You wouldn't want someone to treat a woman or girl you love the way Hillary's been treated.  We all deserve respect.

Hillary's talking about the issues we care about and she can make things happen.

BTW - This is cross-posted over at DailyKos and is now on the REC LIST.  Help me get on the Rec List here and we'll make it a daily double!

and sexism like this?  There are soooo many more productive ways you could be spending your time than trying to pit women and African-Americans against each other.

A wonderful diary - tough to read and remember my own experiences.  But important to remember, too.

How much would it cost to put that video on network TV - wow...powerful stuff?

We donated today.

Go Hillary!!!!!  And thank you, Hillary, for all you've done for me, my daughter and all of my girlfriends  You will never know how very much we appreciate your sacrifice for the rest of us.

I'd say that's true sexism is endorsed and not confronted while racism is on the cable news and MSM at least.  I'd say the blogs too.

I've noticed this extensively.  Hillary has to cosponsor S.1035 for me to get on board but of course Obama won't even though it's his colleague's bill (Durbin).  

But, it's pretty clear she's getting hammered by sexism.  

than her.  And I'm a man.

You know, Kerry was bruised, bloodied and battered in the 2004 contest.  But no one called it sexism or racism or any other ism.  So I find this diary a little off the mark.  Politics is rough, really rough.

Also, be careful attributing too much of the animosity towards Hillary as sexism.  I believe that the source of it is not because she is a woman, it is that she is a Clinton.

Thanks for posting this. I wish more people took time to think about how they were encouraging sexism. So many do it, and don't realize they are.

First of all, thanks for reminding everyone to donate.  I went to her site and donated some more today.  I'm glad these messages of financing needs are leaking out if they motivate more people to donate.

I'm a man and I do believe sexism is operating in this race.  But, I don't think the root of the sexism is the kneejerk "fear of a strong woman" so often cited by feminists.  I think something else is operating here.

What I think is operating is a matter of stylistic differences and taste in Clinton vs. Obama supporters.  We Clinton supporters see her as knowledgeable, hard working, meritorius, quick witted, and tough.  We also think she has considerable grace, poise, and even wit and warmth.  

Obama supporters seem to think of him as "AWESOME!" like a rock star.  To them, he has a more audacious presence. I think guys (particularly younger ones) relate to this style more than Clinton's.

I think many guys may see Clinton like a school marm and just have a tendency to tune her out until the cool guy speaks.  If they really listened to her I think far more of them would have to be impressed.  I started out not liking her but when I started really listening to her I realized how "awesome" she was.  

Yes, I think there is sexism at work here but it may be a stylistic gender difference that is generating these preferences.

The sad thing about sexism in our society is that it is utterly denied.  

OK, that's it, time to fight back.  Time to cross post a full-fledged campaign against MSNBC, and it's misogynist leering privileged schoolboy Obama pushers: Matthews at the top of the list, Scarborough, Olbermann, Carlson, Feinman, list goes on, Dan Abrams excepted.  They have systematically turned HRC into a laughing stock and BO into the second coming.  THEY ARE STEALING OUR DEMOCRACY.  We don't have to wait for swiftboaters - THEY ARE THE SWIFTBOATERS.
Millions of us have worked, thought, blogged, voted, donated, organized, browbeaten our friends, made GOTV calls for Hillary.  We are being defeated by them.  
Massive daily emailing to NBC, MSNBC, full boycott of all sponsors. Start posting sponsors and contacts. Remember even a small campaign squeezed an apology (well, almost) out of Tweety, and toned it down for a day or two.  C'mon, activists!  We can fight back! It's free!  Do it from home!  It'll get press coverage for god's sake.

Here's the link to more info and Matthews and NBC/MSNBC admin contacts:
http://www.legitgov.org/rectenwald_msnbc _on_matthews.html

Olbermann:  KOlbermann@msnbc.com

Scarborough: Joe@msnbc.com

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ.

We can't say anything bad about Hillary because she's a woman, so that would be sexist???

It couldn't be humanly possible that we happen to prefer another candidate, or that we find the baggage she carries from the previous Clinton administration to render her less electable in the general.

As my girlfriend who sits next to me as I type this says, "It is sexist to presume that I must vote for her simply because she's a woman."

I'm sure I will vote for many future female Presidential candidates in my lifetime.

It just won't be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I deserve better than a Clinton or a Bush.  I won't be voting for Hillary in the primary or general election because of her record of mendacity, incompetence, corporatism, and enabling George W. Bush.  It has nothing to do with sexism.

I do not want Hillary to be President,  and while I found the NOW-NY type behavior to be totally ridiculous, this kind of  behavior like the 527 group using CUNT as an acronym is beyond pale. McCain should also be made to answer for humoring a guy who used the word bitch in a presidential type forum. It's one thing for private blogger to vent, but for it be humored by someone who is going to lead the country is unacceptable and I hope it will be brought up in the debates during General Election time.

Thank you.

Thank you for foregrounding the reality of continuing sexism in this campaign, in far too many cases misogyny, for those who fail (or refuse) to see it.  These examples come from somewhere; they are not bad apples but reflections of a society that remains sexist in many respects.

The point is not that Sen. Clinton should not be criticized for her positions and decisions.  That is a red herring.  

The point is that there is a large measure of sexism present in the coverage of the campaign, among too many Democrats and progressives, that is not directed at the senator's policies but for the mere fact she is a powerful and successful and inspiring woman.  Things that would not be said about a man with identical experience (as if that was possible), decisions, and policies.

Sadly, if it has not yet occurred, I have no doubt that in the future there will be offensive comments and assumptions about for the mere fact that he is not lily white.

I will go to DKos to REC and Hotlist. ;-)

I wish Elizabeth Edwards was the Democratic Party candidate.

That is my position. That is who I think has the right heart, vision, strength, ethics and policies. I have heard no other speaker that I admire so much.

My fear and loathing of Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with her semiotical purse.

The right person, at the right time. I agree with Maria Shriver, I just have to support Obama because he has captured the imagination of a nation. There is a movement to change America from the bottom up, it has captured the hope of individuals across all demographics.

Obama won caucuses because he has millions of very eager volunteers, in Alaska for example, and North Dakota. They want to be involved. HRC does not have volunteers like that in every state.

I want women to take 53% of the power in the world, but I reserve the right to choose which women.

The detestable Ann Coulter, who is, I think, a self hating woman, who is a racist, sexist, and bullying inventor of hate, has promised to support Hillary if McCain gets the Republican nomination. It has nothing to do with the advancement of women's issues.

The public knows more about Edwards' house than Obama's house - purchased in 2005 from a donor Sen. Obama KNEW was under federal investigation.

Michelle Obama's controversial corporate connections aren't examined as closely as Bill Clinton's. Heck! they're not even mentioned on corporate TV.

Obama and his Slumlord
Feb. 5, 2008 - The Hilltop - Howard Univ.

During the heated South Carolina debates, Sen. Hillary Clinton outed Sen. Barack Obama for his involvement with Chicago "slumlord" Antoin Rezko. Rezko, who serves as a landlord for a government-subsidized apartment on Chicago's Southside, has donated thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, while his apartments suffer from dilapidated facilities and sub-par living conditions.

After the media discovered Obama's involvement with Rezko, Obama defended himself by saying that he did not know about Rezko's "slumlord" reputation, although the two had been friends for 17 years. Recently, in an attempt to distance himself from Rezko, Obama donated $85,000 of Rezko's donations to charity.

Some may argue that the use of the money is more important than the source of the money. Ethical soundness won't necessarily help the people benefited from the charities, as money does. Thus, the money was used properly. Others believe that the moral integrity of the source should be in question, and Obama should take responsibility for his actions. By donating the money, he was trying to rectify the situation by transferring the attention toward something more positive.

However, is Obama's transference of attention just a ploy to keep his name clear? Of course it is, which only adds to the shadiness of the situation. Obama only donated the money after he was publicly criticized for his involvement with Rezko. It is not probable that Obama had no idea of Rezko's reputation, especially since Rezko's apartments are only a mile from Obama's home.

This incident doesn't mean that Obama will be a bad president, but his affiliation with Rezko makes him seem dishonest to the common people to whom Obama is campaigning. The fact that they have been friends and that he accepted money from Rezko suggests that Obama was willing to look past Rezko's indiscretions in exchange for money.

Either way, Obama should have stuck with his original decision. Accepting the money and then giving it away shows inconsistency and may even suggest a lack of judgment on Obama's part. A politician who wavers under media scrutiny suggests that he goes back on his word.

If Obama decided he made a mistake, he should have just said that he made a mistake and had a lapse in judgment with regards to the people he associated with. American citizens would have been receptive to an apology from an already beloved Obama.

But by making a public donation in the amount he was given, the gesture seemed like it was "for show" and perhaps even insincere, and that's just bad politics.

http://media.www.thehilltoponline.com/me dia/storage/paper590/news/2008/02/05/Edi torials/Obama.And.His.Slumlord-3188606.s html

Male Hillary supporter here...

I find the idea that people should be more inclined to vote for Hillary because she is a woman a bit problematic.  Its a race between two candidates from groups that have been historically marginalized.  Maybe as a white male, this is easier for me to say, but I just can't make a choice on those grounds given this matchup.

However, I do want to stress two things.

1. There is very little doubt in my mind that Hillary is better qualified and would be better able to do the job.  Anybody who has been out in the world long enough should know how often better qualified women get passed over for promotions or jobs in favor of younger men characterized by more style than substance.  To see this happening on a national stage is pretty galling.  I really think that part of the reason younger women (under 25) support Obama is that they haven't really been so exposed to many of realities of institutionalized sexism.  Its a lot easier to see relative gender equality on campus than in the workplace.

2. I have found much of the media coverage of Hillary pretty appalling.  Its really a boys club, and in some ways that group has shown its true face.  Adjectives often really tell the tale.  A man like is tough and level-headed, whereas a woman is cold and calculating.