in blue
Mr.Murder @ 33
can you smell sage?
Well….I just don’t see a “sophisticated sexist piece”. I suppose there’s the sorority reference. But that just doesn’t get me all bothered.
I don’t care if Clinton surrounds herself with women, elfs, penguins, etc. My only question is: is this true? Does she surround herself in a “Bush-like” fashion to the extent that she’s out of touch with America? The article seems to answer in the affirmative.
Ghostman
Judiciary*
McNulty is cracking?
Well Nader called it: Hillary is not a progressive.
Question for the firedogs:
Do we think that Clinton should disavow a pre-emptive strike on Iran?
Let’s ask her about that, and let’s ask Edwards and Obama, too, while we’re at it.
Frat Girl Pledges for Truth will have to say something about this ad…
“…criminal division had no objection to this going forward…”
Nader: She’s a corporate Democrat.
Obama is homogenizing himself.
Well it’s written by Lois Romano, so there’s guaranteed to be something objectionable about it, but I didn’t really find it sexist. Unless you consider the phrase “tight little sorority” sexist, although she does say that’s what they were considered to be in the past (not the present).
Now she also calls it a “coterie”, whose third dictionary definition is “a group of prairie dogs occupying a communal burrow”, so maybe she’s calling them ugly?
what’s the next headline:
Hillary does Foggy Bottom?
Elliott @ 33
Oops! Forgot about that. Wonder what the Mayans had in mind for replacing us? AND how it will happen?
“Same folks who established the policy said this did not violate that policy…”
Strangely enough, the shields for the campaign ethics provisions is what tempered Gore from acting through the Executive instead of relying on the courts in Bush v. Gore…
“these women”?
Not “these trusted confidantes”, or “these trusted past advisors”, or “these earlier consultants” or anything else that had more to do with their role than with their gender?
“tight little sorority”? Is that another crock of sh*t or what?
Lois Romano most definitely did a hit on the HRC team here, to the detriment of women, not just HRC and team.
I’m not in HRC’s camp, but she does not deserve this crap from Romano. There will be NO commentary from any reporter noting the density of testosterone in other campaigns, I am absolutely certain. Making of point of gender is unwarranted until gender composition is an issue for every campaign team.
I’m sorry, but if you substitute any other group you can name for “women,” it becomes more clear that the gender of these political professionals is irrelevant to the style of campaign operation under scrutiny.
I get that not everyone has the same kind of antennae for these things, but the narrative here plays to well known and identified misogynist narratives of controlling, anti-male (exclusionary) powerful women.
The underlying, dog-whistle image is that of the castrating cadre of bitches.
Also bear in mind Mandy Grunwald is Mrs. Matt Cooper….
rwcole @ 27
Turning the air blue? (They do have a vocabulary, but all of it’s unprintable!)
—
I don’t care what Hillary surrounds herself with either; I’d rather vote for someone who isn’t Republic-lite.
Boston1775 @ 43
If I may – I saw Nader give this critique bullshit presentation on C-Span couple of day ago. And to the extent that he may run in ‘08, I would like to ask:
Who the hell is Ralph Nader to opine on the candidates? And wait until he gets to Gore. Just asking…
Frats and Sororities are insulated barriers to progress, their being any part of poltics is a part of the problem.
do. not. get. me. started. on. Nader.
thank you.
Boston1775 @ 43
Screw Nader. He is the reason we are in this mess with Bush.
Nader: Everybody Sucks but me so I might consider running again. Good Luck getting enough signatures to get on the ballot this time around.
punaise @ 44
Or maybe girls gone wild. Hillary is not my first choice, or even my second, but I am so tired of this crap. I have been active in working since the 60s for the rights of woman. When the prejudice against African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, etc. has gone away, some people will still act as if a woman’s place is in the home and that she should just shut up. Shame on them.
Pachacutec @ 49
Sorry, I’m not buying it. If that’s what Lois is going for, why did she write about women bringing their infants to work and Hillary finding Chelsea’s old crib for the tyke?
IrishJim @ 54
spit when you say that name, sir
Shorter Pach:
“What Digby said.”
This a a great example of how women are treated differently, and goes to Digby’s point of how maintaining anonymity and gender neutrality lead to a very different perception of what she wrote. What the author seems to be implying is that this is some band of Valkyries or Amazons, whose extraordinary bond was formed in the battle of the Clinton White House.
No group of male aides surrounding a political candidate would ever get the same treatment — or if they did, the comparison would be to a team bond from sports.
The General, over at “Jesus’s General”, is rounding third and headed for home, with one WAAAYCOOL poster up;
It’s of a handsome, gentle, CAUCASIAN Jesu, tenderly holding and regarding a little baby.
(Did I mention that the child is an infant T-Rex? :o) :o) :o)
No pun intended, T. :o)
I might have to find a Corvair to buy
newtonusr @ 52
Keep asking. I’m just reportin’
Thanks, I’ll just try and walk nonchalantly out into the shop with my legs crossed now.
And Chris appears to be slobbering over a potential Nader run. Chris likes Nader’s take on Hillary.
Pach is right, if it’s all
women______, then there are people excluded.Well…. if a campaign is lead by people exclusively of one gender, that should be a problem.
AlphaLiberal @ 64
WHY???????????
Punaise,
What about Nader? :p
salon.com
Boston1775 @ 62
Spleen – vent. Thanks for that.
Mary McCurnin @ 67
funny you should ask… :~)
The other presidential candidates are male. Do any of these candidates surround themselves with a small band of….guys?
Setting aside Pach’s worries about codes and things, is the article factual?? If so, should Clinton be subject to criticism for discriminating against males? Why is her inner circle, regardless of “what” you call them, all female??
Discrimination is discrimination.
Ghostman
punaise @ 55
I didn’t vote for Nader but the Democratic ticket he supposedly sabotaged in 2000 included Joe Lieberman, while the Clinton administration he railed against gave us NAFTA and the Iraqi policy of sanctions and “regime change”. Maybe it’s all the melamine, but somehow I don’t have the stomach to revile him all that much.
If you read the article, you see that there are men in the network, though it is mostly women, apparently.
Editorial choices were made to point out that this is a group of predominantly women leaders. I’ll believe it’s not sexist when I see as much coverage of all the campaign top teams that are dominated by men.
So basically her campaign is just a spinoff of The View?*
___________________________________
That was rhetorical, and this is only a blog by. And where do you think they get they’re socio-political insight about women anyway if not from TV?
Next up: Can Bush afford to pardon Scooter Libby. Chris looks like he means serious business here.
feingold gets it, man I LOVE this guy…check this out;
Evil Parallel Universe @ 75
From the women they love and respect. Oh wait. . .
Pachacutec @ 73
If Clinton’s campaign staff is predominantly made up of women, it’s not sexist for a journalist to point that out, given that such a situation is historically unusual. Even if no one else is writing articles revealing that other candidates’ staffs maybe predominantly male.
EPU!!!
Where ya been?
Missed you.
perris @ 78
Now that is what we need.
Thank you perris!
Elliott @ 17
You’re killing me, elliott…how about
“Attend Fundraisers and Avoid Weight Gain:
Top 10 Tips”.
The sex based attacks on Senator Clinton are getting offensive. There is plenty one can attack her on in policy. Sexism is one of our most popular ideologies.
Evil Parallel Universe @ 75
I think Rosie could be as effective as some of the other campaign spokespeople…
trifecta @ 83
But that requires reading and…thinking…
I just asked about you yesterday EPU.
Edit:
But you already knew that.
brendan @ 73
Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Tell that to the people of New Orleans. Or Iraq. Etc. As for Lieberman, the V.P. slot was largely ceremonial, until the unitary puppet let Cheney become a monster.
So Ford’s approval rating tanked 20 points after pardoning Nixon. So, 6% approval rating is a problem?
re nader –
the democratic party does not have right to the votes of those wishing to vote against the republicans. if the dems would do a better job of representing the people, a nader campaign would not be an issue – or a threat.
in defense of nader, let me just say that he was right about NAFTA and so called “free-trade” in general – and the pro-corporate dems HATE him for that (sorta like the warparty HATES the DFH for being right about iraq).
i say this as someone who’s never voted for nader, and doesn’t intend to (and i live in a “safe” state).
If Nader was around between elections and not just during them I would have more respect for him.
And for those watching TV, enter Ron Christie, defender of Traitor Boy. I will now hurl.
Ghostman
Ghostman @ 92
Move over… and watch the shoes.
do-si-do @ 83
Rosie should go work for Giuliani. The cognitive dissonance of her issuing press releases claiming America brought down those buildings on purpose, for America’s Mayor, would be so awesome.
Tanbark @ 41
I believe they would all disavow it. But, that doesn’t mean events couldn’t push them into it anyway.
My feeling on how they would handle such a situation is somewhat like the questions people had about the Kennedys and the Missiles of October.
Which one is too young and uncertain? Obama
Which one listens to all the advisors and doesn’t have a mind of their own? Maybe Hilary…maybe.
Which one seems most in charge of their own mind and isn’t afraid to decide and lead? For me it’s Edwards.
YMMV
Still, with all that, there is a world of issues out there and we really don’t know how well any president is going to do. Take Bill Clinton for example, he did okay on many things, but only history will judge whether his lack of effort on economic issues or health care reform or protecting the planet from ecological disasters like global warming will have been disastrous for us 50 years from now.
We look at the evidence at hand and make the best judgment we can and hope the Repubs haven’t rigged the elections to nullify our efforts. And we live with the results.
Ron Christie is ABOVE politics. Please, TRex, take Ron Christie on, please, we need this.
Twain @ 68
Because it’s sexist. Why would it be a problem when it’s all men but hunky dory when it’s all women? Women engage in this type of discrimination when they’re in power, apparently thinking the good ol’ girl network is inherently superior to the good ol’ boy network. It’s not, and women are not superior to men.
EPU @ 76
Hi, Evil! Do I need to say it’s been a long time?
—
Rahm gets one brownie point for saying that if Darth isn’t part of the executive branch, he shouldn’t have a taxpayer-funded office in the White House. Some of the commenters over at TPM are going a bit farther than that, suggesting that if he isn’t part of the executive branch, he shouldn’t be living in the VP’s house (at taxpayer expense) either.
Sorry Pach, If you can go after Ron Christie, please do it. This guy is on, night after night, and no one dares touch this eighteen-wheeler water truck for the executive – with or without the office of the Vice President (Cheney has invented the fifth column: the elusive insane).
OT: Just received an e-mail from the Obama campaign inviting me to a San antonio campaign kick-off meeting on Sunday. The kicker: I have to purchase a $25 ticket.
Ain’t happenin’.
Cheney may not be as fucking clever as he thinks he is. When I first saw that at Raw Story this morning I said he was opening a can of worms.
P J Evans @ 98
did someone mention brownies?
AlphaLiberal @ 94
Of course women are not superior to men but if Hillary is comfortable surrounding herself with the people she likes and trusts and who are qualified, why shouldn’t she? I can remember when it would have been unthinkable for women to even be involved in politics – they would have received a pat on the head and told “now don’t you just worry your pretty little head about that.” BS
AlphaLiberal @ 67
One can only hope that the Fem managers do for Hillary what the Fems running Kerry’s campaign did for him.
I try hard to be as sensitive to the feminist agenda as I can be given that I am the product of an earlier age. Nevertheless, I fail to see what is sexist about the language quoted.
Any group that meets regularly to advise a leading candidate for President is, and ought to be described as, power hungry. Hell, I’m hungry for Democrats to have power!
The fact is that there is a group of women around Senator Clinton who are her inner counsel. (Did I spell that right?) The women are described as aware of the historical opportunity, disciplined and protective of their candidate. Is this a negative stereotype?
Yeah, there’s a risk of group-think. After the country went “blind into Baghdad,” being aware of the risks of group think is something we all should strive for.
If you choose to enlighen me, I will be grateful. If you think I am a hopeless Neanderthall, I apologize.
P.S. Lois Romano on Hardball now.
PLovering @ 103
Just what are you trying to say here?
Bush to close Gitmo from CNN
The Vice President is not listed as falling under the Executive Office of the President, per the WH:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/eop.html
i mentioned this in the am… just in case i’m not the only one… since this morning the fdl page had been loading extremely slowly (much worse than the slowdown since the wordpress upgrade).
preview is also very slow. refresh comments almost always hangs.
other webpages are just fine.
g4 ibook, os 10.4.9 (this am) and 10.4.10 (now), safari
PLovering @ 101
A REALLY SEXIST REMARK ! KERRY was, and is, a jerk, but one assumes that he had MEN in the campaign as well.
snowbird42 @ 107
Bush administration might close Guantanamo prison
LS @ 107
Where the hell does Cheney belong? I mean besides hell.
Rahm made a funny:The Dick Branch of Government
AZ Matt @ 113
Try explaining this to the 7th Grade social studies class.
elliot @ 102
You probably don’t want to meet my brownies. I like to spike them with diced green chiles (Ortegas). One four-oz can for mild brownies, one seven-oz can for medium.
Mary McCurnin @ 106
I’m saying Mary Beth, Stephanie, and Susan cost Kerry the election.
punaise @ 55
or me.
Ron Christie’s bio:hold your breath.
As President of the Senate Cheney would come under Congressional review even more so.
The vague powers not granted him under the Articles is what he tries to use here.
He tries to use Executive Privlege, then when called on that he uses Congressional privilege.
His lies about Iraq and Saddam for 9-11, Atta in Prague, etc. are being claimed to the excess of Congressional speech on the floor.
He lied to Congress and is trying to claim the use of Free Speech to Congress without any obligation to the truth.
Twain @ 110
Kerry was not only a jerk, he was stupid to let Mary Beth, Stephanie, and Susan anywhere near his campaign headquarters.
Cheney is a Dick.
OK…you guys asked for it by mentioning Cheney.
this guy speaks for me…
Going to go read the links now…
Boston1775 @ 118
You know, I could watch Pat Buchanan bitchslap this guy all afternoon.
Steve @ 13
Agreed. It does piss me off and make me like her more. She might move into my number 2 slot.
Mary McCurnin @ 112
He really is the “President of the Senate”. VP’s came into being just to be a successor to the POTUS should the POTUS be incapacitated. Other than that, they really don’t have many specific duties other than breaking tie votes ceremonially in the Senate, or announcing the vote count of presidential elections. Also, the VP is head of the Navy, when the Navy is at home – In the late 20th Century the VP took on more “executive” things to do, but didn’t even have an office in the WH until Carter. Cheney is correct about not being part of the executive office. I’m not sure he’s even part of the Executive Branch of Government from what I can see.
1,554 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Pachacutec:
This submarine attack on Mrs. Clinton and woman in general infuriates me ‘cuz it crates a polarization and automatically pins progressive woman behind the wicked witch of Arkansas. Instead of exposin’ Mrs. Clinton’s triangulation of women and womens’ issues, these kind of attacks create a knee jerk reaction among progressives (men too) to defend her.
Mrs. Clinton is the biggest threat we have to the advancedment of progressive values and the creation of a political reality in which women and womens’ issues are part of the new ruling thesis. We need to shine the light on Mrs. Clinton and her politics and these right wing attacks on women thru her only make it harder to focus the light where it belongs.
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T LET THAT HORSE INTO YER LIVINGROOM!!
do-si-do @ 118
Eloquent gentleman.
707
Mary McCurnin @ 91
I agree. He makes a lot of sense when he talks about Globalization.
Bob in HI
not thinking of any particular corpulent VP, but vicelard means licentious in French.
do-si-do @ 121
You funny. I fixed the link to Ron Christie’s bio at 117. Please, everyone, read it at 117.
New thread, fyi
Boston1775 @ 130
Hey, I noticed you linked the printable biography…what’s in the unprintable one, I wonder?
Boston1775 @ 89
Fucking beautiful
PLovering @ 116
Wasn’t Donna Brazille in on it, too?
Actually, I thought Kerry’s loss had more to do with DLC moles than women advisers.
Bob in HI
Vice President from Answers.com
“The Vice President is not a member of either the executive or the legislative branch. Constitutionally, the Vice President is not a subordinate of the President, who has no power to issue orders to the Vice President and who cannot remove him from office. (The Vice President can be removed only by impeachment.) But Vice Presidents have found that the way they gain influence in Washington is by subordinating themselves to the President. By doing so, they have become, since Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, part of the inner circle of senior political advisers to the President.
The Vice President has no constitutional responsibilities other than serving as president of the Senate, presiding over that body (except in Presidential impeachment trials, when the chief justice of the United States presides), and voting only to break ties. The Vice President may address the Senate only with the Senate’s permission. He may also interpret the Senate rules, but his decisions may be—and have been—overruled by a majority vote of the Senate.”
If Romano intended this to be a hit piece on Senator Clinton, it was lost on me. If sexist, it’s certainly tame compared to the sexism I have known in my long life.
Will; Boston!
Thassit! George-goatboy has SOOO much political capital to expend, these days.
:o)
Sally @ 136
We’re in dog whistle territory now. We don’t call brown people names that are now unacceptable; we question their decision-making or their heritage or their loyalty, as an example of racism in the dog whistle zone.
In sexism, the dog whistle territory means having to point out the composition of a candidate’s team by gender, instead of talking about the candidate’s race itself. You’ll note that Obama’s team isn’t getting this scrutiny, nor is any other candidate’s team. A non-story has been made into a story because we have approached a point in time when the only female candidate is as qualified and competent as the rest of the folks running, and there must be a way to point out the fact she’s a God-Forbid! Woman! without actually pointing at her gender directly, since that would be so obvious the average American would take issue.
Tanbark @ 137
David Brooks says Bush people say that “unpopularity has ‘freed’ Bush”. Isn’t that nice? Now he doesn’t have to pretend to care what we all think.
Nader. Nadir.
Sally @ 136
So I gather that it is only Sally and I who fail to see the sexism in the quoted passages?
Look at the picture and tell me that the gender of the people displayed is not part of the story.
Please visit the Schapira blog, “What we know so far …”
… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!
Ghostman @ 38
whew! I thought for a bit I was the only one that was lost on this! or maybe I hadn’t eaten enough on Annelid’s Onion Rings.
I admit, I have not dug through the rest of the ComPost, but if this is the best example, I think the rest will be lost on me as well.
Eventually if Mrs. Clinton obtains the nomination of the democratic party, she will attempt to conflate all criticisms of her of whatever nature into an anti-woman event. Mrs. Clinton is only worried now about not leaving any tracks. In fact she is an absolutely horrid individual bereft of any imagination or creative values. She like Bill trivializes our heritage and potential. They both are institutional seekers petty personal advantages.
Actually I believe we’ve seen plenty of male-bonding sexist writing about male candidates: you see it in the references to “frat boy George Bush” and in the ruminations about Giuliani’s tightness to Kerick and the whole criticism of the faux “manliness” of GOP candidates.
I’d guess the Hillary Clinton campaign will see this kind of gender-ist coverage as well, whether it’s justified or not.
“The ultimate problem with the piece is not that it describes the insularity of the Clinton network, but that it feels the need to make this an issue about women, and not just about political professionals. It’s very sophisticated, but extremely sexist.”
And, I will point out to you, “they” are not the ONLY ones making this an issue about women! There are quite a few women on here making this a “circle the wagons for women” issue.
As a single, independent, and successful woman, I find it equally as sexist and down right demeaning to women who are standing on their own making it by their OWN merits! Not because of their family members or their family money. This kind of shit doesn’t make it the least bit easier!
I hate that women keep promoting the fact that Hill’s a woman…..so we should vote for her; it is the height of sexism. I think this no matter if it’s race or party affiliation or gender or hair color or boob size or butt size or looks or wallet size or whose doin’ who!!! Its just so much crap I don’t identify with a person’s ability to do a job!!! Hillary has NO record of merit! She has nothing but an association with another prezi! She has NO cred standing up there saying “We’re going to bring them home!”…… NONE. It’s pure bullshit. She’s a freakin’ SENATOR and has been the whole time and NOW wants to come out and say she’s going to de-fund them? So fucking what. She enabled this whole mess to begin with and she will keep them there! She’s a freakin’ neocon Republican!!! They’re the only threat to this country.
Why are we not spending our time finding an actual potential leader of this country? We are doomed if we don’t shut down this Hillary crap right away! This is the same cronyism that got bush (s)elected. Dammit.
Hear, hear.
It’s “sexist” to say that her team includes tons of women? You need to turn your meter down, dude. If a paper you approved of wrote an admiring piece about her “coterie”, you’d be cheering it on, selling it as a great tribute to how we’re finally getting there with equality etc etc etc. As several have pointed out, that’s just as bad, if not worse.
Big Mitch @ 141
Then tell me how it’s news??
Was it news when any campaign in the last couple hundred years was ALL men?? I’m just not seeing how it’s news when there are corporations run top to bottom by women and nobody even knows it.
What are they DOING that’s news? Cuz I’m not seeing it. All I’m seeing is somebody saying, LOOKEE!! ALL WOMEN!!
And that’s not news.
Myrtle June @ 145
Thank you, sister.
When I hear people choose candidate Y because the candidates’ speeches/attributes make the voter feel so good….
I wonder how they confused the election with a shopping spree at Good Vibrations.
Dr Zen @ 147
Try turning your meter UP. Let’s swap out the minority group and insert another one since you obviously don’t get it.
What if this story had been about a Jewish candidate, and LOOK!! ALL JEWS!! on the close-knit campaign team.
Or LOOK!! ALL AFRICAN-AMERICAN!!
Or maybe LOOK!! ALL CHINESE!! or ALL HISPANIC!!
And then sprinkle the article with the kinds of labels one might typically use rather exclusively and stereotypically about that group of people. Like “an inscrutable group of Asians”.
I think there would be other groups who’d sit up and take note of this need to point out the “otherness” of the campaign.
These are human beings who have experience working with this candidate in a previous capacity — not unlike the folks who may be supporting any of the other candidates. What is NEWS about this??
By the way, Big Mitch, your blogwhoring is annoying. It’s really hard to tell whether you are trying to make a serious point or if you’re just throwing down flaming drive-bys in order to boost your own traffic.
IrishJim @ 56
I thought we were in this mess with Bush because:
1. The state of Florida illegally excluded voters from its rolls;
2. ChoicePoint fixed the rolls Florida used;
3. A gang of Hitler-like Republicans, including a future UN ambassador engaged in thug tactics to illegally interfere with the counting of votes in Florida;
4. The Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision based on faulty logic in a case where the Constitution, the highest law of the land, says that it has no place sticking its fucking Marbury nose in the first place, i.e. settling an election which is specifically reserved for the House of Representatives.
I’m sure loads of people would like to ignore the blatant reasons for the mess we’re in by assigning the blame to Nader, but he’s really a non-issue.
And I see people in threads here are already to tar and feather Mike Bloomberg if he DARES to enter the race and take votes away from a Democrat. At this point in time, there is NO viable Democratic candidate in the race.
as a woman I am so sick of people jumping on every little thing about clinton as sexist.
I am also sick of people thinking that unless she receives glowing coverage then she is being picked on.
Both are strawmen.
clinton should get some hard questions and looked at closer for her questionable ways. And if she wants to be president she should be treated equal to the other candidates including some bad coverage. She would not even be concidered as a viable candidate without her last name. And she runs to Bill all the time to prop her up. she needs to stand on her own as a candidate without cover from bill.
If anything is sexist about Hillary is the fawning and kid glove treatment she’s getting from the msm. she walks on water according to them.
Small point of correction to James @ 152: You say, “settling an election which is specifically reserved for the House of Representatives.” Actually, it is Florida which has the last say-so on how to pick its electors. And the Supreme Court of Florida had spoken. That’s why the SCOTUS decision was so dispicable.
MyrtleJune @ 145 says: “I hate that women keep promoting the fact that Hill’s a woman”
Actually, I can’t think of a better reason to promote her. People who break through a glass ceiling or erase a color line (e.g. Jackie Robinson) are heroes in my book. In the case of women, I think that they blaze a trail that will make the travels of my daughters that much easier.
Rayne asks:”Was it news when any campaign in the last couple hundred years was ALL men?” I suppose it WAS news when the first campaign for elective office was put together. But the fact that for hundreds of years campaigns have been all men is what makes this story news.
Rayne also asks @150
First, speaking as a Jew, if I found a Jewish candidate had surrounded himself with an exclusively Jewish cabal, I think I would have concerns. Anyway, I wouldn’t accuse the person who brought it to my attention of anti-Semitism. But my real question for Rayne is this: what is the analogue to “inscrutable” in the story about Hillary’s advisors? The closest I can see is “protective,” which by my lights is not a very negative stereotype of women.
Sorry if my blogwhoring offends anyone, but I leave it to others to determine if my comment at #105 was “a serious point or …[a] flaming drive-by” to borrow a phrase from Rayne.
Sexism can never be sophisticated.
vwcat @ 153
You might have a point, but I see it a little differently. In my view Senator Clinton is a media darling because they think she is the candidate that is easiest to beat, and they are the representatives of corporate America. Second, her story is more interesting than, say, Senator Dodd’s or Biden’s. More interesting as in has more of the elements of a soap opera, and therefore more likely to attract viewers.
When it comes to network news, the story is not the product that they sell. What they sell is eyeballs. Yours.
Pachacutec @ 75
Pach, I’m in the camp of those who did not find the article to be sexist. Probably all other top presidential campaign teams in the past and present have been dominated by men, I would guess. That’s what makes this different and newsworthy. If America is ever to elect a woman to its highest political office, it will have to get used to the idea of more women in all sorts of leadership roles. I’m surprised that you seem so upset by an article that seems to me to describe a group of loyal, determined, accomplished, strong women. The only negative is the alleged insularity of the group. The rest is pretty positive.
Women are still put into two different boxes. Hillary is the best example of the the one extreme: the evil castrating female. At the other extreme: woman as child. Hard to avoid being categorized one way or the other.
Take Beatrix Potter. It took 100 years for Britain’s Linnaean Society to apologize for the way they misogynistically rejected her pioneering scientific research in mycology and extend her the recognition she deserved. It took Hollywood 2 hours to withdraw the recognition and turn her into a sweet, blithering idiot who talked to imaginary animals.
Beatrix Potter’s brief but intense scientific career: Beatrix Potter was a talented Victorian naturalist, whose breakthrough studies of fungi put her well on her way to a career in science until she was shut out by the sexism, credentialism and orthodoxy of the Victorian scientific establishment. She became a great children’s book author and illustrator instead. In 1997 she received a posthumous official apology from the Linnaean Society for its treatment of her, exactly one hundred years after it had barred her from speaking.
But a decade later she was once again stripped of her scientific achievements by Hollywood, in the movie “Miss Potter.” The filmmakers dropped the science and simply gave us a lovably eccentric young woman. They came up with a typical, stereotyped Hollywood plot: charming girl talks to animals, writes kiddie books, gets guy, loses guy, buys farm to compensate, gets another guy and lives happily ever after. Why spoil that sweet, feminine story with a bunch of messy fungi?
Some things never change…
Now the target is Edwards = Mamma’s boy, hen-pecked, not a real man, not as smart or driven or popular as his wife, hypocrite, fatigued (Adam Nagourney, NY Times).
Next up is Hillary I see. Thanks for the tip on the subtlety. I’ve noticed the headline, “Who Will Stop Hillary” and remembered, “Who will Stop Dean.” When they get to Barack, it’s going to be bad. I posted to POLITICO my criticism of the lates on Edwards (it’s getting ridiculous) and the comments were hate-filled and really nasty, using all the latest slurs. Scarey.
It would be good to have an online place for us all to defend these nasty attacks on our Dem candidates – and go on the offensive against these smear merchants.
Big Mitch-
I said a lot more than that. So did Rayne.
My point being: Until “We, the People” start evaluating Presidential candidates on their leadership substance and ability, minus all the labels, we are going to be caught in this same bush/clinton/bush/clinton wash cycle for fucking ever. Focus.
Hillary Clinton, as a Presidential candidate, has NO viable nor electable leadership qualities what so ever. Hillary Clinton is a leader in shapeshifting cronyism. How is that progressive?
I’m not willing to settle for an imaginary “broken glass ceiling for ONE person” when the future of our country and world is at stake. I want real progress and a real leader because that’s what this fine mess requires.
Hope this helps :-)
What I meant to say is that there is really no good reason for Senator Clinton’s candidacy exceptthat having a woman as President would be a step into the current century. For the record, I don’t think it is a sufficient reason.
I would add that we should evaluate candidates on the specific programs they propose. And electability (which may refer to the same thing that you call “leadership substance.”)
Reading sexism into this piece is really a stretch. It was written by Lois Romano (other articles here http://projects.washingtonpost…..icles/lois romano/)
who doesn’t strike me as particularly sexist. Perhaps a thin skin on your part? “How dare she talk about women in anything other than glowing terms!”
james @ 152
Pleas stop forever with blaming Florida. Gore is an incompetent politician at the national level. That election should not have been close and Gore should have been able to carry his home state. You will just bring more of, more of. We really need to move beyond the Vietnam era of self serving careerists such as the Clintons, Kerry, Gore and Bush who pander to the corporate media. As for Hillary Clinton in particular, the people who run this particular site sees her as a gate crasher, ceiling splitter. I see her as an unimaginative, mediocre petty politician.
Let me make sure I have this straight: Pointing out that a given group is all male, and speculating regarding the implications, is a good thing. Pointing out that a given group is all female, and speculating regarding the implications, is a bad thing, and blatantly sexist. Right?
I am glad to read some analysis of the sexist coverage of Hillary by the Post. It recently had a blog on her make-up. Supposedly it has improved. As if that would make her a better candidate. It is going to be a while before a female candidate, even Hillary, is taken seriously. Has anyone commented on the fact that all these neo-cons are white males?
Mitch says:
“Actually, I can’t think of a better reason to promote her.”
I agree, Mitch. You can’t promote her:
For her honesty. (she isn’t)
For her intelligence. (She voted to enable, when a LOT of other democratic senators, for some bizarre reason, did NOT vote that way…and she has yet to unequivocally eat that vote and say that she made a mistake.)
For her loyalty to the democratic party.
(she’s climbed into bed with bush and Lieberman, time and again, and did it a few days ago, when she tried, in perfect Rovian fashion, to lay the blame for the bloody shitmire, on the Iraqis doorstep)
So I guess you guys will just have to keep peddling her gender to us.
(Psssst… a lot of us aint buyin… :o) )