MyDD :: Sexism in the City

Sexism in the City

by hwc, Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:09:29 AM EST

Disclaimer: Week 8 of the partisan candidate diaries. I am not associated with any of the campaigns, just a long-time observer of Democratic presidential politics and the father of a college daughter.

If you've ever asked Republicans what they think of Hillary Clinton, they usually say something about "that b---h" and start foaming at the mouth. It's been obvious to me, from day one, that much of hatred revolves around the fact that she's a woman. Too "aggressive", too "shrill", all dog whistle terms reserved for women. Pure sexism.

As Clinton moved this week to solidify the likelihood of her becoming the first female President, we saw an avalanche of sexism emerge in the mainstream media. Hillary supporters knew this would be coming and I'm sure we haven't seen the end of it.

Of course, we've already seen the big Washington Post expose on Clinton's "cleavage" earlier this year...an article that was roundly scorned by the Post's readers. Now, we see the New York Times getting in on the action, first with an article by Patrick Healy on Clinton's laugh. If a male candidate laughs, it's showing personality, but apparently the pundits don't know what to make of a female candidate laughing at their stupid questions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/pol itics/30clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogi n

It was January 2005, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had just finished a solemn speech about abortion rights -- urging all sides to find "common ground" on the issue and referring to abortion as "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

Stepping offstage, she took questions from reporters, and found herself being grilled about whether she was moderating her own pro-choice position. And suddenly it happened: Mrs. Clinton let loose a hearty belly laugh that lasted a few seconds. Reporters glanced at one another as if they had missed the joke.
But nothing particularly funny had occurred; it was, instead, a deployment of the Clinton Cackle.

Cackle? Cackle? Are you kidding me? Would the New York Times refer to a male politician's laugh as a "cackle"? Can Healy not recognize the absurdity of the question? Has Clinton changed her position on abortion? She's only been staunchly pro-choice for about 40 years. I'd laugh, too. Oh, wait...if I were a woman, I guess it would be a "cackle" according to the New York Times style guide.

Or, how about this doozy from Maureen Dowd's column yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinio n/30dowd.html?hp

As Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, once told me: "She's never going to get out of our faces. ... She's like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone."

Hellish, nagging housewife? Good god, why not just write an editorial admonishing that she should know her place and leave politics to the men? Hell, why not just take the vote away from the women while you are at it? Is there a more sexist paragraph that could possibly be written? Does the New York Times have no shame? Oh, wait. I forgot about Cheney's press secretary Judith Miller pimping the Iraq invasion in 2002. I guess we already knew the answer to the question of the Times' lack of shame.

And, finally, we had good ol' Timmy Russert and his smug little "gotcha" question in the debate this week, blindsiding Hillary with a quote from Bill Clinton and then, in scolding dismay, informing her that she had committed an awful sin by daring to disagree with her husband. But, poor Timmy's pathetic little stunt backfired when Hillary had the last...er...cackle by firing back with the highlight of the campaign to date:

"Well, he's not standing standing here right now."

The Clinton campaign had to be popping champaign corks. One of their strategic challenges from day one was to effectively counter the sexist notion that Hillary would be taking orders from her husband in the White House. With one quick comeback, Clinton not only emasculated poor little Timmy Russert, but established her strength and independence in one of those moments most campaigns can only dream about. And, yes, the audience cackled while women voters across America (that would be 54% of the electorate) shouted at their TV's, "you go, girl."

Tags: Election 2008, President, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 70 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Sexism in the City (2.00 / 1)

HRC's campaign should be delighted by the stupid sexist commentary on her...it only serves to help her campaign, even among women who would otherwise not gravitate to her.

It's a sad commentary on gender relations, but great for the Hillary's campaign.

by NewNoir on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:22:31 AM EST

ok (none / 0)

The media always attacks Democratic candidates for stupid shit. The only difference with Clinton is that they have a new angle because she is a woman.

People who support Hillary Clinton's candidacy seem to do so for two main reasons. First, we ought to support her candidacy because she will be the first female president. Second, we should support her candidacy because it will get Bill back in the White House, or some variation on the belief that she would be an effective heir to Bill's presidency.

Neither of these are good reasons to vote for her and both are just as sexist as most of what is quoted from the Times above. In all honesty, hwc, you seem to be supporting her because you want there to be a female president and for no other reason.

I can't think of anyone I know or anyone I read online who supports her candidacy because they think she is right on the issues. She's not right about Iraq: her position is essentially that it was a good and justified war, but it has been poorly managed. That is not what I want to hear from a candidate and certainly not what I want to hear from the next President. I continue to believe that if Hillary becomes president she will lead us into another wasteful and useless conflict in some far flung locale.

Hillary Clinton would be a competent administrator and would restore the functioning of the federal government. But she is not a true leader, nor is she likely to reject the power of the presidency as it will be handed to her: an imperial presidency at its zenith.

This is not what we need now.

by Reece on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:24:14 AM EST

Re: ok (none / 0)

You must not have been reading here long if you think that nobody online supports Clinton on the issues. That remark makes no sense at all. I am sure some women support Clinton because she is a woman, just as some AA's support Obama because he is black or some in the South may support Edwards because he is a Southerner. But, a lot of people support Clinton on the issues, like where she is on them when compared to other candidates. It is just the way it is. You may disagree with her on the issues, but to claim that no online supporters support Clinton on the issues is patently absurd, as any casual reading of many blogs (including MyDD) will confirm quite convincingly.

by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (2.00 / 1)

Do you think she is right on the issues?

by Reece on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

Absolutely. Others and myself have written a lot of diaries on the subject. If you care to read up on my opinions on this, here is my diary list which, if you go through the diaries, should give you a good idea which issues I think she excels at:

http://www.mydd.com/user/georgep

by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 02:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

I support her because she would undo more damage done by George jr. then any other candidate. She would instantly restore a lot of the trust we lost merely by getting elected. There simply is no other candidate that has the same credibility and respect.

I also support her because I see very little difference in the actual stances of the candidate running and I think that she'll have the best chance to actually get results on those issues.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:52:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

I don't agree with you about this. As a president, I think Clinton would merely continue many of the same policies as Bush, i.e. the imperial presidency run amok. I don't know what you mean when you say she would restore trust merely by being elected. I don't know how that is possible or how it would happen. Would you care to explain.

Your last point is fair, but again, I disgree. I really think we need someone who is willing to take a strong stance and fight the Republicans. That isn't Clinton. In her time in the Senate she has shown herself to be more willing to vote any which way just to get along--I don't mean "get along" as in "be friends" but rather as to advance herself. Why did she vote for the war? Why did she vote for Kyl/Lieberman? What does she actually stand for?

by Reece on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

Although she is not as respected as Carter nor as popular as Bill in the world she comes close. Hillary is currently the most respected and popular politician the US has in the world.

She has a very high name ID all over the world combined with a very respectable favorability rating. She made a very good impression during her husbands presidency and she earned a lot of respect of the general populace during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Generally the people of the world judge a country based on their view of it's leader. And Hillary is not only well liked in the world at large, due to her former role as a first lady her election will be perceived as a repudiation of the Bush presidency and a return to the sensibilities of the '90 and her husband's version of America they liked instead of the Toxic Texan version they loathe. And from their point of view it'll certainly be just that. As controversial and divisive she is at home, the view the people have of her in the rest of the world is remarkable uniform and positive.

Your idea about her continuing the same policies as Bush, "i.e. the imperial presidency run amok" in foreign policy is completely at odds with what we know about her. While I certainly believe she takes the expansive view on the executive power foreign affairs always have been part of the president's responsibility. She has a reputation as a cautious moderate politician not that of the messianic cowboy that Bush is. She won't invade other countries unilaterally or suddenly revoke international agreements. Her reticence that gets her so much criticism here on MyDD is an foreign relations asset. She won't go at it alone, or rock the boat in the international community.

And unlike Bush she's actually a competent diplomat. While he succeeded in insulting, embarrassing and/or alienating all of our allies at one time or another, Her visits to foreign nations as a first lady usually were hugely successful and effectively considered on par or better then a visit from the secretary of state by the heads of state. She usually got rave reviews by the foreign press and the politicians in question. The only one coming close to equaling or beating her relevant experience in that field is Richardson, mainly because although he has a long distinguished career, his duties as a diplomat are a bit different then the duties the president has as a diplomat.

So in short, People will like the US better because they like her and she makes them remember the the good parts of the other Clinton whitehouse, She'll restore our bonds with the other goverments because an experienced and "careful" diplomat (you'll probably have a different name for it) that is known and liked in the international community.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:52:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

I don't purport to know Clinton's, or any other candidate's, position on the issues. I presume that they are all to some extent playing cutesie with their issue declarations, which are generally more about conveying an impression than about committing to rigid positions. But to the extent that I have a hit on her issue positions, I think they're pretty good, not great. Comparing her on the issues to other candidates, I put her a hair behind Edwards, a hair ahead of Obama.

But as a candidate, and as a potential leader of the nation, I put her well ahead of anybody else in the field. This is not something I would have expected before becoming engaged with the campaign, but she is possibly the most impressive Presidential candidate I have ever seen since I began following politics in 1964, and the only other candidate I have seen who might have been more impressive would be moving back into the White House with her if she gets elected.

She's got "it"--that it thing--when it comes to leadership. She exudes confident command. That's why, although I make it a rule never to completely commit myself in a Democratic primary fight, I have her well ahead of the field at the moment.

by Trickster on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

More meaningless BS. What does it mean for someone to be "impressive"? How are they "impressive"? What makes them "impressive"?

If someone is "impressive," how are we to know if they are more "impressive" or less "impressive" than another person?

In any case, you appear to fall into the let's-get-Bill-Clinton-back-in-the-White -House camp of Clinton supporters.

As for "it," that's just something that Hillary doesn't have. I hope you can see that despite you finding her "impressive" other people, such as myself, aren't impressed. We don't see "it."

by Reece on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

And I hope you realize that as far as Democrats are concerned, including the progressive/liberal wing, you are in a distinct minority. More people don't see the "it" with either Edwards or Obama than with Clinton, quite obviously. There is nothing wrong with being in a minority that disagrees, just as long as that realization is there.

by georgep on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 06:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]