Melissa McEwan Is Again Making Sense
She writeth:
Remember the xkcd cartoon?
That’s what we’ve seen over and over and over again during this primary. Not “Wow, this presidential candidate has positions and strategies I really don’t like” but “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”
(And, yes, I could link to posts I’ve written countering all those precise assertions about her; I wish it were hyperbole. And, yes, I acknowledge the argument that none of that has anything to do with Clinton being a woman and naturally it’s just a tremendous coincidence that those criticisms neatly fit into historical themes used to marginalize powerful women. Moving on.)
The most depressing aspect of this campaign, in my opinion, is how quickly it has degenerated into the realm of nasty identity politics. And by that, I don’t mean that women should be chastised for supporting Hillary because she’s a woman, or that black people should be chastised for supporting Obama because he’s black. Rather, I mean the media has consistently pushed really stupid goddamn narratives that have consistently enforced sexist notions about Hillary Clinton in order to boost Obama’s candidacy.* As Bob Somerby notes:
According to [John] Judis, “members of the media” knew that Obama was a special case—a more important historical figure than Clinton. “And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they…threw their support to him.”
Once again, go ahead. Just try to believe that he said it.
Judis makes several remarkable statements in this striking passage. First, he makes it explicit: In his view, it’s more important that Obama become the first African-American president than that Clinton become the first woman. “Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history,” he writes—“the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s.” We don’t disagree with that quoted statement. (Though, of course, there were other upheavals during the 1950s and 60s.) Still, it’s striking when a high-ranking scribe states the conclusion which Judis states—that our tortured racial history makes Obama’s candidacy more important than Clinton’s. But it’s where that judgment takes Faire Judis that makes his piece so remarkable.
I think he’s exactly right about this. A lot of our mainstream press corps – led by the likes of Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews – decided to throw their support behind Obama at the start of the Democratic primary. Why? Well, it wasn’t because he was the most qualified candidate or because he had the best policy ideas. Rather, it was because they felt it was important to have a black president. And in order to get him the nomination, they pushed a bunch of BS sexist narratives against Hillary Clinton.
Now personally speaking, I didn’t support Hillary Clinton in the primary; indeed, I have at times openly rooted for her to lose. My reason was simple: she had too many connections to the whiz-kid Villager foreign policy team that brought us the super-awesome Iraq war. I judged that Obama was at least marginally better on this front, and that’s why I decided to support him.
But ye gods, our press corps’ reasons for supporting Obama were much different. For them, he was a Terrific Story, a Fresh New Face who was Inspirational and Made for Great Copy. Hillary, meanwhile? BOOOO-RIIIIIING! She just talked about (snore!) health care the whole time. And about (yawn!) wonky solutions to help people out. Indeed, the only times that the media ever gave Clinton any respect at all was when she clumsily tried to prove her working-class cred by downing shots. You get the feeling that if Hillary had done more to keep our elite press corps entertained all this time – rather than, you know, describing what she wanted to do as the goddamn leader of the free world – she would have gotten better coverage.
Anyway, I digress. The point here isn’t that you have to love Hillary Clinton to defend her from sexist media narratives. The point is that if we give sexist media narratives a free pass because they’re being used against someone who isn’t our preferred candidate, they will be used in the future against a candidate who is our first choice. As Melissa notes, this isn’t about Hillary, but rather about how women are perceived as national leaders:
Not that it matters, but Clinton (obviously) wasn’t my first choice, and she wasn’t my second, and she wasn’t even my third, when this primary started eight million years ago. (And what if she had been my first choice? Would it change the veracity of my arguments?) That she wasn’t my first choice never had anything to do with why I’ve written about sexist attacks on her—and it sure as shit never crossed my mind to use it as an excuse to not write about sexist attacks on her.
Yep. That’s about it, folks. Some things are just out of bounds, regardless of whether you personally like or dislike a candidate. I think more Obama supporters need to understand that sexist tools like Chris Matthews are not helpful to getting Obama elected president, even if they are nominally “on our side.”
*Obviously when I say this, I’m referring to the beginning of the campaign when the press corps was fawning over Obama. Recently, he’s turned into Scary-Black-Dude-With-A-Crazy-Preacher, so it’s tough for me to still call him a media darling. Even so, the sexist BS against Clinton has largely persisted.
Running naked in the thread cuz nobody’s here!
I think more Obama supporters need to understand that sexist tools like Chris Matthews are not helpful to getting Obama elected president, even if they are nominally “on our side.”
I think this is contra the tone of the post: Matthews may indeed be helpful to Obama although he’s an obvious ass.
If hating Hillary does not preclude the recognition of obvious sexism then hating the obvious sexist doesn’t preclude his utility.
The most depressing aspect of this campaign, in my opinion
The most depressing aspect, in my opinion, is that Dubya and pals are still in the White House all this time.
There was a pretty strong reaction among much of the liberal community, even among those not supporting Hillary, when the sexism piled up and reached tipover point just before the New Hampshire primary. That’s when even Chris Matthews got his sh*t ripped on national TV for his constantly freakish humping of hawk / McCain legs.
Reminds me of that old protest chant:
the people / united / can never be distracted.
What’s he got? 400,000 viewers per night? Fuck him, we don’t need him, nor Andrew Sullivan, nor Maureen Dowd (offensive to all parties involved). Their analyses are facile and I’m not all that sure they care whether Obama wins in the general election.
Bu..bu..but!!! OBMAMA!!!
OBAMAobamaOBMAMA!!!
We’re Obots, Brad, didn’t you get the memo?
Hillary is eeee-vil and Obama is the Last Great Hope of Humanity!!!1!
Toe the line, dude!
Don’t go being all logical and sensible, the Hillbots will sense weakness and pounce!!!111!1!!!1
#
mdhatter said,
May 23, 2008 at 18:32
Reminds me of that old protest chant:
the people / united / can never be distracted.
B b but if we talk about how the media spoiled the election for everyone, we don’t have to focus on the reality that Obama is the nominee!
Matthews doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Obama.
He’s part of McCain’s base, remember? He won’t vote against him. He can still taste the barbecue sauce.
I am very happy to have seen this post.
End transmission.
Just to be clear it hasn’t been demonstrated to me that Matthews is an asset to anybody but Chris Matthews.
I don’t think McEwan quite understands that xkcd comic, tbqf. Unless somewhere along the line people who have (rightly) criticized Clinton’s voting record started throwing in “like all women” at the end of their sentences.
But ye gods, our press corps’ reasons for supporting Obama were much different. For them, he was a Terrific Story, a Fresh New Face who was Inspirational and Made for Great Copy.
Our press corpse wants the narrative always to be about B.S.
This is, in fact, central to their point.
Well, to me the most depressing aspect of the content of this post is that there is a while contingent of Hillary supporters who have taken these ridiculous tactics by the media and have projected them onto Obama. Not only that, they are using every tool in the book to take hime down. Please go to No Quarter, the feces strewn blog of Larry Johnson to see the debacle. No story is too unsubstantiated or small to use to tar Obama. No rumor is too inconsequential. I cant’ tell how many there are really Democrats or Republicans trying to stir the pot, but it’s mind-boggling….. Media misogyny + Obama using the word “sweetie” = Obama EVIL. That’s how it works over there. I invite everyone to go see and ponder the insanity of some supposedly “on the left” or having “liberal values”. They are bat-guano crazy.
Personal fave protest chant:
What do we want? Errrrm
When do we want it? Ummmm
I remember that one from at least the 1990 pre-Gulf War protests
Travis: Well, at one early campaign stop, she played “I’m Every Woman” by Rufus (featuring Chaka Khan), which magically did something like that.
The problem isn’t that, however… the problem is some sort of glib, superficial explanation of her electoral problems or prospects using bullshit sexist tropes which any woman in power would immediately recognize from their own daily lives.
I just feel like at some point we need to stop attributing Clinton’s inability to connect with younger voters to Rampant Media Sexism™ and realize that Clinton:
1) Ran a shitty campaign
2) Continues to do so
3) Appears to be a sore loser (watch someone call me sexist for saying this)
4) Has, does, and always will runs to the “center” whenever it’s convenient
5) Got clowned by Obama and Edwards in the debates
6) Made the wrong call on the Iraq war, and is unapologetic
Chris Matthews is a hump, but this isn’t breaking news, and it’s tiresome watching Shakespeare’s Sister, Echidne, Digby, C&L and MediaMatters swiftly merging into one blur of congratulatory back patting for pointing it out.
I just feel like at some point we need to stop attributing Clinton’s inability to connect with younger voters to Rampant Media Sexism™
Who’s the “we” in that sentence?
A polling booth is a private place and you’re either bigoted or you’re not. Nobody waits around for the national media to tell them whether to vote for a woman or African-American. Racist and sexist framings are dumb and despicable but I doubt if they affect the overall outcome.
The last two standing in this race were a woman and a black man. Doesn’t that make all the analysis and hand-wringing moot?
It’s the royal “we” I guess. I’ve been running around calling myself sexist the whole time. Like some kind of low-rent liberal Eclipso.
Change “we” to “these people”, I ‘spose.
Well, the only Hillary supporters that aren’t real Democrats are the ones who would claim to vote for McCain over the n****r.
Which, if you believe lambert and Taylor Marsh, is damn near all of them.
“The medium is the message.” — Marshall MacLuhan
Well, to me the most depressing aspect of the content of this post is that there is a while contingent of Hillary supporters who have taken these ridiculous tactics by the media and have projected them onto Obama. Not only that, they are using every tool in the book to take hime down.
Oh dude, trust me. I’ve made a habit out of trashing them. My takedown of Taylor Marsh in particular is coming shortly.
Travis,
She both ran a not great campaign AND was saddled with the narrative of being a hypercalculating cabal (with Bill) that would do and say anything to be in power. The fact that a case could very recently be made RE: Zimbabwe-Michigan comments, she was always being examined through a very biased prism. This is what Somerby was talking about. The Brian Williams etc. debate where she was just piled on was very much a travesty.
But Hillary has a gaffaw!
A GUFFAW I TELL YOU!!!
‘The medium is rarely well done’
There, I said it.
Uhm, but the DLC is a hypercalculating cabal. Also are you seriously saying that her Zimbabwe remark wasn’t the slightest bit bizarre?
Remember, this is the person who went to yearlykos to DEFEND lobbyist money and said:
“we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered”
Gee wonder why she couldn’t connect with young democrats??
And yet still people are blaming it on the fact that Chris Matthews is a creep, like that wasn’t known going into this thing.
But Hillary has a gaffaw!
Exactly.
Chortles are so much more presidential.
I’m still waiting for the Obama or McCain version of one of these.
I’m still waiting for the Obama or McCain version of one of these.
I’m sure if you look harder you could find an example that is even older and less damaging than that.
Recently, he’s turned into Scary-Black-Dude-With-A-Crazy-Preacher, so it’s tough for me to still call him a media darling. Even so, the sexist BS against Clinton has largely persisted.
We can put a precise date on this turn.
February 26, 2008, when Rupert Murdoch’s Times O’London signalled to the media that the Republican Party felt Obama was far enough ahead to start attacking him instead of Hillary.
Mansiongate, beaches!!
Let’s not write John Edwards out of this narrative. The only major Dem candidate with an anti-corporatist message, and his campaign was utterly deprived of media oxygen. Me, I find that I have a great deal more of a problem with that soon-to-be-forgotten bit of ’08 primary history (since it bespeaks the press actively holding an ideological line) than with the ways in which (undeniable) media sexism inflected coverage of Hillary Clinton’s consistently wrong-foot efforts.
As a side note, re: the notion that Melissa McEwan is making sense: pace her second quoted paragraph above, simply because a critique of Hillary Clinton as a politician can, with some degree of application, be mapped onto sexist narrative doesn’t mean that it emerges from, or reinforces, sexist narrative. (I myself dislike Hillary as an orator. Is it because she’s a woman speaking up? No, it’s because she’s not very talented on the stump, and seems most of the time to be forcing it. Much the same impression one got from Al Gore in 2000.)
I agree with Travis that the cartoon is in no way related to what Melissa wrote. Also, this
Not “Wow, this presidential candidate has positions and strategies I really don’t like” but “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”
is in no way unusual in political contests. For an example, see the Republican primary.
Well, just to be obscure and nerdy- I do believe that it isn’t pi plus C but rather two pi plus C, but I’m sure he got a lot of e-mail about it at the time.
Not “Wow, this presidential candidate has positions and strategies I really don’t like” but “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”
What are you talking about? The integral of x^2 is x^3/3 + C. The whole point of the cartoon is that the math is wrong.
Do you think Melissa McEwan geohashes? I’d like to discuss the feminism inherent in the Heinlein œuvre with someone who groks a woman’s place.
Is geohash a dish served with bacon and cheddar?
Travis, I agree about the cartoon. And the subsequent (apocryphal) quote:
“Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”
. . . simply isn’t the kind of misogynistic sexist crap I’m worried about (with the exception of “with a voice like a buzzsaw,” which I agree does suck).
In fact, there’s a fair amount of useful content there: unlikable (well so’s McCain!), Machiavellian devil (high road? what high road?), manifestly evil (ok, subjective, but certainly not gender-based), and not even real Democrats (pandering to the center-right, race-baiting, not apologizing for the war vote, etc.).
Now on the other hand, when people say “Hillary is a pantsuit-wearing shrieking harpy who is too hysterical to be president,” THAT IS A PROBLEM!
Travis,
You’re thinking of Geoduck which is served in soups with chinese bacon and a cheddar like tofu. Geohash is served with beer, sandwiches and the Dow Jones Industrial.
Geoduck: the clam that looks like a wang
also, this is my favorite xkcd
Every time I smoke geohash I get geofucked up.
As much as I loved the man who fell sideways, this is my favorite.
“Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”
Damn. I almost feel like I should go over to my shitty little blog and write an angry, spittle-flecked post taking all of the above referenced positions.
I mean, it’s such a sad, embarrassing straw man, nobody anywhere has actually SAID these things, at least if I did this clown would have something to link to.
It must really suck to live in a world that includes all these imaginary assholes.
In my case the imaginary assholes were just trying to kill me. I’m CERTAIN they would have happily voted for Hillary…
mikey
“Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”…naturally it’s just a tremendous coincidence that those criticisms neatly fit into historical themes used to marginalize powerful women. Moving on.)
“[M]anifestly evil”, and “[not] even Real Democrats” are “historical themes used to marginalize powerful women”? Color me surprised. I’ll give her “voice like a buzzsaw”, but the rest seem oddly chosen.
Not to say that there isn’t a whole lot of sexism flying around HRC’s campaign, I just don’t see how those particular adjectives are especially representative of it.
What’s
that
sound?
Travis beat me to the punch re the cartoon not supporting what MM wants to say. (Nice cartoon, btw.)
But my prob with Hillary, and what’s caused me to evolve from liking her to can’t-standing her, is her relentless dishonesty and disingenuousness. I now see why so many could despise Slick Willy (whom I also used to like).
When Hillary says “Obama isn’t a Muslim…as far as I know,” not only is it an insult to the intelligence of anyone listening, in its assumption we won’t see how conniving it is, but it displays on her part an obliviousness of how sick we are at having endured eight years of endless, endless lying.
Either tell the truth or give me an honest evasion. But her penchant for self-serving half-truths and pseudo-“honest” manipulation has brought me to the point where I can’t stand her guts or the horse they rode in on.
And all the men, especially gay men and bi men and trans men and intersex men, who will be demeaned with misogynist slurs, too
Because straight guys aren’t demeaned by misogynist slurs, especially not the ones who are accused of being sissy.
Look, this may be a side issue, but I’m going to bring it up. All you self-absorbed entitlement princesses (of either/both/no gender[s]) think that your personal cross is the biggest one and that all of society is nailed to it. Well you’re full of shit. Hey Melissa, I’m glad to know that you can still be considered progressive if you’re a racist.
Stryx @ 19:17 see this llink
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-obama-racism-fact-that-you-dont.html
What travis said.
Being right on the most important policy issue of the decade is not a trivial thing.
And, to the extent that the nominating process is an audition for the Big Chair, Clinton blew it. Hope may be audacious, but it is not a strategy.
Just for whatever it’s worth, Hillary’s laugh is maybe the personal quality I like best about her. Big and open and honest–that’s not a laugh you practice or fake.
DRJ- That shit is fcuked up and I wish I could unsee it, but still not the same thing. Just because there is racism doesn’t mean there wasn’t sexism.
(just in case wordpress eated mine other post):
What’s
that
sound?
How soon people forget that Tweety went from his man-love crushes on Rudy, Fred and finally Mitt. Isn’t Tweety the one that had the Aqua Velva quote about “Hollywood” Fred Thompson? Tweety doesn’t give a shit about Obama(meaning supposedly helping him try to win). The only reason Tweety might root for Obama is because he makes the more interesting race against Saint John McBush.
Every time I see the word Geoduck, I think it’s the name of a Pokemon.
True story.
but still not the same thing
In that it is, in fact, not exactly the same thing down to the last detail?
You said you were waiting for the Obama version. How does that not qualify?
Just because there is racism doesn’t mean there wasn’t sexism
Indeed, that seems to be DRJ’s point.
there must be progress in the blogosphere because (I noticed) no one called TBogg sexist for his takedown of Hillary yesterday.
as for the press, after their lacklustre do nothing say nothing see nothing approach with the Bush administration they’ve lost all credibility with anyone who has half a brain.
The assholes in the TradMed are not people who deserve a pass about anything. They hated Hillary for stupid reasons, they’ve pounded Obama for stupid reasons, and in the fall they’ll all line up behind McCain for stupid reasons. Why? Because they’re Corporate-owned assholes.
Let’s not forget: they hated Bill, too.
there must be progress in the blogosphere because (I noticed) no one called TBogg sexist for his takedown of Hillary yesterday.
If you mean the Calvinball post, it’s because it wasn’t sexist.
Oh who am I fooling that wouldn’t stop anyone.
“She both ran a not great campaign AND was saddled with the narrative of being a hypercalculating cabal (with Bill) that would do and say anything to be in power. The fact that a case could very recently be made RE: Zimbabwe-Michigan comments, she was always being examined through a very biased prism. ”
Biased? Yes. *Gender* biased? I don’t know about that, at least not the examples given. Clinton is disliked and disrespected for reasons specific to her own past history and behavior, not because she’s a woman.
Seems to me there’s nothing wrong with being biased against someone for what they’ve done in the past.
What’s wrong is being biased against someone because of imagined characteristics they are supposed to have simply because they are part of some group, even in the absence of evidence of fitting the stereotype.
Being biased against someone because they’ve actually behaved in unpleasant ways that happen to match a stereotype is not, IMHO, wrong.
It’s wrong to say ‘women are hysterical’. It’s not wrong to point out or make light of a particular woman (Hillary) who has in fact acted irrationally or oddly or melodramatically or made ridiculous claims.
It’s annoying that anti-Hillary opprobrium is being treated as if it were, by definition, sexist and anti-woman.
There’s a certain amount of truth to the “voice like a buzzsaw” characterization being used to marginalize women, but conversely I don’t think that those of us pointing out that, for example, Rudy 911(tm) Giuliani’s “demeanor, values, and facial features are like those of Max Shreck’s character in Nosferatu” or that Fred Thompson’s look “seems to say ‘uh, is that a beer?'” were doing so out of misandry. Describing Mitt Romney as a “reptilian triangulating opportunist” isn’t some kind of shocking anti-Mormon slur, so why should it be considered sexist when someone says the same thing about Senator Clinton?
The appearance part is unfortunate, but, all politicians (at least at the national level) are to some extent judged on their appearance (although you’d really only hear about Giuliani’s Nosferatu resemblance on the internet). This is stupid, certainly, but it is by no means unique to women (especially when Chris “there’s something about an ice-blue Aqua Velva man” Matthews gets involved). Again, to attribute this solely or even primarily to sexism is to ignore a great deal of the history and workings of our electoral system (see statistical analysis in section 5).
–Summer Glau
PS Don’t forget to check out the new season of The Sarah Connor Chronicles this fall on FOX!
If you mean the Calvinball post, it’s because it wasn’t sexist.
since when has that stopped a rabid hillary fan from screaming “sexism!”
“simply isn’t the kind of misogynistic sexist crap I’m worried about (with the exception of “with a voice like a buzzsaw,” which I agree does suck”
Then again, Bush’s speaking voice has been a real ear-fuck for the last 8 years.
It really can matter, and it isn’t gender-specific. It’s not even particularly political – took me ages before I could tolerate Sarah Vowell’s voice.
“The appearance part is unfortunate, but, all politicians (at least at the national level) are to some extent judged on their appearance (although you’d really only hear about Giuliani’s Nosferatu resemblance on the internet”
And don’t forget the mainstream media swooning over Bush in his flightsuit.
I actually think the cartoon effectively shows what’s wrong with many of Clinton’s supporters.
When I tell them that I just plain think Clinton sucks at math…
…they think I’m saying that women suck at math.
And I’m not.
The math analogy is apt, though.
Summer Glau in an xkcd-reference bleg is teh awesum.
Point 1:
I’m not sure that transitive property applies there. Taking a different example, if we assume that Karl Rove is a piece of shit who has made it his stock in trade to trample constitutional rights, we may question the motives (at least) of someone who relies on Hot Karl to advance his or her political position, even if that person claims that the political position is securely liberal.
Point 2:
I’d disagree with you, in part – I think she gets the point of the cartoon: that the error of one woman will be extrapolated to the gender as a whole (ed. note: See Captain Obama #225, where mild-mannered Barry is asked to denounce Richard Pryor routines).
I think you’re right, though, when you say that the example following is really bad – only the “buzzsaw voice” can be construed as a gender-based slam, and the rest have to do with her politics (whether they are fair representations or not, and what would motivate unfair representations, is a different matter).
xkcd for you ThinkPad users.
Seeing that interview before hearing about it online, I don’t hold that comment against her. It seemed like an awkward spot in the interview where she was pressed to vouch for his religion, which no one can do with absolute certainty.
Like if someone came up to me and asked if my brother loved his wife, I would say yes, but if they asked again with a knowing look, I’d probably say “Well, yes, as far as I know.” That’d different from me using the same phrase to cause suspicion.
I think that even positive things can sound condescending or biased, but often enough it’s because they’re meant that way. Let’s use white male John Edwards as our control example:
“John Edwards has drive, ambition and will.”
“Hillary Clinton has drive, ambition and will.”
“Hillary Clinton has drive, ambition and will. I like that in a woman.”
****
“John Edwards is an excellent public speaker.”
“Barack Obama is an excellent public speaker.”
“Barack Obama is an excellent public speaker. He’s so articulate, not like those rap singers with their enwords and their beatboxing and their popping and locking to Herbie Hancock riffs.”
***
“John Edwards can really communicate with people.”
“John Edward can really communicate with dead people.”
“John Edward pretends to communicate with dead people; he’s just good at cold-reading and making ambiguous statements. But at least it’s entertaining.”
Seeing that interview before hearing about it online, I don’t hold that comment against her.
Yeah, she was filling up space with syllables and chose unfortunate ones that made her look evil…as EVIL AS SHE ACTUALLY IS!
The media and I have an agreement: I ignore them. They ignore me.
Sorry, I don’t understand exactly what we’re supposed to do here. I don’t know if I’m giving the media a pass when it [fill in the blank with the latest obnoxious attempt to grab ratings/readers], because I don’t pay any attention to the bobble heads. I just don’t because they are too obviously willing to do or say things just to get the viewers.
And this:
Sorry, are you high or is there some other Chris Matthews out there? Really, this makes my head hurt. “Chris Matthews felt it was important to have a black president.”
Shit, my nose and ears are bleeding.
*snerk*
I guess we are all never going to agree, which is fine, who wants to live in that world.
But y’all are super duper kidding yourselves with your “anti-Hillary isn’t anti-woman and people can dislike her without being woman-haters and I declare there was very little sexism in this campaign Hillary supporters are hysterical”.
Give yourselves that pat on the back you really feel you need because YOU aren’t sexist. Congrats.
“…and I declare there was very little sexism in this campaign Hillary supporters are hysterical”.
And who said this?
Not one person here. Brad says right in his post that there has been a great deal of sexism, media-fueled and otherwise, directed at Clinton.
I do declare that you are making shit up.
I think we should all take a deep cleansing breath and say our mantra.
Ready? Inhale… big breath… hold it. Now blow it out and relax. Inhale again through your nose… and now, with feeling — I HAAAAAAYTES WIMMIN FOLKS!
There. Doesn’t that feel great?
“Like if someone came up to me and asked if my brother loved his wife, I would say yes, but if they asked again with a knowing look, I’d probably say “Well, yes, as far as I know.” That’d different from me using the same phrase to cause suspicion.”
Right. So if she had been asked if Senator Byrd, or Bob Dole, or her daughter Chelsea is a Muslim, Hillary would have said the same thing?
Right. So if she had been asked if Senator Byrd, or Bob Dole, or her daughter Chelsea is a Muslim, Hillary would have said the same thing?
As I remember the interview the interviewer left a little gap there, and that’s the space sharp questioners leave open so that people can hang themselves. Then the people being questioned fill the gap with some bullshit they think sounds innocuous. Happens everywhere all day long.
anti-Hillary isn’t anti-woman
Sounds right to me.
and people can dislike her without being woman-haters
This too.
and I declare there was very little sexism in this campaign
Anyone who says this is mistaken.
Hillary supporters are hysterical
Add a qualifying “a few” in front, and I agree.
In a sense, just saying “hysterical” is sexist. But in another sense, if I say “I’d vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I’d really rather not have to, for several reasons but mainly due to her support for the war in Iraq” and then someone tells me that it makes me a sexist, well that’s just stupid.
I suppose it would be “fair” in some sense to respond by calling that person a racist, but I’d honestly rather argue with an unshowered guy about Boba Fett than get into that conversation.
“As I remember the interview the interviewer left a little gap there, and that’s the space sharp questioners leave open so that people can hang themselves.”
Sure. And she did. But I think if the subject of the question were any of the people I mentioned, she would have filled the space with “Senator Byrd a Muslim? Are you on crack? Where do you get this stuff? Next question.”
@Doctorb: http://qwantz.com/archive/001226.html
I doubt she would have been asked that about any of those people more than once in one interview.
I came away with the same impression as Eric Boehlert, that the interviewer was being creepy and she wasn’t trying to be snide.
But I think if the subject of the question were any of the people I mentioned
I think she would have said about the same thing.
Please give a link of Hillary saying “are you on crack?” in any interview or debate. kthx!
Shit, my nose and ears are bleeding.
Apparently Hillary involked the assasination of Bobby Kennedy today in justifying why she’s still in the race. I got the info at Americablog, which tends to be somewhat hysterically anti-Hillary, but they’ve included a video link that I’m not going to visit while I’m at work…
I’m really not surprised that this was one of her reasons for continuing. I’d been thinking about it myself now and then and wondering if things could get as insane as they were back then. Sometimes it’s hard not to think the worst.
As far as the question of racism versus sexism in this campaign, one thing should be pointed out: while the misogyny she encountered was ridiculous and unforgiveable, it does not endear me to Sen. Clinton when I hear her touting her inevitable victories in some states because of all the working class whites that live there. I mean, it’s obviously true and I don’t hold her accountable for noticing, but any candidate in the position of winning because of a factor like that really should at least give lip service to the notion that maybe it’s not the best reason for people to vote a certain way.
But this is difficult, I realize, because she is still trying to win votes. Still, if things were the opposite way – if Obama were losing because of his race, but doing well among minorities because of his gender, I would expect him to say “do vote for me, but not because you are sexist idiots.”
Apparently Hillary involked the assasination of Bobby Kennedy today in justifying why she’s still in the race.
That’s appalling. She still has her delegates if that’s her reason and she doesn’t have to campaign.
I think more Obama supporters need to understand that sexist tools like Chris Matthews are not helpful to getting Obama elected president, even if they are nominally “on our side.”
Well, I think more Hillary supporters should be careful about what they think Obama supporters believe. Even John Cole, the poor man’s Andrew Sullivan (and I mean that as a compliment) cites to jerks like Matthews only when he thrashes a right-wing pundit, not when he goes after Hillary. I’m not sure there are a whole heck of a lot of liberals who believe people like Matthews are “on our side.”
k said,
I do declare that you are making shit up.
I recommend reading this comment thread before pontificating. Brad isn’t the only person here.
I didn’t see the interview. Did she say “… that I know of” while exaggeratedly adjusting her tie and raising her eyebrows, and then pantomime facing Mecca to pray, ululating, and then detonating a suicide vest? Or was it more like a regular “that I know of”?
In either case, I’m only 32 and not a politician (in fact I’m a scientist) and I’ve already learned through experience that unless I’m talking to other science/math/engineering people it’s better not to qualify statements. I know I’m just being accurate, but most people think I’m trying to hide and/or insinuate something.
Sorry man, you’ve got a major Wookies on Endor error there. She isn’t just continuing, or hanging around she’s scratching and biting to win. Not the behavior of someone who see’s herself as an understudy.
But I don’t believe she was saying “Vote for me ‘cos the black dudes going to get shot.” I think she’s lost her fucking mind and is babbling.
unless I’m talking to other science/math/engineering people it’s better not to qualify statements.
I long to live in a world without ass-covering qualifiers. Maybe.
Well there are different ways to qualify a statement like that. One obviously can’t read her mind, and it is probably stretching a bit to accuse her of underhanded scheming for her phrasing, but compare these two:
“Barack Obama isn’t a Muslim, that I know of.”
Vs.
“There is know reason that I have heard to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.”
None of this makes sense
Wookies on Endor error
Oh, shit. Hillary just said she’s still in the race because..wait for it…
She jumped the shark, the ocean the shark was in, the hemisphere the ocean was in, the planet the hemisphere is in, and the Damn turtle that is holding up the frickin’ planet!
Well there are different ways to qualify a statement like that.
Yeah, if you want to dance around and string it together different ways, which she didn’t have the time to do. I still don’t see it as anything other than a spur-of-the-moment error.
F said,
May 23, 2008 at 21:51
anti-Hillary isn’t anti-woman
Sounds right to me.
and people can dislike her without being woman-haters
This too.
sure, it’s right IN THEORY. And for many/some/most people/voters/Sadly No commentators, it probably is right in practice.
But that just leads us back to my point. This campaign season has been sickeningly sexist. It’s a fact. No amount of “my reasons for opposing Hillary are pure and stop calling me a sexist for it” will change that.
But as long as people here seem the need to get a congrats that THEIR reasons for not supporting HRC are rationale, then it’s all good.
I long to live in a world without ass-covering qualifiers.
RB, I take it that you live somewhere warm.
gbear scooped me. sorry.
Sure, it is probably an error. This is one where the benefit of the doubt is to be freely given. That doesn’t make semantic games any less fun.
Asking not to be called sexist is not the same as asking to be congratulated for being of stout heart and true.
And frankly, I’ve found the campaign sickening, period, full-stop.
Who cares if my reason is sexist or not? the point is that both sexism and racism have come into play in this campaign, as anybody easily could have predicted given that we have a woman and a black man running for President.
Am I missing something, Kathleen?
Sexism is bullshit. Racism is bullshit. Is one worse than the other?
The question is moot.
But Hill’s gettin’ desperate. She’s pulling out the Assassin Dog Whistle.
[…] I’ve defended Hillary against sexism. I can’t defend her against charges of being completely tasteless: Hillary Clinton appeared […]
Now that’s some mighty fine shark-jumpin’ right there. Not like this weak-ass “as far as I know” shit.
I’ve often wished that spoken conversation featured a backspace key.
I used to spend a lot of time defending both Hillary & Bill Clinton from the right wing nuts while opposing their destructive and harmful agenda of undermining the liberal and labor elements of the Democratic Party — for example Hillary’s attempt to hand all of U.S. health care to an oligopolistic “managed competition” model designed & run by the 5 largest HMO’s and insurers.
This dual responsibility was a balancing act, but a lot of people did it. But a lot of us also got real, real tired of having to do it.
I’m really, really p*ssed off that we couldn’t have a better, more progressive, more reliably supportable female presidential candidate this season, but history is made by its actual contingencies and not anyone’s preferred outline.
Here we go
And Obama – though he expected racism to rear its ugly head – had no idea Hillary would play the race card in a low blow attempt to attract votes.
I sympathize with Hillary regarding the gender attacks, but she played an equally despicable card.
As for this “no idea” that misogyny exists. You might just be a tad naive Shannen…
El Cid and Lesley, you fucking said it.
Am I missing something, Kathleen?
perhaps you are missing Travis’ dismissal of all media sexism as “Chris Matthews” and then mocking any people actually saying this has been a sexist campaign with “Rampant Media Sexism ™” and everyone else on this thread agreeing with him.
and then people parsing out whether some individual statement about HRC is sexist or not, and leaving out there the implication that this analysis can be then be applied to most other complaints about seixst directed towards HRC.
but whatever. Just as with the dreaded “Liberal White Male” discussion, this is pointless.
everyone else on this thread agreeing with him.
Ah, yes, the old canard. Not commenting on something someone says = agreeing with it.
everyone else on this thread agreeing with him.
I didn’t see everyone else agreeing with him. I don’t.
I’d be the first in line to support a woman with integrity winning the presidency. Let me know when such a woman arrives.
“I recommend reading this comment thread before pontificating. Brad isn’t the only person here.”
Silly me. How could I possibly have read your attribution of “y’all” to mean…
… “you all.”
I recommend that you make a statement that isn’t mendacious or silly.
I’ve often wished that spoken conversation featured a backspace key.
You need to hire a campaign manager, who will explain that you mis-spoke and that it is time to move on.
Another HUH? moment:
I’m at a loss to understand the the context of this remark. I can’t even see how it could be interpreted as manipulative since it makes no sense.
I recommend that you make a statement that isn’t mendacious or silly.
oh, a statement like “Not one person here. Brad says right in his post that there has been a great deal of sexism, media-fueled and otherwise, directed at Clinton.”?
Not commenting on something someone says = agreeing with it.
fair enough. but I tend to find that people do comment when they don’t agree with something some one has said, unless others already are. Which I also didn’t see.
and I know you don’t agree, RB.
Kathleen, upthread, says:
“… people here seem the need to get a congrats that THEIR reasons for not supporting HRC are rationale [sic].”
Care to point to anyone, anyone at all, who’s tried to get themselves congratulated for non-sexism in opposing Hillary, Kathleen?
I’ll try to be clear, though no clarity is likely to survive your capacity for tendentious misreading: What people have been saying, repeatedly in any number of ways, is that not all criticism of Clinton, including criticism of her self-presentation or political style, can or ought to be ascribed to sexism. Not because we’re trying to puff ourselves, but because ascribing any and all criticism of Clinton to sexism is a move the Hillarysphere is absolutely addicted to making. At best it’s a category error, at worst it’s a low-blow rhetorical trick, but it never makes a damn bit of sense.
Media coverage of the Clinton campaign has been sexist, both implicitly and explicitly. Media coverage of the Obama campaign has been racist, mostly implicitly and not for as long–but there’s plenty of time between now and November. Both those statements are in the “well what the hell else did you expect” category. It’s this internecine stuff, this insistence on demonizing other progressives who (usually for entirely cogent reasons) don’t support the candidate you support, that’s so tedious and stupid.
Thanks for exemplifying it yet again, Kathleen, as if there were any need.
Kathleen, your comment was demonstrably false. You apparently aren’t bothered by that, which is fine by me so long as you can live with your own lies.
Or are “y’all” as Clinton supporters just unmoved in general by facts?
You all.
Kathleen’s right. Melissa McEwan makes a statement about sexist attacks on Clinton and immediately people pop up saying “she doesn’t understand the point of the cartoon” and “those attacks aren’t sexist, she’s being ridiculous” (my summary, natch).
The priviledge seeping out of this comment in particular by Travis triggered even my priviledge-dar (doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, does it?):
First, saying it’s only sexist if someone explicitly makes a statement about all women is lame. The xkcd comic is about a particular form of sexism; that doesn’t mean it can’t be used to illustrate the existence of sexism in general, okay? I’m pretty sure Ms. McEwan understood what was going on in the comic. And if we’re not going to deny the existence of sexism, and the fact that it has been aimed at Hillary Clinton since, like, forever, then the only point of a comment like this one is to absolve the poster of sexism.
If you haven’t personally made sexist attacks against Clinton, then why do you feel the need to contradict a general statement about sexism in this election? Obviously this wasn’t a statement about you. The fact that some supporters of both candidates have gone off the deep end doesn’t mean that every time someone talks about sexism they’re talking about all non-Clinton supporters, just like if someone made a comment about racism it wouldn’t (necessarily) be an indictment of all non-Obama supporters.
If you get all riled up when someone mentions sexism, it just makes you look sexist.
What’s depressing is that you and McEwan can’t get the simplest things right. The xkcd cartoon is right on and to the point; the non-parallel construction is the singular, specific term “you” in the first panel and the general group noun “girls” in the second panel. Yet McEwan offers “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.” which does not say anything about women in general, only about Hillary Clinton. It isn’t sexist at all; speculations that the animus is driven by sexism is just that, speculation. And many (though not all) of the charges of sexism have similarly not been about sexism, though often manifesting sexism by employing gender-based attacks and by being based on the sexist premise that any criticism of a woman (as above rant about Hillary) is criticism of women (as the “girls”) panel. And getting this so wrong and so backwards obscures, trivializes, and weakens the fight against the real sexism present throughout our society. (It has also, in the context of this primary contest, set back the fight against racism.)
McEwan said,
See the parallel construction there? The first attack is against her politics, the second against her. It certainly is theoretically possible to dislike Clinton personally without it being motivated by sexism; however, McEwan’s point is that she sees this hatred of Hillary Clinton as due in large part to Western culture’s fear of powerful women.
You can call it speculation if you want, but there is a reason large numbers of women (and men) believe in things like the patriarchy. And it’s not over-sensitivity or gender-baiting or whatever when someone says “Clinton is a victim of sexism”. I don’t think it trivializes or weakens the fight against sexism to point out neither Obama or McCain get attacked for being “calculating”, “cold”, and whatnot. All three of them are politicians; none of them are “our buddies”. But it’s only Clinton that gets called “calculating” and “cold”. “Machiavellian” just feeds right into this bullshit. You can disagree with her examples if you really really want too, but Melissa McEwan is not the same as the Clinton supporters who only refer to Obama supporters as ‘Obots’. If you think blogs like Shakespeare’s Sister, Pandagon, and Feministe are in the business of trivializing sexism, I think you’re very mistaken.
Liberal White Male says:
hmmm… maybe because she’s the only one of the current candidates who has that rap? Is it unfair? Maybe. Sexist? That’s really (really really really) stretching it; just off the top of my head I can remember Mitt Romney and, oh… say, Al Gore catching the same kind of criticism. Trouble is: every presidential candidate is going to be judged on style points to some extent. Clinton supporters seem to think that she ought to be exempt from all such chatter simply because she is a woman. And that, LWM, is what trivializes real sexism.
or briefly: if any negative comment about Hillary Clinton is inherently sexist, then of course the campaign has been “sickeningly sexist”.
absolutely unbelievable.
K-wagon can fight her own battles, and she’s likely to lay waste y’all, so I’d check it before she wrecks y’it.
Anyhow, to Travmo:
My point above= Hillary’s Zimbabwe comments could be used to make a case that she is horrible, but not to confirm what has been the a priori based-on-no-evidence hypothesis that she is and has always has been horrible. Is the phrase I’m looking for confirmation bias?
Anyone who thinks that the media preferred Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton is deluding themselves, because the media so vastly prefer John McCain to all other Democrats combined that it’s virtually a non-issue.
It’s the royal “we” I guess. I’ve been running around calling myself sexist the whole time. Like some kind of low-rent liberal Eclipso.
That is douchebaggery, right there, Travis. The whole point of this post was that you don’t have to support Clinton to be against the sexist tripe the media has been throwing out to make her look bad. When the media turns on Clinton, it’s because her campaign is already in the toilet. When the media turns on Obama, it’s because they’re trying to smear him. The media is shit, and if you don’t like it I suggest you turn off your damn television and think for yourself. I avoid campaign coverage like the plague, and I’ve never been happier.
I think the media is being used to game the Democratic party. Divide and conquer. I wonder how come I keep hearing this meme of disaffected Hillary supporters going over to McWorse. It defies logic. It’s like something a Rove or an Atwater would do. Sew disunity out of whole cloth. Once it’s out there then people(sheeple) will think “That sounds like I think” there is never a reason to like McWorse it’s always a way to voice a negative twords the Democrats. It kind of makes me suspicious. Repeat a lie enough sometimes it becomes common wisdom.
But ye gods, our press corps’ reasons for supporting Obama were much different. For them, he was a Terrific Story, a Fresh New Face who was Inspirational and Made for Great Copy. Hillary, meanwhile? BOOOO-RIIIIIING!
What’s he got? 400,000 viewers per night? Fuck him, we don’t need him, nor Andrew Sullivan, nor Maureen Dowd (offensive to all parties involved). Their analyses are facile and I’m not all that sure they care whether Obama wins in the general election.
I know its your ‘job’ and all, but could i suggest that you all spend way to much time watching television news and reading crap op-ed pieces?
I know, I know, its us that have computers against them that live in DC and write for newspapers. But seriously, what about this Social security bidness?
I just wonder why “k” is so agressive and insulting on this thread, and takes everything so personally.
One might say it is quite revealing.
I would hate to go the Ann Althouse route and say that “k” lacks reading comprehension skills, since she sucks, and it’s such a cop-out.
So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, “k”, and assume you *comprehend* what’s been said by me and others in this thread. You just don’t get it.
I’ll try to recap.
Brad links to MM, talking about sexist coverage of HRC. Several people respond, basically saying “but I hate HRC for NON-SEXIST reasons.” I call BS with the point that, these comments are first an attempt to minimize sexism to HRC; second, seem clearly aimed to make the poster feel better about his own non-sxist self; and third, often seem to actually buy into the sexism but pretend it’s not “Her voice IS like a buzzsaw and that is NOT SEXIST”. Ironically, particularly see your first comment, “k” and also Travis’.
‘k’ then comes back to me with “insult, insult, insult, Brad specially pointed out that HRC has had sexism aimed at her, you’re a liar.” I explain that I actually wasn’t talking about Brad at all, but with the finger apparently pointing dangerously close to ‘k’;s direction, he freaks and rips of several more insults and completely false assumptions about me. As I say, the one who protests too much, etc. etc.