[Updated]Sexist Swiftboating

This diary will probably be called unhelpful by some, and divisive by others, but I'm beginning to realize that we are watching the slow rolling 2008 Swiftboat campaign unfold before our very own eyes.

Like in 2004 the Rove is taking our Candidate's strength and trying to turn it on its head.

See EDIT at bottom.

Obama is not a Sexist, and his Campaign was NOT sexist.

In the list provided earlier from NOW, you will notice not a single mention of an Obama team action. All media.

Yet, Obama's campaign is being painted as the eager benefactor.

Mostly because he supposedly didn't stop 'it'.

Even though as the campaign progressed the 'it' was so poorly defined and the instances so isolated that any comment from Obama would have been spun as Obama patronizing the tough as nails Clinton.

After a 6 month campaign with almost constant coverage, NOW is only able to come up with 25 'egregious' examples to rail against.

Many of the 25 are questionable at best.

My question is, how are you supposed to talk about a woman you don't like? Don't like for non sex based reasons like trust, or integrity.

Here are the questionable entries on Now's list.....

  1. Keith Olbermann insinuates violence against Clinton.  AGAINST CLINTON. NOT WOMEN.

 11. Andrew Sullivan tries to turn feminist voters away from Hillary.  AND THIS IS SEXIST HOW?  

 14. David Shuster sees Chelsea as being pimped out.  SURE, EVERYTHING IS SEXIST IF YOU REMOVE CONTEXT.  

 17. Daryl Cagle draws violent imagery of Hillary Clinton as the slain beast.  WHAT COULD THE CARTOONIST HAVE DRAWN TO SHOW OBAMA DEFEATING A CLINTON WAS A DAVID/GOLIATH TYPE VICTORY?

 18. Sandy Huffaker draws Hillary as a sleazeball slugger.    SAME QUESTION AS ABOVE, AND ADD, WHAT IS A SLEAZE BALL SLUGGER?

 20. Jack Cafferty imagines Obama wanting to run over Clinton with a truck.   ?????

 23. Randi Rhodes slurs Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. OH YEA RANDI IS A HUGE SEXIST. AN ATTENTION WHORE AS WELL. OOPS.

Mix in all the dis-information designed to piss women off, and I'm not surprised seemingly intelligent people would be confused.

The worst instance of this dis-info, is feminists like Stein stating as if fact that no other candidate in history had been asked by so many to drop out.

It's total bullshit. The Kennedy fight to the convention often cited by Clinton supporters as justification for continuing against impossible odds, included the VERY SAME calls to withdraw.

The quotes have been amply provided yet it's a mantra required to make other benign incidents into something more.

Does sexism exists? Of Course.

Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO. [EDIT: IMHO only]

Are rove minions trying to gin up resentment in order to peel off some votes? You tell me.

Do you think there is a reason these PUMA losers refuse to be interviewed by progressive media?

Any idea why the PUMA losers all look and sound like Stepford Democrats?

Any guess why FOX CNN and MSNBC constantly give air time to people that attack our nominee claiming to be one of us?

Reminds me of the last time our nominee had his cohorts on tv telling us what a scumbag he really was.

The 2008 Swiftboat campaign has ALREADY begun.

 title=

EDIT: EDIT: It has been pointed out I haven't been clear and it looks like I'm trying to say NOW is making a charge against Senator Obama and/or his campaign. That is not my intention.

I am however saying these concerns have been, and continue to be, used by people looking to create the impression that the Democratic Party has abandoned women and have conspired with the Obama campaign to do so.

The point of bringing up NOW and the questionable entries is to show that even the NOW can't produce a sold list of examples that would justify the DAILY media offensive to promote people spewing falsehoods and innuendo aimed at discrediting our party and de-legitimizing our nominee.

At what point do we start comparing the free air time PUMA types are getting to spread lies and smear our nominee to the free air time the swiftboat asshole were given to do the same to Kerry?

IMO it is exactly the same, but this time they are trying to peel off votes from a different demographic.

Tags: obama (all tags)

Comments

105 Comments

This is not snark!

Srsly.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: This is not snark!

Not in love with the diary, but the tr was pretty ridiculous, you backed up your points!!

by Dog Chains 2008-06-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
trolls and sockpuppets

are free to tr me as they wish.

Badge of honor and all that.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

Here are 3 of aliveandkickin's sockpuppets.  22TANGOME, workitfool, and u2livelife.  Each recs the other up, and all 3 hit you with 1's and 0's repeatedly.  I've written the admins about it, and everyone else that cares about the abuse lately should do the same.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-28 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

I noticed the addition of 22TANGOME when he tr'd one of my comments. Just signed up today. Doing nothing but uprating the alive's other sockpuppets and tr'ing anyone who calls them out. I sure wish this site would implement IP banning. That would be more effective in controlling this kind of abuse.

One thing I like about this is that it shows we are making progress against alive and his ilk. We are forcing them to change to more extreme tactics. Keep up the good work everyone.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-28 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

Eggactly.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

Actually he's got more than that.  Here are the user names that he's made obvious:

aliveandkickin
u2livelife
workitfool
22TANGOME
srickki

And I'm fairly certain he's also rankles, which means he uses the following names as well:

rankles
switching sides
lemon714

Who knows how many other names he's registered and just been less obvious with.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-06-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

I have needed any covert handles to help me out. I did not even complain about being TR 300 times by one of your alter ego handles 1010101.

I dont care about TU  and I dont need to hide behind something. Have you guys figured out maybe the many others here are finally fed up with you Flaming 14 sheep and are just paying you back...

Continue to talk about me my biatches..

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

then 3/4's of you gang will be banned. And I like how you have the audacity to talk about TR/HR abuses... including you have TR/HR abused me many a times.

I go LOL in a comment and you will join your fellow sheep. Now you are getting  folks probably who stay silent but have decided to come after you abusers of TR/HR.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-28 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: trolls and sockpuppets

Hil4Life , thats funny you say that because I checked your comments and nota single time have you got 1 0r 0 , inspite of you do soing drive by TR's on me...

was it your other handles that did? because I know spunk has his 2 additional handles setup to HR/TR me... calinete and caliente2

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
Snark hates women- they dont treat him like mom

Sexist Trolls

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-28 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

" Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO. "

- Thats not even credible.

by lori 2008-06-28 10:58AM | 0 recs
Well

Since exit polls CLEARLY show sexism played no role in ANY of the contests Obama won, I'd be very interested to see how you can prove it did play a role among Democratic Primary voters.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Thats not what I quoted you saying....

By the way I am curious how exit polls can show or measure what you just claimed.

Note : I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your reply .

by lori 2008-06-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
Talk about poking a stick in a hornet's nest !
If you WANTED to rile up Hillary supporters, and renew old antagonisms, and pull that scab right off the healing wound, you'd post that list of "sexism's greatest hits"!
I say it daily, but . . . chill !!!
by kosnomore 2008-06-28 01:50PM | 0 recs
It seems to me

that this diary was a natural response to another diary that deliberately poked a hornet's nest.  It seems difficult to complain about that.

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 06:10PM | 0 recs
posted @

10:10:10 PM EST

cool.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

I agree; Clinton got plenty of women's votes simply because she is a woman.

by XoFalconXo 2008-06-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
This isn't hard at all.....

NOW only used some of what was said on television. There is a wealth of print from newspapers and blogs.

If people didn't like her for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender, why call her a whore, discuss her voice, her laugh, her age, her hair, her cleavage, her thighs, her pantsuits, her marriage, and speak of her in insulting terms that have to do with her politics?

Why not talk about her political positions on her votes as Senator from NY, healthcare, AUMF, Iraq, the U.S. economy, the environment, national security, foreign policy, etc?

by feelfree 2008-06-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

People talked the same about Kerry - his haughty voice, his elongated, odd facial features, etc.  Being a presidential candidate means your manner of speaking and appearance are going to come under the idiotic scrutiny of the media.  Its not sexism; its immature pundits who have to fill air time.

by XoFalconXo 2008-06-28 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

Hillary Clinton wasn't competing for the job against Kerry.  She was competing with Obama.

Why was the level of scrutiny too often of her personal appearance? Why didn't Obama receive the same scrutiny of his personal appearance?

Why was there a difference in how each was discussed in the media?

by feelfree 2008-06-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

Why was the scrutiny of Obama always about whether or not he was elitist, or whether or not he was black enough/too black for the electorate?  Why was there no speculation about Hillary Clinton's pastor (who is actually pretty controversial), or about her religion?

Also, lest we forget, there were several major media "controversies" over Obama's appearance: the flag pin/hand over heart fake controversy and the Somali clothing incident, to name a couple.

Both candidates could lay a claim to the media treating them unfairly due to their race/sex.  While the sexism is more "accepted" in a way, that makes it in some ways less insidious, because it's more apparent, and can be called out more freely; had Obama called out the subtle (but profound) racism of the media's coverage of him (particularly during the Wright controversy), he would have been vilified for "playing the race card."

by mistersite 2008-06-28 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

You sexism is accepted, more apparent and that makes it less insidious and can be called out more freely?

So if people are more open and accepting about sexism somehow that makes it better?

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

by feelfree 2008-06-28 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

Of course I don't think it's a good thing, and please don't insinuate otherwise.  We need to work to ensure that racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism are all eliminated from our society.

I was pointing out a difference in the way racism and sexism worked in this campaign - a difference that I think has been overlooked by many.  Neither the overt ways in which sexism operated nor the more covert and subtle ways in which racism operated is more or less positive.

But we need to acknowledge that both happened, and that the media was racist as well as sexist - and I think it's much more difficult to point out or list the racism the media displayed because it operated in much more subtle, covert ways.  Nevertheless, it was still there.

by mistersite 2008-06-28 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

1. Because Obama basically wore the same thing every day.

2. Maybe it was just Clinton fatigue. The media had been doing it for years before the primary, so why would they stop?

3. See 2

by venician 2008-06-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
You are right.

The personal scrutiny thing was wrong and probably had some elements of sexism to it.  I only say "probably" because we can't read people's minds.

But let's be honest.  The media ALWAYS focuses on trivial personal bullshit like this.  Like remember, four years ago, which candidate would you rather drink a beer with?  Who gives a fuck!  

And yet those, the commonest and shallowest part of the media scrutiny, are not getting the lion's share of blame for "sexism."  Rather, it is being focused more on progressive-friendly voices like Keith Olbermann, who did NOT focus on Hillary's voice nor her appearance, nor any of that bullshit that the usual braying asses loved to focus on.

That's why I find it hard to take this conversation seriously.  

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/1 45156/940/10#10

Please see my reply here, I posted in the wrong place

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't hard at all.....

I remember the talk about Richardson when he was running was "He's too fat to be President."

Just sayin.

by fbihop 2008-06-28 11:45AM | 0 recs
oh

and remember all the looks like an elf talk, or the hair fixation, or the skinny guy with big ears....

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 02:01PM | 0 recs
And so far we are only talking about Democrats.

There are even far worse examples involving certain Republicans that we don't like.

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 06:38PM | 0 recs
Those of us who attacked her

mercilessly on her 2002 AUMF vote were called sexist for that!

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 06:30PM | 0 recs
hmmm

Whore is not gender specific any more.

It describes someone willing to ignore principles for expediency.

When we called Ari Fleischer a whore are we calling him a woman?

Please.

If social conservatives spoke of her in misogynistic terms, how did that affect the Democratic primary?

As for the issues you bring up, they were covered at length.

THAT IS WHY SHE LOST.

It takes a severe myopia to claim otherwise.

Myopia, or intentional obtuseness.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:11AM | 0 recs
Clearly you only hear what you want,

see what you want and for the life if me, why anyone with a brain cell would consider you liberal and/or progressives boggles the mind.

YOU don't see or hear it, therefore it does not exist. Hmmmmmm...who else is noted for that?
Think about it.

Just because you and a few middle schoolers think the "pimp" word is OK now because some network execs and some tv/music personalities use it, and has no connotations that are bad because history no longer matters, does not mean the rest of the world agrees.

We all KNOW what "whoring out" means too...doesn't mean it had no sexist history.  There is a reason why "lynch", regardless of how many times western television shows used it in a non racist way, is still offensive to the majority of African Americans.  The same thing applies to words that have a history of hurt for women behind them.

So please don't tell the rest of us how to think, how to hear and how to feel.  That is what paternalistic, authoritarian figures do....not liberals and progressives.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-28 11:45AM | 0 recs
grow up

do you know any black people that lynched themselves for cash?

Know any women that go into prostitution voluntarily?

Are these woman all gender traitors?

Why do so many feminists want prostitution legalized?

You calling me names and claiming I'm not progressive is the exact swiftboatinng I'm talking about.

Nowhere am I telling you what to think. I am saying that thinking the usa is too sexist to elect a woman, or claiming the American people were too stupid to see past the sexism smoke screen erected to obfuscate Hillary's superiority is idiotically unfair to your fellow democrats.

Why are Hillary supporters fighting this battle now instead of after the general election if not to de-legitimize Obama's historic, and David like victory?

Do the PUMA people promoting the idea that Obama isn't a candidate that respects women think this is an effective way to fight sexism?

That Pappy McPain is a better choice for women who think the DNC 'threw them under the bus'?

Get a grip.

This is a classic example of manufacturing outrage then directing it at an opponent.

In this case the GOP is pushing the idea that older women are no longer represented by the Democratic party, and gramps Mccain understands and shares common values.

It is slowly creeping into the msm and just like the Swiftassholes they don't have to spend ANY money to spread their garbage.

They don't have to PROVE A SINGLE CLAIM, or provide proof they represent any of the people they claim to represent.

Larry King has them on for Free, fox news has them on EVERY DAY.

By the time people like you wake up and realize what's going on, 60% of Americans are going to swear they heard Obama call Hillary, and any woman over 45, Bitches.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 12:44PM | 0 recs
Get your own grip

and go try to bully someone else.  Clearly your opinion of women is very low.  Sad.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-28 07:35PM | 0 recs
No

it isn't.

It is better than yours it seems.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearly you only hear what you want,

Get over yourself already.  Who the f*&k made YOU the arbiter of who is and who is not liberal/progressive?

by AK Democrat 2008-06-28 12:59PM | 0 recs
The heels remark is sexist

What if Hillary had said "Obama can do everything us white folks can do, and he even does it with that nappy hair of his."

by catfish2 2008-06-28 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The heels remark is sexist

What heels remark?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Delicate little flower called Hillary.

Catfish2 thinks Hillary is a delicate flower that must be protected at all cost.  She's so weak and fragile!!

Please.  If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.  She took the heat, so why can't some of her former supporters?

I was a former Hillary supporter.  Same with my wife.  She thinks the whole sexism charge is ridiculous, and coming from the McCain camp to try and drive a wedge between us and low info voting woman.  

Stop falling for this crap.  It harms the feminist movement.  HILL IS NOT A DELICATE LITTLE FLOWER.  STOP MAKING HEF INTO ONE!

by OVAH 2008-06-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Delicate little flower called Hillary.

No she isn't a delicate flower. She's woman deserving of the challenge to be dissected on her political views and her qualifications for the job.   She should be thoroughly examined for every vote, word, bill, policy, and idea. People should examine if she is of good character and have the qualities to represent the country.

by feelfree 2008-06-28 11:44AM | 0 recs
lol

They did.

That's why she lost.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 12:47PM | 0 recs
Hillary is a strong woman

has always been; has handled the sexism and the ageism hurled at her with no problems.  
And Senator Obama is a strong man who has handled the racism hurled at him with no problems.

Hillary and Barack though are not all women and all men.  Sexism and racism still hurt many people all over the world, as well as in this country.

Are you saying you and your wife think we all need to "ignore" the public use of the "isms"?  Because if you are, I wonder about who you are really.
If Hillary can be the target of sexists, so can every woman. If Harack can be the target of racists, so can every minority.  Just because some woman and some minorities can stand the "heat" does not make it OK.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-28 12:03PM | 0 recs
Obama can no more be a victim

of sexism than Hillary could be of racism.

Frankly I don't care what other people think.  Facts are facts.  

by Jjc2008 2008-06-28 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Delicate little flower called Hillary.

Senator Clinton carries herself with class. So don't worry about her. The only people who benefit from our discord are McCain supporters. Sexism is a great wedge.

by Politicalslave 2008-06-28 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The heels remark is sexist

"Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."

--the sexist Ann Richards

by mistersite 2008-06-28 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The heels remark is sexist

That is just a famous compliment of Ginger Rogers, and one snarky about Fred Astair getting most of the press for great dancing.

If you knew the history you would understand that it was a great and gracious compliment.

by wrb 2008-06-28 02:58PM | 0 recs
This topic makes men really defensive

for some reason. Not all men, but a lot of men who consider themselves "progressive."

Look at what this guy said:

# 12.

As a fifty year old man I have to sit and wonder how I was brought up that this article makes me feel that I'm hearing it from my grandmother. I cannot even imagine how to treat someone intellectually differently simply due to their sex, culture, race. Even pondering it makes me feel uncomfortable, almost as if I've forgotten how to hear or think. I'm aware people `pidgeon hole each other', and how much of a challenge people face as they try to sell their ideas and passions to each other, only to be dropped into a stereotype, and not heard.

It is sad really, I hope we find a way to pass fewer of these preconceptions on to each following generation. It is a shame that politics thrive on division, slowing the process.

-- Posted by Christopher Blood


He is 50, but he admits it makes him feel like a child when people discuss this topic. Just pondering the topic makes him uncomfortable.

by catfish2 2008-06-28 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This topic makes men really defensive

reply here..
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/1 45156/940/16#16

posted to the end again.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: This topic makes men really defensive

Republican men have no trouble whatsoever making criticisms of women and minorities.

Each time I had a criticism of Hillary or Obama, I would do a quick-check in my sexism/racism filter to be sure I'm coming from a good place.  I don't want to hate on Hillary because she's female any more than I want to get down on Obama because his skin is opaque--but genuine criticism is essential to the conversation and to the campaign.  The problem is the handful of folks that will take any criticism you make and amplify it into sexism/racism even when it's not.

Secondary to that is the implication (amidst all this irresponsible sexism talk) that Obama supporters (and the candidate) are sexist--which Is This Snark so plainly points out.  You know, if you think I'm sexist, or any of the other Obama supporters are sexist, or that somehow Obama won solely because he's a man (even though there is a solid majority of women in the Democratic party) you really have a lot of explaining to do.  You're disparaging the half of the Democratic party that voted for Obama in the primary/caucus season, the 80% of Hillary voters in the primary/caucus season who are now supporting Obama, and you're creating false divisions that McCain is going to (shamelessly) try to exploit, first with his choice of Kay Bailey Hutchison as VP.

Sexism is real, it exists.  It's not why Hillary lost.  Is This Snark has hit the nail exactly on the head here, it's the new Swiftboat Veterans for Truth--and we're giving them all the ammunition.

by AK Democrat 2008-06-28 01:14PM | 0 recs
This topic does NOT makes men really defensive

It makes men with psycho-sexual issues really defensive, IMHO and experience.

by kosnomore 2008-06-28 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: This topic makes men really defensive

I hope we find a way to pass fewer of these preconceptions on to each following generation.

I think we have taken a huge step in this regard during the primary season.  A woman and an African American were two of the three finalists to become President of the United States for the first time in our 200+ year history...Sounds like pretty good progress to me.

by hootie4170 2008-06-28 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

You know, your diary is misleading - the NOW site doesn't slam Obama or HIS campaign.

It slams the media.

I don't mistake the media for Obama's campaign - do you think we are that stupid to buy into your misleading and inaccurate diary?

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Yes NOW does blame the media, but the media in turn is promoting PUMA losers that then place the blame on Obama.

Coincidence?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

so what?  The media doesn't do navel gazing.  They can't admit to their own mistakes in the lead-up to the War in Iraq...you think they will admit to their part of sexism during this campaign?

lol

Just because the "media" (once again) is doing the crap they do best, doesn't mean that sexism didn't exist in this primary.  period

why are you defending the media who is promoting PUMA?

In fact, you should be slamming the media for its lack of judgment and objectivity, instead of trying to 'defend' them.

again, if you know this, don't defend them.  Slam the media hard for its reporting over this past primary.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

I'm sorry if you think I'm defending the media.

To avoid that in the future could you please highlight the remarks that led you to believe I was defending them.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Your whole diary is defending the media.  Then your comment about the media and PUMA.  

You are defending them.  There was nothing in NOW or the sexist comments in your diary that came from the Obama camp and yet your title is sexist swiftboating?  Of whim?  The media?

people are not attributing those comments to Obama.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

whom, not whim....

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
Come on.

IMO

NOW is responding the same way, and for the same reason, Howard Dean responded when the primary finished.

They are responding to their membership who are obviously angry over the media's depiction of a front running democratic candidate.

The media are shitheads for sure, but we've know that for a very long time.

Christ, how the fuck does Glen Beck still have a tv show after his Ellison remarks?

Fucker Carlson should have been flipping burgers years ago.

Where the swift boating comes in to play is PUMA and the GOP taking the blame away from the media and putting it squarely on the shoulders of DEMOCRATS.

And once again the corporate media is more than happy to give air time to people willing to forgive their sins while attacking DEMOCRATS.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.
Snark, you need to stop worrying about PUMA, it's a complete waste of time and it gives them attention, which is what they crave.
I wish you would change your diary to reflect the correction that NOW's sexist charges are directed at the media and not the Obama campaign and not at the Democrats.
by skohayes 2008-06-28 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.

Gladly.

Please indicate which part you think needs rewording.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.

Ok I'll reword this part....

Obama is not a Sexist, and his Campaign was NOT sexist.

In the list provided earlier from NOW, you will notice not a single mention of an Obama team action. All media.

Yet, Obama's campaign is being painted as the eager benefactor.

Mostly because he supposedly didn't stop 'it'.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.
Thanks.
Anyway, I know you're directing most of this at PUMA's (Obama campaign being painted as eager benefactor), because most real Hillary supporters like myself understand that looking back doesn't solve anything, except to point out that things like racism and sexism should not be issues anymore, but they are, and we should not ignore them and hope they'll go away on their own.
by skohayes 2008-06-28 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on.

exactly.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 07:22PM | 0 recs
men?

Half the NOW list is calling women sexist.

Randi Rhodes is a sexist?

Is the USA more or less sexist than Canada, Germany, Argentina, and Pakistan?

Those countries were able to move past the sexists in their societies and elect a woman.

If you think sexism was the limiting factor of Clinton's campaign then you don't have a very good impression of our country.

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: men?

Women are not exempt from profound ignorance.

There are women like Michelle Malkin, Maureen Dowd, and Randi Rhodes who share the views of the sexists and misogynists in the list.

by feelfree 2008-06-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Will you please
stop trying to make a victim out of women with this broken record meme of sexism? Most women don't use sexism as a clutch to justify personal/professional failings. The fact that many hrc supporters are using 'that word' and misogyny to excuse Hillary's shortcomings is embarassing and so transparent. Nancy Pelosi God bless her) hit the nail on the head. Of course there is sexism. But it is not the pervasive boogieman that some on this site make it out to be.  
And if a woman wants to blame sexism on her own personal or professional missteps, then all I have to say is...good luck with that. But thank God most healthy and balanced women aren't accepting the invitation to that pity party.
by april34fff 2008-06-28 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Will you please

You have a reading comprehension issue.

I have NEVER written or argued sexism played a role in her loss.

Your meme allegation is a sorry and trite effort to contribute something to my statements that simply have never been implied, insinuated, or ever stated.

by feelfree 2008-06-28 01:22PM | 0 recs
Trust me-
I am not the one who has 'issues'. And yes, you have complained, implied, and insinuated this entire thread about sexism playing a major role in the primaries, and how poor poor Hillary's less than favorable treatment by MSM hurt her candidacy.
Do you really think that alotting women victimhood status is helpful at all in today's society? Deal with it and move on in life. Women are not  weak crybabies who are incapable of making choices..and critiquing our flaws  realistically. Obviously, you prefer to see sexism under every rock, and I feel that it does women a total disservice.
I feel, as a woman, that state of mind is unhealthy and ineffective.
by april34fff 2008-06-29 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Trust me-

The truth is always helpful whether you like it or not.

Just as Malcolm X said, "Every brother ain't a brother."

There will always be women like you who will turn a blind eye to sexism and impede the progress of women by doing so.

by feelfree 2008-06-29 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Trust me-

What a bitter, unfulfilling and apparently, unproductive life you must lead. I hope that you don't raise your daughters or granddaughters with that cynical worldview. Maybe if you got out there and achieved your lot in life, you wouldn't leave yourself vulnerable to this 'the woman as perpetual victim' nonsense.

by april34fff 2008-06-29 01:36PM | 0 recs
Trust me-
I am not the one who has 'issues'. And yes, you have complained, implied, and insinuated this entire thread about sexism playing a major role in the primaries, and how poor poor Hillary's less than favorable treatment by MSM hurt her candidacy.
Do you really think that alotting women victimhood status is helpful at all in today's society? Deal with it and move on in life. Women are not  weak crybabies who are incapable of making choices..and critiquing our flaws  realistically. Obviously, you prefer to see sexism under every rock, and I feel that it does women a total disservice.
I feel, as a woman, that state of mind is unhealthy and ineffective.
by april34fff 2008-06-29 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: men?
Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton a "fucking whore". Do you think we should just let that roll off our backs? And yes, women (even so-called progressives) can be sexists, it's not a gender related term.
Ignoring sexism as it was directed at Hillary and is now being turned on Michelle Obama only encourages the losers who use it as a way to demean women.
I'm  curious as to whether you were as appalled  as I was by the "baby mama" remark on Fox that was directed at Michelle Obama?
by skohayes 2008-06-28 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Oh please.

3 straight weeks talking about sexism.

I get it. I agree.

3 diaries per day on the same subject gets old anywhere.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-28 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating
I have to agree, we've done the sexist angle to death on this blog.
Can we start arguing about health care now? ;)
by skohayes 2008-06-28 02:54PM | 0 recs
pathetic

the diarist has the intellectual abilities of a good ole' frat-boy. It's attitude like this that keeps sexism alive and well in the most developed country in the world. And to think people recommended this pile of rot.

by tarheel74 2008-06-28 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

I've been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately. I was even considering writing a diary making many of the same points you made in yours. In the end, I decided not to because I thought it would be counter-productive. That's the main reason I can't rec this diary.

The other reason is the one for which lori called you out. I don't believe sexism was the main factor in Hillary's loss, but I do think it was a factor. Perhaps a big factor, but not primarily because of the way the media presented it. Rather, it's because of attitudes in our culture.

It's quite obvious to me that there are plenty of people, men and women alike, who will never cast a vote for a woman for president, because they don't think a woman can be qualified. Just as there are many people who can't bring themselves to vote for a black person. They don't need the media calling attention to Hillary's attire or cleavage to feel that way. It's the way they have always felt. Is it a sexist attitude? Without a doubt.

However, your diary made some other points that I agree with. Some of the claims of sexism towards Hillary, and the charges of racism shown towards Obama were downright silly.

Not only do I think some of the complaints were silly, I think they were sexist or racist in their own right. When you take the position that anything negative said about a black candidate is racist or anything negative about a woman candidate is sexist then you have gone too far. If you say the same comment made about a woman is sexist but it's ok to say it about a man then you are advocating unequal treatment based on sex. I'm seeing a lot of that in this argument.

Saying someone should be run over by a truck is not sexist unless the reason for running them over is because they are a woman. Saying she should stay in the kitchen is extremely sexist. Saying a black candidate should be run over by a truck is not racist. Saying he should be lynched is another matter entirely.

In the end, we all view these issues through the prism of our own life experience. That tends to favor our biases. If we are constantly on the lookout for racism or sexism we will not only find it, we will create it out of harmless statements.

I'm sure I'm less sensitive to sexism and racism because I'm an older white male. That means I have to consider other peoples' claims with an open mind. However, if the charge requires finding the 'hidden meaning' behind someone's words then I consider the charge to lack merit. If it means finding offense in certain 'code words' then, again, that tends to diminish the charge in my eyes.

Real sexism and racism is locked in peoples minds. It doesn't take the media or others to bring it out. It's there all of the time, including in the voting booth. Harping on it only keeps it in the forefront of their minds. And, no, harping isn't a code word for harpies.

by MS01 Indie 2008-06-28 12:16PM | 0 recs
Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO.

how on god's green earth could you make a comment like this?  its a little disappointing to be frank.

how do you know that it wasn't a factor?  the media shapes public opinion and they slaughtered her.  some warranted - most not.  

was obama sexist?  IMO absolutely not.  but that's not really the point is it?  back in early may - which seems like a lifetime ago, i warned people about what their apathetic attitudes might do.  i hope i am wrong btw.

and to me, by no means is the NOW list as effective as the WMC video below.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO.

Explain Tucker Carlson's (a man I'm not accustomed to defending and certainly almost never agree with) comment--how is that a party composed of 55% women can't successfully propel a female candidate to the nomination?

Sexism in the media?  Absolutely.

Sexism as the definitive moment in the 2008 campaign?  Absolutely NOT.  Any part sexism played was counterbalanced by racism on the other side.

What percent of the 55% of female voters who voted in the Democratic primary/caucus season were sexist?  All the ones who voted for Obama?  McCaskill?  Klobuchar?  Gregoire?

And is it your lowly position of Democratic voters that they would be influenced by media sexism so much so that it would affect their votes?  Because that's exactly what you're saying--an implication that folks didn't vote for Obama as much as they voted against the woman.

by AK Democrat 2008-06-28 01:27PM | 0 recs
yes - please do not defend tucker.

did i say sexism was the defining moment?  no.

what i did say to the diarist and to all the other naysayers who claim that it has NO EFFECT on the primary - is hogwash.

while they can as easy claim it had no effect, i can claim it did.  see how productive that conversation is?  yes - the media does push memes forward and it does have an effect on conventional thinking - say for example the 'straight talk express' or 'al gore says he invented the internet.'  its irrelevant if the memes are true, but once they catch hold, i can never be undone.

and they pushed narratives HARD onto HRC's shoulders.  can i say 10% less of people voted for her as a result of the media?  absolutely not.

what i can say is, it played a role in the primary and that is unacceptable.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO.

It wasn't a significant factor. Racism played a bigger role but got less attention. And nobody really cares what Pat Buchanan has to say.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-28 01:38PM | 0 recs
really?

please do tell.  and provide as many links and proof as possible.  thanks.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: really?

The Wright story alone got more media attention than all the examples on the NOW list combined. The Wright story was absolutely racist.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-28 02:24PM | 0 recs
Come on CG

First, you misquoted me but it was close enough that I'll let it slide ;)

As akdemocrat said already, people not voting for Clinton because she is a woman aren't likely going to vote for a black man either.

As for needing links to prove racism...

Can we first agree that being racist toward Arabs and Muslims is to a point where a mainstream television host can question a congressman's patriotism based on his ethnicity and religious beliefs without sanction?

Does it take a logical leap to assume the somersaults to link Obama to Muslim ancestry and black Muslim leaders of today is an obvious attempt to incite racist xenophobic hatred?

Do you think the 24/7 misrepresentation of Black Liberation Theology as racist and the implication that the Obama's themselves are racists is based on ignorance rather than..... an obvious attempt to incite racist xenophobic hatred?

Do you still need links?

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on CG

this is not a contest between racism and sexism.  both are equally abhorrent.  and the fact that you and others keep bringing it up in discussion about sexism are IMO unhelpful as they serve to minimize the role that sexism played.

and i think you are misunderstanding my opinion of the role sexism played....  as i said earlier - in my opinion BO was not sexist nor were his surrogates.  however - many in the the media (including the blogosphere) were.  

the premise of your diary is that sexism will be the 'swiftboating' of BO.  i dont necessarily disagree) and warned you all about it back in may with this premise from my diary linked above.

While opponents of HRC cheered as she was and continues to be sliced and diced by the vast majority of the press, in reality they may be doing what the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' wanted - ensuring a Republican WH.

and this is the key point - while BO benefitted from it and the democratic party, its members (other than her supporters) watched in silence, often even cheering it on  

i hope i am wrong.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

This was an incredibly sexist campaign generated by those Sunshine Boys Russert and Matthews.  How quickly we forget the pro-Obama bias in the debates, which Obama still lost by the way.

by handsomegent 2008-06-28 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Pro-Obama bias in the debates?

You're joking, right?

Did you even watch the 45 minutes of pure Obama ambush that opened the ABC debate?

by mistersite 2008-06-28 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

out of how many debates?

come on, I am sure you remember that infamous debate where after Hillary answered a question, the mods asked other candidates if she was a bald-faced liar in her answers.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-28 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Out of most of the debates, starting from the very first one which both post debate polls said Obama won but the media unanomously declared Clinton the winner of. I agree about the single example you gave though... that ONE was the exception that proves the rule.

by Mystylplx 2008-06-28 02:16PM | 0 recs
for me

The debate moment that summed up the entire campaign for me was the exchange about Obama having lots of former Clinton admin advisers on his team.

It was a gotcha question Obama might not have handled very well had Hillary not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by giving Obama an opening to delivery the line of the primary.

"I look forward to you advising me too Hillary."

by Is This Snark 2008-06-28 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Excuse me but how about the now infamous October 30th debate where the late, not great "journalist" Tim Russert asked Saint Barack of the Inspired what he was going to be for Halloween.  That was the same one where the names of the Clintons were mentioned in 24 of 52 questions asked.  Then there was another Russert masterpiece where he brought up "William Jefferson Clinton" in a reference to a supposed contradiction in HRC's postion  vs her husband's about lists of donors (which, of course, has nothing to do with the price of onions in the market).  Russert was a pure example of the media's "out to get her attitude". I have NEVER seen such a bias in the press.

by handsomegent 2008-06-28 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

What about when Tim Russert asked Barack Obama to justify something Harry Belafonte said?

How about when Tim Russert asked Barack Obama to justify the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, an endorsement Obama did not seek from a man whom, as far as I can tell, Barack Obama has never met? (which race-baiting question Hillary Clinton followed up on, declaring that Obama's "rejection" was insufficient, Herself required a "renunciation" as well).

How about when former Clinton aide George Stephanopolous ran a video of a woman from Pennsylvania questioning Obama's patriotism because of his lack of "flair"? I don't remember Senator Clinton, or Stephanopolous, or Charlie Gibson pointing out that Senator Clinton is not known to wear a pseudo-patriotic piece of jewelry every day, either.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

Obama was all but the winner during the time of the PA debate. How about the Fox debate in Orlando in December when the Republican candidates were given an entire SEGMENT to bash Hillary?

by handsomegent 2008-06-30 01:41PM | 0 recs
More evidence

We had a long discussion on the episodes of sexism in the campaign, beyond just what happened in the MSM.  You might want to check out the comments to this diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/13/3213 5/8939

by dbrown04 2008-06-28 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexist Swiftboating

I dont particularly agree with most of the NOW examples. some of them I dont find to be clear examples of sexism

Was is a factor in the DEMOCRATIC primary? NO.

how can you even begin to evaluate the scope of sexism, when some dont even acknowledge its existence? there is no 'yes' or 'no' to whether it effected the primary. this isn't a cause and effect issue.

I really wish we could move past this, factor v non-factor argument, because it only diminishes the real issue, that sexism did occur. All this diary does, as well as the countless others with the same argument, is stray away from bringing awareness to sexism in america and further hinders the movement towards progress.----

[srsly groundhog day, much? i am so tired of having the same argument.]

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-28 01:56PM | 0 recs
Pimping

To me, Schuster's "pimping" comment is the key to all this. Was it obnoxious, crude, irrational, baseless, and just flat out stupid? Of course. Was it sexist? No. Was it anti-Clintonist? Absolutely.

The MSM hates the Clintons. I think we can agree on that whether you support Obama or HRC. Schuster (an aging fratboy trying too hard to be hip  and edgy) said something utterly stupid about the most banal of modern political practices: adult children of politicos campaigning for a parent. If there was an example of this that merited derision, it was not Chelsea Clinton or even Meghan McCain, but the middle-aged Romney "boys" pretending to be a lovable group of teenage boys from a Family Channel sitcom. But the point is, Schuster didn't say what he said because Hillary Clinton was a woman, but because Hillary Clinton is a Clinton.
Olbermann went waaaaaaay over the top, but not because Clinton is  a woman. I know a lot of people here think Clinton walks on water and sunlight and is incapable of even the smallest human failing, but her conduct in this campaign pissed off a lot of people. Olbermann is one of them. He happens to be emotional and sanctimonious. It's a strength and a weakness. As to the supposed call for "violence", people use all kinds of violent metaphors to discuss politics. To suddenly pretend that these are calls for actual physical violence, to gin up a constant stream of selective outrage, is not honest or persuasive. It didn't help Clinton's campaign.
Calling everything Clinton-supporters didn't like in campaign coverage "sexism", and implying and often flat-out stating that Obama was somehow responsible for it, ultimately weakened the argument for the real sexism in this campaign.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 03:34PM | 0 recs
Truthfully, ..... I believe ....

that 'progressives' will only admit that sexism exists in politics and the media coverage of political events when that sexism is applied to Michelle Obama.  Until then, it just simply does not exist to them.

by emsprater 2008-06-28 03:49PM | 0 recs
and I believe, truthfully,

that the inability of Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her internet supporters to acknowledge her own responsibility for losing this primary, the refusal to address her record as a factor in this race, has done more damage to her reputation than any sexism-- real, perceived, or flat-out fantasized-- in our politics and media.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated]Sexist Swiftboating

yeah it was, best to just admit it and move on. he'll get girl votes anyway, he isn't John McCain, but until he admits that he took character shots at his female opponent which worked because the party didn't call him on it, and the media agreed, and that it was mainly sexist in nature, he's a coward. But, he needn't have, he would have tied her anyway and the DNC would have handed it to the not-girl anyway, he encouraged it but he didn't need to. And, yes, he should be sorry, he has a wife and daughters, but I don't expect him to be sorry, he knows he's the only game in town now and we're stuck with him, so he can do anything he pleases.  He'll either beat McCain or he won't, and it won't matter if he 'gets' it probably.  Indies also like McCain and that's his problem, not women.  And the blue collar workers who would vote for her but not him wouldn't vote for him anyway, they didn't vote for kerry and they won t vote for him.  For them he's too much an egghead, book smart and practical stupid. They don't respect that kind of person.  

by anna shane 2008-06-28 03:52PM | 0 recs
Horseshit

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Horseshit

I call it like I see it, and I'm not alone. He has my vote, but if he wants to win he'd do better listening to me than those who excuse him and can't see that he's brought his lowish polling against McCain on himself. With some of his supporters, nothing is his fault, it's all those bad nay-sayers who don't believe in hope.  I don't believe in hope either, I believe in plans and hard work.  But, he's got my vote, so please don't bother trolling me.  

by anna shane 2008-06-28 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Horseshit

I call it like I see it, and I'm not alone

Okay. If fifty people agree the sun sets in the south, they're still wrong.

he'd do better listening to me

This is both funny and sad. All the whining and distortions just weakened the Clinton campaign and the Clinton brand. The bitter cranks and the liars and the wolf-criers reflect badly on the candidate.

I have to say, it's not fair to her. From Mark Penn down to the internets, Hillary Clinton deserved much better advice and support than she got.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Horseshit

the polls speak for themselves, Barack should be way ahead, and he's not. We'll see where the sun sets come November, and for all our sake he'd better at least squeak a win, he's got the nom and he'd best not drop the ball.  

by anna shane 2008-06-28 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Horseshit

Barack should be way ahead, and he's not

Well, if a smart, rational observer such as yourself says it, it must be true!!

Any other interesting factoids you've pulled out of your ass today?

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-28 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: [Updated]Sexist Swiftboating

Your denial of the significance of sexism in the campaign--and society at large--is narrow-sighted and dangerous.

The claim that Obama's--and the entire Party officialdom's--silence about sexism is acceptable is the antithesis of progressive.

Anyone who minimizes the psychological violence of sexist language cannot call him/herself a progressive.

And, no, I'm not "hypersensitive" and am in fact a man.  If we men do not fight sexism, because it does not impact as so directly, then simply shame on us and our pretense of a progressive ethic.

by borlov 2008-06-28 08:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads