Political punditry is largely a white male sport. The dynamics of this particular election, however, mean that it’s probably going to come down to people who don’t normally get much attention paid to their opinions — women, African Americans and Hispanics (about whom Rahm Emanuel famously said, "forget about ‘em — they don’t vote").
Right now we’re largely being pundited at by said white males who are prognosticating about these constituencies like they’re juggling Crazy 8 balls. And it’s not that their opinions aren’t of value, they are. But it should be interesting to see, as time goes on, if the changing face of the Democratic party will be reflected in the makeup of its Monday Morning quarterbacks. And specifically I wonder — if women are indeed going to be accepted into the Hardball ranks, are they going to be free to tell Matthews and the boys that their humor isn’t funny, or is the price of admission going to be an Andrea Mitchell/Maureen Dowd willingness to pick apart other women and give the Good Gyno Seal of Approval to a bunch of frat boy misogyny?
I don’t support the corporatist hacks that fill out the Clinton roster and I don’t exactly think Nancy Pelosi has done a bang-up job of House leadership, but I do know that to let them fall prey to blatant misogyny (no matter how it may be disguised) means that it will be okay to dis-empower other progressive women candidates thusly on down the line. The place you have to take a stand doesn’t always come perfectly packaged.
And what I’m hearing privately from a lot of women is that they are seeing misogyny dressed up in quite a bit of politically correct finery but it’s very thinly veiled, and they’re afraid to come out and say anything for fear of getting attacked (and as running a blog with a large female audience has taught me, they frequently don’t have the stomach for flaming and online combat that men often do).
But you can feel a palpable rage building. Chris Matthews just happening to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So before we find ourselves in polarized camps and the only resort seems to be slash-and-burn tactics with people who should be friends and allies, it would be great to find a way to discuss this without becoming enemies for life. I’ll start.
Mark Ambinder, I’m a fan of your site. I read it all the time. I’ve never found you saying or doing anything that I find to be sexist or dismissive of women, and some women may find this video "cute," but I have to say that on seeing it I found the underlying message to be really dismissive and dis-empowering to a woman who is making a serious bid for the highest office in the land. It’s disrespectful and sends a bad message about women seeking power in general.
And as someone who is highly regarded in this election for your insight, your blog roll is a bit pale and male. I don’t imagine this is intentionally so.
Other than that, love your stuff. Keep up the good work.
See, no singe marks…how’d I do?


190 Comments



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Jane!!!!
Chris Matthews is very pink.
I’d very much like Rachel Maddow to join the punditry. The other Rachel, Rachel Sklar, not. Sklar is Howard Kurtz’s boy toy.
That was quite civilized, Jane. With just a suggestion of smack upside the head.
Rachel Maddow is really good, unlike DC shills like Donna Brazile and Susan Estridge. If Hillary gets confronted again with a sign that says “iron my shirt” again, she should respond by saying “why don’t you pick up your shirt you lazy fuck?!”
And no, the video ain’t cute or pretty.
I have nieces who one day will choose a profession. They don’t need the gender crap. It happens in more than just politics. While I am not planning one voting for Clinton in the primary I am damn glad she is running. And raising the millions of dollars the run for the White House requires is no easy feat.
“And what I’m hearing privately from a lot of women is that they are seeing misogyny dressed up in quite a bit of politically correct finery but it’s quite thinly veiled, and they’re afraid to come out and say anything for fear of getting attacked (and as running a blog with a large female audience has taught me, they frequently don’t have the stomach for flaming and online combat that men often do).”
Your private hearings would have more pull with me if those same (mostly white) women weren’t in the next breath saying that “there’s nothing racist about this-or-that!”.
Amazing how (some member of some) trodden-on groups can be deadeye shots when it’s their group that’s under attack, and in absolute denial when it’s any other. Someone more cynical than I might be led to think it’s nothing more than opportunism.
…ain’t cute nor pretty….
I have like Rachel Maddow ever since I first heard her on Air America. A very, very sharp individual.
Perfect score, Jane…
Indeed they might.
Actually, that can work both ways, you know…
Yeah, that video really nails the “woman with a chip on her shoulder” stereotype. Very dismissive, and there’s nothing subtle about it.
Why is it a bad thing to be a pissed off that you have to work longer and harder just to be “treated as an equal” (therby implying that you are not equal, but should be treated like one anyway)?
But, but…Matthews apologized to Hillary. We can now expect him to report news objectively, and clearly announce when he’s expressing his interpretation of said news.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath.
Jane, why you always gotta hate on my boy Rahm?
lol! Whats Rahm with that!? *g
I can’t speak for Jane but for me it’s a gut reaction
That was totally intended as snark, BTW.
Oh, and that angry bi*ch stereotype usually includes the insinuation that the woman was driven to lesbianism because she was rejected or wronged by a man. Well, we’ve never heard that about Hillary, have we now?
Good approach to the issue at hand Jane. As someone who is really not fond of Hillary kind reminders are helpful.
Hmmm. My dander is really up about this stuff.
I do absolutely love that movie (”Election” — not this lame parody) BTW.
Here’s the deal. Racism and sexism exist. Obama has used sexism. When he deals with Hillary sometimes (as he did during one of the debates)he did so in a very patriarchal and condescending way. “silly Hillary.” So hearing Obama folks charging racism against the Clintons who have done much to against racism…is hollow to me. And I don’t really believe that Obama is a sexist, not married to such a strong woman. However, both sides have exploited the issue. I work in an organization whose mission is to end racism. The women of color in our organization express outrage at things that I just don’t get sometimes. I keep trying to make sure that I am being sensitive, but it’s not always easy.
I think that it’s very subtle but I also think that one of the biggest most difficult parts of this gap are numbers of people who seem to “hate” Hillary for being a “bitch”. I think women are doing it as well as men. There is simply no reason to loathe her. I agree with Jane about her corporate backing. I don’t like some of her votes. But my god, what has she done to anyone to deserve the hate and rage that comes her way? Did she kill someone you love? Her vote for Iraq alone didn’t cause the war!!
I don’t hear people hating Obama. (I am sure more direct racism and hatred will come if he remains the front runner-and I know there has been some). But I do hear people hating a strong woman, who stood by her husband. Who has so clearly shown her man side, and her feminine side. I think behind all that rage is a lot of judgments about how women “should” behave. When I see rage, toward Obama or Hillary, I know darn well that what I am seeing is an “ism”. So if you are one of the “haters” beware, your “ism” is showing.
None of the candidates deserve the kind of emotional, judgmental, arguments that get thrown at them. Those who use those kinds of tactic to persuade or express themselves are little authoritarians in dem clothing.
I think that video is great.
It has nothing to do with empowering or dis-empowering women. It has to do with one candidate becoming enraged when another, equally credible candidate waltzed into the 2008 presidential race as though he didn’t know she was the Anointed One . I mean, how could he? Doesn’t he know that this is hers?
I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but I will happily vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee. I think she would make a fine president. She is not my favorite candidate, however, and part of the reason for that is the air of entitlement that hangs over her. It has nothing to do with her gender, and you don’t have to be a sexist to think that video is funny or, yes, cute.
The problem with this discussion is that it redounds to Clinton’s benefit only a week after her campaign’s race baiting and with an unscrupulous, demagogic play to Jewish voters that certainly has the blessing of her campaign.
I agree, though, that we should refrain from comparing her to Lady Macbeth. Comparisons to Macbeth himself are apt enough for this bloody-handed warmonger.
Don’t these guys realize that many of us (male and female) see through their “humor” to the smallness of their…er, souls.
I just saw this diary on Kos and was moved. How easy, say you are sorry.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..392/438962
My opinion of Keith went even higher.
Exactly…The psychology of the “lefties” with Hillary Derangement Syndrome is a mystery to me. I have watched her attacked from the right for twenty-five years and misogyny was the primary motivator. It was all about how she looked, she was Rodham and not clinton, she was shrill, she was a shitty mother because she worked and Bill did a lot of the child care.. blah, blah
At least the right is honest with their misogyny.
Snark??
Many people loathe HIllary simply because they’ve been told to in no uncertain terms for a variety of bullshit reasons that say much more about their scarred psyches than about her, 24/7, for the last 15 years by those paragons of virtue who claim they speak for America.
Here’s the thing. I don’t agree with Hillary on a lot of issues. And other than support for the war, Obama and Hillary have very similar records, so I guess that means I don’t agree with Obama on a lot of issues.
Instead of turning this into some kind of popularity contest, the two of them should be looking at their positions on actual issues and wondering if those positions need to be improved.
Oh, yes. My comment was most certainly snark.
I wish Hillary would re-visit her vote for the war. Would it kill her chances of being elected if she explained what she was thinking? The fact that she refuses to disavow that vote is too problematic to ignore. That, and her apparent support of Joe Lieberman.
Since she won’t express regrets, I have to conclude that she doesn’t regret that vote. That’s a deal-killer. I’d consider voting for Hillary if she were really a moderate, but voting for the war makes her either a sap or a collaborator. Which is it, Hillary?
“other than support for the war” is a pretty big caveat.
But don’t the talking heads, who are bought and paid for by corporatists, bash men too? Haven’t Bill Clinton and Al Gore been on the receiving end of just as much vitriol as that directed at Hillary.
Granted Chris Matthews has a problem with women. However, the grand MSM narrative that all Democratic men are lactating Frenchified wussies and all Democratic women are ball busters who wear comfortable shoes is, at its root, not an outgrowth of a hatred of women but rather of the hatred of latter day New Dealers who are seen as traitors to their class.
What LHP said. In the end that is prolly what will happen as they figure out who gets to be #1 and who #2, if that mean old John Edwards doesn’t get in the way.
If I were say… a half breed Cherokee/white 39 year, straight Democratic voting male who lives and works for not a whole lot of money in a poor region of the southwest, which Democratiic presidential candidate should I support?
OK–that’s how it is done. Quickly (without waiting to see if it will blow over or until someone pushes you to do the right thing) and taking responsibility and promising to do better in future.
Very classy. Good on ya’, Keith
It wasn’t all that much of an apology – “Gee, I really meant well and well, gosh darn it I just sometimes don’t speak clearly and I’m really sorry that you didn’t understand what I meant to say but darn it all I truly didn’t mean no harm now but my heart really was in a good place about it all.”
For me Hillary, in this presidential race, is a symbol of why the “center” is center-right. I harp less on Obama because he is lessor know to me and such a strong symbol of pushing the center right.
Ain’t it so!
What a perfect distillation! ROTFLMAO
“Chris Matthews is quite pink.”
Medium rare?
LHP@32: Improving issues seems to bring on cries of pandering or that old standby, flip-flopping. I agree with you, but how to do this without incurring the wrath of the rabble?
I look favorably upon an HRC or Obama presidency equally. And it doesn’t have a gawd damn thing to do with ethnic background, or gender. It has to do with issues, voting records, campaign donation sources and a few other substantial things.
Someone the other night pointed out that HRC is in one of those positions of “damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t.”
If she repudiates her Irak vote, then she’s a wishy-washy woman not to be trusted with the powers of Commander in chief.
John Edwards and John Kerry, as men, can apologize for their votes and most folks don’t think the lesser of them for it. She can’t apologize or she becomes the poster child for all those who would them claim “see, you just can’t trust a woman in these positions”
It doesn’t make it right, it’s just a reality of the situation.
CMike
Just look at the language you used to describe “lactating Frenchified wussies”. Lactating and *ussies are both related to the female. To disparage a man is to call him female-like. To disparage a woman is to call her unattractive (comfortable shoes) and anti-male (ball-breaker), both also related strongly to the female.
preview is my friend:
I meant to say:
I harp less on Obama because he is lessor know to me and Hillary is such a strong symbol of pushing the center right that I target Hillary more.
Jane,
You nailed it. I saw an reference to the movie being related to Hillary earlier in the campaign and had the same reaction you had.
It is totally dismissive to women, maybe men can’t see that because they haven’t walked a mile in our shoes. But women who haven’t bought the talking points the Republicans have been screeching for years see it.
You are also right that many women don’t want to join the flame wars. When you try to get posters to get onto the issues and off the name calling and they just jump deeper into the swamp, a lot of women are very pragmatic about it. They see that those people aren’t listening to reality, aren’t engaging in the discussion so there is no way you can actually *have* a discussion with them. Women also can see what is coming when they do respond, the vitriolic personal attacks we’ve all seen in many of the venues directed at them for presuming to give a different perspective.
I like your approach, and I must say many of the folks that post on your threads. Keep the discussion going and keep it on an even, issue-based keel!
Woman was (and is) the first sex?
Whaddya expect?
Now picture her answering your question in a general election debate. Obama makes me as queasy as anyone with his seeming attempts to ingratiate himself to the priests of Centrism, but it is another calamity if the Democratic Party can’t nominate someone who didn’t at least not vote for the war.
Jane, I don’t think these guys can help it. Unlike racism, which is primarily a function of speech and cultural references, attitudes towards women are embedded in body language. You have to admit it, when a person’s body language doesn’t match what comes out of their mouth, it’s obvious. A perfect example is when Obama told Hillary that she was “likeable enough”. Not only was the reposnse tepid but he looked dismissive, did not address her directly, made no eye contact, glanced down and away from her as if she was “free to go”. She was a non-person, a subordinate to him. It was one of the most disrepectful things I have ever seen. You’d never see him treat John Kerry that way or John Edwards. But it was OK to behave that way to Hillary? That moment crystallized Obama for me. I find it hard to look at him without seeing that image in my mind. And I know that if he were forced on her as a running mate, it would be the equivalent of sticking Steny Hoyer with Nancy Pelosi, another man who behaves like he’s running a parallel leadership. He doesn’t have to take orders from her and the rest of the guys in the room understand this. It is ok to undermine, pursue their own agenda and treat her like a figurehead.
But they can’t help themselves. It is a hard habit to break. It *needs* to be broken. So, I propose that *iff* Hillary starts to look like she’s locking up the nomination that we start putting pressure on Obama to step aside and concede graciously. I would like to see Hillary pick her own running mate and not have the guys force one on her.
Begs the question, will that reality follow her into the White House if she is elected?
A huge thank you for saying that.
Why did she vote for the war..I suspect the main reason is she was told it would end her political career in NY if she didn’t.
Even if she wanted to express regret for that vote, which I doubt…she would be hit with “women can’t make up their minds..can’t trust her to be C & C.
Edwards can express regrets about his war vote, his Bankruptcy vote, NAFTA, Yucca, China trade etc and it is viewed as a positive…If a woman did, that she would be called weak. And I think John’s politics have changed since ‘04 and he means what he says.
Interesting. Left to her own devices, who, then?
Except that both Obama and Clinton vote quite closely. And Clinton is not the one using the R framing of issues (”SS going bankrupt”) nor is Clinton the one using the Ronald Reagan type of change as her “guiding light.”
And for someone who is supposed to have taught Constitutional Law, Obama has been quite missing in the efforts to restore the Constitution.
Count me as one of those not particularly thrilled with any of the Dem front runner candidates. They each have significant flaws.
When I was in high school I ran for class president. I had the experience, having been class president in middle school. I was a member of all the right clubs, I volunteered, I made honor roll. I knew when the chess club met and what team we were playing this week. I smiled at everyone in the hallways and practically memorized the morning announcements because over time, for some reason, my classmates just expected me to have the answers to their questions. So when it came time to pick a president, I was a shoo in, the obvious choice.
Except I wasn’t. Because for reasons still unclear to me one of the members of the football team decided to run instead. Maybe he thought it’d round out his college application, or he was pumped up at the idea of missing class on pep rally day. I really don’t know. But, I don’t think it was because he wanted to do the job or even understood what it was. I knew I was better. In fact, I think everyone knew that. But while I was “likeable enough” I didn’t have that easy charm of Mr. Letter Jacket.
I lost that election, much to my dismay, and the result was a year of horribly decorated pep rallies and lame introductory speeches at school events. As a lesser member of the student council organization, I , along with a number of other girls, shouldered much of the burden for his lack of experience. Picking of pieces and being the person who did things behind the scenes because they needed to be done.
Should I have let him fall on his face? Sure. But I knew that I didn’t want the rest of my classmates to suffer, even though they had picked this joker over me.
The next year, I couldn’t bring myself to run again. And instead another qualified young woman ran. She was certainly more popular than I had been, but history had a way of repeating itself and again a jock won. The high school version of “who would you rather have a beer with”, I suppose.
So when you see this video, the guys may snicker, but I suspect there are a bunch of women watching who’ve had a similar experience. They understand it’s rarely easy or fun to play in the all boys club. They know how hard it has been to make it in their worlds and what kinds of tightropes they have had to walk. On one side of the cafeteria the jocks may be laughing, but across the quad the women are plotting their revenge. And we know how to get what we want – because we have experience. We know how to work hard and get things done and don’t expect it to be easy.
Well… I’m not worried about any of this today. Why? Because I just read this. Is this a great prez or what?
AP – President Bush embraced as much as $150 billion in tax relief on Friday to jump start the lackluster economy. If Congress passes an economic stimulus package, the country will be “just fine,” he said.
But then I see this. Oh dear. Now I don’t feel so great after all.
AP – Wall Street extended its decline Friday as skittish investors unable to hold on to much optimism about the economy drew little comfort from President Bush’s stimulus plan.
Perhaps I’ll just write my lady’s name in for president. She’s not male, and she is definitely not white. And she does strike me as being a lot smarter than ANY of the presidential candidates. But then I might be biased.
Not only that, but most pundits (of all types, but particularly as you note) were so stupid over the last few weeks that they even resorted to their predictions with the “crazy polls” et al – rather than admit they can’t predict the future and admit that just because they say the election is over after one small state they are wrong.
There has also been much fury over the last few weeks to keep things in the frame they want (Obama -v- Clinton) and talk about race and gender as paid know-nothings rather than admit they should talk about issue and policy as their customers and citizens want (so what are they going to claim that it is in there shareholders or owns interest they are being so stupid?).
So – Stale.
As for people not being able the help themselves of course that only goes so far, and not very when you are at least in appearence paid to have some sort of value.
I think she is, like most politicians, trying to send some messages in how she says things, including in how she addresses the Irak situation ongoing.
Again, I have a lot of problems with ALL three candidates yet I recognize that each is superior to any of the Rs.
I don’t want Hillary. I don’t want Obama. I don’t want the DLC. I want change. I want Edwards.
I’m not saying your wrong. I’m just saying Clinton has been the center-right brand since the 90s.
as the other gender in this matter, and being rather independent until the perfect candidate comes in the race:
Hillary has all the experience. Has it over every candidate. Obama says nothing of substance, and I sure would like to see any if there is any. John has the right ideas, but can’t get past Hillary.
I don’t have problem one with Hillary being elected. No problem that she is a woman at all. I just want the best candidate and know what they are going to do.
I don’t have that yet. I don’t think any candidate can or will say what they want to do with the government and media working together to have a stooge put in for shooter to control again.
If I were say… a half breed Cherokee/white 39 year, straight Democratic voting male who lives and works for not a whole lot of money in a poor region of the southwest, which Democratiic presidential candidate should I support?
Bobby Kennedy? John Edwards.On a related note, studies of women executives in the corporate world have found that when they are in the minority, they will be tough as nails BSDers.
When they become the majority, they become more nurturing and the workplace becomes a more egalitarian meritocracy, with a corresponding decline in the influence of the fratboy pecking order.
This is like some parodic echo of the emotional, subjective stuff the MSM give us in lieu of discussing truth, facts, and policies. Obama was disrespectful to Clinton? Well, Clinton was disrespectful of Iraq — if only she had just “glanced down and away” from it instead of voting to transform it into a hecatomb.
Women are not weaklings, particularly political one. This discussion of gender is probably Clinton’s chosen ground.
and you know this because?
Edwards is taking on the two-candidate fallacy. Here’s the link.
rachel sklar was on the other day where they were having a debate re: romney and his confrontation with the AP reporter, and david schuster took the side of the reporter for being tough and knowing his business, and sklar’s counterpoint was that he didn’t need to be confrontational- he “can at least do it with a smile”!!!! male, female, whatever, that was just stoopid.
The real problem is not accepting that feminine and/or masculine qualities that live in all of us. Neither is bad, weak, or negative. It is the individual that lives a life of honesty and strength that should be considered. Funny how women who are ball busters and men who are pussies embody the traits of the other gender. This is where the assholes get their nickers in a twist. Women are strong and competent generally. So are men. Same with race. Same with cultural heritage.
I’m just so *PLEASED* with the media coverage of this presidential primary – aren’t you????
I think it is a male thing..It starts with “which super hero is better” girls, sports, cars, politics. A lot of men take a difference of opinion as a personal insult. “Flame wars” about whether a Ferrari is better that a Lamborghini are just as fierce as Clinton v Edwards or Obama.
Always remember, the “anti-war” Obama selected one of the biggest war mongers as his senate mentor, when he took office, two years into the occupation.
I want Edwards as well. I will say that it has been a dissapointment that its not only race and gender that is dividing things up – its people paid to add value and report that are pushing for particular candidates. Also major websites that push for candidate should endorse someone. KO was pretty good yesterday but the piece on Obama wanting to be Regean (RayGun) and HuffPost dude kissing Obamas butt and saying how great it is and we are probably getting a tast of his CA strategy and Edwards is on this only because he is down with the looney left fringe was a joke. As for 80% of people loving RayGun I aint so sure about that (and surely not if the truth were told not as HuffPo claimed how RayGun must be so great because when he died nobody trashed him that week. Well nobody is going to rake a President over the coals in most cases and surely not for pulling big biz and the rich on the dole and stealing from the commoners (heck they would not even do that for anyone but Bill Clinton). Anyway that was a sick point because they should tell the truth and do some reporting.
No clue. OpenLeft has suggested that it will be easier to find a match for Hillary than Obama because she comes from a more coherent, consistent Democratic philosophy than Obama and the poster suggested that it’s better to reinforce your message than try to compensate for your weakness. For reasons other than the ones I listed above, Obama would NOT be a good match. But Richardson, Clark or even Edwards might work for her.
But, in any case, knowing Hillary, she’s probably got it all figured out. And if it isn’t Obama, then the guys should just back off and get behind her. The LAST thing we want the voters to see is a woman who was weakened by a runner-up, who has to give into him for party unity. It makes her look powerless and that can be fatal for her against a Republican when they ramp up the fear factor.
But I won’t be surprised if the media starts applying pressure to make it happen. They are not on our side.
that’s interesting
You mean the one who voted for the war and the Patriot Act, or the one who’s been out of office since then? Edwards is more valuable as a campaigner who moves the debate on domestic issues — a point this site has made — than he is necessarily as a prospective President.
OpenLeft has suggested that it will be easier to find a match for Hillary than Obama because she comes from a more coherent, consistent Democratic philosophy than Obama
The Goldwater Girl from Illinois?
IF i was thinking about casting a vote for hillary, i’d rather vote for hillary if she was weak for changing her mind than vote for her being strong and not regretting her vote for war… if she can’t even get past that, she’s a nonstarter…
which she is. and why I won’t
The clip is completely harmless.
Obama and Hillary I suspect, have spent way too much time in old boy smoke filled back rooms huddling and cutting deals. And not incidentally Obama praises Ronald Reagan and Hillary likes Rupert Murdoch. And both these candidates sometimes act if they’re ready to bomb Iran. Change? Edwards.
Um, forty years ago? There’s nothing Goldwater about her voting record.
People DO change. She seems to have done it early in life and never looked back. I think we can safely retire the Goldwater thing.
Totally OT..but Hoover’s VP was 1/2 Native American. Charles Curtis.
gah, i know and have felt this presidential race to be nothing more than a bright shiny object to distract the country from the important issues.
A strong progressive congressional caucus is all that I want. It is the only way to deal head-on with the important issues.
Which candidate do you think would make the best prez?
I’m just so *PLEASED* with the media coverage of this presidential primary – aren’t you????
Ahem.
jacqrat, your video really makes your point
Thank you, Jane. These discussions are necessary. Thank you for leading the way.
I’m just so *PLEASED* with the media coverage of this presidential primary – aren’t you????
—
I think this is a very good Ad.
What about John Edwards?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVN4DEwV3I
Shows the media pimping a Clinton – Obama only race, then Fox debate focus group with ~2 Edwards people before the debate started and like 85% thinking he won the debates. They go back to Hannity and he goes:
“…I wanna know, what they think, real quick; who did better Hillary or Obama”
Then they shoe a bar graph (small print from Reno Gazette 11-Jan to 13-Jan with:
32% 27% 30%
Clinton Edwards Obama
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
I think the number are the same with Obama now at 32% and Clinton at 30% and Edwards still at 27%.
Perhaps a modification to coherent, consistent Democratic philosophy then.
Today is Give to Edwards Day. Please don’t forget.
So Joe Lieberman was his “Senate mentor”? What does this even mean? Obama, as that Farrakhan column demonstrates, is going to have a big problem with (I tread lightly here, not knowing precisely how to characterize this group) Jewish voters and contributors who readily respond to demagoguery about Israel’s “security”. Getting his picture taken with Lieberman was undoubtedly an effort by this black candidate with the Muslim middle name who opposed the war to inoculate himself against the appeals that would inevitably be made to these voters and contributors.
My tactic is to just let the people I think are assholes have a “who has the biggest swinging dick?” contest until they’re plum wore out.
And then, attack while they sleep and conquer them. With votes, that is.
Just a little reminder that today is the day the blogs are trying to raise 7 million for Edwards. This will be worth a lot if we can do it, because it should get some mention in MSM. So, if you want to donate, go to Edwards site and do it there, so matching funds kick in. (ActBlue donations can’t be matched.)
Why is Taylor Marsh still on Firedoglake’s blogroll???
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..708/438638
and here’s linky!
I am gald this is a topic here because I want to ask for some feedback. Is it sexist when talking heads refer to all the male candidates by their last names but Senator Clinton only as Hillary?
“undoubtedly”? glad you’re keen enough to figure out his intent while in the senate- obviously he was gearing up for the white house run, and needed to shore up his jewish vote…
or maybe, lieberman’s “bipartisan/bend over for the republicans” was in line with his own thinking…
if we’re going to speculate….
I don’t know. I don’t like being put in the position of having to guess their motives, and I try not to overestimate the importance of their personal qualities (a narrative constantly foisted on us by the media) when the people who put them in power with their money and organization matter more (those “corporatist hacks that fill out the Clinton roster” that J.H. mentions, or her “liberal hawks”). The question for me really remains: who is the candidate most likely to end the war? I’m guessing Obama, fingers crossed. At the very least, Obama will able to speak something approaching the truth about the war when he debates a Republican in the general election.
Eliza- thanks – great comment in that it paints a picture that is so true, in so many ways.
What can I do but speculate?
By saying “I hear you” or “you have been telling me that you want ____< and I am persuaded that it is important for me to be open and flexible, when appropriate, and that this is a dialog between me, your next president, and the people of this country. Your thoughts matter. Your priorities should be my priorities. In me, you are not getting an elected 4 or 8 year monarch who rules with an iron fist and an inflexible temper. You are getting a partner who will work with you to bring our country back from the wrong path, set it right and move forward, together, to build the kind of America we can be proud of and the kind of world we want everyone to be happy to live in."</p>
Or something like that
same here
I will say this: I find it intensely distasteful when someone says to me they WILL vote for a candidate because that individual is a woman. Or that they will NOT vote for a particular candidate because that person is not a man.
Her campaign uses “Hillary” signs.
It’s not any more sexist than “Rudy”.
I wish there were some way to find out how well the blogs “donate to Edwards” campaign is succeeding.
she campaigns as Hillary
It might be except that “Clinton” alone could refer to her husband. No other candidate has such a prominent spouse.
Crikey! looseheadprop for president! Whoever is writing their material absolutely does not have their finger on the public pulse, because their words don’t even come close to what you’re saying. And you’re absolutely right!
Shouldn’t it be Senator Clinton or Mrs. Clinton?
Goldbery at 77 – this is BS, frankly, and comes accross as a sort of paid Hillary propaganda. There are lots of terrific VP possibilities for both Obama and Edwards, in the case of Obama they include not only Edwards but also the two women governors who have come out in support of him, – as well as Bloomberg.
A good question!
George H W Bush and George W Bush, but the latter is often called “W”, while the former is often called George Bush Sr. I don’t have a problem with her being called Hillary, but maybe 20 or 30 years from now it will seem like a glaring insult. Dunno.
Don’t know why.
I can safely say that I’ve never known a Hillary in my lifetime.
It’s a brand name, for Chrissakes.
It is, isn’t it? The memory of reading about that is from the distant past, before the intertubes took over the world.
On a related note, a friend from a long time ago was the VP for HR with a major national bank. As a woman, she worked twice as hard as any of her male coworkers, because her work had to be perfect.
She also responded to workplace misogyny with a smile and a quiet steely resolve — an I’ll show you who’s the best attitude that wouldn’t even be noticed.
I think that kind of simmering anger among women voters is Hillary’s secret weapon.
I think she prefers that to separate her identity from Bill. The sexist title is “Mrs. Clinton.”
That is damn fine, LHP.
Had the ‘candidates’ the wits of a trianglrworm they would be climbing all over each other to secure your services as a campaign consultant and potential AG.
When it comes to presidential candidates’ spouses, I like Ms. Edwards much more than I care for Mr. Clinton.
I mean Obama’s signs are just big O’s but no one calls him O. I saw a situation (can’t remember where) when questions were asked of Senator Obama, Senator Edwards and Hillary. Seemed a little odd to me.
Actually Obama has a more liberal voting record than Hillary (and Edwards).
Your first example of a voter is straw (wo)man, your second a Republican.
How soon we forget – mortgage meltdown fraud:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..BTNJ2V.DTL
I’ll vote for that :)
I don’t dislike Chris Matthews; in fact, I watch his show everyday. If anything, I feel kinda sorry for him, as I would for anyone so deluded about himself. You see, although I think Chris means well as he said in his “apology,” he is in fact a pathetic sycophant. Anyone who can watch this video and not see Matthews as a miserable, small-minded, disrespectful male chauvinist pig, doesn’t know the meaning of those words.
The “O” seems like a reference to Oprah–his much more famous (female) supporter as well as to Obama himself. Many people have actually called GWB “W”.
You did a great job, Jane, and you’ve been doing a great job with this issue. I’m glad to have a place to go to discuss it sanely. It’s a complicated issue and particularly so right now, with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the picture. Even though I’m not a supporter of either of them, I find myself defending them when they get hit unfairly. Whenever I criticize them, and they do deserve it sometimes, it seems to open the gate for the misogynism. Seems like a no-win situation at times.
Must have struck a nerve, eh? I can’t tell you how many times I have been accused of working for Clinton. They really should pay me.
But no, I don’t work for her.
I recall KO making a comment about that after a clip showing some statistics where he wondered why the other candidates were referred by the last name and she was referred to as hillary..
since hillary’s main criticism is she’s “cold” or “calculating”.. i would think that using “hillary” softens her image.. but still don’t see how official reports can call her that, even if her campaign uses it… even with “rudy” or “W”, they won’t say “thompson has 5%, and rudy has 2%”.. so it is a little different.
And your backup to that statement is?
Well – he had a couple of really bad votes – and lots of “present”s. Also, he and Edwards were in different congresses – different votes, different years. Who knows how each of them might have actually voted in the congress they weren’t in. . .
gah, tweety is such an idiot.
Or Oscar Robertson, while you’re at it.
I suspect that if the POV of the clip was some empty-headed BMOC lug who everyone loves despite the fact that he isn’t the sharpest tack in the box …well, Marc would’ve never posted that clip.
i thought the big O was overstock.com
I was thinking of an old Sherie Hite book.
Using Howie Klein’s usual rating system..Progressive Punch..The scores are:
07-08..H=29, O=43
Chips are down votes..H=30, O=43
Lifetime voting record..H=17, O=24
I vote: “Not Cute”
I just gave John Edwards some cash and my sister-in-law has agreed to match my donation. She is now going to find someone to match hers, this is the best chain I can think of. Go John!!
The first thing in the morning I do is look at HuffPo. The last thing I do at night before shutting the machine down is take a peek at FDL. I’m not sure what, if anything, this says.
Great! ;0)
I second that emotion.
No need to make mountains out of molehills.
Oprah Winfrey has a magazine called O and has been involved in the Obama campaign. Surely I’m not the only one who likes Oprah around here? *blushes*
huffpo- the times square of the blogosphere… cacophony, flashing lights, neon, traffic, prostitutes, tourists, everything for sale trying to get your attention.
Case in point: Mika Brzezinski accepted into the pundit ranks along side media moron Joe Scarborough. It is obvious something is going on there. She always assumes the passive role when Joe is making a point or comment that is totally out of wingnuttery. She rarely calls him out and most often refrains to neutral territory than confront him on any of his overt racist and sexist comments. She is not that stupid, she is being told she has to act this way. When she hosts her own news show following Morning Joe, she is a whole different woman. While women like Mika are slowly emerging onto the pundit screens, they are still not allowed an equal voice.
((((( Jane )))))
The most important thing about this election is whether Americans will buy the steak(Edwards) or the sizzle(Obama/Hillary). So far, those selling the sizzle are ahead.
1,730 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
With all due respect, Jane, I don’t think that gender bias or racism has anythin’ ta do with our political problems and the change we need but don’t seem ta be able ta get to because the corporate powers that be are usin’ race and gender ta distract folks from the political solution right in front of us.
To wit, here is what we need ta do in the next two years:
1. re-engage with Syria and Iran and get the fuck outta Iraq and transfer forces ta Afghanistan with the support of both.
2. rescind the Bush AND Reagan tax cuts on the wealthy, take the cap offa Social Security and reduce the FICA tax by 1.5%.
3. institute Edwards’ health care proposal and let the private insurance sector die on the vine while freein’ up retirements for the boomers and openin up jobs for the new grads who are currently flippin’ burgers.
4. assign a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes and profiteerin’ in order ta bring RICO charges against Haliburton, the Carlyle Group, the Bush Family Trust and Blackwater and the Prince family.
5. initiate impeachment investigations into Alito, Roberts and Scalia and open the records of Cheney’s meetings with the oil folks in the preparations for war in the Middle East.
Now which current candidate for president will be likely ta push any or all of these in the first 100 days with solid Democratic majorities in both houses? Our current political mess doesn’t have anythin’ ta do with race or gender except as it is bein’ manipulated ta cover the reactionary, pro-fascist politics of the female and black candidates and isolating the populist.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…NOT ALL FASCISTS CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICAN !!!
look at the “rage” targeting rahm. or pelosi. or reid. or feinstein. there may be an “ism” but maybe sometimes a snake is a snake. maybe their policies and history suck. maybe they’re too cozy to the republicans. maybe they’re just the status quo structure. maybe they need to go. or not go.
jANE AND LADIES OUT THERE, HILLARY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT PTA CHAIRMAN.SHE NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED AND WHILE WOMEN HAVE FACED DESCRIMINATION AND BEEN UNJUSTLY AND UNFAIRLY TREATED DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ELECTION OF THIS WOMAN WILL RIGHT ALL THE WRONGS OF THE PAST.jUST LIKE BARACK OBAMA IS NOT ENTITLED TO BECOME PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE RACISM THAT HAS EXISTED IN THIS COUNTRY FROM IT’S INCEPTION.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.DISCERNING VOTERS DO NOT ALL HATE WOMEN BUT I ,FOR ONE , AM NOT FOND OF THIS ONE-HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.I ACKNOWLEDGE HILLARY’S EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN.HER EFFORT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AND IS LAUDABLE.I CAN ,HOWEVER, NOT ABIDE WITH HER REVISIONIST HISTORY.WHEN SHE COMPARES HERSELF TO LYNDON JOHNSON ENACTING LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION THAT BENEFITTED WOMEN AS WELL AS BLACKS BECAUSE OF HER 35 YEARS IN THE CAUSE, IT TURNS MY STOMACH. HILLARY SUPPORTED BARRY GOLDWATER WHO STAUNCHLY OPPOSED ALL CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, AND WHILE MARTIN LUTHER KING STOOD AGAINST THE WAR IN VIETNAM HILLARY’S CANDIDATE ADVOCATED THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.AS HILLARY LIKES TO SAY ” FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS”HILLARY WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS AT THE COLLEGE SHE ATTENDED HELPING ELECT RICHARD NIXON.GOD FORBID LADIES WE CHALLENGE HER JUDGEMENT.WHY DOES SHE SUPPORT THE USE OF LANDMINES AND WHY DID SHE VOTE AGAINST BANNING THE USE OF CLUSTER BOMBS IN CIVILIAN AREAS ,AND WHY DID SHE VOTE FOR A DRACONIAN BANKRUPTCY BILL AND THEN TRY TO EXCUSE IT BECAUSE IT DID NOT PASS-NOT FOR LACK OF HER TRYING.WHY DID SHE SUPPORT THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILl? WHY DID SHE NOT SPEAK OUT ON RUANDA AND REACT SO LATE TO BOSNIA. A DISCERNING MIND NEEDS TO KNOW.ALL I CAN INFER IS THAT CIVIL SERVICE FOR HILLARY WAS SERVING ON THE WALMART BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER CORPORATE BOARDS AND AT THE ROSE LAW FIRM AS FIRST LADY OF ARKANSAS MAKING THE CONNECTIONS TO MAKE 10,000% PROFIT STOCK TRANSACTIONS OR INKING BOOK CONTRACTS.AS FIRST LADY OF THE U.S. SHE BOTCHED HEALTHCARE PUTTING IT BACK 15 YEARS AND THEN TRAVELLED THE WORLD-WITHOUT SECURITY CLEARANCE.NAFTA AND GATT ENACTED BY HER HUSBAND MUST HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL FOR HER STOCK PORTFOLIO WHICH YOU CAN CHECK OUT WITH HER PRESIDENTIAL FILING BUT IT DID NOT DO MUCH FOR WORKING WOMEN IN AMERICA.WE MIGHT BECOME AWARE OF OTHER BENEFICIAL THINGS SHE MAY HAVE DONE AS FIRST LADY BUT THEY WON’T RELEASE THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS THAT WOULD TELL US JUST LIKE THEY WON’T RELEASE THE MUTI-MILLION DOLLAR DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON LIBRARY.SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY.THE WAY SHE HAS CONDUCTED THIS CAMPAIGN WITH SLEEZE FROM THE SHADOWS AND PLAUSIBLE DENYABILITY IS REMINISCENT OF THE DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT EXHIBITED IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND HILLARY IS NOT DISCERNING WHEN IT COMES TO TRASHING WOMEN WITH WHICH HER HUSBAND HAD RELATIONS.I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF HER BROTHERS BROKERING PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS AND FOR SALE SIGNS ON THE LINCOLN BEDROOM.NO MORE CIGAR PARTYS IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND NO MORE CLINTONS FOR ME-AND THAT IS NOT MISOGYNY.
[RBG Note; for future reference, ALL CAPS is commonly considered to be the equivalent of yelling on this blog and some paragraph breaks will make your comment much more readable. Thanks.]
I take it your a fan of HuffPo.
An agenda that warms the cockles.
I would add a restoration of civil liberties.
Yeah, I find that video pretty insulting, and there’ a whole bunch of things I don’t like about Senator Clinton’s candidacy (I have problems with all of them, actually).
There are good critiques and dismissive, identity based smears and innuendos, and this video crosses into the later.
Hands down, You sir, receive the ‘LARGER TRUTH’ salute for this thread.
Norske call ‘em like he sees ‘em, his eyes are sharp and he brooks no crap.
stopped going to times square.. gave me a headache… then when i see the links like the lawrence odonnell hit piece of edwards- validation
Norske,
you forgot one. Rebuild and reinvigorate New Orleans. That IS an issue that has some serious racial undertones.
But on the whole, I agree with you. Most of the racism/sexism talk MSM is doing is a manufactured shiny object to distract from the real issues.
Reply to SueFromCT
Go read Taylor Marsh’s response to the Sun criticism.
With all due respect, I think dismissing over half the population is an important part of the discussion of issues.
We need to discuss the issues, but this sexism gets in the way of the discussion; it alters who can participate in that discussion and changes how that discussion occurs.
All in all, I’ve been very encouraged by the posts on this thread.
I have no idea of the reality of that hoo..haa.but there is irony in the Sun’s criticism of Taylor’s talking about intimidation by some unions…and the Sun had a story on the same topic.
The feeling that I get about the union issues is that it is more related to internal NV politics, power and position than it is to Obama or Clinton.
The impression here is that there are lots of good folks who post on HuffPo. But of course I’m not trying to talk anyone into looking at HuffPo. Have a good day. ;0)
It’s interesting how people are willing to dismiss gender bias and racism in the political discussion because they have never been a victim of it, and choose to focus instead on the bigger world picture where the victims are so much more obvious and they can be seen the bigger hero for solving their problems.
It does look like what is happening in Nevada regarding the caucuses is union-on-union bashing. Local politics with much history.
I agree, and yes your comments to Marc Ambinder left no singe marks. But isn’t he the same Ambinder who snarked around about the press corps not covering John Edwards because they didn’t like him, and didn’t like his issues?
So, maybe this is a different topic from race and gender, but class should be addressed also. It is not just a fraternity of white males and submissive white women, but very rich celebrity white males and very rich celebrity submissive white women, whose views on economics is at least as skewed, and bigoted (and conveniently ignorant of anything but GOP and DLC BS talking points) on that front as it is on race and gender.
Sorry, no.
NO.
Anytime a woman is characterized as a “ball buster” you are, by definition, talking about hatred of women.
Period.
End of story.
Not to say that there aren’t a LOT of other factors at play here. But the current Hillary narrative — she’s shrill, she’s cold, she has no heart, that little show of emotion was totally calculated, etc. ad nauseum — is exactly the same CRAP we’ve been struggling against for … oh, sh*t, it’s exhausting just thinking about it!
This is just an extension of the corporate glass ceiling, played out on an extremely public stage. Shrink it all down a little and you’re looking at the thankless, grueling, HEARTBREAKING gauntlet that every woman on her way to the upper eschelons has been subjected to.
NO, she’s not perfect. NO, she’s not my first choice. But those issues have NOTHING to do with her being a woman, never mind what parts of herself she’s had to pack away in a padded room JUST in order to make it as far as she has. Honestly, sometimes I AM tempted by the sympathy factor.
OK. I’m going to stop ranting. Just by way of disclaimer, I’m a 50-something white woman, I’m not an executive and have no desire to be, and I have no illusion that racism isn’t every bit as rampant in this whole process as misogyny is. I am just sick to f*ing DEATH of all this crap getting in the way of learning who our candidates really are.
I just want to be able to vote for the best person, regardless of the color of their skin or what’s between their legs. Is that asking too much???
1,730 dayz and the killin’ goez on and on and…
Citizen marshan:
“It’s interesting how people are willing to dismiss gender bias and racism in the political discussion because they have never been a victim of it…”
Bless yer heart, comrade marshan, but I am old enough and have been fightin’ those battles (racism and sexism) since Jesus was a PFC…so I have a bit of perspective that keeps me from bein’ bamboozled by politicians who are bought and paid for by the corporate oligarchy and hidin’ their politics behind their race or gender.
There is absolutely NOTHIN’ racist about opposin’ Barak O’Lieberman because of his politics, outstanding political debts,political statements and actions and there is NOTHIN’ sexist about opposin Mrs. Clinton because of her politics or lack of them and her dangerous obligations and fealty to our corporate masters. And you, dear, have no business callin’ ANYone here racist or sexist because they oppose a politician’s politics…indeed, I volunteered ta serve in the military just so that folks like you would not be able ta marginalize my politics for ANY reason. My father was on the FBI “watch list” in the early 50’s and my grandfather was a commie organizer in the lumber camps in northern Minnesota at the turn of the 20th century…so you ain’t dealin’ with a liberal wallflower who will cave into your racist and sexist political intimidation.
KEEP THE FAITH AND GET THAT SHIT OUTTA MY YARD!!
[RBG Note; FWIW, using the term ”dear” could likely be construed as less than enlightened.]
I used to enjoy going to several of the liberal blogs on a daily basis. I just realized that the only ones I can now tolerate going to are one’s primarily organized by women. Sad counsidering we’re all Democrats.
Hate to say it, but CPin ABQ is correct. In am part of the white male club, and I can witness that the retarded attitude of the national press reflects the retarded attitude that still exists in many parts of the executive and upper management class. The nonsense you see on TV wouldn’t sell unless their were many (too many) backward minded people who find it comforting.
OK moderator…where’s my response to to marshan at #161??!!
WHERE ARE MY LAST 2 POSTS??!!!
Yelling will not get your comments freed any faster. Refresh your browser and they are all in this thread.
1,730 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Yellowsnapdragon:
You are absolutely right…a Marshall Plan for New Orleans should be in the first 100 days with the right of return to all refugees.
Now can you find my last two posts?
KEEP THE FAITH AND TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER!!
My husband is about as liberal as they come (wouldn’t of married him if he wasn’t)and even he doesn’t get half of the disguised misogynist comments thrown around constantly. I have to sit him down and explain it and then he can understand. Man, it’s getting tiring lately.
RBG:
My response to marshan was posted and then removed…what the fuck is up with THAT??!!!
Please see my note in that comment.
RBG:
Good God…I used the term “Dear” us gender nutral since I don’t know the sex of Citizen marshan, how could it be otherwise??!! Get a grip RBG! For your information, usin’ the term “dear” can’t indicate gender ‘cuz my wife calls me that all the time…take a breath and take a pill if it’ll hekp ya.
See my last post in response to yer kneejerk “note”…I don’t need any “sensitivity” couselin’ from you kid!!
Well, give the clueless oppressor class a break once in awhile. People on the outside have to get real good at listening between the lines, to mix a metaphor, in order to divine the real attitudes of those in power, since their jobs and survival are at stake. Those in the club do not, so are often oblivious, even if their hearts are in the right place.
I am probably oblivious myself to half the nasty stuff. But I do catch enough so that any pundit TV show discussing anything regarding gender, economic class or race starts sounding really disgusting, I would say, after about 30 seconds. It is a real problem. Glenn Greenwald and Jane should do public service spots after every national pundit talk show.
Jane is right.
This video blows.
I’m just the messenger of the mods. You are free to consider that comment as you wish.
No, there is nothing wrong with opposing a candidate on their stand on theissues.That is not what the thread is about. The point is the rampant sexism needs to stop.
I don’t care if your ancestor was one of the “founding fathers” it doesn’t give you the right to dismiss Marshen’s comnments.
The moderator was on point, your “dear” was not a term of endearment, as you suggest your significant other uses it to refer to you. It was meant as a put down and everyone here knows it. Maybe you don’t because you haven’t lived it you can’t see it or can’t understand what is being said on this thread. Maybe you’re just tone deaf.
As I frequently remind my Republican brother, saying it frequently doesn’t make it true and neither does yelling it louder.
CPinABQ you put it well, I’ve experienced it to. I hope we can change it.
Thank you wasabi. I would say I know it is tiring to repeatedly have to explain to men the subtle misogyny that surrounds us, but I am a man and will never really know how tiring, exasperating, maddening, a lifelong task it really is.
But thanks to women like you who are willing to do the explaining over and over, we are all gradually getting the picture.
I remember how incredulous and furious I was some years ago I first had to grudgingly admit that I lived entirely within the male standard and was blind to the experience of women in so many areas of life.
I empathize with some of the boys discomfort with this thread.
And Jane I am amazed at the deft way you introduce the subject again and again. Amazing!
A great thread. Thanks again to all the women patiently explaining again and again that which is often difficult for us men to see.
Joelmael
Thanks Joelmael, you have a wonderful perspective.
I try to explain to my daughters about the boys only marching band and the boys only library at college, and they just don’t get it somehow.
Your willingness to be open to the patient explanations is part of the reason why we are making progress, finally.
In my humble opinion, the most effective way to fight is to hit ‘em where it hurts. Sending letters to MSNBC suggesting that sexist banter on their shows is offensive to many of us (I am a man and am speaking for myself) might get their attention. I’ll bet there is a sizable number of women who read this blog. I’ll bet that a sizable number of them do most of the shopping for the shit that is advertised on MSNBC. I’ll also bet that letters and e-mails to MSNBC (or any other broadcast organization) from a sizable number of those readers with lists of the products they will not buy unless Jimbo is shitcanned will be much more effective.
Great post. We need to call them out as being bigoted, rather than merely rude (as “disrespect” implies). This is not sexual banter, bit bigotry being expressed through the medium of sexuality. Homophobia is also expressed this way as well and yet we don’t pull our punches for fear of being smeared as “anti-sex.”
I agree that a lot of women can’t stand the online combat, which isn’t really a combat at all, but just blatant hate spewed by men (and women) against femaleness itself. This is a much bigger problem in society, where every association with femaleness is used as a slur.
Even on progressive male bloggers’ sites the double standard between Obama and Clinton is outrageous. Clinton gets slammed for choking up (Bloggers stated there could only be two options: “Wimp!” or “She’s calculating!” and Obama is forgiven for just about everything, from D-Punjab to McClurkin to Social Security to Jesse Jackson, Jr. and now perpetuating the myth of Reagan!
I honestly can’t stand it anymore. I don’t know how women put up with it.
Oh, what I love about that video is that actually Reese Witherspoon is a Hillary supporter.
This election is shaping up to be a trifecta in which we confront racism, sexism, and ageism (McCain).
1,371 dayz and the killin’ goez on and on and…
Citizen BluesBlue:
“Maybe you can’t because you haven’t lived it or you can’t see it…”
One word response: BULLSHIT
Sexism and racism is of course bein’ catapulted by the wingnut knuckledragers but both Mrs. Clinton and O’Lieberman are stokin’ it up ‘cuz it keeps the conversation from issues and politics…and if ya don’t see it maybe you aren’t old enough or you haven’t experienced enough or yer jest plain gullible.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND BE CAREFUL YA DON’T LET YER MOUTH WRITE ANY CHECKS YER ASS CASNM’T CASH!!
I wish that all of us would object to the misogyny & racism we see by the pundits. I also wish that all of us would object to the pundits and blogs writing Edwards out of the campaign. I find all of these things highly offensive.
I just came from the Huffington Post and they have a photo on their front page that shows Clinton & Obama and a bunch of Republicans. They do not have Edwards in the photo and they leave him pretty much out of the article about the election that goes with the photo.
For those of you who support other candidates I think you are making a mistake by not challenging this. It may help your candidate in the short term but it hurts all of us in the long term. None of us can afford to remain silent when any of these three things occur. We can’t single out one thing and ignore the others merely because it helps our particular choice of candidate.
Obama & Hillary should both have a more liberal voting record than Edwards because Edwards had to represent red state constituents. Both Obama & Hillary are from blue states.
If we are going to compare records let’s make sure we discuss all of the contributing factors to those votes. When you look at the records of all three of these candidates under these circumstances Edwards has been much more courageous in some of his liberal votes than the other two combined.
Jane: I take your point. Matthews is so obvious that I can’t stand him anymore. But I also find the women as repulsive: Andrea Mitchell, Norah O’Donnell (I could say something rude about her laugh – bray? when I hear about Hillary’s cackle), Candy Crowley: I could go and on : Anne Kornblut, etc etc. Women have appeared on Tweety’s show and played along. Sometimes I find this far more disgusting. Tweety is a pig..Anne is.. Gloria Borger with her pompousness I am not going on!!!!!