The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innocence.

Since sexism seems to be the topic du jour this weekend, I thought I would add a short little diary to add to the conversation. While I am happy more people are talking about sexism, I have been yelling from the rafters about this for months now without getting much attention.  In any case....

Between the rationalizations, denials or accusations of delegitimizing BO as the nominee when discussing sexism, it honestly makes me question some people's progressive ideals.  How does anyone know how sexism affected the outcome?  We don't.  We can only reflect on its meaning in the framing of progressive thinking - no?

As Paul Krugman writes,

The 2008 campaign has been a very disillusioning experience for a lot of people. You can make a very good case that Barack Obama was the right person for the Democrats to nominate, and Hillary Clinton the wrong choice. But the way we got there was terrible. The raw sexism, in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives -- see above -- was part of it. So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar -- by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

This whole story shouldn't affect peoples' votes in the general election: there are huge substantive issues at stake, and a wide difference between the candidates on those issues. So this is no time for a protest vote. But 2008 was definitely the year in which the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence.

The race is over.  Isn't it time to reflect on this honestly?

Tags: Bias, clinton, innocence, progressives, sexism (all tags)

Comments

234 Comments

Sexism did affect Hillary Clinton's campaign

but it wasn't why she lost.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-15 12:05PM | 0 recs
Did you not read the diary

Whether sexism played a role in the loss can neither be proved nor disproved.  Just because you say it is not proof.  Just because NBC or some men in academia say it or not is not proof.

But that's not the issue.  Sexism IS AN ISSUE for women.  It's worthy of discussion.

When representation is pathetic when it comes to women, it is hard to say there is not an issue.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 12:27PM | 0 recs
As there's Asian racism?

Think your last sentence is too simplistic.  The same can then be said about Asian representation, but culturally, most of my generation was pushed to go to medicine and law (and not politics).

Lower representation than population percentage doesn't necessarily mean there's discrimination.

by Regenman 2008-06-15 12:58PM | 0 recs
Its obvious that the power structure hates her..

It may have something to do with the fact that she is a woman. I have never thought of it that way (I have always thought that it was because she cared about poor people) but actually, I think, yes, this could be sexism.. women are not as inclined to 'smaile as they kill' as John Lennon said.. so they are perhaps excluded from the halls of power for that reason.

:(

by architek 2008-06-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Its obvious that the power structure hates her..

The power structure loved her before they hated her.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 06:47PM | 0 recs
No they didn't

Hillary has always been dissed - from the get go.  Think of how she was treated as First Lady.  Reporters and pundits alike went after her with knives drawn.  She began as Hillary Rodham - but that wasn't acceptable.  So she added Clinton - and they bashed her all the more for it.  Frankly - I never liked her personally - not until the latter part of this campaign.  I felt for her, from a purely feminine point of view - but I never warmed to the woman.  And I was angry over her war vote (still am) - but the increasing misogyny and gender bashing made me take a second look.  I began really listening - researching her role as Senator and her presidential position papers.  I liked what I saw.  

But like or not - my outrage over how she's been treated still stands.  And the same people who dissed Hillary are now going after Michelle Obama - in the exact same way.  Why?  Because they got away with it.  It was allowed (and in some cases cheered on) by those media types you say loved Hillary so much.  Now they are targeting Michelle Obama - adding an extra leavening of race just to make it worse.  Will you stand against gender bias when it's directed against her?  When you do - will you give a thought to Hillary and what she went through?  Or will you tell yourself it was warranted because, well, Hillary deserved it?

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-16 12:49AM | 0 recs
Yes they did.

Hillary was treated much more roughly as First Lady than she was in this campaign. I guess it would be more accurate to say, "First they hated her, then they loved her, then they were ambivalent."

There is a real double standard being applied here. Hillary Clinton had it EASY in this campaign. She didn't have to face a tenth of what Obama did, yet the perception is that she had it much worse. Why?

Could it be because she's a white woman and he's a black man? There are some similarities between the prejudice suffered by white women and black men--both groups are respected less by the larger culture. But there are also some differences--white women are the most protected group in our culture while black men are the least protected group. Another difference is that women are a majority of voters while African Americans are a minority.

We live in a culture that is more worried about 'violence against women' in spite of the fact that men are more often the victims of violence. Why? It's because although women are respected less they are protected more. Violence against women is seen as a worse crime in exactly the same way the very minor abuse Hillary Clinton recieved during this primary season is seen as worse than the far worse treatment Obama got.

Magic negro?
Secretely a muslim?
Is he black enough?
Did he go to a madrassas?
Is he secretely a black millitant? (Wright, Ayers)

All of those were stories covered in the main stream media, and in the case of the Wright story they obsessed about it for almost two months. Hillary didn't have to face anything remotely comparable to any of those.

When asking for specifics of this "misogyny" that some Clinton supporters see, all I've gotten are silly things. A joke nutcracker sold in some giftshop somewhere counts for zero points--in fact it gets a -5 for thinking that it was meaningful. The nutcracker, like most of the BS claims of misogyny, was something that no-one would even have heard of if it weren't for the Clinton camp holding it up, waving it around and using it as an argument about how victimized she was.

You yourself used the word "misogyny." I challenge you to, first look up the word "misogyny" to be sure you even know what it means, then give me ONE example of misogyny directed against Hillary Clinton by the main stream media. (I'll give you a hint--you can't do it.) Now I'm not talking about some redstate blog or fringe website, I'm talking about the MSM.

There WAS some sexism (NOT misogyny) directed against Hillary Clinton during this campaign, but it was mild compared to the racism Obama was subjected to, including by the Clinton campaign itself.

I'll repeat--I challenge you to come up with ONE instance of misogyny directed against HC in THIS (not Bill's) campaign.

Just one.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-16 08:22PM | 0 recs
Oh please

Watch this video in Canada Gals diary:

Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!

Though from the tone of your comment - it wouldn't matter WHAT anyone said about Clinton.  You'd continue your selective blindness.  And don't bother posting reams of why Hillary's the devil and misogyny's not misogyny and how I don't know anything because I'm not you (who obviously knows everything there is).  In other words - please take your hate somewhere else.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-16 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh please

I can't watch the video because I only log on from work and the work computer doesn't have speakers--or I guess I could watch the video but couldn't hear what was being said. Still, I notice you are unable to come up with a single example of misogyny, and instead stoop to name-calling. Good job!

Talk about "selective blindness!" Hillary is not the devil and misogyny IS misogny--there just wasn't any in this campaign... at least none that was important or significant.

As I said above, there WAS some sexism in the medias coverage, but not half so much as the racism Obama had to face. Not even a quarter as much. Not even a tenth.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-18 04:22PM | 0 recs
Oh,

and I read diary you linked to, with the video in it, but there's no misogyny there either.

Hillary had it easy and I'm sick of the whining. Criticizing her for showing too much cleavage on the Senate floor was "misogyny" right?

Wrong. She's a freakin US Senator for Gods sake; she's supposed to dress appropriately to the dignity of her office. If a male Senator showed up on the Senate floor showing that much of his chest, cleavage or not, you can damn well bet it would get talked about. They talked about Kerry's wardrobe in 2004 more than they did Hillary's in 2008. It was then I first heard the term "metrosexual."

Other than that all you've got are a few quips by media pundits, and that doesn't begin to compare to the media spending two months trying to convince white Americans that Obama was secretely a black millitant who hates America during the Rev. Wright obsession.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-18 04:36PM | 0 recs
ugh

is that ALL some of you can say?

Get the point... SEXISM DID hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. NO it is not why she lost, but it IS a piece of it.

It also HURT women in general.

Get it?

geeez.

by kevin22262 2008-06-15 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: ugh

I think the sexism was probably more harmful as the misogynary rhetoric. However, it was a sort of feedback loop. Just as Larry Johnson has marginalized whatever he had to say on other topics by his racist ranting against Obama, the complaining about sexism where it didn't exist (using the word periodically to describe something done from time to time) to pointing the sexism accusation at the wrong person (Obama is sexist because someone who isn't Obama said something sexist) it became easier to dismiss.

What I found was that too many people cried wolf, and eventually the shrillness of the 'sexism!' argument became self-defeating.

by Geiiga 2008-06-15 08:23PM | 0 recs
tips for honesty and progressives?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 12:06PM | 0 recs
I think people are wrongly conflating

some of the statements here. When people hear discussion about sexism affecting Clinton's campaign by prominent Clinton supporters like you, they seem to think you're saying it's why she lost.

That is NOT the case. You're talking about how it affected the campaign. I think the lack of a caveat here is what's leading the wrong perceptions of the discussion of sexism in the primary campaign.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-15 12:08PM | 0 recs
good point.

im not saying that's why she lost - but im also not saying that it didnt play a part.  when people say that it wasnt a factor - i think they are deluding themselves.

simply - why does winning or losing even need to be a part of the conversation?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 12:13PM | 0 recs
I know you're not saying it's why she lost

but the lack of that mention in your post does make people infer the reason for Hillary's loss being due to sexism. It's why people jump to conclusions whenever they read diaries that rightly discuss the role that sexism played in this primary season.

by slinkerwink 2008-06-15 12:15PM | 0 recs
but the fact that i have to preface...

an open call for honesty in discussing sexism is a problem - no?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: but the fact that i have to preface...

Yes, but it's more of a reflection of the problem on this site, IMO, which concerns the diarists (not you) who do use this as a wedge issue to foster resentment at a time when we need to start attacking McCain instead of Obama or each other.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: but the fact that i have to preface...

nope.  the only wedge and resentment comes from Obama primary supporters who have refused to admit the role that sexism played.

and you (Obama primary supporters) continue to downplay it with making statements like "women of child-bearing years voted more for Obama" - splitting up the women in a horrific category.

newsflash for those who still don't get it:  many women in their 20's & 30's CAN'T have children.  And many women in their 40's and early 50's CAN have children and do.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 12:36PM | 0 recs
nice parenthetical

it was me (an Obama primary supporter) who called out Firewall (an Obama primary supporter) for that comment, and we managed to have a decent discussion about it without universalizing each other's opinion.

As for your "newsflash," I'm not sure I've ever asked someone this before, but are you a woman? Did you not read the exchange that I had with Firewall? Do you really think that the thing that people need to "get" is that if you're dividing women between capable of bearing children and not capable of bearing children, that age is not the exclusive indicator? (never mind that it probably is the most reliable). I thought I was pretty clear that the thing to "get" is there is no good reason to be dividing women by fecundity in a political discussion.

I think your manner of jumping on Firewall on this issue is part of the reason we've been having a difficult time discussing this.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: nice parenthetical

yes, I am a woman.  And yes, I read your exchange with Firewall.  However, I am very familiar with Firewall and he/she has used these types of arguments before.

so, whereas you may have been convinced that it was a sincere exchange, I have my doubts.

I didn't name names - and Firewall opened him/herself up to the comments I posted.  I wasn't jumping over anyone, other than to point out that Firewall is still pointing the age divide argument.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: nice parenthetical

See below. The only times I point out the age divide is in refuting arguments that women as a whole went to Clinton. Mobar was correct in that I could have found a better way to express that in our previous discussion.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:58PM | 0 recs
I think Firewall sincerely

didn't get what was wrong with the statement. And I sincerely tried to explain what was. It seems to me that's how we get to better understand each other. Not by conflating one poster's comment into "you (obama primary supporters)" so that all criticism is defensively dismissed as nonsense.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Firewall sincerely

Thank you, Mobar. And yes, I do now see the hazards of what I said in the prior diary, and will find a better way of expressing my arguments in the future.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: but the fact that i have to preface...

I agree lets move on. Sexism and Racism have played a role. Let's do something about it and elect Senator Obama.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-15 02:28PM | 0 recs
I can't help but laugh at the single minded zeal

with which some folk change the subject to Obama each and every time.

:o

by architek 2008-06-15 06:31PM | 0 recs
Is that so surprising?

He's the nominee.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 06:51PM | 0 recs
frankly....

while if its true - i dont buy this as an excuse.  BO won.  why can we not have an honest discussion about sexism in the primary with our progressive ideals?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:28PM | 0 recs
Because that is a subject...

... for after November.

Until then, it sounds like an attempt to delegitimize the Democratic nominee.

by tbetz 2008-06-15 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Because that is a subject...

oh, so we have to put it on hold so we won't hurt your feelings.

get a grip.  Talking about this NOW and getting it out in the open would actually HELP Obama, not hurt him.

People who took great issue with the sexist tone of this primary season don't want to be told to wait in a corner because it is unfashionable for the moment

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 04:30PM | 0 recs
Whatever he did..

He did to himself..

Trying to suppress discussion about it only calls attention to the fact that it happened...and continues to happen..

by architek 2008-06-15 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Because that is a subject...

People who took great issue with the sexist tone of this primary season don't want to be told to wait in a corner because it is unfashionable for the moment.

See? You just proved the point.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Because that is a subject...

what point?  You may an absurd comment about Obama's legitimacy and I stated that is BS.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Because that is a subject...

The point that this isn't just about talking about sexism--it's about rehashing the primary.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 07:31PM | 0 recs
I understand your desire to delay

the conversation, but do you really think that after November people are going to have this sudden desire to have an honest conversation about sexism in the democratic party? I think this is a conversation that we ordinary democrats should have whenever we feel like it. I'm not suggesting that the campaign machinery turn its attention this way. And I do think the discussion would be more productive if democrats gave non-Clinton examples of their frustration with the party. (It's not like there's no reason for women to be frustrated outside of Clinton not being the nominee, and we can't go back and change things for Clinton but we can change how we respond in the future). But it's pretty natural that people would start with Clinton examples and move outward. I just wish people wouldn't assume that conversations about sexism are a stealth effort to undermine Obama. We're all on the same team here, and I imagine these conversations might come in handy preparing us for crap that's going to be thrown at Michelle.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 04:38PM | 0 recs
I think The Dems might lose..

But perhaps they want to lose this time around..

The economy is in pretty bad shape...

by architek 2008-06-15 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: frankly....
 What are your solutions? What have we resolved.
Obama hasn't won yet? You act as if it's over and now it's time to look back.
by Politicalslave 2008-06-15 05:11PM | 0 recs
You might have it backwards

Since there seems to be a faction of female supporters unwilling to vote for Obama, one could also say, that surrogates intentionally portraying Hillary as a victim of sexism was part of the reason she had such a strong showing among some female voters.

The same way that some blacks took offense (fairly or not) to some of the surrogates suggestions that came across as racist code by the Clinton campaign, and went heavily for Obama.

So it could be said that playing UP the role of sexism in the campaign was actually to Hillary's benefit.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: You might have it backwards

the problem with THAT analysis is that no one in the media talked about sexism like they did racism during the primary.

it mainly happened after the primary was over.  A few people TRIED to bring it up on MSM, but it was shoved in a corner.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 12:47PM | 0 recs
Its not just women who dont like Obama..

in case you hadn't noticed..

he's trying to trivialize the needs of a great many of us.

He's trying to act like he's our friend, but he's running for the executive position.

As our 'boss' he is apparently the kind of boss who talks big, but in the final analysis, tries to substitute talk for compensation.

He looks like the kind that one eventually realizes, takes and takes and doesn't give.

Bosses like that are bad news. They will suck you dry.

Its not all about him, you know, its about US.

The USA.

by architek 2008-06-15 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Its not just women who dont like Obama..

If every new post on this thread is you and your drivel, I'm going to be irritated.

Fuck. By clicking on your post, I have lost the "new" tag.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: good point.
I know that McCain feels Senator Clinton was treated unfairly due to sexism and media bias.
He believes it's a good time for Democrats to look at this issue.Now that the race is over.
by Politicalslave 2008-06-15 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I think people are wrongly conflating

Many MYDD members have/do site sexism as a contributing factor to her loss.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-15 08:44PM | 0 recs
I'd tip

but i can't for a while, same goes with a rec.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd tip

Ah, yes.  I noticed Jerome was back.

by username 2008-06-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
It has nothing to do with Jerome

it is a personal thing.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 01:28PM | 0 recs
what ?

you have lost your rec/rate ability ?

by SevenStrings 2008-06-15 02:19PM | 0 recs
I haven't lost it

I am taking a strong moral stand not to use it.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: It has nothing to do with Jerome

Do you mean you inflicted a ban on yourself for penance?

by french imp 2008-06-15 02:25PM | 0 recs
Yes

as hiding certain people (rankles) was a joy of mine here so I am taking away that joy for a while.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 02:37PM | 0 recs
I just can't agree

Obama's record shattering accomplishment of 1.5 + million donors alone is a milestone for progressives. It shows that the days of the large donors, the millionaires and the billionaries having complete and single access to politics is over or on it's way out.

Progressives didn't lose innocence not really if anything we just got a little distracted between 2 of the strongest candidates we've seen in a long time runnign at the same time.

by drache 2008-06-15 02:31PM | 0 recs
yes - those are great achievements for progressive

however that does not change the fact that at least half or more of the democratic party feel that sexism was a prevalent and destructive force during the primary.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:30PM | 0 recs
okay

here's the thing though I seriously doubt half the democratic party feels that sexism was a prevelant and destructive force in the primiary.

Mostly because the entire party didn't vote (unless you have evidence to the opposite at no point did turnout reach 100%)

And further I suspect at worst maybe 25% of all voters really feel that sexism was that bad.

Most people I think would recognize that frankly racism was far worse (early secert service protection, threats, offices being vandialized, volunteers being threatened, volunteers being insulted, people refusing to vote for you cause of your skin).

The truth is that the 'victimized' Clinton is needed because otherwise what is there to contest? We had a race and one lost one won and over all it was pretty fair; maybe it wasn't fair in terms of ideals but it was pretty fair in terms of both campaigns having to deal with sexism or racism.

But by all means prove me wrong, show me how sexism was both prevalent and destructive.

by drache 2008-06-15 04:29PM | 0 recs
see - i can make shit up too!

actually only 43% voted in the primary and of that percentage 100 percentage feel there was sexism.  but seriously - none of what oyu posted is anything other than your opinion.

as to your points about sexism - most HRC supporters feel that it was a factor - and even some BO supporters do too.  so there goes your theory?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 04:36PM | 0 recs
if you can't act maturally just tell me and I'll

just leave you alone.

I have better things to do then put up with ad homeniems.

You made a claim, it's not my fault that it had more holes in then swiss cheese.

And enough of the games, if you are seriously wanting to discuss this then stop with the shadow boxing and qualify your position if you can't or won't I'm going to have to regaurd you as a troll.

You came up with a silly number made a bunch of implications then start this 'oh it's not me' BS.

Frankly I had more respect for you then to play these childish games.

I expect you to qualify your position in your next comment so we can have a thoughtful mature dicussion or don't bother answering me

by drache 2008-06-15 04:46PM | 0 recs
agreed.

You came up with a silly number made a bunch of implications then start this 'oh it's not me' BS.

i was doing exactly what you were in your previous comment.  just throwing random numbers out.  in any case - i want a serious discussion, but you cant ask to be taken seriously when you just make numbers up about who thinks what is sexist.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 04:53PM | 0 recs
I made it very clear

that my number was not a hard number (go look you'll see I prephrase that number with 'I think')

But seriously so I'm wrong even though I was calling you on it?

Okay I guess I can buy that but you've still failed to clearly concisely and precisely state your position here and until you do I'm not going to play word games with you.

You may think it makes you clever I just think it wastes time and impeedes a true discussion.

by drache 2008-06-15 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I made it very clear

when more than half the people in the room say something - chances are there is something to it.  and sorry - in my experience here almost all HRC supporters (half of the voters) plus some BO supporters feel sexism was at work here - particularly in the media.

The truth is that the 'victimized' Clinton is needed because otherwise what is there to contest?

ive got news for you - the primary is OVER - there is nothing to contest except unacceptable behaviour.  if you want unity and the advancement of progressive ideals - how about standing behind them?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 05:26PM | 0 recs
I encourage you to read my comments

I have made it very clear several times that I won't tolerate sexism, peroid end of discussion.

But neither will I tolerate a witch hunt either.

And you've offered no proof for your 'half' it's all hearsay and on your word.

But really I'm done with you, I've offered you not one not two but three chances to make your position and case clear and you've not been able to do it.

Instead you want to play smoke and mirrors and frankly I'm not interested.

It actually makes me sad because while I've not often agreed with you I at least had respect for you and now I can only conclude you're a troll that doesn't really want any of the things you claim because I gave you repeated chances and you wasted them

by drache 2008-06-15 05:48PM | 0 recs
i honestly have no idea what you're talking about

given me 3 chances at what?  and i believe this is the first time ive ever been called a troll - well done!

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: i honestly have no idea what you're talking ab

CG, I guess we have a new rule here on mydd - the 3 strikes and you're out rule

hey, congrats on your troll tag!!  I've been called that a few times here as well :)

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 06:14PM | 0 recs
because I really don't know when to stop

I asked you several comments ago (to prevent misunderstandings and to facilate the discussion) to clear and completely outline your case and your point, both what it is and what is wasn't.

You failed to do that.

I can only conclude you're not interested in an honest discussion and instead what to play games.

Do you understand now?

by drache 2008-06-15 06:19PM | 0 recs
that was directed to CG

by drache 2008-06-15 06:21PM | 0 recs
okay.

what exactly about this diary or position do you not understand?  that its my belief that true progressives do not deny or ignore sexism for political advantage?  or that krugman states that it was ugly?

i am interested in discussing this HONESTLY - but if you peruse the comments in this thread - not many share this opinion.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
hhhmmmm

Perhaps, it would be better to first try and start this again.

You are claiming that there was 'prevelent and destructive sexism in the election' which is a heavily charged assertation.

Yet where is the proof? That sexism occured in the media and by some bloggers and even people is not in contention here, but that's not 'prevelent adn destructive sexism'. In fact to reach such a level you'd have to have Clinton offices being vandalized, the Clintons being told that this isn't 'man work' or to 'get back in teh kitchen' and not just once or twice but persistently.

You are claiming further it seems that 50% of the democratic party agrees with you, a number frankly you have no support for and I think a number you made up.

Where's you're proof?

Further who exactly are you accusing of sexism?

Because I've seen a number of people imply alot but then when called on them they run away from that, so please be clear. You may think it silly but it saves misundertandings.

That's what I'm talking about

by drache 2008-06-15 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: hhhmmmm

im not sure i follow you - you've given examples of things that you would call destructive.  i dont agree.

let be clear, the MEDIA has been sexist and biased although some would argue that they are both the same.  but the media is a pivotal part of the political process whereby they disseminate messages to the electorate many of whom are apathetic and do not bother challenging or questioning what is being reported.

as to proof all ive got for you is a new Rasmussen poll, 68% of voters believe that the media is biased.  when they do a poll about sexism i will get back to you. ;)

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 07:12PM | 0 recs
okay

well then we're just going to disagree then

but let me know when you have that poll, but tell then I'd ask you to back off that claim.

by drache 2008-06-15 08:25PM | 0 recs
You mean

the poll she has linked in the comment you just responded to? You mean that poll?

by kevin22262 2008-06-16 07:11AM | 0 recs
that poll

is not what evidence of what she claimed.

It supports the statement that 'a large majority feels the media is biased'

Not that 'there was  a prevelant and destructive amount of sexism in the primairy'

Can you see the difference there?

And the latter was the claim made not the former. At least by CG

If she or you or frankly anyone else expects me to believe there is a majority of people that think there was a prevelant and destructive amount of sexism (or even racism) then I want proof. I'm not just going to take someone's word that they really speak for more people then them selves

<shrug>

What can I say, I'm a scienctist and as a scientist I'm not just going to take a statement on faith

by drache 2008-06-16 11:38AM | 0 recs
I have to point out...

...that Krugmans bias in this is very clear--he hates Barack Obama and has leveled any and every idiotic charge against him that he can make up. That's not to say that things haven't been ugly, but using Krugman as an authority figure to back it up doesn't hold a lot of weight in this case.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 07:08PM | 0 recs
eh...

Read back through the thread. You started the baseless claims by saying that half of democratic voters think sexism played a role.

The whole exchange was kind of funny actually, since neither of you knew what the other was talking about.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-15 07:05PM | 0 recs
drache:

you need to look at a poster's history before breaking out the toll label.

Canadian Gal has done a phenomenal job covering the media.  For instance she found the Women's Media Center Video on Sexism and has posted it here.

For your labelling of Canadian Gal as a troll I am must resort to a montage to describe your actions as a picture is worth 1k words:


You logic in breaking out that was like this logic of the guy driving the car.

You handled your self as well as the guy in this picture

You demonstrated a level of thinking below the kid on the tryke.

Even Bob Barker weighs in on your judgment

Your repeated opportunity claim is like the device shown here.

Or like the the cat...

or like the driver of the car,

Or the tank...

or the snowboarder (are you beginning to get the picture)

I must conclude that you had something to do with this train to come to a logical conclusion like you did.

Bisses,

Student Guy

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: drache:

You know, having to scroll through a bunch of fail pictures is actually more irritating than reading the rest of this very irritating discussion.

I think the numerous fail pictures is really best reserved for diaries that fail. Comments that fail should only get a single fail picture. Otherwise, the fail pictures are more harmful to the diary than the stupid comments.

by letterc 2008-06-15 11:54PM | 0 recs
you know there are better ways

less annonying ways of making your point

I mean seriously, after posting all those pictures telling me I fail; why should I listen to you?

Many people by now would be irratated and upset.

I'm sorry you don't like the way I think

I'm sorry you didn't like the questions I was asking.

I had probelms with the dairy and CG (at the times) wasn't answering them and wasn't even bothering to answer my questions.

Now at that point what should I conclude? I mean I'd tried to be reasonable, I'd tried giving as many oppurtunities as I could while drawing CG's attention to the probelm I was having with her responses.

And what happened? She accused me of what she was doing.

Now frankly there is one thing I do regret, I do regret that I didn't make it clear that I was calling her comments right at that point trollish not the entirity of her work. Because let's face it every one has it in them to act in a trollish manner and most do from time to time.

Perhaps you don't agree with me, and well that's fine by me because I really don't care if you do or you don't.

Hell I don't care if you continue to spam fail pics, because I don't know you and I don't really care what your opnion of me is.

I will be who I am and you like everyone else will either like me for being me or you won't. That's out of my hands but I'm not going to retard myself for strangers.

by drache 2008-06-16 05:30AM | 0 recs
I swear

you can't read.

This was in response to you calling canadiangirl a troll.

by kevin22262 2008-06-16 07:17AM | 0 recs
my reading skills are fine

are yours?

Because seriously I was only saying that because it seemed me and her were going only in circles because she wouldn't answer my questions.

Since she has it should be obvious that my previous criticism is no longer valid.

by drache 2008-06-16 11:34AM | 0 recs
I spent more time in real life

discussing the sexism Clinton faced than I did here, in part because here I usually saw someone making the necessary point before I'd had a chance to. Also, the conversations about sexism did become too candidate specific so at times it was too frustrating to even stick my head up and join the conversation. But regardless of my past failures to stand up and be counted, I do agree with you that we should have a conversation about unacceptable behavior.

So, as an Obama primary voter, and a person who'd love to have dinner with Hillary Clinton but is frankly relieved she isn't the nominee, I think it is important that we discuss sexism in the media. They're coming after Michelle. They're coming after Barack. And if there's one thing everyone should be able to agree that Clinton's career has given us, it's a fine sample of media folks and republicans freaking out about a strong woman.

We should speak out when we see these patterns repeating. And we should be able to point out the similarity to prior attacks on Clinton without being automatically accused of being a covert holdout for Hillary still fighting the primary battle. Sexism in the media didn't end when Hillary lost, and that battle (against sexism) is ongoing.

From a tactical perspective, I think it's easier to have a non-Hillary conversation on this site at this time. But as far as my personal awareness is concerned, I think it's foolish to ignore our most recent evidence of sexism in the media because... why? because some people don't have enough faith in their fellow dems to give them a fair hearing? I can see that throwing a wrench in a conversation here, but I also think we need to move forward to a place where that's not the case.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I made it very clear

If we are basing all our evidence off anecdotes, I have to say that no one that I have met (both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters) has mentioned sexism.  There was sexism in this campaign, but I do believe that only the most extreme (like us here) either noticed it or are talking about it.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-15 08:00PM | 0 recs
Hmm

was there sexism, definitely.  I've acknowledged this since I wrote a diary that debated who was more worthy of epic fail status John McCain or Chris Matthews (I thought it was Johnny Mac by a small margin)

Did it play a role in the outcome of the election, possibly.  There are those who voted against her on strictly gender reasons.  Would these voters have voted for her if she was male or got a fair treatment by the media.  There is not enough information to tell.

However her gender was an asset as well looking at the the exit polls as there was usually a contigent of voters who voted for her based on gender, would these voters have voted for her if she was male or if she got fair treatment by the media, again a lack of information.

I do know that she became a far better candidate in April and May than she was pre March.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm

I think that's an oft-overlooked part of the discussion. She certainly welcomed a portrayal of herself as a candidate for women, which undoubtedly gained her votes among older women.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm

No younger women voted for Hillary?

by Jeter 2008-06-15 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm

Some did. But the majority of them went for Obama. Just as some older women voted for Obama, but the majority went for Clinton.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:22PM | 0 recs
im pretty sure that is inaccurate.

proof please.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: im pretty sure that is inaccurate.

Proof that the majority of younger women went for Obama?

It's in the CNN exit polls. Pick a state that went to either candidate by <5% (ie, no blowouts). In such cases, the majority of women under 65 usually voted for Obama, while the complement went to Clinton. Young women voted the way young men did, in that the majority of the younger vote went to Obama.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:25PM | 0 recs
Here's Missouri.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#MODEM

Women 18-44 went decisively for Obama. Women 60 and over went decisively for Clinton. They tied women 45-59.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 12:28PM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

For someone who constantly posts here and are supposedly interested in politics, did you totally miss all the articles (in various media) outlining the bitterness between 1st and 2nd generation feminists?

by Regenman 2008-06-15 01:01PM | 0 recs
nah.

i want proof which was not provided.  firewall provided a link to one contest that reflected this premise.  and the comment was that contests within 5% showed this.  sorry - CONCRETE EVIDENCE.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: nah.

As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1812050,00.html

Good article...

by hootie4170 2008-06-15 05:52PM | 0 recs
thanks for proving my point.

Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

You asked for proof of more younger women voting for Obama and more older women voting for Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary...all I did was provide you the proof that you didn't think existed.

by hootie4170 2008-06-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

the commenter said the MAJORITY of younger women went for BO.  that is inaccurate as your article states...

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

That's exactly what the article states, CG.

As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women.

And that's what I stated about four hours ago upthread.

I respect your opinions with regard to the need to have a discussion on sexism, but it becomes difficult to have any discussion if you aren't willing to concede basic facts about the primaries. You don't see Obama supporters claiming the majority of votes from older women went to Obama, because it just isn't true.

by Firewall 2008-06-15 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

he didnt provide proof - but i went and looked it up to prove YOUR point - and it appears you were right.

while young women supported Obama by 53-45 percent

usually when questioned for proof its not the burden of the questioner to provide it.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

It's also not the responsibility of the questioner to just deny that proof when it's given.  I have no idea what the point of denying that was.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-15 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for proving my point.

Whatever...your discourse is certainly diminishing,,,

by hootie4170 2008-06-15 06:45PM | 0 recs
optimist vs. pessimist frame

is dangerous. Particularly since Sullivan seems to argue that the optimists are right. It's not a worthless article, but like a lot of Amy Sullivan's work it relies on overstated assumptions.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 06:17PM | 0 recs
Well said, but...

I disagree that she became a better candidate in April and May. I think she presented herself better, that her campaign improved, but she was the same candidate as always.

Maybe I'm just parsing too much. ;-)

by Swedie 2008-06-15 12:27PM | 0 recs
Yeah

I think I meant that she began to present the candidate that the Hillary fans believed she was.

Based on her candidacy pre March I wasn't very impressed, and wouldn't have donated to her.

But because of her strong showing and finding how to present herself to maximum effect she showed that she is a great politician and one who I want to have a large future in the democratic party, so I donated to her

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 12:34PM | 0 recs
Sexism is an issue in politics

Do the math.
Over 50% of the citizenry is female.  Less than 20% of elected officials at a national level is female.
Who controls most of the wealth in this country? Who holds the overwhelming majority of CEO positions?
The Supreme Court is NOT 50% female.
Even in a profession where women are dominant, education, the highest paying positions (Superintendents, High level administration....are male).  Up until the 90s male PE teachers had a much better chance of becoming a principal than women whose career had been in the classroom, where understanding curriculum was most important.

Did Hillary lose because of sexism.  It is unprovable one way or another.  Was sexism an issue?  Of course.  Was racism?  Of course (but not from the Clinton camp....)
And in my view, ageism, something that hurts women more than men was an issue also.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 12:35PM | 0 recs
Umm I admited there was sexism

and that the media failed with regards to that, I am boycotting Leno because of it for instance because he went too far (he portrayed Hillary as a white trash, large breasted women seeking attention as a joke).

Was this in reply to me?

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
You can't use a strawman

I can do the math that nearly 90% of all truck drivers are male.  Does that mean there's sexism in the trucking industry or reflect that from a social viewpoint, women aren't interested in professions that require a large dose of isolation?

70% (I think) of this current crop of pediatricians are women.  Does that mean the pediatric field is sexist against men?  Or does it mean that women like treating children more than men like treating children.  Wow, there's actually some difference in how men and women think and that actually does influence their choice of careers.

Simplistic arguments like yours don't contribute to the discussion.  Drop it.

by Regenman 2008-06-15 01:07PM | 0 recs
You are the one who is simplistic

and ignorant.

When I was a teen girl, I couldn't get a job pumping gas.  WHY?  Because girls did not work at gas stations cause we were told we  couldn't understand  how cars worked.  Back then I did not know one woman who had driven even a small truck. Few of my mother's generation drove cars.  Women as truck drivers?  I am only 61 and I didn't know women COULD be truck drivers. Hell, I didn't know they could be doctors, or lawyers or astronauts or scientists.  In the 1950's when I grew up, women's choices were limited, our education was limited.  
And now you honestly think women aren't truck drivers because we "CHOSE"?  You honestly think there are more female pediatricians because women CHOSE THAT.  How many female surgeons do you know outside of Grey's Anatomy?  
It was 1980 before I worked for a female principal in an elementary school.  In a profession overwhelmingly female, a male PE teacher had a better chance at a high paying administrative job than a female classroom teacher with years of experience with curriculum.

You either have buried your head in the sand for decades, are too sexist to get it, or you just are delusional.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 02:47PM | 0 recs
1990

In 1990, I was a teenage girl working concessions at a movie theater. I'd been there for over a year and had been a reliable and hardworking employee. Working as an usher (keeping the lobby and theaters clean) was considered a more desireable job than concessions (you actually got dirtier selling popcorn than you did picking up trash). I'd requested that I get some usher hours when they became available. The manager promoted a guy that I had trained(!!) over me. I went to discuss it with him, and he said that girls just couldn't be ushers. I was shocked that he was so open about it, and angrily responded that was sexual discrimination. Then I went on a combo bitter/sarcastic mini-rant about how heaven forbid we trust women to pick up trash they hardly have any experience doing it. I got my usher hours, but as long as he was the manager, he'd never formally promote me to usher. 1990 wasn't that long ago, and the idea that women couldn't pick up trash was perfectly absurd, and yet there I was having that experience because some guy thought theater usher was a man's job.

Mine is far from the most damaging example, but the fact that something like that would happen on such a petty scale demonstrates the degree to which some people are attached to enforcing gender norms about jobs.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: 1990

I worked for a company in 1989 for 2 months.  I went there for a programmer analyst job and was told that women weren't good at programming.  However, they had another job (data entry) and since I really needed a job (had to pay the rent), I took it.

I also got a headhunter that week to help me find a job in my chosen profession.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 03:12PM | 0 recs
Women in tech fields were still feeling it

well into the millenium.

I wrote about it in another diary here...
http://mydd.com/story/2008/6/15/185918/7 45

I got my master's in educational technology in 1986.  Been online since 1989.  Still am treated like I am stupid.
It's funny. Even before I got my MA I loved tinkering with tech stuff.  So in my school I was the one always fixing the televisions, computers and testing the new equipement.  But no matter what when a sub was in, when a new teacher came to the buildng, when they were stuck they always sent the kids to Mr. X to come and help.  He was clueless and always sent the kids to me.  It was a scenario that played out over and over.  When they started putting out ed tech mags for teachers, the first year every cover showed a male teacher and mostly male students. I wrote and complained.  So did other female teachers.  

To this day, there is still a myth about tech and gender.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 04:18PM | 0 recs
For me, 1998

I am an Accountant.  Went to work for a start up tech company.  Worked my way up to Controller.  CFO left the company; no big loss I was doing all the work anyway.  He was never there - he was a friend of one of the investors.  I wanted the CFO job - if not CFO at least Director of Finance.  I was told the investors/BoD would feel more comfortable with a man even though I had been with the company from the beginning.  

by JustJennifer 2008-06-15 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of its Innocen

I guess I never really saw either Obama or Clinton as true progressives.  The progressive movement that I support is the one that had Paul Wellstone and now has Russ Feingold.  These are true progressives. Both Clinton and Obama, by contrast, are more centrist.

by temptxan 2008-06-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
Which &quot;progressives&quot; were being sexist?

Sexism made as a charge simply being in the air isn't very compelling. Sexism is a very real problem but we need to be specific in our criticism. The comic provided by Krugman is certainly of that character (and just a bad cartoon) but I can't see who the writer is to see if they are a real progressive.

by DSloth 2008-06-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
Little things like taking

for granted the black vote, and just assuming the inevitability that said voting bloc would vote for you because of the past and not the present.

Realizing that the DLC has some cronyism that is not at all progressive.

Understanding that in West Virginia, and Appalachia  for some democrats, voting for a black man is literally out of the question and can be used effectively as a wedge issue, IF you are willing to go there for political gain.

Realizing that 'street money' and paying folks to come out for you is part of the push to get out the vote?

Being afraid of retribution if you don't support 'so and so' because I did you favors in the past, and now you 'owe' me.

Nothing like a little sunshine as a disinfectant.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 12:19PM | 0 recs
ah missliberties!

our very latest...  thanks for adding to the honest chat on sexism!

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Did you want to change

the title of your dairy then?

It says "The Year Progressives Lost Much of Their Innocence"

It does not say "The Year Sexism Lost Much of It's Innocence".

Is only sexism on the table for progressives or are their other issues that can come to light?

by missliberties 2008-06-15 12:30PM | 0 recs
im guessing that you didnt actually read the diary

or are a troll...

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:37PM | 0 recs
I am a woman that believes in

embracing equality.

I consider it sexist of you to denigrate my opinions, woman to woman.

As a female I am free to look at 'the candidates' in the entirety of their personhood, and avoid making judgements on sexual preferances.

Equality for both blacks and woman has been improving over the last decades. So if you will pardon me, I would prefer to start looking at the glass as half full.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I am a woman that believes in

Your "opinions" weren't denigrated.  You were off topic ~ please don't trivialize THIS topic by saying you were a 'victim' of sexism.

by Mags 2008-06-15 09:25PM | 0 recs
I hold the right to my opinion
I consider cph's comments off base re: sexism, especially in light of
all the progress that we have made over the last few decades.
by missliberties 2008-06-16 05:17AM | 0 recs
Agreed

I think Krugman is projecting a bit.

First he calls them 'alleged progressives' then concludes by saying real progressives have lost their innocence.

So let's see....

Real progressives were the victims of sexism and had the race card used against them.

Alleged progressives were the one doing it or falling for it.

Gotcha Krugman, loud and clear.

IMO  We lost our innocence watching one Democrat after another saddle up to hannity and coulter, fox news and the weekly standard. Shred every progressive value if it meant scoring a point against the other guy.

Even if it first needed Democrats to accept the rightest wing frame possible.

Now Krugman is calling black people fools and tools who couldn't help believe their lying eyes.

Proving there was 20 or so horribly sexist comments made during the campaign by overpaid bobble heads on tv that should know better, in no way proves the Democratic electorate was/is sexist.

I'd like to see one of these diaries actually lay out which segment of the Democratic electorate was sexist, where she lost votes due to gender bias, what the Clinton campaign did to try and deal with what is being claimed was a hurdle.

Obama gave a speech on race, had community outreach people armed with answers and strategies to use when dealing with racism on the trail.

If sexism was so rampant in the Democratic primary surely the Clinton campaign was actively trying to work through it. Surely complaining about it wasn't the only response.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed

so I guess Howard Dean is a friggin' liar then?

he noticed it and commented on it (of course, AFTER the primaries were over, but better late than never)

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 12:48PM | 0 recs
Liar?

Why do I have to call Howard Dean's opinion a lie if I don't agree with it?

Am I calling him a liar if he was giving voice to the concerns of his party members in an attempt to create unity?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 12:59PM | 0 recs
is this a snark?

serious question....

really - you believe Dean just pandered due to unity?

okkkaaayyyyyyy

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 01:06PM | 0 recs
Really??

You believe the Chairman of the Democratic party stayed quite about sexism during the primary to achive a hidden motive?

okkkaaayyyyyy

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Really??

I think he stayed out of it as not to show any favorites

I do believe Dean has always been in Obama's camp, but he had to stay neutral.

but I don't think he lied about the sexism charges, nor did it for unity pandering.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 01:35PM | 0 recs
I don't think he lied either

I also think he said it now for unity.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 01:55PM | 0 recs
and if you are right?

what the feck does that say about him, the DNC and progressives?

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:39PM | 0 recs
Nothing bad

Dean probably saw the sexism for what it was but realized Senator Clinton wouldn't have wanted to be treated like the helpless female needing the big strong man to come to her defense.

I also think he realized the sexism on display in the media wasn't isolated to Hillary, and wasn't having an impact on the campaign.

Once surrogates decided to defend against calls to drop out by claiming sexism I think Dean had to stay out.

Now that the race is over he is looking at a significant part of the party wanting some closure and recognition of grievances.

I don't think it reflects poorly on Dean or the DNC that he chose to give voice to those complaints.

He didn't call Obama sexist, didn't claim Hillary was a victim, or say that without the sexist media Hillary would be the nominee.

Had he said those things I would think he was pandering.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing bad

well, Donna Brazille, who is a DNC chair, had no problems whatsoever coming to the rescue of Obama and even making shit up(fairytale comment)

so, bunk on your theory.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 04:04PM | 0 recs
The race had its ugly moments

but considering the reality of the society we live in (plenty of racism and sexism to go around), I think we got off pretty easy.

And I disagree with the Al Gore/liar comparison. Gore never said he invented the internet, but guess what... his campaign didn't incorporate people crediting him with inventing the internet in its strategy. I'd agree that reports of Clinton race"baiting" were exagerrated. But you'll never convince me that the assumption that America's not ready to elect a black guy president wasn't part of the Clinton team's analysis of the race and fed (feeds?) their certainty that Obama would mean DOOM for dem chances in November.

Clinton is no George Wallace, but the suggestion that her campaign wasn't counting (without liking it) on racism to tilt this thing in her favor doesn't strike me as plausible. They're not stupid people, and there are plenty of racists in this country. They'd be negligent not to account for it somewhat, they just happened to be pessimistic in their take of the primary voters.

I do think sexism has been a problem and it should be discussed. As I said in another thread - the sexist attacks won't stop because we chose the man over the woman, the attackers will just feminize the man and repeat the sexist attacks about weakness, instability, naivete. I swear they get more overt about it every cycle. As we get more distance from the primary season, I think more Obama supporters will be open to seeing the ways in which Clinton was treated unfairly. And as Obama faces similar BS treatment, I hope those who currently have trouble seeing the sexism will see that the attacks are not merely wrong because Obama's not a female, but just plain wrong in general.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The race had its ugly moments

I see the exact same thing.  If this is about honesty, then we have to call it as is:

Krugman's statement is both self serving and denigrates anyone of at least moderate intelligence.  How else do you spin the "hard working" comment.  I am coming to peace with Hillary's statements, as time goes by.  It's fine -- politicians do this type of thing.  But rehashing it like this really peeves me.

Krugman is spinning the same old racism v. sexism strategy.  I mean, if he were all about unity he'd just be quiet: Hillary is going to have to live with the meme she forwarded, just like all of the the media who used sexist attacks on Hillary should be ashamed when they tuck their daughters in at night.  

There is unquestionably a loss of innocence; but there is no higher ground to be had, and any claim by Krugman that there may be is at best self-serving; and don't call me stupid.  

by such sweet thunder 2008-06-15 01:38PM | 0 recs
Agreed

When did Krugman become a petty blogger?

I clicked the link thinking the quote was a snip from a longer piece but instead found these little quips lined up like any third rate blog.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 02:40PM | 0 recs
Never mind that MEN

Bill Clinton, specifically brought it up, and could be said to be one of the worst offenders.

The Attack Timeline was used to rile up feminist anger.

McCain is now trying to woe those that were disaffected to his side.

His strategists plan on using Hillary's words in attack ads against Barack Obama.

The whole thing disturbs me no end.

Where is Hillary's speech standing up for blacks.

Where was her campaign speech standing up for women?

Missing from the lexicon completely, until her concession speech.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Never mind that MEN

Of course sexism is a serious issue.  That said, I think it important to note that Clinton wasn't all that concerned about feminism in the primary.  Why do I say this?  Because I believe that part of her strategy was to make feminists feel that if they didn't back her, they were being untrue to the cause.  This did a tremendous disservice to feminism.  It also set at odds two great allies, the anti-racist and anti-sexist forces.

"Hillary is NOW Damaging Feminism"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/3/

by Mitchell A 2008-06-15 12:46PM | 0 recs
It's pretty tough to claim

the  mantle of victim and strong leader in the same breath. It just doesn't work.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 12:58PM | 0 recs
Krugman's Innocence.

It's good to see Mr. Krugman shocked and chagrined by the "raw sexism" evident from some quarters during this campaign. Good, also, to seem him call out the "willful misinterpretations" and unfair narratives promulgated by those who consider themselves progressives.

It's a shame, though, that he doesn't acknowledge his own culpability in advancing the "cult" memes regarding Obama's campaign, which themselves were dishonest and damaging. Something he did repeatedly, and unapologetically.

He needs to admit to his own loss of innocence in that regard.

by BobzCat 2008-06-15 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of its Innocen

There's a lot of vagueness here.  CG said above that sexism didn't decide the outcome but it affected it.

Now, where is the evidence for that and what does "affected" mean besides affecting the outcome?

Please consider this a plea for definitional clarity and for evidence related to definition.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-15 12:34PM | 0 recs
interesting comment.

but it would be impossible for me to quantify this.  i know that a large chunk of the electorate do not peruse blogs and/or are knowledgeable about media norms etc.  so if a average person turns on their television or opens their newspaper and is consistently flooded with derogatory or negative stories about one candidate whilst balanced with glowing coverage of the other (for the most part) logic would dictate that it had an effect.  would it have changed the outcome?  who knows?  but the point is that while it is impossible to quantify - that goes both ways.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: interesting comment.

I've read lots of academic studies on the media and what they find is that when candidates are not doing well, they get negative media coverage. For example, when a candidate struggles in the polls and loses elections, that candidate ends up with more negative stories. And that's the order.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-15 06:01PM | 0 recs
More good than bad

Rec'ing this because it is a good faith request to discuss the issue.

While there was obviously sexism from the media during the campaign, I'm curious how you feel about attempts by Clinton to paint certain things as sexist when they obviously were not.  For example, when questions were raised about her staying in the race it was painted as the "the boys trying to force her our", when the same thing happens with all candidates when they have little chance to win and staying can damage party unity.

By and large though, I'm very proud of our party for nominating a qualified woman and African American, and for unifying behind the winner of the primary.  More good than bad came from this season.

by Didion 2008-06-15 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: More good than bad

Another example would be Ferraro's claim that it was sexist when Clinton was given a lot of attention by other candidates in the debates when Clinton was the clear front runner.  As we know, the front-runner always gets that sort of treatment in debates.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-15 12:37PM | 0 recs
Another

Ambitious.

Cllinton complain it was sexist that her ambition to become president was an issue.

The issue was her calculating every vote and policy on attaining the presidency, principles be damned.

Not a long held desire to be President.

Disagree all you want regarding the validity of the assertion that Clinton made every decision for the past 8 yrs based on how it would affect her presidential ambitions all you want, just don't call me a sexist for disagreeing with you.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 01:11PM | 0 recs
i am baffled at this comment.

how do you not see that talking of her ambition is not sexist?  did we ever hear those words to describe any of the male candidates?  the answer is a big resounding no.  they are and were used to play on the meme that she is calculating and manipulative.  

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:44PM | 0 recs
Of course we do

Don't be silly.

First, the Clinton team tried to combat the meme by saying Obama was just as ambitious. The reason that was widely mocked wasn't because Obama wasn't just as ambitious, it was because nobody was faulting the ambition.

A prime example is her hawkish FP. Many progressives feel her war vote and continued saber rattling was all political posturing for future presidential votes. NOT a fair representation for the constituents that elected her.

The same argument were being made against Edwards. The convenient populist they called him.

Say anything to get elected was the charge and ambition motivated it.

Not, women should know their place.

 

by Is This Snark 2008-06-15 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: i am baffled at this comment.

Do you forget the people who said "Obama should wait his turn."?  That he is too ambitious...

by hootie4170 2008-06-15 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of its Innocen

I don't see evidence, by the way, that people didn't vote for Clinton because of sexism.

One sort of evidence that this is not so is that the states where Clinton did best were extremely socially conservative, certainly not bastions of feminism -- places like WV, AK, and KY. Meanwhile, Obama did well in places that are known as progressive and feminist, places like OR and Wisconsin.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-15 12:36PM | 0 recs
There is a contingent of voters

who said that gneder was an important issue and voted for Obama, so it did play a small role.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#OHDEM

40% of the people who said gender was important voted for Obama.  the total category was 17% of the electorate so that is approx 6% of the total vote was a "sexist vote" or more than 10% of Obama's vote total in Ohio.

That said you can do the same analysis for race.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a contingent of voters
Thanks SG.
Next time I will read all comments before posting.
by PurpleMyst 2008-06-15 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a contingent of voters

So she still came out ahead by 20 points among sexists?  She also won the "race was important" vote 60/40, so at least in OH, I see her having no reason to complain.

by username 2008-06-15 01:18PM | 0 recs
Agreed

So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar -- by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

Yup, also similar to what Gore endured was the phony  media BS about Obama being an elitist that Clinton gleefully took advantage of.

by libertyleft 2008-06-15 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed

The media didn't create this narrative. Lots of people in the public came to that conclusion by themselves.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-15 12:40PM | 0 recs
Is that snark?

nt

by libertyleft 2008-06-15 12:44PM | 0 recs
Sort of like a lot of people

came to the conclusion that having a habitual liar wasn't worth having as a nominee.

Wow, two can play the jacktard routine....

by Regenman 2008-06-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of its Innocen

I am more than happy to engage in legitimate discussion of whether or not there was sexism in the race- there was.

However, to pretend that there was no race-baiting, by the media or by the Clinton campaign is AS BAD as pretending there was no sexism in the race.

You can't talk about one and ignore the other and you cannot pretend one is somehow worse than the other.

by JDF 2008-06-15 12:47PM | 0 recs
We need to broaden this discussion

The real issue we need to contend with is not simply whether there was sexism or racism.  The real question is how did the media perform in this election?  My answer is, "horrible."  What is really disheartening, though, is that this election was a moral and ideological catastrophe for the "new media."

As long as it was "us" vs. the Bush Administration, the unbridled partisan nature of the discourse in the new media wasn't in conflict with our values as liberals and progressives.  However, once the battle turned within, partisanship had to be pursued more carefully.  Unfortunately for all of us, too many progressives cared more about winning than about adhering to our values.  This is Krugman's fundamental point.  A point that we need to hear and heed.

Kudos to mydd, though, for steering a straight ship when virtually every other new media outlet had run aground.

by dbrown04 2008-06-15 12:48PM | 0 recs
I'm curious...
I know there were exit polls done in some states which asked if race was a factor in their decision.
Were there exit polls done asking if gender was a factor?  If so, what were the results?
by PurpleMyst 2008-06-15 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm curious...
I would also like to add that I'm not being argumentative in posting this.  
Since I rarely watch TV I don't know the extent and scope of the sexism in the MSM coverage.
Educate me, don't flame me, please!!
by PurpleMyst 2008-06-15 01:03PM | 0 recs
Once again, thank you, Krugman.

I have been yelling from the rafters about this for months now without getting much attention.

I've been paying attention!

Ah, and thanks, CG, for posting this diary. Your coverage of sexism in this campaign has been unparalleled. Recommended.

by sricki 2008-06-15 12:56PM | 0 recs
So moving forward

How do you intend to advance the cause getting rid of sexism as bias?

Mother's raise their daughters and their sons. What do they see at home? What do they see in the media. What part of men v woman is purely animal biology? Does that matter? How do we teach are children not to become victims.

Are there male stereotypes that we should avoid. Do mean have to pretend to be macho to make it in this world.? Is that a worse burden then women having to pretend to be macho to make it in this world.

Hillary fell victim to the stereotype that a woman that is smart and embraces her femine side could not win in this campaign. Which is why she went for the tough Margaret Thacther image.

In my view, part of Hillary's mistake was not embracing her feminism, and trying to act macho, to fit the role of Commander in Cheif.

by missliberties 2008-06-15 01:16PM | 0 recs
thanks sricki.

i have tried to be diligent - its just unfortunate and telling that its falling mostly on deaf ears.  and the purpose of this diary it seems was lost on the bulk of the commenters.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks sricki.
Maybe it's because for many the race isn't over.
Maybe deep down you feel Senator Clinton was cheated. Do you now support Obama or do you believe he is sexist? Thank you
by Politicalslave 2008-06-15 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks sricki.

i do feel she was cheated by the media- yes.  and i do not think BO is sexist in any way- but he certainly benefitted from its ugliness in the primary.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks sricki.

That's what I thought you feel she was cheated out of winning because of the media. Thank you

by Politicalslave 2008-06-15 05:18PM | 0 recs
ah - i see what you are trying to do....

the old bait and switch...  go ahead put words into my mouth, but that's not what i said.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: ah - i see what you are trying to do....

Sorry what did you mean then? Cheers

by Politicalslave 2008-06-16 08:16PM | 0 recs
My analysis

I think both sides just started out with campaign tactics and roles and just ran with them. Clinton supporters are just as guilty of being controlled by the media as Obama supporters. Obama ran with a message of hope and was called a messiah or a cult leader. And his opponents all ran with it. The problem with that was that it wasn't even an assault on Obama, it was a direct assault on progressives themselves. After that, it all snowballed. We still see it now when someone will note a negative campaign tactic by Obama and turn it on his supporters for following a false prophet. It is unfair and so very dangerous, because Obama's strong campaign skills should be considered an asset and a positive, not an annoyance or character flaw.

Obama's campaign ran with Clinton as a fearsome adversary who was ruthless to win. But the thing is, that's what they had to do in order to win. He was the underdog, and when you're the underdog, you have to hammer that narrative. They made some mistakes in terms of focus, but politicians are what they are and the game is what it is. Candidates who refuse to compromise cannot last.

But as far as the media goes, the primary sin of many Clinton supporters is refusing to divorce the effects of sexism from character issues relating to Hillary herself. There were reasons people disliked Clinton, myself included. Over time, I had some of those concerns assuaged as she stopped the inevitable tactic and particularly as she showed the willingness to sacrifice and genuine humility that wasn't normally part of her public persona.

But honestly, I can't say how many of those character issues were because of her gender. I can only say that I did not get those same issues from other female politicians.

by vcalzone 2008-06-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

I missed the part about us Obama supporters. We heard the narrative from Obama about Hillary, and many of us already felt that way. We overestimated her, but in a very negative way. There are many things I would take back if I could. There are many things I think Obama would take back if he could. It can't be done, but we can at least admit that we were too rough and too trigger-happy. I, personally, can admit that I had misconceptions about Hillary. If I knew then what I knew now, if we all knew then what we know now, we probably would not have assumed a lot of things that we did. I still don't think she would have won the general if she had won back in February, I still don't think that I would have been happy with the abandonment of Dean's proven strategy. But I wouldn't have been so mean about it.

by vcalzone 2008-06-15 01:19PM | 0 recs
Divorcing effects of sexism &amp; character flaws

I think this is an important point. Or as I put it to my mom, quite a few people started out having sexist concerns about Clinton's candidacy, and then she gave them substantive concerns to replace them with. Are these people guilty of considering her in a sexist manner? Yes. But did sexism really guide their ultimate decision? I think there's a good argument that, no, it didn't. (Just as I suspect Clinton picked up quite a few voters who started out with sexist concerns and set them aside to vote for her).

That's why I think it's better to isolate the discussion about sexism as much as possible away from the individual candidate and votes. No woman deserves to deal with "iron my shirt." It really doesn't matter who they are (unless they're trying to get a job at a dry cleaner).

by Mobar 2008-06-15 01:30PM | 0 recs
The Big Elephant in the Room

Why is it ok to throw around the term "sexism" but not "race-bating"?

Falsely being accused of race-bating hurt Clinton every bit as much if not more than sexism.

Having a whole demographic hate you because they believe you engaged in race-bating is the political equivalent of a career-ending flagorant foul.

I know its a touchy subject but that is exactly why there will be so many defections in November. The sooner Obama gets Hillary on the ticket the better.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Agreed.  While we can never know whether sexism by itself cost Clinton the nomination, it is far more likely that the culmination of all of the anti-Clinton vitriol did cost her the nomination.  Most of it, in my view, was petty and unjustifiable.  While Barack Obama was given a free pass by pundits for his gaffes/misstatements/lies, Hillary Clinton was vilified to the extreme in the MSM and the blogosphere (yes, even here on myDD) for making statements that as Krugman writes, were willfully misinterpreted.

The notion that Clinton was a race-baiter was one of the most disingenuous, shameful, and effective strategies of the Obama campaign that they could have employed.  It was all done so smoothly, with surrogates as well as closet surrogates (who hid under the veil of objectivity) decrying the Clinton's racism, or at the least, implicitly alluding to it.  Among the most notorious examples, from what I recall, were Donna Brazile and Jim Clyburn.

by MMR2 2008-06-15 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Obama and Clinton had virtually the same voting record on Iraq. Bill Clinton's comment that the idea that Obama was always against the war was "the biggest fairy-tale" was plausible and certainly not racists in any way. But, Donna Brazile was right there on TV saying how offended she was at the comment. "Offended" at what? No one  pressed her on that.

Clyburg's behavior was reprehensible. He just said a few weeks ago that he has heard that the Clinton's were deliberately trying to lose the election for Obama. An outrageous comment that he could not backup and that no one questioned him on. He also said that blacks were supportive of Bill Clinton during the impeachment (true) and that "this" is one hell of a way for Clinton to pay them back.

I guess Bill Clinton's sin was advocating for his wife and not kissing Obama's ring right away. The free AIDS medicine Bill Clinton's foundation has already provided to literally millions of blacks counts for nothing. Obama, Brazille and Clyburg feel that playing the race-card on him and Hillary is perfectly fine.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Haha, yes, they have nearly the same record if you don't count the most important vote of all.

And I think Clyburn had a point (I also think you need to get some class and quit mocking elected officials who you disagree with): the Clintons were all too eager to throw black preachers under the bus when it proved politically expedient to do so (Wrightgate, Jesse Jacksongate, and so forth).

Bill Clinton's sin was flying off the handle at the slightest provocation and making insensitive racial remarks in South Carolina.

by authority song 2008-06-15 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Obama was not in the US senate so he didn't cast any vote on the authorization to use force (there has never been a vote on going to war with Iraq).

Obama said that he doesn't know how he would have voted on the resolution.

Obama was running for reelection in one of the most liberal places in the country, so saying he was opposed to the war is hardly showing any courage, it was a no-brainer politically speaking.

Since being in the US senate he has voted to fully keep funding the war. He has made no speaches in the senate against the war. He has voted virtually the exact same way as Hillary in Iraq.

Obama is the ONLY one who has thrown black preachers under the bus. The Clinton's never threw Jesse Jackson under the bus. You just completely made that up as it didn't happen.

Obama is the ONLY one who threw Wright and Trinity church under the bus. Get your facts straight!!!

by mmorang 2008-06-15 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Qualifications and justifications. We had a choice between a candidate who showed no courage and voted for the war, and a candidate who spoke out against the war before the vote and continued to afterwards. Yes, their votes after the war are similar, mostly because a certain ex-candidate realized the political winds had shifted and it was time to change her tack. But given the choice, I'm going to take the guy who was always against the war, and most primary voters agreed with me.

I still think its shameful the way the Clintons threw black community leaders under the bus, as they did with Rev. Wright, who was an adviser to Bill after Monica-gate.

by authority song 2008-06-15 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Wright was not an advisor to Bill Clinton.  He was invited to a prayer meeting.

please stop trying to tie everything that has gone wrong with the Obama campaign into the Clintons.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Happy to accept Wright's presence in the White House for positive PR, but all too eager to toss him under the bus the second he got taken out of context on Youtube.

Yep, that's a whole lot better.

by authority song 2008-06-15 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

the Clintons' didn't toss Wright under the bus as they were not near the bus

don't blame the Clintons for what Obama did.  You should be more PO'd at Obama for flip-flopping his way around this issue the way that he did.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Funny, Obama threw Wright under the bus and he threw the Catholic priest under the bus and he finally threw his church of 20 years under the bus. Yet, you claim the Clinton's have thrown those people under the bus. That is funny...and obviously wrong. Obama threw Trinity church under the bus, not Clinton (you should repeat this it will be healthy for you). Obama threw his pastors under the bus, not Clinton.

You're kidding, right? Wright was an advisor the Bill Clinton after Monicagate? What did he advise him on, thrusting? Why would anyone take advice from Wright on anything?

The Clinton's didn't throw any black reverends under the bus.

by mmorang 2008-06-17 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

I think the point is that while some of that anti-Clinton bias by the MSM came from sexism (we can never know how much), a lot of it also came from Hillary's experiences with members of the media, Bill's experiences, their treatment of former allies, etc.

There is no way to put a number on how much of the Hillary-hate came from sexism and how much came from other causes.  I do think we can agree that the Hillary-hate played a huge role (primary role?) in costing her the nomination.  I DON'T think we can say sexism was was the reason.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-15 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

That's because they race-baited. It's clear as day, and no notion of "unity" will stop me from pointing that out. Vote for McCain if it hurts your feelings to have the truth pointed out.

From the first day that the Clinton campaign saw Obama as a potential threat, they began a systematic process of characterizing him as the black candidate. Smart politics, but they got outplayed.

Moreover I find it offensive that you think that the "whole demographic" you speak of is unable to come to their own conclusions regarding what happened, and need to rely on a political candidate to tell them what to think. You deadenders have been calling Obama a race-baiter for months without the slightest shred of proof that he did any such thing, and it's sickening.

by authority song 2008-06-15 01:46PM | 0 recs
What a pile of nonsense

Hillary's comment that it takes someone on the outside (MLK) and someone on the inside (pres. Johnson) to get civil rights passed was historically accurate. She has worshipped MLK for decades, but Obama & co. said she was dissing MLK. Pathetic!

Jesse Jackson Jr. said that Hillary wasn't crying for Katrina. Race-bating, pure and simple.

Then there was Bill Clinton after the SC primary.

Reporter: "is Obama so good that it takes the two of you to beat him?"

Bill: "Jesse Jackson won here in 1984 & 1988, he ran a good race, Obama has run a good race here, he's run a good race EVERYWERE, but there are still many contests to go."

Clearly, Bill was advocating for his wife and down-playing his wife's opponent's victory. That is exactly what he's supposed to do. Jesse Jackson was viewed as a one-hit-wonder and that is what Bill was getting at. He wasn't supposed to be a chearleader for Obama.

But the Obama campaign sent out emails to all the media saying what Bill really meant. The Clinton's didn't play the race-card on themselves. They didn't send out emails to all the media puting an extremely negative spin on their own comments, Obama did.

Obama say's he takes them at their word on camera. Mean while, his campaign is working over-time to tar them with race-bating.

Both campaigns had people say stupid things, but to deliberately and cynically go after the former President of the United States and former First Lady is despicable.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

Even if her comment on the civil rights movement was true, why say it? Why be that tone-deaf?

Only the most dead-end of dead-enders can't accept the fact that Bill's "Jesse Jackson" remark was an attempt to marginalize Obama's victory. The subtext was "we tried hard, but, you know, those people (wink, wink)" If it wasn't meant to be a racial remark, it sure sounded like one, and again, how tone-deaf.

And again, I'd love to see your evidence of the Obama campaign pushing the race-baiting comments made by the Clintons. Responding to questions doesn't count - show me how they pushed the story and were responsible for the media coverage.

by authority song 2008-06-15 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

Of course it was to marginalize Obama's vicory. That is what I just said. That is what Bill was supposed to do. He is advocating for his wife, he's not advocating for Obama. There isn't a thing in the world wrong with anything he said.

There isn't anything wrong with what Hillary said. Not in tone or substance. Obama and company tried to turn both comments into something they were not: race-bating.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense
Problem is, he was trying to marginalize it as a
black candidate's victory...
by french imp 2008-06-15 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

One problem with your assertion is that the Clinton's didn't send the emails to the whole world trying to broadcast ANY message about race and the SC contest. Obama's campaign sent out the emails to everyone and got the word out as to THEIR interpretation of Bill's comments. THEY fanned the racial flames.

You are stating as fact YOUR interpretation of Bill Clinton's comments. You do not know what was in his head. It is patenly unfair and wrong to assign race-bating motives to comments that do not have any inherant racism in them.

You can't then go and tell the world that Bill Clinton was race-bating because you think you know what he was doing and you think you know what was in his head. Well, you can't if you're a decent person.

There is nothing inherantly racists about anything Bill or Hillary Clinton said. We already know that Obama is a black candidate. No one needs to tell us that. In short, there is no upside whatsoever for the Clinton's to engage in what you have NO proof they engaged in.

What Obama did was DEAD WRONG and what you're doing is DEAD WRONG. You are accusing people of race-bating when you have NO evidence whatsoever, just a hunch.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

In that case, in what sense do you admit Bill Clinton was marginalizing Obama's victory?

by french imp 2008-06-16 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

In other word, what do Obama and Jesse Jackson have in common?

by french imp 2008-06-16 01:39PM | 0 recs
The subtext according to whom??

You and the other Obama supporters.

BULL and race baiting.
Nasty and rovian.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: What a pile of nonsense

I think the problem is that Hillary and Bill made comments that were not racist on the face of it, but could easily be (mis)interpreted that way.  And let's not pretend like the same exact thing didn't happen with Obama with fingergate, "periodically" and "sweetie."  Not intended to be sexist, but easily misinterpreted that way.

That being said, it is completely clear to me that it is far less politically correct to be racist than sexist.  You can get away with mildly (or even majorly) sexist comments in the media, while the equivalent race-related comment would get you fired.  That, to me, is the awful lesson learned this primary.  Racism = vile, sexism = indifferent.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-15 08:21PM | 0 recs
I have to agree with you on one point

The call for unity, no matter how loud, will stop me and others from knowing the truth about Obama's race-bating against the former President of the United States and First Lady in this election. It will not stop me and others from speaking the truth about it.

The Republicans have already signaled that they will be revisiting the race-bating that went on in TV spots paid for by 527's. They will show the timeline of what was said when and by whom and for what purpose. Their hope is that when Hillary supporters are reminded of the race-bating (or are informed for the first time) that they will vote for McCain.

Again, if you think that Bill or Hillary Clinton engaged in race-bating you're nuts. There wouldn't be any upside to it. Obama is the one who had something to gain (like 90+% of the black vote and "progressive" vote).

by mmorang 2008-06-15 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you on one point

Correction:

The call for unity, no matter how loud, will NOT stop me and others from knowing the truth about Obama's race-bating against the former President of the United States and First Lady in this election. It will not stop me and others from speaking the truth about it.

The Republicans have already signaled that they will be revisiting the race-bating that went on in TV spots paid for by 527's. They will show the timeline of what was said when and by whom and for what purpose. Their hope is that when Hillary supporters are reminded of the race-bating (or are informed for the first time) that they will vote for McCain.

Again, if you think that Bill or Hillary Clinton engaged in race-bating you're nuts. There wouldn't be any upside to it. Obama is the one who had something to gain (like 90+% of the black vote and "progressive" vote).

by mmorang 2008-06-15 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Elephant in the Room

Krugman is absolutely right. The race-baiting charges were the ugliest part of this campaign, and the thing that turned me off most about Obama and his supporters, who were as he said as manipulated into outrage as were those fools that fell for the Gore as liar bs.  If it hurts your feelings to have it pointed out that you were manipulated by the media into this false sense of outrage that you still obviously feel, tough.

by bouvougan 2008-06-15 05:14PM | 0 recs
You are right on...hit the nail

on the head.

And frankly it disgusted me. I am having a very hard time dealing with that..launching those accusations at the Clintons was the same as when the right hurled cowardice at Kerry for his service in Vietnam.  They knew Kerry's service was a strength and attacked it, sadly, successfully.  The people behind Obama knew that Hillary had strength in the way she was loved and supported in the AA community.  So they spun and race baited. To me that was as low as it gets.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-15 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right on...hit the nail

Thanks for posting some proof that this actually happened.

by authority song 2008-06-15 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right on...hit the nail

I've been trying to convince myself that I will vote for Obama in the end. But I'm really not so sure.

If he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket I might have to sit this one out and I may have to leave the party.

I can't pretend that Obama didn't cynically play the race card when I know he did exactly that and the party "leaders" played along with him, like Kennedy, Brazille and Clyburg.

I know there are many black leaders who know what went down and feel bad about it but there isn't anything they can do. The support for Obama is so high in their districts. It's a shame.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost

sexism diaries are in vogue right now--

seriously though, talking about sexism is hard because some people blur the lines by adding candidate preference into the mix and being defensive. Talking about sexism is seen as a "Hillary' issue, which is far from what the ultimate reflection is meant to achieve (to recognize the sexism itself).


[way to jump on the bandwagon, canada. hahaaa.]

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-15 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost

Sexism played no role whatever in the narrow defeat of Clinton  while racism propagated entirely by the Clintons played a huge role. The credo of the Obamanauts. Total bs of course. As ever Krugman is not far off the mark.  

by ottovbvs 2008-06-15 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost

Unbelievably moronic. Please google Hillary and Google (images and text) and then report back with your findings.

by gorgias 2008-06-15 05:52PM | 0 recs
Cut to the Chase

Why would Hillary supporters not support Obama, here's why:

1. The PERSONALL attacks by Obama, specifically, the utterly false race-bating charges he leveled against both the former president of the United States and former First Lady.

2. Perceived rigged election (not counting FL and MI initially was one reason alone Hillary didn't win.

3. Perceived inexperience of Obama.

4. Heavy bias among the Dem "leadership"

5. Heavier bias by the media (they had their collective thumb on the scale for Obama.

6. Perceived sexism.

7. Obama not choosing Hillary to run with him despite the fact that she won half the votes and would have chosen him.

8. Obama never unconditionally just said he would support Hillary if she won. He always threw in his implicit point that his supporters would bolt the party if he wasn't awarded the nomination by the SD's.

9. The next president will inherit a nightmare and be blamed for the economic meltdown. If McCain wins it will be the end of the Republican party, not for a few election cycles, but the end of them for good.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 01:46PM | 0 recs
Blamez Ragekage for this

Il a écrit quelque chose dans l'Espagnol ainsi j'ai décidé d'examiner dehors mon français et il décent considère je ne l'ont pas parlé/ont écrit en années. Article très bon Canadian Gal.

Sorry for the literalness French grammar excaped me years ago.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 02:45PM | 0 recs
merci beaucoup.

but your french is still better than mine.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innoc

I think everybody missed the diarist's point.
If I understood well, she was not inviting us to re-write the history of this primary, but to comment on the fact that instances of sexism had been observed in progressive circles.
She was not inviting us to ponder to what extent this did affect the outcome, but rather the moral implications of this fact per se.

Apparently that's a difficult question!

I'm not sexist - I'm French (joke - possibly sexist joke?). I have followed this campaing almost from Iowa. To be frank, it did not strike me as sexist. Obviously there were some sexist attitudes; it is not acceptable; but I did not perceive this as something prevalent and I would not say that it characterizes the campaign. I don't think Obama's campaign was sexist in any way. Neither do I think Clinton's campaign was racist. I do think that Bill Clinton remarks after NC were at best totally stupid, I perfectly understand why the AA community was shocked by them. Back to sexism I guess that the level of sexism in the campaign corresponds to an overall level of sexism in society at large. I also percieved Hillary Clinton's explicit appeal to the votes of women as borderline sexist. Why should a woman vote for a woman? I don't seem to remember Obama explicitly appealing to AA votes.


I feel like taking a positive view; American society is what it is. This year it has done something extraordinary; 18 millon voters have chosen an African-American for their presidential candidate, and 18 million, a woman. And if all goes well the US will have an AA president in November. From now on, from then on, the race or gender of a presidential candidate will no longer matter.  This is a huge progress which is due to this imperfect primary campaign.

by french imp 2008-06-15 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Many of Clinton's supporters, I think, don't understand what the allegation is against them with respect to race.

Did you ever see that episode of "West Wing" where Santos (Jimmy Smits) had to run in the California primary?  He's running third, an issue comes up about illegal immigrants and drivers licenses, and he won't take a stand on the issue, talks about education instead, even though this means risking the endorsement of various Latino organizations?

Near the end of the race he has a conversation with the CA governor, who asks why he won't take a stand on an issue of such obvious importance to Latino voters.  He answers, "Because the moment I do this I'll get tagged as the Latino candidate, and then white voters won't turn out for me.  This is the headline my rivals want--Latino comes out for Latino.  If I do that, and it sticks, the race, for me, is over."  Great episode.

A similar issue was in play at the start of the primary. Why did so many black voters find Bill Clinton's comment about Jesse Jackson offensive?  They thought he was doing the same thing: Obama is the black candidate, he got the votes of African Americans, big deal.

And the nuance of stuff like this, I think, just gets lost on people like Krugman.  His suggestion that "the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter" out of thin air is simply wrong.  Even if one thinks Clinton's campaign didn't do any of this, one has to account for things like pre-existing anxieties, the extent to which there is a black media which is separate from outlets like the NY Times, etc. (eg. black talk radio).

And here's the thing.  When people delve into this topic more I have my doubts the Clinton campaign will be fully exonerated (the charge isn't that the Clintons are personally racist, it's that they tried to define Obama as the black candidate, which puts us in the world of dog whistles and back-handed congratulatory statements).

"I'd like to congratulate my black colleague for his blackness and success at winning over black voters".  That'a s dog whistle.  Voters, listen up: he's black, I'm white, you know what to do.  Dog whistling usually comes with a smile (eg. Bob Kerry's remarks about "secular madrassas").

Now isn't the time to have a big debate about whether this happened.  This is the territory where such a debate would have to take place, though (and here the analogy to sexism isn't that strong, because there aren't many who thinks that Obama, facing an electorate which was 60% female, had similar opportunities).

But I'm not trying to force any conclusions.  Just don't think Krugman is being all that sophisticated about this (given how basic a tactic this is in politics, although it's one the GOP usually plays against Democrats, but evenn this isn't exclusive, because Dems run against each other in lesser races all the time).

Lastly, the question of whether the Clinton campaign would use these sorts of tactics, imo, probably turns less on the Clintons themselves than how one gauges the influence of people like Mark Penn (because he's the sort of person whom I can easily imagine, to return to the "West Wing" episode, saying something like this: "If we can brand Santos as the Latino candidate we'll win in a walk").

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-15 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Obama went into SC with coded speech.  Michelle Obama stated back last fall that AA's would "get it" and vote for Obama.

so, the Obama campaign was trying to have it both ways.  They didn't want to be the black candidate for non-blacks but had no problem making Obama the black candidate for AA's.

the speeches are out there.  It predates Bill Clinton's remarks about Jessie Jackson

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Could you give a reference for Obama's 'coded speech'?

by french imp 2008-06-15 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

his okay-doke, bamboozled, hookwinded speeches he made in SC.

look up the historical references to who made those terms popular

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

I don't have those references. Care to be more explicit? To me these are standard english words with no particular racial overtones.

by french imp 2008-06-15 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Malcolm X used these words to describe how the white man kept the black man down.

Now, I have respect for what Malcolm X did in his latter years, once he realized that he was being used.  But there was a time when Malcolm X did not want any non-black folks working with him.  He used those words to divide.

Once Malcolm X realied he was being used by the organization that he worked for, he looked inward and realized that we all have to work together, regardless of race or gender.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-15 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

I got curious and so did some googling.  Obama's use of the term "bamboozle" predates this election (eg. he used it while addressing the NAACP in 2006).  His use of the term in South Carolina wasn't in reference to the Clintons but whomever was responsible for the "Obama is a muslim" emails (there's no question a racist whisper campaign has been targeting Obama for over a year, what we don't know is who is behind it).  So far as I know, btw, he only used this term in one speech (made in Sumter, SC), but I could be wrong about that.

After Obama's victory in South Carolina, though, a curious thing happened.  Posts started appearing all over the internet accusing Obama of interjecting Malcolm X-like language into his campaign in order to incite black voters (ie. he's an agitator, plagiarizer, and can't be trusted).  And what's amazing is this shows real signs of organization (why?  the simplest version of this message showed up many hundred times, not posts with slight variations).

I don't know 1) how often Obama used terms like bamboozle before this election started (just that he did); 2) whether this is a common term in the African-American community (during my google searches I saw that claim);  3) how often Obama used this term in South Carolina, was it just once?).

It's a subject worth following up on, because one way or another this looks like a hit (but it's not at all clear, at least from what I could find, that this is a hit on the Clintons, since, depending upon the answers to the above, this could just be another manifestation of the internet rumor campaign, "He's someone who plagiarizes from movies and tries to incite black people by quoting the words of Malcolm X").

And unlike some other topics, this is actually one could establish what happened with reasonable certainly (with one exception, of course, we still don't know who is responsible for the malicious emails, and, I'm guessing, will probably never know).

The first example I found of Obama's using this language to describe anything done by the Clintons, btw, was in Mississippi, fairly late in the season, in response to Bill Clinton's suggestion that a "dream ticket" was still possible (ie. don't be hoodwinked, this was the same campaign which has claimed I possibly didn't pass the c-in-c test).  And those comments, of course, got national attention.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-15 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

If all Obama did was use the word 'bamboozle' to describe the behaviour of people who claim that he's a muslim, then I really don't see in what way this is 'coded language' or in any other way an illegitimate use of an ordinary english word. I don't care if Malcom X or anybody else used it, and it seems to me totally irrelevant.

I'd really appreciate if you could clarify your point, as I think it is not very healthy to leave such things unexplained...

by french imp 2008-06-16 12:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

nope.  That isn't what Obama did.  BTW:  Hilllary never stated Obama was a muslim.  And if YOU really DO believe that one, his speeches were done way before the 60 minutes interview where Hillary stated no 8 times to the Obama is a Muslim question before giving the WTF are you asking me look and the infamous line.

If you don't understand that Obama was telling a crowd of SC's, many of which were AA's, that other candidates (not just Hillary) were using the old okay-doke, and were just hookwinking them, etc and don't understand the history of such language from the 1960's, then I don't know what to tell you.

You should read some books about Malcolm X or watch spike lee's movie on Malcolm

perhaps then you will see how it isn't irrelevant

by colebiancardi 2008-06-16 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

When on earth did I say that Hillary Clinton said that Obama was a Muslim?

When by the way did Obama say that Hillary Clinton said he was a Muslim????

by french imp 2008-06-16 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

You still didn't tell me what exactly Obama said which justified that you claim that he used coded language. Please give me a reference so that I can form an opinion. This far you have expressed indignation which is based on no evidence whatever.

by french imp 2008-06-16 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Coded speech?  Could you give me some examples?  Clinton's comments about South Carolina, can we agree, occurred after that state held its primary (so they, or Obama's response, played no role in how that state voted).

Some detailed analysis of this question, I'll suggest, would turn on the comments made by both campaigns between, say, November 15 to Jan 15, becauase that's when things really got into high gear (eg. Bob Kerry's "secular madrassa" comment was made in mid-December, and while I had plenty of respect for him before this campaign started it's very different for me to read what he said as anything other than a classic dog whistle, which is what makes me wonder if the Clinton campaign adopted some deliberate strategy).

South Carolina, can we agree, was the first contest where the African-American vote was important?  Whatever Obama did has to have occurred before this election (because these voters did turn out for him in huge numbers).

Here's my impression, btw: Obama didn't really have to do much to win over African-American voters (any more than Clinton had to make a huge pitch to win over white women who were over 60).  

"Michelle Obama stated back last fall that AA's would "get it" and vote for Obama."

Where is the accusation here?  That's not coded language.  Can we agree we don't really fault voters for casting their ballots for the candidate who seems "most like me" (which plenty of voters did during this election).

What we find fault with are candidates who say, "Don't vote for him/her because this person is racist/sexist", etc. (and to suggest that Obama did this before South Carolina, which is an accusation I take seriously, you have to present real evidence, ie. statements by him or his campaign).

My sense of this, btw, is that Obama didn't do this, but it's a serious enough charge it is the sort of thing about which I'm keeping an open mind.

Here's the problem I have with this statement, though:

"They didn't want to be the black candidate for non-blacks but had no problem making Obama the black candidate for AA's."

As Democrats we don't have any problem with the whole concept that African-American voters will support the party by margins of 90% or more.  In the general this isn't a problem, we regard it as a badge of honor.  We also didn't have any problem during this primary with the whole idea that white women over the age of 45, or seniors, etc., would back one candidate by huge margins.  

How much of this is sour grapes?  What I'm suggesting someone like Mark Penn might have done, essentially, was fallen for this logic: "Well if he's going to get this kind of support from African American voters I'm going to dog whistle, this is just evening the playing field".

And no, it's not.  It's a frustrating situation to be in, w/o doubt, and one which both candidates experienced throughout the campaign (ie. this knowledge that some voters were out of reach because they were motivated by identity poltics).  Doesn't mean every tactic was permissable (and again, I'm not trying to suggest a conclusion so much make the case that there is more nuance here than fits into the usual "my candidate was the victim" argument).

 

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-15 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

Ok, pal, what about this:

Do you think Hillary actually dissed MLK? Do you think she would even want to? Do you think she's that stupid? Really? She stated a fact: "it takes good people on the outside (MLK) and good people on the inside (pres. Johnson) to pass civil rights". That was supposedly "dissing" MLK. MLK was a hero of Hillary's for decades.

Jesse Jackson Jr.: "Hillary didn't cry for katrina". Pure race-bating.

Do you really think ANYONE wasn't already aware that Obama is black?

Bill Clinton's famous comment which few people actually know about:

Reporter: "is Obama so good that it takes two of you to beat him?"
Bill Clinton: "Jesse Jackson won here in 1984 &1988, he ran a good race, Obama's run a good race here, he ran a good race EVERYWHERE, but there are still many contests to go"

Bill Clinton was trying to marginalize or downplay his wife's opponents victory. That is exactly what he's supposed to do. He's not chearleading for Obama. Jesse Jackson was seen as a one-hit-wonder and that's why Clinton was comparing him to Jackson.

Jesse Jackson has said that there wasn't anything wrong with the comment...because Obviously there wasn't. It was in Obama's interest to make people believe otherwise.

You can't say that Bill Clinton was race-bating because you think you know what was in his head. You can't state is as fact. It is not fair and quite discusting.

by mmorang 2008-06-15 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

I'm not more convinced the 2nd time than I was the 1st.

by french imp 2008-06-15 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

I don't think the MLK comment was dissing MLK. I do think it was kind of dissing Obama. Clinton was setting herself up as the hands on practical doer (LBJ) and Obama as the inspirational rabble rouser (MLK). Problem is, both Clinton and Obama are more working the LBJ role. By attempting to cast Obama in the non-political role, she was simultaneously giving Obama too much credit for speaking truth to power and basically calling him stupid for thinking he could play the MLK role and win the presidency. The essence of what she said about the roles of MLK and LBJ was true. The implicit application to the current race was, at the very least, pretty stupid.

by Mobar 2008-06-15 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

This is a whole different argument, but I think Clinton's comments about the relative importance of MLK and LBJ were wholly off the mark (again, not racist, just wrong, and showed that she had a polticial tin ear).  This was the debate, remember, when Clinton made her big pitch that inspirational rhetoric was, well, an expensive indulgence, something akin to watching tv all Saturday afternoon.  I can understand why she said it.  This was one of those issues, though, where what someone thought about this issue probably determined how he or she would vote.

Something else worth pointing out, btw.  I don't think most voters really started following the primary until the night of the Iowa caucus.  The candidates had gone through a zillion debates before, but it's worth remembering that for most voters this was their introduction (and that 2/3rds of the primary race was essentially over within one month, ie. Super Tuesday).  

Curious if the Dems will do that next time.  Part of why Clinton was regarded as the front runner all last year was because no one could imagine a candidate's overcoming the advantage she got from name recognition during the first month of the contest (and many of the arguments about racism, sexism, etc., have to do with events which transpired later on in the contest, really after 2/3rds of voters had cast their ballots).  Thought it was worth mentioning.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-15 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

It was right on the mark. Civil rights did in fact require a great leader like MLK and others on the outside. But it certainly also required President Johnson, helped by the public support following Kenned's assasination, to get it passed in congress. Johnson was maybe the most talented senators we've had. He was a master and he had to twist a lot of arms.

Anyway, her statement was based in reality, if not, political correctness.

by mmorang 2008-06-16 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives

I don't think Hillary Clinton's MLK argument was racist, and question whether anyone called it that.  The reason some took offense to it, though, was because it in some sense diminished the importance of people like King, the SCLC, etc., in pushing civil rights to the top of the agenda.  This was like giving Woodrow Wilson credit for passage of the 19th amendment (which, if you know your suffrage history, isn't simply a matter of getting a few details wrong).

Again, this is the sort of thing I hope people study, because there was a lot of crosstalk going on, and it would be interesting to scrutinize what people said and when.  I don't think people's negative response to this remark was grounded in some belief that Clinton was racist to say this.  It's that she didn't understand the relative importance of MLK (ie. she was wrong on the merits, and in a way which should cause black voters to take notice).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-15 04:06PM | 0 recs
Hey there

great diary, again.  I am working on a little project that I would like to bounce off of you- email me if you would like/get a chance:

lincfd(at)gmail.com

by linc 2008-06-15 03:49PM | 0 recs
done.

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 04:50PM | 0 recs
Racism=False, Sexism=True.

Pretending we are having a honest conversation=True.

Having an honest conversation=false.

Talking about the new tabloid story of sexism is the new sensationalist win for alot of the media.

The white male candidates were not covered because of sexism/racism?

The media had a sexist bias against Hillary Clinton, but allowed her to falsely define both herself and her opponent.  When Hillary said Obama can't win such and such demographic, they happily repeated it, and analyzed exit poll data with that narrative in mind.

Obama was repeatedly attacked on Wright, Muslim, Proud, Flag Pin, Pledge ect. all because of racism.

Will the absurdity never end?

The media was not sexist, it was not racist, your giving way too much credit to the retarded monkeys of the press, who pursued whatever shiney object was before them, and repeated whatever narrative they were spun.

by Tumult 2008-06-15 04:02PM | 0 recs
rec'd and mojo!

You are one of the good bloggers. In many ways you and SG share many of the same traits.

by kevin22262 2008-06-15 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: rec'd and mojo!

thank you for a great compliment.  and it is doubly more flattering considering that it is coming from you. ;)

by canadian gal 2008-06-15 04:25PM | 0 recs
You are welcome

and I also thank you for the compliment.

by kevin22262 2008-06-15 04:40PM | 0 recs
No

canadian gal is better than I am, I don't think I've ever seen her fly off the handle like I have, thanks for the compliment in considering me in her realm as far as quality goes.

by Student Guy 2008-06-15 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Your words of atonement would sound more convincing if they were uttered in old slavonic.

by french imp 2008-06-16 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innoc

Hi, Canadian Gal,

You are one of the few folks on this board who "get it." I appreciate your call for some introspection, but I'm afraid the end justify the means for most folks and cognitive dissonance is quite the seductive psychological trick to help rationalize behaviors. That said, please keep up the great work. You voice is one of the few so desperately needed in the hive of group think.

by gorgias 2008-06-15 05:49PM | 0 recs
I think this year

has shown that not all Democrats are PC bleeding hearts who will vote for someone just because their race once suffered. But it has also shown that not everyone in the party is a feminist, but also shown that many in the party do have sexist instincts at times.

by Lakrosse 2008-06-15 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this year

You might want to remove the word "once" from that first sentence.  I mean, unless you think blacks really only suffered once.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-15 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost .

"Isn't it time to reflect on this honestly"
Yes, it's time...but difficult for many to do without mixing in one's own feelings of partiality for a candidate.

There's a good case to make that:
Clinton's campaign was destroyed by sexism.
Obama's campaign was crippled by racism.
McCain's campaign was crippled by ageism.
Edward's campaign was destroyed by "ignor-the-white-man-ism."

It's easier for supporters of a candidate to see how that candidate was affected by the MSM, then it is for others. That's especially true when we still feel emotionally invested in the outcome.

by catilinus 2008-06-15 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost .

Edward's campaing was crippled by johnism.

by french imp 2008-06-16 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innoc

The race issue was exploited by the Obama camp to paint the Clintons as bigoted racist. It's politics and all is fair as long as you win. Sometimes i feel pitiful that Hillary did not respond hard enough to smear Obama. All that was needed for Hillary was the AA to vote for her 20-80. But instead she barely gets 10% of their votes and even less. Talking about being grateful and racist. And I do agree that the progressives now are different that progressives 2 years ago. To be a progressive now you have to worship Obama and only him. Obama is the progressive and progressiveness is Obama. Failure to understand that will ensure your lost of membership to the progressivity.  

by stevent 2008-06-15 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innoc

No you don't.  I don't think EITHER Hillary OR Obama are true progressives.  Edwards sounded progressive, but his voting record isn't.  The difference between them is that Hillary sold out real progressives a long time ago.  That's why many of us don't trust her and are willing to go with someone new.  Does that mean that Obama is perfect?  No.

Also, sorry but Clinton already DID smear Obama.  If he really wanted to smear her he would have gone after Bill's fundraising partnerships, and ramped up the gossip about more possible philandering.  Multiple times he was given the opportunity to go after Clinon on things she had said and he held back or said simply "I take her at her word."  That is called class.

As for the race baiting claims, I saw a number of neutral African Americans (Clyburn for one) who indicated a frustration with Bill's comments.  Bill said what he said and people felt what they felt.  Don't blame Obama for his choices.

by Renie 2008-06-15 09:59PM | 0 recs
Was Paul Krugman born yesterday?

Lost their innocence?  Give me a break.  Who the fuck is Mr. Princeton Professor/NY Times Editorialism to weigh in on what the progressive movement is or isn't?  Maybe Paul Krugman should go do labor organizing in the South, or try to help Katrina victims get suitable housing, or work in a domestic violence shelter, before he gets on his high horse and lectures actual progressives about their lost innocence.  The guy's become a complete hack.

by JJE 2008-06-15 06:57PM | 0 recs
Krugman is wrong.

He isn't usually, but he's wrong on this, and he has been fiercely loyal to Hillary throughout this campaign.

Quoting Krugman from your blockquote:

So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar -- by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

Feelings are too raw right now to process this fairly and impartially.  But I think that this is not an issue that you want to keep bringing up.  I do believe that there was a coordinated strategy of the Clinton campaign to try to make the campaign more of a white vs. black polarized thing.  I'm going to give Hillary and Bill the shred of a doubt on this, that maybe it was just Penn's idea.

There is no point in trying to hash out the facts on this right now.  You're too angry and defensive of Hillary about it.  I'm angry and offended by it  because I believe it true.  BUT THE NOMINATION HAS BEEN DECIDED.  

If you want to make peace, we can all debate it at some later date, when passions have subsided, because you won't change many minds before then.

I lost my innocence about the Clintons back in the 80s when Bill was impeached.  I knew Bill was no innocent babe, and he didn't fight back like one, nor did his surrogates.  But apparently some people didn't pay attention.  I'm glad he wasn't removed from office.  I protested against impeachment on his behalf.  But I have no illusions about their ability to use whatever weapons are at hand.

by Dumbo 2008-06-16 12:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innoc

Well, I'll tell you what.  I would have described myself as a liberal or a progressive for all of my adult life and for the first time I feel many of my fellow "progressives" are not all that progressive at all.

I had considered my fellow progressives champions of equality and  four square against any "ism", be it sexism, racism, ageism, regionalism, homophobia or discrimination based on religion, disability or ethnicity.  

I "lost my innocence" on that score when
1. Progressives vehemently argued that sexism no longer existed or "wasn't so bad" and defended things like the nutcracker and various media comments as "harmless"

2 Progressives reacted in a knee-jerk fashion and howled about the Muslim "slur" when what they should have done is spoken out in defense of Muslims, while reiterating that Obama was not one.  

3. Progressives first defended and promoted the controversial content of Rev. Wright's sermons and defended the man (until he turned on Obama...of course)

4. Progressives used a disingenuous double standard for the AUMF vote -- Hillary, soldier killer -- Edwards and Kerry, politically expedient apologizing makes it all okay

5. Progressives denied, disowned and attacked  the gains, prosperity and global respect of the only Democratic administration in the past three decades , defending Reagan's "style" while tearing away at all things Clinton

6. Progressives adopted ageism as their key rationale -- writing some of  the most blatantly ageist statements imaginable, bordering on if not outright hate speech

7. Progressives framed the white working class and poor as the enemy, making sweeping generalizations about them based on where they live

8. Progressives mocked and derided the lesser and poorly educated as "low information voters"

9.  Progressives found no fault with unequal access to caucuses for the elderly, those without childcare, those who worked the night shift or those intimidated by the process

Gone, apparently, are the days of Bobby Kennedy when Democrats reached out to all the disenfranchised and marginalized be they elderly, uneducated, working class or held back by their race, religion or, yes, GENDER.  

Gone are the days when progressives fought for every underdog -- now, apparently, only certain underdogs are worthy of outreach and others are not.  The poorly educated are the enemy, the old are the enemy, women damaged and limited by the past are the enemy -- the past champions of reproductive rights and equal access are the enemy.  Those who fought the progressive battles of the past or suffered for them on every front are the enemy if they dared to support Senator Clinton.  

Hard fought primary battles are one thing -- this season has been quite another.  The venom, viciousness and derision of progressive causes, standards and icons has left me embarrassed to continue to call myself a progressive.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-16 02:38AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads