Chauvinism, Misogyny and Racism
by bobswern, Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EDT
I find it most interesting that Webster's defines chauvinism as: n. absurdly exaggerated patriotism; blind enthusiasm for a cause. [Fr., Nicolas Chauvin]
And, Webster's defines misogyny as: n. hatred of women. [Gk. miseein, to hate; gune, a woman]
Lastly, Webster's defines racism: n. animosity shown to peoples of different race. [It. razza]
I believe it's fair to say that no self-respecting Democratic/Progressive blog tolerates racism. There have been rants here and elsewhere in the blogosphere that Clinton supporters, by default (of their support of Clinton's candidacy), support racism. This simply is grossly unfair and fictitious equivocation. And, even some of the most diehard Obamaphiles, including Obama and his closest surrogates, themselves, have come out in recent weeks to acknowledge that neither Hillary Clinton nor the vast majority of her supporters are any more racist than Barack Obama and the vast majority of his supporters. While I'm a Hillary supporter, I believe both Obama and Clinton speak truth as far as this is concerned. This is truth!
Truth is when someone says something and it is repeated in context, and verbatim and demonstrated and/or verified as such via a replay of a broadcast (audio or video), or by other factual means (quotes provided factually, written and in context, etc).
But, I'm seeing something happening on certain other blogs right now--as the campaign fervor intensifies even more than it has to date--which gives me great cause for concern with regard to the modulation of volume as far as clearly self-evident chauvinism and misogyny are concerned. And, here it is, perhaps best exemplified on the top page of DailyKos right now, by a subsidized front-pager there, DHinMI.
If Markos' has any sense of propriety, I would hope he'd seriously consider removing this author's rants from his domain immediately. Here's the commentary in question (writing about the comments to this quoted diary is not what my diary's about), I'm talking about blatant bigotry being endorsed and outright promoted, directly, by a supposedly Democratic blog. Note DHinMI's comments and, paticularly, his headline. You decide. (I already have); that's why I'm posting this. Here it is, verbatim:
Bill Clinton Seeks Third Presidential Term (and Loophole to 22nd Amendment)
Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EDT
Bill refuses to get off the stage:
Dubbed the "Billification" of Sen. Clinton's campaign by some insiders, Mr. Clinton has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks. He has been pushing for harder and sharper attacks on Sen. Obama. While she has jabbed her opponent over his "elitist" tone and controversial statements by his former pastor, Mr. Clinton delivers his own slams on the stump, calling Obama ads misleading.
The former president says he's in uncharted territory. "Being the spouse is more difficult than when I was the candidate," he says in a brief interview. "When you're running, you're out there driving every day. But when you're the spouse, you feel more protective. It's much harder."
Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife's drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: "We're not quitters."
On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: "We've got to take him on every time." At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher.
Mr. Clinton also told the campaign to double the number of his daily appearances. "Look at this schedule -- you've got me down for four events," he said the week before Pennsylvania's primary, according to one operative. "Give me six, eight a day. Get me to the suburbs where I can make a difference."
END OF QUOTED ARTICLE.
Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee, but a small part of me wishes she would have won and then become President to see her and Bill fight for the microphone to answer those questions shouted out to "President Clinton."
* Permalink ::
* Discuss (377 comments, 377 new)
I could provide a litany of examples from DKos, from 11 diaries posted a few weeks ago concerning Randi Rhodes' comments about Clinton; outright endorsement of Keith Olbermann's recent sexist soliloquies, and so forth. But, why bother? Especially when there's something new on the front-page over there on a continual basis to directly (not via inference, or providing something out of context or on a rhetorical basis) support my comments here.
Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?