[Editor's note: This is the fifth of a six-part series by Paul Lukasiak on what polling reveals about how Americans will vote in the coming election. For more details, see parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. -- DN]
We’ve seen, over the course of the preceding data, the way that sexism and racism are affecting voter behavior in the 2008. And perhaps the most salient finding is a simple one: That when sexism or racism come into play, they each increase the power of the other to influence the outcome of the election.
That is, when Democrats indulge sexism, it enhances the influence of racism in the election, and vice versa. And when it comes to sexism, no figure in recent history has elicited as powerful a reaction as Hillary Clinton.
At the time SUSA data was gathered, the Jeremiah Wright controversy had not yet exploded on the national scene, and while “racism” was a factor, it wasn’t really an “issue.”
But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it is clear that her gender isn’t just a “factor”, but an issue. If she “acts like a woman” and shows emotion, it becomes a topic for endless media discussion and speculation. If she gives a speech to a woman’s group, or she discusses the historic nature of her candidacy, she’s playing the “gender card”. How she looks, including what she is wearing, and how she sounds, are discussed in ways in which the media would never consider talking about a man. She is consistently defined in terms of her husband and marriage, and accused of not getting where she is on her own, but rather because of who her husband is.
The hostility toward Hillary Clinton is visceral, and is comparable to the hostility and hatred directed toward Eleanor Roosevelt in her day. Roosevelt was the first “modern” First Lady — and the first truly post-woman’s suffrage one. While many First Ladies were women of sharp intelligence and political acumen, prior to Roosevelt they stayed behind the scenes. Eleanor Roosevelt completely rejected the then “traditional” role of First Lady, and became a public figure who was a strong advocate for civil rights and human rights, and played a significant role in her husband’s administration.
As a result of Roosevelt’s refusal to only play the “traditional” role of First Lady, both she and her husband were vilified during his Presidency — it was clear that Franklin Roosevelt didn’t “permit” Eleanor to have a public persona separate and distinct from her husband, he “enabled” it. Tens of millions of Americans, unhappy with the changing role of women in society, saw that “enabling” in the same way that we perceive the enabling of alcoholics or drug abusers — as a sign of weakness, corruption, and cravenness on Franklin Roosevelt’s part, and was as despised as Eleanor Roosevelt was feared, resented and hated by them.
And while most subsequent First Lady’s adopted/adapted the Eleanor Roosevelt model (although Bess Truman is best remembered for being “not Eleanor Roosevelt”), Hillary Clinton represents the first truly “post-women’s liberation” First Lady. Roosevelt and her successors adopted “causes” and “stood in for” their husbands as a representative of the Office of President. Hillary Clinton didn’t adopt causes, she took on issues, and wasn’t just a “stand in” for Bill Clinton, but his alter ego — she represented The President.
Just as Eleanor Roosevelt was hated by millions because she represented the changing role of women, and just as Franklin Roosevelt was equally despised for his role as her “enabler”, so too are Hillary and Bill Clinton hated. It has nothing to do with policies, or politics – it’s a visceral reaction to avatars of change in the relationship between men and women.
As a result, Hillary Clinton is constantly criticized for showing traits that would be considered admirable in a man.
Hillary Clinton isn’t just “ambitious”, she is “too ambitious.” Nevermind the fact that she had spent 14 years in Washington, including 6 years in the Senate, before announcing for President, while Obama spent only two years in D.C. as a Senator before he announced, and is seldom described as “too ambitious.” Clinton “has spent the last seven years running for President”, a fact that is equally (if not more) true of John McCain, but no one seems to mention that McCain has had his own eye on the Presidency since at least 1999.
Hillary Clinton isn’t “smart,” she’s “too calculating.” She isn’t “assertive,” she’s “too controlling.” Clinton doesn’t “compromise,” she “betrays her principles.” And Hillary Clinton is incapable of righteous anger; instead, she is “shrill.”
And, of course, she’s a “bitch”. Even John McCain wouldn’t deny that, would he?
And all this happens because Hillary Clinton isn’t just “a woman”, she is a symbol of the true equality for women that the women’s liberation movement sought to achieve, and as such represents a major threat to the subconscious assumption underlying male dominance of society.
As a woman, she isn’t equal TO men, she is equal WITH men; Hillary Clinton represents the rejection of “maleness” as the yardstick by which women are judged. And the moment the word “co-president” was uttered, Hillary Clinton became a threat to everything that men believe on a subconscious level about the “natural order of things”and the subconscious male assumption that men have the right to BESTOW equality upon women, and define the terms under which “equality” is exercised.
But perhaps Clinton’s biggest “crime” is her refusal to project any sense of sexual availability to men. By not engaging in “sexual politics”, by playing games of flirtation and seduction expected/demanded of women who seek power, she represents a threat to the very core of male identity itself, and a threat to core identity of many women as well.
Hillary Clinton’s gender is an issue, not just a factor, because she is no different from any male politician. She is no more (and no less) deserving, no more (and no less) ambitious, no more (and no less) “unprincipled”. It is her very demand that she be treated equally WITH men that makes it acceptable to talk about, describe, and attack her in ways that people in the media would never consider talking about a man.
Ultimately, the way in which people feel free to talk about Hillary Clinton is their way of asserting that women are "different" from men, and must be treated differently, and it is Clinton’s insistence upon equal treatment that makes it acceptable to establish that “difference” in negative terms.
The male-dominated media’s treatment of Clinton feeds into every fear that men (and many women) have of true female equality, and not merely allows sexism and misogyny to thrive, but practically demands it. And the huge differences between how men and women vote for Clinton and Obama – two remarkably similar politicians who are both overwhelmingly different from John McCain – shows that the demand is being met.
[Cross-posted at Corrente.]



147 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
DEZ!
Where to start with some of the arguments presented.
Give me a moment
wow
My eyes were opened when I read King of the Mountain—The Nature of Political Leadership by Arnold M. Ludwig in 2002. Ludgig studied ALL leaders of all countries in the 20th century. The short version was alpha male. The power of that factor varied according to the type of leadership, and in democracy it was less prevalent than in other forms (esp. visionary, meaning attempt to change all of society, as in Hitler, Stahlin, Pol Pot), buyt still dominant. Women accounted for about 2% of all leaders and about 3/4 of those were daughters of or wives of. That’s when I knew Hillary had no chance in the U.S.
No, HRC’s biggest “crime” is her willingness to trash any and all comers on her way to her mission to be Prez. If we lose to McCain in November, it will be directly traceable back to her attacks on Obama now.
Her “stock” with the Democratic party will be lower than Ralph Nader’s. I guess she can be comfortable with the money she gets from her 2nd and last Senate term and Bill’s speaking fees. And her 109 million.
Yeah, I’m stuck. too many and i have no idea where to start so i’ll go with what you said (albeit with al little embellishment)
wow.just.wow
im a woman,and i dont really give as fig,about who is lying to me,and insulting my intellect…Hillary and the other Republicans do it endlessly,its like a gender free pastime
So any opposition to Hillary is soley based on sexism?
Thanks for such a clear and unemotional take on an issue that can be difficult to present or discuss.
Supporters of both Dem candidates can become somewhat defensive if they either sexism or racism is brought up even if you aren’t attacking their candidate and all you want to do is to talk about how these issues are being played out in the media. Thank you for such a great article.
Interesting post.
If an equally qualified woman, other than Clinton, was running right now, I wonder if the treatment would be different…
The Rush Limbaugh crowd tried to destroy her 24/7 during the ’90’s, and much of the sentiment that they created lingers on..she can do nothing right in their minds. They successfully painted her with all of the slurs noted in the post. I think much of what we are seeing is particularly a Hillary Clinton phenomena, not necessarily as generally sexist as it appears. JMHO
I don’t disagree with Paul here. As I said at the end of the last thread, I know of several rethugs (actually, effectively all of the rethugs I’m conversant with) who viscerally hate Senator Clinton. They dislike and fear Senator Obama, and I think deep down they can’t really accept that the Democrats would put forward an African-American candidate, but they don’t viscerally abhor the ground he steps on. They do, Hillary. I’m not commenting here on the the relative merits of either candidate, nor am I talking about their portrayal in the media, but I am merely saying that there exists a contingent of rethugs who just irrationally hate “that woman” (with an epithet often inserted between those two words, for effect). And I do believe that her gender does have something to do with it, as well as the fact that, in their eyes, she stands for everything that they despise: Bill Clinton, “Kennedy values”, big cities, limousine libruls, whatever.
hey if Elizabeth Edwards were running,id sign up to be her gopher anytime
There you go.
in their eyes, she stands for everything that they despise: Bill Clinton, “Kennedy values”, big cities, limousine libruls, whatever.
reply
———————–
hmmmmmmmmm,i dont feel this is so
*full disclosure* I don’t hate Hillary, I just prefer the other candidate and this preference does not make me any less a feminist, it does not make me a sexist
In other words, there’s a reason why black men got the vote decades before women of any color. Sexism is much more prevalent than reacism.
Yeah, but i must admit I’m a michelle obama fan (i’ve said that i think the wrong obama was running *g*)
Other than representing the worst president ever in the history of this country and the blowback that would occur….the GOP would have no problem nominating Condi Rice….and they might do it anyway…If they do, they will vote in lockstep, and it won’t matter one iota whether she’s a woman or not.
if Hill was honest,…………”she would have had me at hello”
How much do you know about Michelle Obama?
I think she would. First off, the “trailblazers” like Roosevelt and Clinton always bear the brunt of the resistence to change.
Secondly, the reaction to Hillary wasn’t just about her being a woman who sought power, but of being a woman who was represented as an equal partner with (not “to”) a man who had assumed the authority that of the Presidency that was regarded as some kind of male birthright. In other words, its not her gender that defines her, its what she representes in terms of the relationship between the genders that defines her.
on paper they had the right to vote but in practice that didn’t come into fruition (in the south)until the civil rights movement.
but i’m not about to pit the two against each other as that is the height of silly. both are deplorable. now while I will admit that it is socially more acceptable to be sexist, one is not worse than the other
yea that was 100 years ago,i dont think with men depending on womans incomes now,that it applies now
Quite a bit actually.
I strongly disagree. Sexism is in the genes & won’t be resolved by women providing income.
Do tell, including where & how you acquired your information.
we will agree to disagree,or maybe im naiveve,but i hangout with 4legged critters,not 2..”g”
try to disconnect yourself from your obama fever, and understand that this isn’t about preferring Obama to Clinton, its about preferring Obama to McCain, while preferring McCain to Clinton. And its about how in general women who support Obama don’t switch to McCain when its McCain v Clinton.
full biography, professional life?
Well, many 4 legged critters much more sexist than humans, so I wonder why you do not make that connection.
i don’t have obama fever. if you would like to have a discussion, quite with the insults.
actually this might be the root cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture
I remember how hated Elenaor was. Other than my parents, I never heard anyone say anything good about her. She was the object of ridicule with kids laughing at her physical appearance and her voice. No matter what this woman did she was wrong. Still, she resigned from Daughters of the American Revolution in 1939 in support of African American opera singer Marian Anderson.
God forbid that Eleanor should be a role model for us young girls. We needed to know our place. Here is a young beautiful Marian Anderson:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/tmirhfee.html
Since such time, Eleanor was used as an example of how NOT to be a First Lady. She was about issues and challengd traditional prejudices. So many First ladies have been insipid until Hillary and Jackie was truly her own woman though the Kennedy clan hands pressed down on her.
yea,but its reversed
I’m curious when people say they admire public figures, why they say that and where they got their information that led to that conclusion. I’m just trying to get a feel on what basis you admire Michelle Obama.
That’s a result, not a cause.
general info from various blogs and interview pieces (here in the u.s. but also UK and brasil)
professional from a few black political blogs. I would have to go find them again.
i agree,id LOVE to see a woman canidate,and support her to the hilt,not this woman,who voted for war,and wants war in Iran imo
1,812 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Lukasiak:
Oh PaulPaulPaulPaul…NOOO dear, this Hilary basher ain’t frightened of Mrs. ClintoMcCain’s gender, I’m dead set against her POLITICS or lack of politics. In fact, her behavior durin’ this campaign should have enlightened intelligent folks on the left and in the middle (wherever that is) that she and her husband are completely and totally on the payroll of the very forces that tried to destroy ‘em in the 8 years from 1992-2000. We are at the end of history with a terrible beast of economic collapse and social disintegration lickin’ it’s chops outside the door and the best we ken do is try and sift through the tea leaves and contemplate the “data” ta try and understand whether or not racism or sexism is gunna kill the Democratic candidate.
Good Lord man,find another argument. Nobody is gunna intimidate me into supportin’ Mrs. ClintoMcCain by cryin’ “sexism”…quite the contrary. The “data” say that racism and sexism are both factors and issues in this election. Good Christ, I coulda toldja that a few weeks ago and saved ya a lotta unnecessary number-crunchin’ but it’s inconsequential, it don’t mean nuthin’…Mrs. ClintoMcCain would be a another Bush in drag and would spell the end of the Democratic Party. End of argument…that ain’t “sexist” that’s jest a fact, Jack!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU SLING THAT SHIT!!
?
I’m just wondering why Clinton is still in the race. She can count as well as anyone and the math says the Democratic nominee is going to be Obama. I do not think it qualifies as a winning strategy to need the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, followed by a 2 point conversion, an onside kick, another Hail Mary, and another 2 point conversion to win. So what does prolonging the primary campaign accomplish? What do her ongoing criticisms of Obama do, other than help out John McCain? Why is she doing this?
Did I say admire? i like her (which is what I mean by fan) but I would not characterize it as admiration. i like her views on education and family. I like that she is outspoken.
yup
In fact, her behavior durin’ this campaign should have enlightened intelligent folks on the left and in the middle (wherever that is) that she and her husband are completely and totally on the payroll of the very forces that tried to destroy ‘em in the 8 years from 1992-2000
————–
they joined THE VAST RIGHTWING COSPIRACY
I see and hear the hatred and sexism towards Hillary. She and I do not see eye to eye
on issues at all. As a woman for president, Hillary is not my choice. She is too much in the NeoCon camp with all their corporate and lobby buddies. My values are so different from hers.
Oh how I wish…..
Primogeniture is a result of alpha male syndrome, not a cause.
i admire,both of them ,they dont seem jaded yet
McCain and Clinton both suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome.
McCain also suffers from the Stupid Syndrome.
lol
well yes,but as it is defined in money and power
hahahahahhaha
stupid stockholm syndrome…thats very bad indeed…”g”
Paul, I understand your points, but after seeing the gun-toting-whiskey-swilling-duck-hunting Hillary over the last few weeks, I’m afraid she’s being sexist to herself and I’m also afraid she might shove a loaf of bread down her pants to…you know…impress the boys some more. LOL!
I can’t stand the fact that Hillary now lowers her voice like she’s a little girl who is afraid to ask her husband for a glass of milk while sitting at the dinner table.
I don’t see or view Hillary as a feminist any longer. Not sure why I did to be honest with you.
Anyways, I appreciate the points in your great post. Thank you.
Here’s the problem I see in the article, which might have inspired what it did from Wobblybits. You assert that to “hate Hillary and Bill” has “nothing to do with policies or politics.” That means if one’s dislike, or even hate, stems from their policies or politics (and as you know from this morning, I’ve got some serious issues with her politics) then it’s a visceral reaction to that changing relationship, hence you must be sexist.
That “nothing” becomes very restrictive, and you are using it to paint people who don’t support her into your interpretation of their reasons. You’re cutting off dialog with that “nothing” because if I don’t agree with you about Hillary, then I’m just a sexist. You then compound it by telling Wobbly to let go of the “Obama” fever.
I think you’ve got something valid to say here. I think that sexism is prevalent, it’s insidious, and it’s accepted in ways that we as a people haven’t overcome.
But since I don’t agree with you that YOUR candidate should be THE candidate, I’m just fevered and delusional, as well as sexist. Is that what you were trying to accomplish?
so true,she did not take Polonius’s advice….to thine ownself be true
i don’t know enough about them to say admire, i can only say that I respect or like their stances on particular issues. I do think that Michelle has to deal with the whole strong black woman/angry black woman characterization whenever she makes a strong statement about things (well at least that was my perception at the parsing of her ‘proud of my country’ comment)
1,812 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hugh:
“I’m just wondering why Clinton is still in the race. She can couhnt as well as anyone…”
Why indeed??!!! Could it be that she really DOES think that John McCain would be better’n a progressive Democrat??!! God…save us from “liberal” angst and just believe what she says, confirm it with what she does and look at where she gets the money to do it!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE HAVE MET ANOTHER ONE OF THE ENEMY AND SHE AIN’T US!!
I think the only first lady between Jackie and Hillary that comes close to being “insipid” was Pat Nixon — and to me she’s always been a tragic figure rather than an insipid one. Lady Bird Johnson was no wallflower–and can be given more than a little credit for the modern environmental movement, Betty Ford took on addiction and helped change our perception of addicts from people of poor character to people suffering from a debilitating illness, Roslyn Carter was probably the most influential “behind the scenes” First Lady since Edith Wilson (and she practically defined the term “Steel Magnolia”). And Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, although I’m not a big fan of theirs, can’t really be described as insipid either.
Laura Bush can, but she’s post-Hillary, and in many ways the modern Bess Truman — he biggest “accomplishment” has been not being her predecessor.
Exactly. I would have loved to have seen a strong feminine Hillary over the past few weeks/months, but instead, we get a woman who thinks she has to be one of the boys to get them to like her. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Makes me cringe.
What would be the qualities the First Woman President would have? I learned from Carole Ruth Silver and Dianne Feinstein that you just don’t elect any woman because of her gender. You just end up with a hard core male dressed up like a woman. I do want a female perspective.
paul says–But perhaps Clinton’s biggest “crime” is her refusal to project any sense of sexual availability to men. By not engaging in “sexual politics”, by playing games of flirtation and seduction expected/demanded of women who seek power, she represents a threat to the very core of male identity itself, and a threat to core identity of many women as well.
======
yep, she doesn’t titilate emotionally or physically, ’cold fish’ ie bit*h. but a man doing the same thing, not ’cold fish’.
man smiles and acts cool, calm and collected, is considered warm and fuzzy, when he didn’t do or say anything emotionally or physically.
woman smiles and acts cool, calm and collected, not doing anything emotionally or physically, cold fish.
woman titilates only intelectually, robot-cold.
man titilates only intellectually, he’s a genius.
and the last part that paul stated–the threat to core identity of women—the ones that use titilation usually don’t like women who make an affect intellectually without using titilation…..
and people act like it is not going on, usually the ones using the means described above.
happens in every walk of life, even happens on blogs. i watch women resort to it all of the time instead of making their point.
titilate, and people will follow……..trippin’ over each other.
don’t titilate-well, i guess you prefer quality over quantity.
i don’t have a problem with any of these means when someone is upfront in using them, but the ones that do it and deny it? well, there’s a word for it-superficial.
: )
I don’t believe I can be objective with this issue. This has been an excellent series of articles. I don’t like nor want Hillary Clinton as my president for myriad reasons that have NOTHING to do with her body parts. I am a middle aged wh9te woman who REMEMBERS the Clinton Administration, and i do NOT like how she’s run her campaign, again, for MYRIAD reasons. She cares more about what feels like her “coronation” than about the people of this country. So I can’t and won’t participate further in this discussion.
BUT,
it’s a well written and thought out and educational series of articles, none the less.
earlier today, I (as an Obama supporter) was characterized as delusional.
Thank you and yes that is what elicited my comment. I just wanted to give full disclosure so that it was clear that my selection was not based on this ‘clinton hate’ but rather on issues. To extrapolate that, maybe that is why many others have thrown their support behind other candidates. I never was dismissing the existence of sexism, rather that it is not the only factor in either lack of support or even why people dislike her (to extrapolate a bit more)
The hostility towards Hillary Clinton is not comparable to the hostility shown to Eleanor Roosevelt. I dislike the Clintons, inter alia, because they are liars and have run a racist campaign. Eleanor Roosevelt actually cared for but was disliked by the antisemetic power structure in place in her generation both inside and outside the democratic party. Unlike the Clintons Eleanor Roosevelt appealed to thoughtful and educated women, not the barbi doll knee jerk feminism relied upon by the Clintons in “appealing” to uneducated older women. Not the Eleanor Roosevelt constituency, to say the least. Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be compared favorably to Eleanor Roosevelt.
1,812 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hugh:
And one more thing…how dare you compare Mrs. ClintoMcCain to Elenor Roosevelt??!!! Mrs. Roosevelt is an icon in our household and I grew up listenin’ ta my mother and father BOTH talk about her in her own right when talkin’ about the 30’s and survivin’ the last great fascist assault on our way of life. Mrs. ClintoMcCain couldn’t hold up Mrs. Roosevelt’s nylons!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND GETCHER HANDS OFFA MY HISTORY!!
Lol, in rare form today my friend.
So…as a man, I can’t oppose Hillary without being labeled a sexist? Gotcha.
Of course sexism exists, but it’s the least of HRC’s problems. Enough of this “poor Hillary” crap.
ER is one of my all time heros………it developed slowly,she BECAME a great woman…”person”
me too”g”
You have facebook message.
She is my hero too. Remember she said, do something each day which scares you or words to that effect.
i’m all for having a ‘discusion’ but I will not participate in poo flinging or insults (personal characterizations, etc.). I’m still waiting for you to address my comment.
the subject is Hillary hatred. I started out this campaign as “anyone but Hillary” myself, but I’ve never despised her the way that we’ve already seen in the comments here. Its a level of visceral hatred that goes beyond mere opposition to her policies. You can oppose Hillary without that kind of reaction — in fact, most of the progressives I know who now support her didn’t want her to be the nominee originally. To us, she’s just the better of two bad choices.
well, wobbly’s first substantive comment was “So any opposition to Hillary is soley based on sexism?”, I ignored it. But if you are going to be an idiot, don’t do it repeatedly. I will eventually react.
Tom65, if you’re opposing her because she has fat ankles, then yes…we can call you a sexist. If you are opposing her because of her actions in her campaign and because you don’t agree with her on certain issues, then no, I don’t think anyone here would call you a sexist. I use the same criteria for all candidates running and so far…Obama has a B+ which is way higher than the score of Hillary & Felon McCrazy.
i’m off to read
yes,she was antisemitic,till she became a statesperson,she had to learn…she was an elite…she became everyman,not like the creepy/monarchlike Bushies
Lukasiak, do you believe that Hillary is a gun-toting-whiskey-swilling-duck hunting-one-of-the-boys candidate? If so, then you have the problem, not us. Just saying.
Power in the hands of a woman can be just a lethal as a man if the person has no strength in values they are true to. I don’t believe a woman leader has to emulate the (good ole) boys (different connotation from the comment made to Obama).
I’ve observed Hillary for a long time and she reveals her lack of solid self-awareness. This was something I admired about John Edwards and Elizabeth is truly worthy of the title “straight talker”.
I also see the mean-spirited crowd who would be putting Elizabeth Edwards through the same thing because she is a strong woman. I don’t want to support this prejudice either. I also want to recognize it. It will come up again at some other time.
I recognize Hillary is getting a whole lot of sexist hate dumped on her. She is not my choice for President. The two can be true.
1,812 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Oh my…I’m so mad I think I may have a stroke jest ta keep from havin a heart attack!! I gotta work tanight so I gotta sleep a bit…please folks, no more posts comarin’ Mrs. ClintoMcCain to Elenor Roosevelt!
KEEP THE FAITH AND KEEP YER EYES ON THE PRIZE AND STOP BEATIN YERSELF UP!!
he subject is Hillary hatred. I started out this campaign as “anyone but Hillary” myself, but I’ve never despised her the way that we’ve already seen in the comments here. Its a level of visceral hatred that goes beyond mere opposition to her policies. You can oppose Hillary without that kind of reaction — in fact, most of the progressives I know who now support her didn’t want her to be the nominee originally. To us, she’s just the better of two bad choices.
———
I AM VISCERALLY against anymore preEmptive war,or these ocupations…i can not tell you HOW STRO0NGLY!!!!!
Kay – I understand and appreciate your position, but the unspoken point of this entry is to imply that HRC’s problems can be laid at the feet of sexist males who oppose her purely on gender issues, when nothing could be further from the truth (at least among Dems).
The ugly undercurrent of HRC’s entire candidacy has been that women MUST vote for her because she’s a woman, and men must do so out of a sense of obligation. I’m tired of it.
Now I’m an idiot? Intolerance much?
You have mail
Thank you. Oh, and that she’s “inevitable” and “owed” the job.
The Clintons do not have any policies as such. Politics is a lifetime business for them, money, power etc. It is simple and true and sad.
I don’t see “visceral hatred” of Clinton. I just see that term used to anyone who doesn’t want her for president, and then the barrage of sexism charges. I WOULD LOVE to have a woman president. Hell, I BURNED BRAS! Just NOT THIS WOMAN.
what precisely is your point? That Clinton does the same things that male candidates do to show that she relates to certain constituencies, but because she’s a woman that she’s not allowed?
I think Clinton’s “gun toting” is about as relevant as Obama’s bowling… in other words, not the least bit relevant to whether or not he’d make a good president.
And I find it worrisome that so many Obama supporters are willing to criticize Hillary Clinton for “gun toting”, when their candidate little “bowling” episode isn’t seen as something that is somehow disqualifying. Its an irrational, complete and absolute double standard that I am not used to seeing in progressives.
“If she “acts like a woman” and shows emotion, it becomes a topic for endless media discussion and speculation”
I don’t understand this often repeated phrase “‘acts like a woman’ and shows emotion”
McCain doesn’t show emotion when he explodes into one of his insane tantrums or buries his face in W.’s pit? Cheney doesn’t show emotion when he screams “fuck you” at an opponent or when being questioned about shooting his friend in the face with a shotgun? W doesn’t show emotion when he mocks others, speaks contemptuously of others, or belittles those who disagree with him?
So what is it? What are these people talking about when they speak this way? Crying? Crying isn’t an emotion it is an expression of a feeling. Is it really about which emotions are expressed? It’s okay to be insanely angry, but not sad or truly compassionate?
John McCain supports President Bush’s policy of torturing human beings.
John McCain:
Worse than Bush
you are a sensitive,wunnerful pup imo
yes………….NO MORE WAR,read the reports Hillary
So my asking a question and then making a comment (respectful at that) earns being called an idiot? I will not return insult in kind. but if you want to discuss the context of my comments, I’m happy to do so
“So any opposition to Hillary is soley based on sexism?”
___________
Ding. That is total condescending, patronizing crap.
I agree with you on the self-awareness thing. Without it, one looks and acts like a robot who has to be what others want he or she to be. Hillary is definitely like that, whereas, Elizabeth Edwards has that inner self-confidence that shines through and can be feminine at the same time. Elizabeth Kucinich is the same way. Hillary? Again, her recent actions tells me she has no idea who she really is inside and is reaching out to people who hate her guts to make herself feel better! Good gawd. *slapping forehead* That would be like me suddenly telling my right wing neighbors that I’m going to start blowing up abortion clinics so they’ll like me.
If John McCrazy suddenly started acting like a liberal by hugging trees and eating cheese (yes I know…not all liberals do that! Just using it as an example to make my point), I would understand why his party members would suddenly start going after him. This is what is happening to Hillary. She can’t see it and I can’t understand why her supporters don’t and why they call us sexist when we point this stuff out to them.
forgive me,cause it all BS,we want change,not politics as usual
obrigada (thanks)
I know politickin’ when I see it, yadda yadda. I personally don’t really care for any of our ‘chosen’ candidates.
The flip flopping around I have seen By Mrs. Clinton on the other hand, leaves me very suspicious and her record speaks for itself.
I don’t feel the need to bring up sexism or racism in this election but it’s there. I would like to see the Republicans get buried, thats what I’m after.
I’m tired of it too Tom. I was for Kucinich originally, you know, the guy with the pointy ears who was “too short to be president”. LOL I didn’t care what he looked like, but I loved all of his positions.
just my humble opine
You’re not an idiot. ;-)
i really wish Hillary would have just stuck to the facts
and TWEETY is still a doofus
or delusional, or a dreamer
next thread
Yes, it is. In fact, I thought the subject was irrational Hillary hatred based on sexism.
You assert that hatred is not due to her policies or politics. That it had NOTHING to do with those. It’s why I quoted you in my original comment.
Whether she was your original choice or not has no bearing on your use of the word NOTHING and your assertion that since her politics has NOTHING to do with the “hate”, opposition to her must be based upon sexism. It’s a very broad brush you are painting with.
Please don’t call me or others here an idiot. Wobbly reached a conclusion that wasn’t a stretch, based upon what YOU wrote in the original article. If that wasn’t what you MEANT then you shouldn’t have written it.
I went Biden –> Edwards –> Hillary –> Sheik OsamaBama.
Sniper fire was a big tipping point for me. And the smarmy “bitter” (and ultimately counterproductive) ‘got’cha’ posturing just confirms it.
So being bad at bowling is no different than pretending to be a neocon to get into the White House even though you’re a Democrat? Oh boy. Can I fix you a drink? I think you need one. If you don’t drink it, I will. LOL
No, it is that she wouldn’t be doing this if she wasn’t so far behind. Desperate times, etc.
“g”
“G”!
LOL Good gawd! You were all over the place! I feel your pain, however. ;-)
;-) I could be drunk by the end of the night at this rate. LOL
Just to remind everyone what we are talking about here…this is the very beginning of the first part of the series on Sexism, Misogyny, and the 2008 elections…
nothing I’ve ever written in these pieces has every suggested that any Democrat who prefers Obama as the nominee of the Democratic Party is sexist. At least 99% of the progressive blogosphere would rather drink bleach than vote for McCain, even if it does mean supporting “the other Democrat”.
So I really thik we should be discussing why so many people feel threatened by the very mention that sexism still exists, and manifests itself in polling that doesn’t have anything to do with the choice for the Democratic nominee.
This is, in theory, not something that should be controversial. Its not something that should elicit attacks on Clinton, because we’re talking about what happens when the choice is Clinton or McCain here.
so why do people feel compelled to attack her anyway?
me too,im am gettin sick of her BS,yea i am,and being blamed for my natural reaction to BS
oh Hill has a new commercial,on BITTER
I was never attacking her. If I did, please by all means, show me. Instead of engaging in a debate or discussion about what you wrote, you call people idiots. Last time i checked, insulting people is not condusive to a) discussion or b) meaningful debate
ya know ’put up or shut up’ seems like a rude phrase, but it’s kinda not. i don’t think it is.
when bullying physical arguments don’t work, then people go to emotional arguments.
when an intellectual argument would have done the best.
go figure.
there’s a few people been carrying a hard-on around here actin’ like this is a new argument, carryin’ it over from the last time he posted, just waiting to spew, just waiting for something to pounce on…..ok, you have, now get on with the discussion, this is something i’m interested in, sociology, and this is theh 5th fucking post paul has made.
it is impossible to discuss it.
what a bunch of shite.
i think people are missing the fucking point. again. c’mon pups. enough already.
hey paul, repost this in december will ya?
and once again, a meaty thread, or one that shoulda been, given one hour……
i give up.
====
and as far as michelle lavaughn robinson obama goes?
anybody read her dissertation from princeton?
i would if i were you.
I am scared that the Clintons could claim a right to be elected because any other result would be in part or in whole because of sexism. The Clintons would lead us to another 8 years of their banter. The Clintons are empty and dangerous.
I’ve read it and had no problem with it.
I’m always ready for discussion when there is one to be had but that requires people wanting to have an open discussion and not just a blind swallowing of an opinion.
have you noticed how no one ever suggests that Obama “needs to control his wife?”
if anyone were to suggest such a thing when Michele Obama puts her foot in her mouth, they would be crucified, and rightly so.
yet its perfectly acceptable to say things like that about Hillary Clinton. Its an implicit insistance that if she is going to take on the traditional male role in politics, she has to do the “male” thing and “control the spouse.”
and while we’ve moved past that kind of thinking in terms of other candidates like Obama, the fact that its acceptable to say about the Clinton’s is just one more manifestation of the endemic sexism that goes unremarked because its Hillary Clinton we’re talking about.
Luk@110.
So what you’re telling me is that based upon the polling, men won’t vote for a woman? Is this independents, democrats, likely voters?
I’m not an expert in either polling or statistics, so please, I’m not trying to attack, I’m trying to understand.
Hillary Clinton is a bad choice simply because of her LYING about her resume. “Sniper fire” went WAY beyond “padding.” It shows who she really is, and indicates how she’d behave as President.
Doesn’t have shit to do with her gender.
wobbly said–
”I’ve read it and had no problem with it.
I’m always ready for discussion when there is one to be had but that requires people wanting to have an open discussion and not just a blind swallowing of an opinion.”
=============
i said at 114 that people had an agenda and it had nothing to do with the post.
i’m callin’ ya out on it, again, wobbly, i hate the shit sturrin’ just to stir it that’s been goin on around here. i’ve been here a while, and things changed while i was gone, and not in a good way.
to not be able to discuss a post, after all of the work that went into it, is bullshit. i AM interested in it. as DATA. not opinion. and it didn’t have a chance.
=====
you posted one minute after this post went up, in the last thread:
wobblybits April 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
101
Think I will keep my happy self here instead of moving on to the next thread. It’s better for my karma
==================
already had an agenda. had nothing to do with this particular post, no way in hell you had time to read it in a minute.
=================
wobblybits April 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
106
In response to wobblybits @ 101
oh, I’m a glutton for punishment. i like to examine arguments
Reply
=========
so you can maybe stir them up a little more?
============
selise April 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
108
In response to wobblybits @ 106
well, paul was kind enough to give me his raw data and i spent a few hours going through it yesterday (nowhere near done, just a first pass).
Reply
wobblybits April 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
109
In response to selise @ 108
I’m over there commenting now. I’m just looking at the arguments (no charts there today)
==============
What the polling data tells us is that when faced with two people who are far more like each other than either is like McCain, a significant percentage of men who support Obama over McCain switch to McCain when the choice is between McCain and Clinton– and the percentage of women who change parties is strikingly small by comparison.
The polling doesn’t, and can’t, tell us how many men won’t vote for a woman, because many men won’t vote for a democrat of either gender, and thus it is impossible to determine the extent to which gender would enter into their decision.
The polling, in other words, doesn’t describe the full extent of sexism that exists, merely the extent to which sexism has a potential impact on the outcome of this particular election. And that potential impact is subtstantial — about 4.7% of the overall electorate, when the small relatively small percentage of women who will support Clinton but won’t support Obama is factored into the equation.
The “silver lining” is that the biggest impact of this sexism seems to be in states that don’t win regardless of who wins (i.e. its a lot worse in Idaho than it is in Vermont). But there are a number of states that, had the election been held in February, would have switched from Democratic (if Obama was the nominee) to Republican (if Clinton was the nominee) — and the reason for the switch would be a change in the party preference of male voters. Those states are SD, NH, NV, CO, OR, and WA. Iowa also switches over to the GOP, but in that case, the switch isn’t due solely to male voters. And (IIRC, I’d have to go back and check my data) there are a couple of states (Florida was one, Arkansas another — but that is about ‘home state advantage) where the switch goes toward the Democrat when Clinton is the nominee — but in those cases, as in Iowa, it isn’t because of a change in the votes of a single gender.
?
The cohort was registered voters, not likely voters (trying to predict likely voters in February for a November election in a fools game under ordinary circumstances — trying to predict who will show up if there might be a woman or an african american on the ballot makes it even more of a waste of time.)
The data suggests that there is a stronger correlation between “independents” and “switchers” than between “Republicans” or “Democrats” and switchers, but that is pretty meaningless correlation, given that self-identification with a party probably means you are far more likely to stick with that party’s candidate regardless of the circumstances.
So in other words, your entire post is based on bullshit and conjecture.
Glad we cleared that up.
Definitely an amazing set of analyses. The major issue I have is
a)the lack of enough multiple comparisons to show a repeated pattern that ALL women would be treated in the fashion that Hillary Clinton appears to be in your cross-comparisons, and that all Black males would be treated as Obama has been. For one to ascribe that these two individuals are proxys for “racism” and “sexism” seems to me to be incapable of being determined from the data. Is it not possible that a different female candidate would not have the gender shift you show occurring when Clinton-McCain match up? Is it not possible that a male candidate (instead of Clinton) might attract proportionately more white women than Obama (say someone like Bill Clinton), and that males might not respond to that Candidate if he became the nominee?
b) You’ve made numerous aspersions on those that support Obama and on the candidate himself. Yet many of these individuals will support Clinton (provided they are not insulted and abused by Clinton and her supporters). They simply prefer Obama. Now your data has shown that White females differentially support Clinton…would that not suggest that they are racist or sexist? If they are not ideologically different then shouldn’t white females support Obama in equal numbers to Clinton? But if they are ideologically different then this confounds things consoiderably.
And yet you seem to be suggesting that the large black support for Obama is the result of racism? Why is this only a one way interpretation on your part? And are you suggesting that black women who shift to Clinton from Obama would therefore be both racist (for initially supporting Obama) and sexist (for allowing gender identification to overwhelm their ideological attraction in both cases). That’s what the Conservatives keep saying…that race (in this case racial peer pressure) keeps African-Americans from voting Republican when their ideologies are actually mor in tune with the Republican party. I don’t swallow it.
And to tar all males who support Obama with the same brush as the small number who might jump to McCain with the general charge of “sexism” disregards that they might vote for her in the General. You’ve used such terms as “delusional” to these individuals. Such comments are a tangible reason that support for Clinton and her campaign might be low. And just what to you do with individuals who may not jump to McCain, but simply refuse to take part in the process? Clearly GENDER is not the criteria these individuals are using to select their candidate. You are really talking about a very small number of males who will shift. Granted it may be enough to cause Hillary to lose.
c) Given your data, doesn’t it still demonstrate that Hillary is the least electable of the two candidates. I look back at several of your plots and one stands out. This is the one where there are two converging lines that cross, over a curved set of black dots that represent black voter numbers. One line represents Obama Voters in the General Election against McCain, the other Clinton Voters against McCain. The lines don’t cross until they are far on the right hand side of the graph, where black voters are in high numbers. That means about 30 States Obama does better than Hillary…and where he loses (if you look at the maximum vote attained against McCain) BOTH Clinton or Obama would lose.
Much the same information would come from looking at Survey USA’s basic analysis from where you took your sub-Samples. Obama wins more states, and more electoral college votes, than Clinton.
So it’s clear from your own data that Obama would be the more electable candidate in Fall. That’s unless Clinton can somehow either overcome what you argue are deeply ingrained sexist values in males that might support Obama but jump to McCain, OR unless she can turn out extraordinarily high numbers of supporters.
Obama has to deal with ssues of race which are also deeply ingrained. Just as sexism isn’t merely about physical genitalia, racism isn’t merely about skin color. The Rev. Wright issue was very much about race writ large…as I suspect his comments about political frustration, an increase in absorption in religion, and the ease at which Republicans are able to manipulate people on “hot button issues” actually are, as well.
After all, would PUNDITS have called him an elitist if he had said poverty and a feeling of frustration with political solutions often led to gun violence and, for some, a greater dependance upon the Church and family to help provide solace when kids are dying, people are forced into homelessness, and lose their jobs…in the black Community. And guess what! The Republicans are encouraging that disillusionment futher…by pumping massive funds into the Faith-Based programs, and by ensuring that gun control policies are weak enough to allow a plentiful supply on the streets.
wow,good comment
what was exactly wrong with my comments? i was not baiting him, I asked a question. But i’m done with this, i wish you a peaceful evening
You are my new hero.
With full knowledge that I too will be called an idiot, why do I get the distinct impression that alpha male (aka Paul Lukasiak) is about to attack in protection his favorite cub named Hillary?
It makes me want to suspect everything said in the original post, because quite frankly, it reeks of biased politics, instead of real analysis.
In short, bullshit.
wow. Can I borrow your brain for the rest of the semester?
I would love to hear some more back and forth on this but I guess it is better left for a later date.
Looking from the outside into a country I know well, thanks for this post Paul Lukasiak. I have felt uncomfortable with the how the issues have been glossed over with a misogynist and racist patina. That patina does not play well in the world outside of the USA and demeans USAmericans further beyond your Kafkaesque theatre of absurdity of extraterritorial gulags and Orwellian speak of ‘extraordinary’ to excuse and justify an undeserved sense of exceptionalism. This was what Nazism was based on.
Look at it this way: misogynism excludes 50% of the talent pool and racism excludes perhaps 30% – totalling it up that makes about 40% of the population. That is a very very sorry state of affairs.
I guess you are a democracy because you have elections. Start convincing the rest of us that you are because you cannot define democracy for them. Many of us have it and understand it in a way that is not defined by you.
I go to make dinner for the family, and when I come back, cinnamonape has detailed the issues I would have brought up, and more I would have missed.
So I’ll just say “what cinnamonape said” and thank her (him?) for verbalizing so well.
Jeez you blubbering Clintonettes need to get a life!
Mr. Lukasiak, everyone of us women supporting Obama would vote for someone like Claire McCaskill as President in a freakin heartbeat! She’s the epitome of a woman America can be proud of – tough but GRACIOUS, smart as a whip but HUMBLE, and fearless but DIPLOMATIC.
Hillary is a HORRIBLE CANDIDATE!! And I will never vote for her -for POLICY reasons on top of all the above traits of McCaskill -LACKING IN HILLARY R. CLINTON.
Take your sexist and weak whining to to the Republican Party. The Left is ill served by your slanted views.
I’ll be sure to do another analysis as soon as our political system provides all the various possible permutations of the gender issue and its relationship to race. But I hope you don’t mind if we wait until we include lesbians in the variations we have to check before we reach any conclusions, because the study would be incomplete without lesbians. And of course if we include lesbians, we gotta be able to do cross comparisons with gay men, otherwise we won’t know whether the impact is based on race or sexual preference. And transgendered (both male and female) will have to be compared as well. Plus, we have to not merely check african americans if we are going to draw any conclusions regarding race — each specific racial/ethnic category will have to be compared against all other racial/ethnic categories and gender categories before we reach a definitive conclusion.
I expect I’ll have all the data I’ll need to make definitive statement just around the time the earth finally crashes into the sun, so the analysis won’t be as rigorous as I’d like, what with the difficulty I’ll have typing once my fingers have been burned off and all.
And I’m sorry if I sound snide, but what there is to work with is a really good, internally consistent data set involving all 50 states that allows us to draw certain conclusions about the current political landscape. What is important isn’t what might happen under different circumstances, what is important is that this data set provides really strong evidence of different behaviors of men and women when it comes to voting behavior that have nothing to do with the gender gap as traditionally defined and understood, i.e. that men and women have different political/ideological priorities.
What we are discussing here is what happens when the ideological/political diffeences between the democratic candidates themselves all but disappear when contrasted with their ideological/political differences with the republican candidate — and how women obviously don’t see a significant distinction between the two democrats when compared to the the Republican, and men do.
And while it would be fun to have more things to compare this data to, having more things to compare it to does not change the conclusions that can be reached using this data.
actually, what really happened is that a number of Obama supporters cast aspersions on what I’d written, based on the insane belief that I was saying that prefering Obama to Clinton was evidence of sexism. Of course, nothing that I wrote came anywhere near justifying that belief — none of the data I referenced included any kind of direct comparison between Obama and Clinton. And after a while, I got tired of the crap, and told people where they could stick it.
Overall, females do consistently support both Clinton and Obama — and the overall difference in female preference is so small that it can’t be attributed to “white females”. The data doesn’t allow you to draw any conclusions about “white females” in general.
What the data does tell us, as far as I can determine, is that when there is a significant percentage of African Americans in the electorate, the likelihood of those who support Clinton over McCain switching their support to McCain over Obama increases signficantly. But I’m not looking at racial voting patterns, but gender based voting patterns — and the only reason that race enters the equation is that the data says that the presence of African Americans in the electorate is related to a lot of the variation in the gender gap that can be seen.
I had originally planned to actually look just as closely at racial voting patterns just as closely as I have the gender voting patterns, but at this point I don’t think its worth it — after a while, it get really old trying to explain to people that they are superimposing their own political agendas on data that has nothing to do with their political agendas as such, and having to defend what I’ve written from completely idiotic comments like “so this means that anyone who supports Obama is sexist?”, and I don’t need to hear from idiotic Clinton supporters who will think that my conclusions about racism and the election are about them, and demand that I explain why I think it “means that anyone who supports Clinton over Obama is a racist?”
This data? no it doesn’t. because other than overall averages, it really doesn’t suggest anything about who is more electable, and overall averages are meaningless because we don’t elect presidentss by overall popular vote.
See, this was never about who was more electable. And I’m perfectly comfortable saying that when I first saw this data, I wanted to see if I could use it to write a third part of my “Count Whose Vote?” series — but try as I might, I couldn’t make an intellectually honest argument that made the point I’d hoped the survey would make.
And I’m perfectly comfortable admitting that if the election had been held at the end of February, that Obama would bave been the better Democratic candidate in terms of electability — and just as comfortable telling anyone who suggests that there is any predictive value to a February general election polls that they are an idiot.
And finally, I’m even more comfortable saying that the next person who tries to impose their own political agenda on what was an honest attempt to use impartially collected data to raise the issue of sexism in our society — and I want to assure you that this will be for the next person, and not you — that they can take their political agendas and shove it up their ass.
I think if Pelosi could have run for a public elected office at the time she became Speaker of the House, I don’t think sexism would have been but a sideline here and there.
Clinton has done quite a bit to at least foster the female victim role, and it’s practically the only thing in the news about her at this time. I’m not seeing much else from or about her now, for a couple of days, anyway.
Salon is contributing big to her “personal prosecution” issue, some kind of hat (and we’ve SEEN all kinds of hats) tip to Walsh.
Take a breath.
Are Walsh’s recent posts an objective observation, or another form of sexism?
I was going to comment on misogyny, but instead I’ll just say that I suspect again that maybe one reason we get so rankled about Obama vs. Clinton is because down deep we’re scared to death that we will lose to McCain and will have to endure another four years of hell. Maybe..
…and the sure destruction of our country.
Paul,
I am a long time reader of FDL. And, I certainly remember your contribution to “the Maryland Moment”. Perhaps that is why Dave Neiwert described you as a long time friend of FDL.
I have followed your comments at FDL since then, during the c* bomb issue, and during the Libby trial, and now your responses to commenters on your recent posts, and I can say that very little you have said in comments causes me to think you really deserve the standing “long time friend”.
You turned up at FDL to make various comments during the Libby trial. Many of your comments had substance, but then again were pretty much consistently rude to commenters in those threads who differed with you, or had a question. Condescending attitude.
And, now you are being rude and insulting to commenters who have questioned various aspects of your recent posts. Questioned your authority.
Really, being snitty to commenters who have honest questions is not something that a front-pager should do, and is not in the FDL spirit of open discussion.
Hillary Clinton is the wife of a former president. She goes by a different standard than Michelle Obama at this point, because as the wife of a former president, you’d expect her to not be lying about her “accomplishments” to the American people and you’d expect her to have some cooth for crying out loud!
If Laura Bush decided to run for the presidency in the future, she’d get the same scrutiny, especially if she was using Rovian tactics like Hillary is to win. Don’t you see that? How come you can’t?
As pointed out, Claire McCaskill would be a fine female choice for the presidency and most of us would be behind her….not because she’s a woman, but because she has class. The End.
Hillary has not done herself justice. Any record of accomplishment has been squashed and she has herself, her husband, and her campaign’s tactics to blame. I’ve written her off and it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do WITH WHO SHE IS TODAY and today she is “ugly”. What she is doing with her campaign is exactly the kind of bullshit I’ve been sick of over the last decade.
By the way, if it comes down to McCain and Clinton, I’m still voting for Obama. Is that sexist or racist? No! It’s a vote to get rid of the DC Insiders and the last 30 years of neocon bullshit!
So there. *sticking tongue out*
Hi VG. First off, I was here well before the Libby trial. In fact, by the time the Libby trial happened, I’d already left, and came back because of the coverage of the trial — (for me, there comes a point where a blog gets too big for me to enjoy participating in the comments — and that’s not meant as a criticism of FDL, simply an observation about the nature of a comments section.)
As to you actual point, I beg to differ. I was remarkably patient with people trying to superimpose their own political agenda on what I wrote, and after three or four days of that crap, it gets really old. So I reacted, and in an least one case apologized because I’d misinterpreted that person’s intent in asking questions.
But please don’t try and tell me that people are trying to understand what I’ve written when they repeat the same point about how this is based on a poll from February that showed Obama as a better candidate for November than Clinton. It didn’t matter how many times I said “this is not about Obama v Clinton”. And I don’t care how “intelligent” the questions are framed, because anyone with any actual “intelligence” knows that February general election polls have absolute no predictive value for a November election. This was not intellectual honesty, it was agenda pushing, and I got sick of it.
Another person had the nerve to question my methodology, which is based on publicly available data from a poll with about 30,000 responses, because the issue of sexism clearly makes her uncomfortable — as it does a whole lot of Obama supporters, who know full well that a nice chunk of their candidate’s success can be attributed to the pervasive sexism of this culture, and the fact that when it comes to Hillary Clinton, its perfectly okay to be as sexist as you want. And its one thing to question my methods — but when you turn around, and heap enormous praise on the author of a book who agrees with your own political agenda, and it turns out that the “research” done for the book is a joke — when the level of hyocrisy is a tad much.
Seriously — the author came up with a premise. Then created a polll clearly designed to confirm that premise. Then interviewed a grand total of 400 African Americans, including all of 58 in the 18-24 year old age cohort, in only two cities. Then writes a book in which she claims to have identified an African American “Hip Hop Generation” that is profoundly different from their parents, and speaks authoritatively about their concerns. Remember — sweeping statements about an entire generation of African Americans, based on 58 responses to a self-designed survey. And to make matters worse, her “conclusions” were that this generation is no longer “monolithic” like their parents were — excuse me, but if you are going to make a claim like that, you had better get a much bigger sample of the generation than 58 people in two cities, because there are tens of millions of African Americans in the northeast, and the rural south, and throughout the country, who might not conform to your theory. And you don’t make claim about how different one generation is from their parents when the differences in the responses are either within the margin of error (which, given the sample size, in considerable) or very close to it.
In other words, don’t pretend that you’re some kind of intellectually curious unbiased observer who is merely interested in making sure that my conclusions are sound, then turn around and give unreserved praise to someone who employs research methods that any impartial observer will immediately recognise go well beyond “unsound” into “self-serving and unethical”. Because if you do that, I WILL call you on your bullshit.
So please don’t lecture me on how I respond to comments, because I’ll call you on your bullshit too.
would you please listen to yourself…
So, we now have this distinct category call WIVES of former presidents. And we have a set of expectations that they are expected to meet because of who they were married to.
Its like you are so caught up in your own political agenda, so obsessed with justifying your own political prejudices, that even when the subject is sexism, you can’t stop yourself from transmitting sexist bullshit about the appropriate role of wives in our culture, and how they have certain “expectations” that are supposed to be met because of who they are married to.
Repeat after me.
WOMEN ARE NOT DEFINED BY THEIR HUSBANDS. THEY ARE COMPLETE AND WHOLE INDIVIDUALS WHO DEFINE THEMSELVES, AND ANYTIME I SUGGEST OTHERWISE, I’M SIMPLY TRANSMITTING MISOGYNISTIC BULLSHIT.
paul–i wasn’t going to comment anymore, but i wanted you to know i appreciated what you were trying to do, in the ’vein’ it was intended……..
i remember waht vg was referring to—i remember back when your style and tone and direct ’hits’ comments insulted the hell out of a few people, oh well, yep, one of them was me, a couple of times, i knew what you were trying to do, and frankly, a few times you were right, a FEW, lol, so i got over it……didn’t take away from what you were trying to do HERE. this time…
any way you wrote it, would have been the same thing in the comments, you’ve been around longer than i have, look at the feeding frenzy and look at all of the fine contributors/commenter’s names that are now missing in the comments section that used to be here……i’ll leave it at that.
i posted this in the next thread last night and wanted you to see it,..
dmac April 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
166
snowbird says–”
We spent a whole thread looking for a reason why Hillary lies. We got no answer.”
==============
yep, that’s what was done the whole entire fucking thread, however, that’s not what the post was about…..and the other four.
i’m amazed that noone here remembers who the hell he is. and what he has done in his life.
i am so pissed and disgusted i don’t even know what to type first.
you trashed what you THOUGHT he said, then when he tries to tell you no, you keep it up and dig it deeper, and throw more shitty crap at him, when he’s not even saying that in the first place..one after the other on and on..he threw it back and people called him shitty…….man oh man. i have never used this word, but what a CLUSTERFUCK.
a pile-on to a man to whom we owe a lot.
AND he is not a taylor marsh shrill. least i don’t THINK he is, i don’t know of him from there.
i hope when you figure out who he is and all he has done FOR ALL OF US, that you have to run for the toilet when you realize how he was treated here.
cuz it’s sure makin’ me barf my guts out.
adios.
Women aren’t defined by their husbands, but if Hillary’s last name was “Smith”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Dmac…
thanks (I think). ;-)
I saw that over in the other thread, but by that time I was in a sort of a “watching a phenomenon unfold” mode — i wasn’t watching it like it was about “me”, but “impartially”, because the only way to handle that kind of stuff is to separate yourself from it.
I mean, how else do you handle being called a “Taylor Marsh shill?” Now, I happen to like Taylor a lot, and have a great deal of respect for her, but I have no problem saying that she goes overboard — a lot of late. And I don’t criticize her for it, because what she is doing is voicing the frustration that a whole lot of people feel — she’s functioning as our public “Id” in some ways. (See, we’re all ‘bitter’, and “clinging to our belief in Hillary” and its all our fault that we are too stupid to recieve the enlightment that Obama offers…. ;) )
But me? A shill for Taylor Marsh? Seriously?
its been really interesting. A lot of it is because i function in two different capacities — there is the “opinionated jerk” side who says what he thinks in comments sections and doesn’t care who it pisses off, and then there is the “scrupulously honest research guy” side, who finds something interesting that no one else seems to have noticed, and examines it from a detached perspective as possible, and if its worth writing about, guest posts in a blog somewhere
Lot of stuff never gets published because I can’t “prove” what is intuitively obvious, or what I wanted to prove — this whole sexism/misogyny thing actually happened because of something I wound up not writing — I wanted to see if I could use the SUSA data to do another “Count Whose Vote” piece, which is a series that challenges the assumption underlying the arguments made by Obama supporters that he “deserves” the nomination. I don’t say he doesn’t, I just point out that the argument are pretty bogus. But I couldn’t make the argument I’d hoped using the SUSA data in an intellectually honest fashion — I could have spun the hell out of it, but what’s the point? — so I dropped that project.
But while looking at the state by state data, I noticed what seemed to be a clear and obvious differences in the way that men and women were “voting”… the “male” and “female” crosstabs are right next to the “all” (i.e. overall margin) data, and it was so glaring that I don’t think anyone who was actually looking at the data would miss it.
So, I began checking it out. And not only was what I think I saw there, but it was there with a vengeance, and there was really only one way to interpret it — the data was a manifestation of sexism.
And everything that has shown up here at FDL (the 4th part of the series) started out as a footnote to a piece that I never intended to write (part 3), but was written after someone asked a question in response part 2, which I’d never intended to write, but was written after reading a comment about Part 1, which wasn’t part 1, because this was never intended as a “series”, just as a one-off noting the obvious prevalence of sexism in the male electorate. And that piece was never planned.
Nobody gets that. Everyone assumes that because what I write somehow challenges their narrow political agendas, that I’m doing it to advance my own narrow political agenda. There is a broad “political agenda” of course — providing tangible evidence of something that everyone knows exists (sexism) but is usually hard to quantify. And I thought that broader political agenda was shared with the entire progressive blogosphere.
And its not — well that’s not really true. What is true is that sexism goes way down the list of priorities, when acknowledging it is inconsistent with the pursuit of a narrow political agenda. We all agree that Chris Matthews is a sexist jerk. Matthews says something stupid, and everybody blogs about it. No controversy.
But the minute the very thought is raised, even indirectly and completely unitentionally, that Barack Obama has benefitted from sexism, lots of his supporters immediately go into “attack the messenger” mode. I mean, of course Obama has “benefitted” from sexism. Hillary Clinton has “benefitted” from racism — and both Obama and Clinton have benefitted from “positive identification” voting. I don’t think that either Obama or Hillary ever set out to benefit from sexism/racism, it just happens.
But apparently, at least in the case of Obama, you can’t even suggest that.
The funny thing is, I didn’t ask for this — I forwarded a draft of Part IV to someone to review because as I white guy writing about race, I wanted to make sure that before I guest-posted it over at Corrente I didn’t say anything boneheadedly racially insensitive. It wound up here because the draft got forwarded here, and FDL thought was worthwhile, and I said “sure” when I was asked if they could cross-post it. Anyone can cross post anything I write — as far as I’m concerned, the only value my “intellectual property” has is as an imaginary write off.
So I show up here when it starts getting published, and I’m in “honest researcher” mode, and its glaringly obvious what the reaction is among Obama supporters, and they start pushing buttons, and “opinionated jerk commenter” mode kicks in — because there was a whole lot less “honest inquiry” and a whole lot more “agenda pushing” in the comments.
And I’ve apologized to the people who I needed to apologize to, and haven’t to the people who don’t deserve an apology.
So thanks for the defense. It was noticed, and appreciated.
Yes. We all know that a woman as smart and ambitious and politically active as Hillary Clinton could never have achieved anything on her own. I mean, she’s not a male with good speaking skills backed by the Chicago political machine who got his start by showing up without warning to challenge ballot signatures and get everyone else thrown off the ballot so he can run unopposed in a Democratic primary in a State Senate district where the Democratic nomination is the equivalent of getting elected.
She’s not someone who could ever get the backing of a Chicago political machine, and would never be lucky enough to have all his opposition implode in various sex/drug scandals when he ran for US Senate.
Because we all know that only the most deserving and accomplished people ever succeed in politics, and certainly ever get a chance to be the Democratic nominee for President.
And there is just no way that a woman like Hillary Clinton could ever have accomplished much of anything on her own.
Catching this a day late. Thanks Paul for this informative post. The comment section has pretty much proved your point.
paul at 144–
i actually ’followed’ all of that.
scary : )
(scary that i followed it.)
lol