Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins...Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.
Andrew Stephen, May 22, New Statesman

Americans have never reflected on their own shortcomings very well.  And so here is the first serious and  critical assessment of the Democratic primary campaign from a British observer who is scathing in his indictment of the Obama campaign and the American media--all to the detriment of the public good.

So much has been written about the Democratic primary campaign that it is exciting to come across something which captures an element of the campaign in a new way.  Andrew Stephen, US editor for the New Statemsan since 2001, does this  in last Thursday's issue of that magazine with a stunning indictment of the combined  Obama campaign and media treatment of Hillary.

A word about Andrew Stephen. He  became US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998. He is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.

Another member of the non-US press has also commented critically on the mysogyny unleashed in this election. Nuala O'Faolain, a prominent figure in the Irish press who covered the election for the Irish Times until her untimely death from lung cancer, said she could only describe herself as "gobstruck" by it.

Here is Andrew Stephen's  take:

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

Tags: Barack Obama, David axelrod, Hillary Clinton, Media, New Statesman, racism, sexism (all tags)




look, she said something stupid, really stupid, but if you think that she is praying and remaining in the race in anticipation of an Obama funeral, then you are nuts!

by American1989 2008-05-24 08:40AM | 0 recs

She talked about a historical event.  And she talked about the same event before. 05/24/obama-takes-his-talking-points-fro m-drudge/

No hysteria then.  The only reason there's such crazed hatred spewed now is because she's beating Obama so badly in so many places.

Carolyn Kay

Called a stupid, white-trash racist because I voted for Hillary.  Is this what they call Unity?

by Caro 2008-05-24 12:08PM | 0 recs

"crazed hatred spewed." That comment reflects why it's time the SDs came out now and end this "kitchen sink" campaigning.

by catilinus 2008-05-24 12:45PM | 0 recs
The "historical event" is an assaination

Not merely an assaination, but the assaination of a hopeful politician that was promising to bring America out of a horrible war.  Please forgive me if I do not think the possible assaination of Obama as a common sense reason to stay in the race.  I'm sorry if you can't recognize that Obama's possible assaination has been the fear of millions and the hopes of thousands of sick, twisted evil individuals.

by nklein 2008-05-24 04:17PM | 0 recs
So has Hillary's - only for 16 years longer! duh!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Yes and the last time a presidential candidate...

discussed her possible assaination was?

by nklein 2008-05-24 05:08PM | 0 recs
she was discussing june. get beyond it.

your candidate's campaign has already been identified in the press as the source of the "notice" that there was something untoward in her comment, when they got done twisting it.  Just in case nobody wlse noticed, they sent KO's special comentary on the subject to the entire press list.  Nobody cared the other times she said it, not when it was printed in Time the first time, not until Obama people told them they should be very unpset once they knew how to interpret it.  Where have we heard it is always about Obama?  Bush, Clinton, Clinton, McCain, Ferraro, Johnson and his basketball coach.  It is always twisted to be something bad about Obama and he must point that out so that people who didn't notice it would notice and get very very up set at how the bad people are all saying such bad things about poor Barry.  And by the way let's elect him to protect the free world and put his finger on the button, just in case he sees somebody he thinks said something bad and it was surely about him and they surely meant it inthe worst way imaginable.  OOOOOWEEEE>

by itsadryheat 2008-05-25 07:57PM | 0 recs
Which candidate has been screaming about...

sexism?  There is one candidate who has lost and is blaming is every other person besides herself or her campaign.

by nklein 2008-05-25 10:40PM | 0 recs

"The only reason there's such crazed hatred spewed now is because she's beating Obama so badly in so many places."

Ummm ... you do realize Obama needs only 54 delegates to clinch the nomination ... don't you?

by fugazi 2008-05-24 06:40PM | 0 recs

Make that 52.

by fugazi 2008-05-24 07:43PM | 0 recs
you are nuts to even think this

is what she meant or what any of us mean here.  Please respond to the diary, not your own subject.  You've hijacked the diary already.

by 4justice 2008-05-24 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: you are nuts to even think this

The diarist & the other 309 posters at have hijacked 1/2 this site.

by catilinus 2008-05-24 04:13PM | 0 recs
Is this simply a cut & paste job?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-24 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

Worse yet, cut and paste of nonsense.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

pretty much defines anything from Brit. I mean really, how could anyone take this diary seriously when he is the source

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: pay attention

A Brit, not the Brit.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: pay attention

The diary title could be clearer.

by really not a troll 2008-05-24 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: pay attention

just the thought that someone who quote that blow hard in complementary way made me skip the substance, which even after I read it was way over the top

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: pay attention

I think you've confused yourself - you usually agree with this sort of stuff.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 11:48AM | 0 recs

but hey unlike you I will admit when I read to fast and jumped to a false conclusion and apologize to the diarist.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 11:17AM | 0 recs
It's not worth it. They don't even read the diary!

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

The twit who wrote the article that was cut and pated here started off by saying that the animosity toward Hillary is undeserved because she hasn't done anything.  I already have a stack of fiction to read when I get around to it.

I am always up for honest conversation, but when someone starts off by saying that the McCain surrogate did nothing worthy of animosity it becomes clear that honest conversation is not on the menu.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

apparently, you've already made up your mind about how things have been, then, so it's rather pointless for you to read anything, isn't it?

by slynch 2008-05-24 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

Ok, I'll be open minded while you explain to me how a double secret society of misogynists who all went and earned degrees and infiltrated the media so that they could use a sophisticated computer graphics program to make it appear that Hillary's campaign said that John McCain was more qualified than her fellow democrat and thus was running as a McCain surrogate.  It's hard to imagine that they had the time to do it given how much time they had to invest in creating so many different CG scenes wherein Hillary insisted that her memory about Tuzla was accurate.  Hey, I'm all ears though.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

you've been on this 'mccain surrogate' kick forever now, it seems, and it's just bullshit.  if you want to pick TWO things to hang your hat on as justification for disliking Clinton, be my guest.  I can just as easily say that being associated with Wright--who is clearly an anti-white bigot--and pop-psychologizing (incorrectly, to boot, if you pay any attention whatsoever to academics) millions of blue-collar voters justify HATING Obama.  Get real.  Both candidates have made equally serious blunders and have been negative at times.  But there is no denying that Clinton has been the victim of a very sexist media, and Obama has largely gotten a free pass with the same media.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

Not buying it.  I give less than a shit what a pastor from Obama's church where he is nothing more than a congregant had to say while talking about something entirely unrelated to Barack.  I do, however, as a democrat and and american give a big damn when Hillary (herself or her staff, to whom she is boss) says things that increase the GOP's odds of taking our country further down the wrong path and snatching away more of mine and my children's civil liberties.  

If you have to insist on a second reason for my distaste for the serial lying, McCain surrogate apart and separate from her Benedict Arnold attacks on her own party's likely nominee I will provide you with it.  Her campaign helped craft and then signed on to the agreement that neither Florida nor Michigan would count in the nomination process this year.  She is now trying to cheat.  She is willing to take our time honored, fair method of choosing a nominee and dishonor it by conniving her way into a purloined victory.  If she is willing to do such a thing then the values that went into devising such a method mean so little to her that she is not worthy of any government position much less the presidency.

At a time when our country desperately needs to repudiate neoconservatism once and for all, when the mood of the electorate is finally ripe for us to do it, Hillary continues to foment division with her campaign tactics even after it has clearly been over for some time now.  (oops!  Dear me, I've gone and given you a third reason that I can't stand the McCain surrogate.)

Your guilt by association argument is not equivalent.  Your argument holds no water.  Your candidate is loathsome.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

at least you can spell.  But your ability to reason and discern reality is quite lacking.  

by slynch 2008-05-24 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

And when they can't argue merits they begin with the personal attacks....


by lockewasright 2008-05-24 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

as you do with Clinton incessantly...

by slynch 2008-05-24 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

um...she's the candidate.  Did you miss that?

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I don't follow you.  My point was that your invectives against Clinton are without solid foundation, and so I question your grip on reality.  That's not ad hominem, because I've already dealt with your arguments.  Now I'm just making an observation.  

You hate her; I get it.  But, your grip on reality is weak if you have as much animosity toward her as you seem to for the trivial reasons that you've given--and the obvious hypocrisy in not hating Obama as well.  As I said before, there are equally trivial reasons for one to "hate" Obama.  And your attempts at dismissing my Wright and bitter examples are laughable--For example, if you associate with an anti-white bigot for 20 years, one must question your sincerity when you claim ignorance of his views and/or you claim to be a unity candidate.  Surely you buy that argument, given your argument about why you hate Hillary so much given who she associates with and given that you consider her a liar (I would say Obama's statements regarding Wright are pretty good evidence that he is just as much of a liar).  I could go on and on, but I have grades to submit for a class (that I'm overdue on), a general exam for a doctoral student to read tonight, and a paper I'm trying to finish before Tuesday, and it's already 1:45 here.  Have a good night.

by slynch 2008-05-24 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

My grip on reality, my ability to analyze keeps me living comfortably.  It is my profession.  

Candidates are fair game for criticism, even the rules regarding ratings at this site say so.  

And again you attack me instead of arguing merits.  That is an indicator that the merits on your side of the case are lacking.  

As a math dork, my predictions have been very accurate since about the first week of February.  They have been based on the empirical.  It is the folks around here who deny reality and attack anyone who points it out who have a feeble grip.  The unfolding of events has served to demonstrate the correctness of one side and the flimsy reasoning skills of the other.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I didn't attack you, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.  Again, I questioned your grip, given your vitriol against Clinton.

Hey, we've been down this path before...You're the 'math dork,' and I'm the one who teaches statistics.  As I said before, you may have been correct back in February, but that was luck and not based on any real math.  And, as I said before, it's looking like my forecasts are right--she most likely will end with the popular vote lead (and he with the delegate lead).

by slynch 2008-05-25 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I question your fitness for your profession if you really cannot grasp what's going on here.  

Enjoy your delusion.  

Bye bye.

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

You're going to presume to lecture me about "real math" and then have the audacity to trot out that tired old laughable popular vote argument?!  

If you count these votes, but not those ones, and if you give her all of these and allow for him to get a zero there, then multiply by the number of strict vegans in Norway...

Talk about no grip!  Are you paid to teach statistics?

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

quite handsomely at an ivy league university.  So, you might just back up and think about that for a minute.  Perhaps you're the one who needs to get a reality check.  Until you decide to join reality, buzz off.  you're rude and insulting and have very little to say other than that.

by slynch 2008-05-25 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

and I've been right over and over again.

I am not buying it either.  You do not teach at an Ivy League institution.  Certainly nothing math related anyway.

At the moment 4 math professionals are in my office chuckling at your attempt to pass yourself off as such.

Stomp your feet all you want.  My batting average is pretty damned good and my side just. keeps. winning.

by lockewasright 2008-05-26 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I teach at Princeton in the sociology department, the Office of Population Research, and the Woodrow Wilson School for Public Policy.  My primary appointment is in soc at the moment, and you can find me there.  I'm not hard to find, given that my user name here matches my email id.  All I teach is statistics, and I've been doing it for some time.  So, apparently you and your friends are having a good laugh at yourselves.  "math professionals" indeed.  whatever that means.  

I'll accept your apology as soon as you'd like to offer it, given that you called me a liar without basis.  But, I expect I won't get one.

As I told you before, I projected some time ago that the popular vote results were too close to call, and, at the time, the delegate count couldn't be called either.  The fact that you guessed correctly early doesn't mean anything--that's all it was--a guess without statistical evidence to back it up.  I'm glad (for you) that you appear to be correct about the delegate matter, but I'm unimpressed.  I'm still betting she'll pull out the popular vote, and my projections on it have still been right.  The issue is whether it will move the superdelegates, and that cannot really be predicted.  You can speculate and guess, but that's it.

by slynch 2008-05-26 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

You can also look at what percentage of the remaining supers would be needed at that point by each candidate.  Additionally, one can observe the movement in Supers to date and map the changing slope in that movement.  Then their is the order in which the contests occur along with the size of the projected win and the number of delegates available for each contest.  The results of each  contest needs to be added to the model as its realities become known and will therefore alter the projection for all subsequent contests.  Probability isn't about the pinpoint, it's about likelihood.

You need to change the discipline that you're engrossed in from time to time.  The blinders aren't helping.

Why do you think team Hil went from just fine with Mi & Fla not counting to suddenly becoming crusaders for the disenfranchised  and why only at such a late date? /32346

Perhaps someone on her staff has my same feeble grasp on reality and has lean on all of that mathematics witch craft.  Maybe you don't get it.  Maybe there is a reason that BO does so well among the educated.  Perhaps it is exactly our grasp on reason.

by lockewasright 2008-05-27 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

oh, and while I'm thinking of it, I'm HR'ing your comment.  You called me a liar without any basis, and that violates the site rules.

by slynch 2008-05-26 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

by lockewasright 2008-05-27 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I called you a liar with basis and continue to do so.

You seem to have no grasp of the concept of probability.  If you truly believe that the changing circumstances regarding the difference between Obama's delegate totals and Hilary's coupled with the ever shrinking pool from which to win additional delegates and the dwindling number of contests in which to do it don't impact the probability of victory in attaining the nomination then you truly aren't qualified for the position that you claim to hold in your professional life.  It is real math and it has been correct over and over again.  You keep pointing to your (evidently ill gotten) shingle, I'll keep watching my predictions come true.

This started to get personal when you questioned my grip on reality because I said that she was going to become the object of ridicule and that her career would suffer because of the depth to which she has stooped in a desperate attempt to ignore what the math already makes clear. tent/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052602006_ pf.html

Evidently the Washington Post has no grasp on reality, along with Chuck Todd, Tim Russert, Tweety, Ko, The folks at DemConWatch, CNN, CBS, the collection of engineers sitting here continuing to laugh at your clearly false assertion that you understand basic mathematics.

You may work in the sociology dept, but it involves a name tag and a mop.

by lockewasright 2008-05-27 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

You have absolutely no basis for calling me a liar.  You state that I wasn't what I claimed to be, and I clearly am (here, I'll make it even easier for you:  To now claim it must have been ill-gotten and/or that I push a mop gets you an HR.  You're also making a laughable, but expected response.  It is expected because you come across as a person who simply cannot deal with being wrong.  

The fact is, I'm quite confident that I know far more about probability and mathematics than you do, so I'm done playing this little "you don't know anything about math and aren't who you claim to be.." game with you.  Put up some credentials and show me how you arrived mathematically at the conclusion more than 3 months ago, with 100% certainty, that Obama would be the nominee.  Speculation isn't mathematics, and the data simply did not support your view.  The data still don't support some of your view.

Let's recap--the conversation started with unbelievable vitriol from you calling Clinton a McCain surrogate among other things.  I disagreed with you, and you became sarcastic and nasty after that, starting down the path of claiming that I don't know anything about math.  I proved you wrong on that regard, despite the fact that you won't admit it.

Try to follow a rational argument for a minute.  My argument before with you and still is that you (and other) Obama supporters were claiming victory for Obama long before any data suggested it was a done deal.  In regard to the popular vote, it is still not clear who will come out ahead.  In terms of PLEDGED delegates, it is fairly clear neither will accumulate enough, so it comes down to superdelegates.  We do not know how the superdelegates will vote (we especially didn't the first time we discussed this issue, back right after PA, I think).  As a result, you can't definitively claim Obama is the nominee.  You still can't.  The popular vote argument will be a strong one with remaining superdelegates, despite the fact that a handful have come out and moved toward Obama recently.  I expect he probably will get the nomination (the expectation of forecasts favors him), but it is not a done deal (the variance in forecasts is still broad enough to prevent rejecting any null hypothesis).

Now, I told you before that I spent a day forecasting the final numbers right before PA using econometric time series models along with Bayesian posterior predictive simulation.  I assume you have no idea what that means, but that's what I did.  And, it turned out that my projections have been correct, and are still correct.  The data do not support the contention that Obama will definitely win the popular vote (even including caucus states).  And, they do not support the contention that Obama will win the election without superdelegates.  Anything you argue to the contrary is just wishful guessing.  It may turn out correct, but it may not.  

The fact is that anyone who knows anything about probability and statistics doesn't make bold claims that cannot be demonstrated with the data.  We statisticians tend to be conservative with respect to committing Type I errors.  Yet you have insisted on doing so repeatedly, and that's what I've called you on.  Not to mention your excessive hatred of Hillary, which seems disproportionate to any justification from an objective perspective (need I repeat--I'm not a Hillary nor an Obama supporter).

by slynch 2008-05-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

and my predictions just keep coming true.


by lockewasright 2008-05-30 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

And since when is probability ever %100?  There would be no such thing as probibilties were that the case.  That's the very definition of probabilities!  Clearly you don't know what you're talking about....


by lockewasright 2008-05-30 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

So,if I change my user name to billgates and then post a link to a Microsoft page with a picture and a bio of him does that make me Bill Gates?  No, and neither do your user name and link convince me to put aside your refusal to acknowledge the predictive nature of probabilities.  That is why I continue to assert that you cannot have the education to which you lay claim.

How does one confirm the accuracy of a prediction?  By watching to see if the prediction comes to fruition as mine just keep on doing.

I said to you long ago that it was sloppy language to say that the race was over, but only insofar as it is sloppy language to say that there is no chance that I will be stricken by lightening in Phoenix as I leave work and walk out to my car in May (when rain is exceedingly rare).

Show some understanding of probabilities or I will continue to believe that you cannot be who you say that you are.

I recognize that you are neither a supporter of Hillary or of the nominee.  That is not what this is about.  It got personal when you said that I had no grip on reality even though actuaries at companies like Intrade consitently have been making a fortune and enjoying one hell of a track record off of the very same type of mathematics as I have employed and even though the course of events has continued to validate my statements ever since February.

BTW, those ignorant, continually sucessful PHDs over at Intrade made predictions and have been in agreement with me since February too. Maybe they should quit being rude and throw out everything they know of mathematics and just go ahead and accept the rules for math that they're evidently teaching at Princeton these days.

Seems to me that you're the one who just can't acknowledge being incorrect.

And hell no, I won't give personal information to anyone on the web; especially not someone who has proved as irrational as you.

by lockewasright 2008-05-30 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

Show me where Obama told a lie about Wright.  You cannot.  He said the he was not present for that lecture.  The one that was on a continuous loop taken out of context.  The guy later turned out to be a real asshole about the whole thing going on talk shows, pouring gas on the fire, trying to do damage, but not a word of what Barack said regarding the situation was false.  

You are mistaken and not very logical for one who claims to make a living in mathematics.  Where do you teach?  Are you published?  

by lockewasright 2008-05-25 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di


by lockewasright 2008-05-25 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

never saw this comment.  don't know how it slipped by.

Yes, I'm published, many times.  If you read upthread, you can learn more. Are YOU published?  You keep calling yourself a math dork--exactly what are YOUR credentials?

It's not clear to me why you insist on ad hominem's rather than dealing with the arguments.  I think maybe you have an anger problem--you get far too easily side-tracked with name-calling and nastiness and spend too little time concentrating on the argument at hand.

Obama is a liar for claiming he did not know Wright's ridiculous beliefs, and that did never attended a sermon where Wright discussed such beliefs.  In fact, he was not only present for the one he claimed not to be, he has been shown on video during other sermons in which Wright made ridiculous anti-white comments.  That makes him a liar.  Another example: the Canada/NAFTA bit.  Either you've missed all this in the media or you've just repressed it.

by slynch 2008-05-26 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

let me add to that that I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I happen to agree with almost everything in that diary.  Which is precisely why I do not support Obama and may not be able to vote for him in the general.  I'm really struggling with that issue, and the extent of all the nasty, negative comments around here from his supporters don't help.

by slynch 2008-05-24 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di


by lockewasright 2008-05-24 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

yeah, you can be sarcastic about it, but I know if I'm having trouble with it, given that I'm not a big Hillary fan, then so are many other Democrats.  It doesn't bode well at all for the party's hopes this fall.  The whole "unity" theme of Obama is apparently bs, just as Bush's 'uniter not a divider' bit was back in 2000

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

I don't see him as the one sowing disunity.

Thanks for the permission to be sarcastic though.  I hope that doesn't just kill the fun though.  I mean now that I have your permission it just doesn't feel all that naughty any more.

Vote however you want. I see bullshit I call bullshit.  

Here's a question:

Are meteorologists all intense anti- Kansas bigots because they just keep on reporting it every time a tornado tears some shit up in that state?  

This is the same nonsensical bullshit argument that the conservative knuckle draggers deployed when there was only bad news to report out of Iraq.  I'm sure you've yelled at the twit rethug on the tv just like me when he said: "Oh, the media is biased.  They're all anti war cuz all they ever report is bad news about it."  I know I was yelling: "They aren't making it up!  There is only bad shit to report, but the IED that just blew the shit out of 2 soldiers and three kids did just go off!  They're not biased for reporting it asshole!"  You have to have felt the same way.

She's been completely Roveian in this competition.  The cameras picked it up.  End of story.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

his campaign and supporters indeed have been sowing disunity for the entire season.  Apply your own words back at yourself.  If half the democratic party feels that way, what, they're just wrong?  bullshit.

You're being nothing more than hyperbolic to call her campaign 'Rovian.'  That just goes to show you aren't a very reasonable person, and your blinding bias is apparent, so I'm done talking with you.

by slynch 2008-05-24 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not worth it. They don't even read the di

Well one of us isn't being reasonable.

Guess which one is in the majority?

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 08:33PM | 0 recs
slynch, I admire your work and appreciate

your contribution (and your spelling) to the discourse.  I usually learn something I can use when I follow your writing.

I also experience you as a champion as I have watched you take on the beastieboyz with such patience and care and determination.  I see how they are stuck coming back to get the last word with some tired insult, over and over and over again.  It is usually because they are not equipped to argue on the merits and they really don't want to deal with facing what you are talking about.  Notice how that is too often the case with these folks?

They really don't want to talk about the man, the history, the policies, the credentials, the legislation, the Senate committee he won as a freshman and how he didn't hold a meeting or go to Europe to meet the leaders involved.  Or his vulnerabilities and weaknesses or his character and the cracks showing more and more, or his campaign tactic to find a comment, twist its meaning and then bring out a memo to the press list to make sure they all notice it and are alarmed and distressed at the new meaning they can now understand an innocuous comment to have, and then make a public statement that it was "unfortunate and has no place in the campaign"  followed in a day or two by "I take Senator Clinton (fill in name) at her word and accept her apology and think we should move on to the problems Americans care about".  When he applies this method to open the wounds and stir new feelings of racism, that's the worst.  

They don't bother to find out and understand the rules of the party and the nomination process.  They just spout the meme of the week from the talking point.  So very much of what this groups says on this site is demonstrably not true, but most of them are so incurious that they won't even  bother to find out what is real.  I really don't think most of them want to know anything about Obama or the race.  I think they mostly want to keep from knowing and keep others from knowing.  I watched this back and forth as you tried to reason with the let's be nice "other" and the wall s/he had put up.  Then I wonder what slynch could be contributing to someone deserving in another thread and how a civil discourse between interested curious minds might go.  I like what you write.  I know where I am on the two candidates, but I think there are some people here who do not yet know, or who have begun changing their minds.  I wish you would write a diary about it and see if you could help other seekers. And talk around the ones with closed agendas to comment to posters who can benefit from your thinking and attitude. I think you are too valuable to this site to spend part of your life trying to give something to "other"s.

Thank you for keeping up such a good fight for reasoned discourse. You are much better at it than I and you have the patience of Job.  I want people who can benefit from it to get it.  Just my 2 unsolicited, admiring cents.  

by itsadryheat 2008-05-25 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: slynch, I admire your work and appreciate

thanks for your nice comments!  It feels like I'm beating my head against the wall, sometimes.  I've thought about writing a few diaries, and I will some time soon.  Just have to get some stuff cleared off my desk so I can afford to take a while to respond to all the nasty comments I'll get.!

by slynch 2008-05-26 09:03PM | 0 recs
Right! But there'll never be enough time for

that!  The more folks don't want to hear something the more important it becomes to shout it down.  One was to measure hitting a tender spot must be to count the shouters and measure the decibels.

by itsadryheat 2008-05-27 10:54PM | 0 recs

It's a very good article.  The diary is, yes, primarily cut and paste, though.

by Montague 2008-05-24 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

Well, if it is, so what?  I read the article last night and thought it the best overview of this campaign I've seem and a righteous well deserved indictment of the American media.  I'm glad the diarist brought it here.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-24 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

seeing who it is I cannot see it as anything but either pandering or manipulation

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Doh

But it isn't who you htink it is.  Did you actually read it?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Doh

later yes after recovering from the thought someone here would cite him as a good source, the article is still way way over the top

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Doh

That's odd - you normally march in lockstep with linfar.  Are you sure you've read it?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Doh

(wispers)  it's one of the "other" personalities.

by fogiv 2008-05-24 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

So what? Well that's unoriginal and could be construed as a copywrite violation.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-24 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut

the word is "copyright," and it is not a problem if the material is cited appropriately.  The fact is that calling the diary a 'cut and paste' job was just a piss-poor attempt to demean its message.  But, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack and doesn't address the content.

by slynch 2008-05-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut

You're right. Copyright. You're wrong about the rest. You can't just publish a whole work written by someone else even if you attribute it to them. So right on the small part wrong on the big part.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-25 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut

And to address the argument, for the most part it's bullshit. Clinton had every advantage and wasn't treated to any more sexism than Obama was treated to racism. In fact, she was treated to less and the sexism she experienced didn't harm her campaign. Her bad campaign plan did.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-25 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

Yes, in defiance of fair use laws and site rules.

Worse, it's lousy "journalism."  Just to cite one (mis)example: Who, exactly, laughed at the "iron my shirt" sign that cropped up in Clinton's NH rally?  The reports I saw correctly identified it at the time as an example of the sexism with which Clinton was having to deal; it fed the sentiment aroused by Clinton's tearing up in the press conference.  I've been a political junkie on crack for eight months now, and I've yet to see any report of anyone outside of Free Republic laugh off that sign.

On the other hand, it hardly matters.  Clinton's campaign imploded yesterday.

by deminva 2008-05-24 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

actually it was laughed at and defended by people right here who claim to support BHO.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-24 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm

I didn't see those comments, nor did I see any at Daily Kos.  Comments laughing about that sign would have been troll-rated into oblivion.  I wonder if the columnist can point to anyone in the media who laughed on TV or in print.

by deminva 2008-05-24 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply a cut & paste job?

And the two guys who made that sign were paid to do so for a Boston-area radio show.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply

True--rightwing sexists.  But what reputable media sources laughed along?

by deminva 2008-05-24 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this simply

so answer your own question. Who?  Please provide links.

by temptxan 2008-05-25 04:40AM | 0 recs
Not just that it's cut & paste

but since I work in a job where we deal with copyright issues on a regular basis, it would be my judgment that this step over the line of what is considered fair use.

I hope Jerome et al have had a look and made their own determination, but at the institution I work for, I can safely say we'd never use something containing such a large percentage of an original work for fear of litigation.

by bookish 2008-05-24 11:29AM | 0 recs
Not only that

but as a published author Lin Farley knows better. If someone posted 80-90% of "Sexual Shakedown" online, either she or her publisher would have sent a cease and desist letter almost immediately, and probably begun formal process.

by bookish 2008-05-24 11:52AM | 0 recs
PJ, you've been reported. n/t

by bookish 2008-05-25 07:34AM | 0 recs
And a copyright violation

of that there is no doubt.

by fladem 2008-05-24 11:50AM | 0 recs

We had a couple diaries on this already, and they weren't a simple cut/paste. They involved discussion and original thought. C'mon, Linfar, get with the program.

by ragekage 2008-05-24 08:42AM | 0 recs
Original thought is better.

What do you bet that this is the diary that makes the rec list though?

by you like it 2008-05-24 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Original thought is better.

It that does happen, at least it has some substance to it. Have you ever cmmented on the content of a diary. I am just curious. really.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Original thought is better.

Do you intend to write the content of a diary soon?

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Original thought is better.

Yep, it's the content, stupid.  But Stupid probably won't read the content.  Sadly.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-24 10:10AM | 0 recs

That's rich coming from someone who won't be voting for the Democrat this fall.

by you like it 2008-05-24 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Stupid....

Not that it's any of your business but I'll be voting for several Democrats this fall as I have done for 48 years.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-24 12:06PM | 0 recs
That doesn't change the fact...

that it is stupid to not pick Obama over McCain.

by you like it 2008-05-24 12:20PM | 0 recs
Hey look, it happened.

And this is why.  From

linfar Says:
May 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Really good post admin.

Everyone, please stop by this diary at mydd.

It is a great article on Hillary Hate from a british commentator. I think this is about the best commentary I have seen on the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media.

I do like to respond to the content of diaries when there is a substantive argument being made.  You, however, have lost all credibility.  Your earlier diary blaming Obama for the fallout of Hillary's gaffe is a reflection of that.

Also, I haven't forgotten that you have, in the past, quoted white supremicist sites and sites like creepingsharia in your attacks on Obama.  You aren't fooling anyone.

by you like it 2008-05-24 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey look, it happened.

you'd think the the hillaryis44 auto-recs would be banned by now. I guess Jerome "overlooked" them, unlike the hundreds of Obama supporters who have lost rec privileges.

by really not a troll 2008-05-24 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey look, it happened.

Could the administrators please step in here!

The diarist is gaming the Rec.List with nonsense and smears.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 11:25AM | 0 recs
I know we are especially keen to post diaries sympathetic to Senator Clinton after her recent assassination gaffe, but this article has already featured in the diary Hating Hillary by canadian gal, Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:01 AM GMT > 1/9012
by My Ob 2008-05-24 08:45AM | 0 recs
I thought it was Brit Hume

by parahammer 2008-05-24 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought it was Brit Hume

I thought it was short for Britney!  I have been dying to know her thoughts on all this!

by rf7777 2008-05-24 09:23AM | 0 recs
Britney's thoughts. Good one.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-24 09:50AM | 0 recs
We cannot see it for ourselves
So far as I can tell - both sides of this Clinton- Obama fight are so deep into their respective candidate's cause that they can no longer stand outside the arena and make an objective comment. The service that this diary brings to this blog is just exactly that. The article that has been "cut and pasted" into this discussion brings a refreshingly different point of view. Andrew Stephan is charged with calling the shots as he sees it to describe the dilemma that currently faces the leadership of the Democratic Party if they have any hope of winning both the Presidency and a meaningful majority of Congress this fall.
To the extent that this article speaks truth and it makes us uncomfortable SO BE IT.
Thanks for letting us see ourselves as others see us (which is, looking pretty stupid and childish right now)
by pan230oh 2008-05-24 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: We cannot see it for ourselves

Yes, pan, this is exactly what this dairy aims to do. I was stunned to see my own thoughts reflected back by an "outside" observer. It is so hard to keep one's head clear with  all the media spin and Obama campaign attack and negativity.

by linfar 2008-05-24 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: We cannot see it for ourselves

Let me see if I can do this...

"It is so hard to keep one's head clear with  all the media spin and Obama campaign attack and negativity."

Changed to...

It is so hard to keep one's head clear with all the media spin and Clinton campaign attack and negativity.

Wow...and it works too. That was really easy.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-24 09:36AM | 0 recs
I wish we could filter out the attacks and discuss

Anybody here know how to give members a filtering mechanism that would let us put in names of the serial troll bombers and attact dogz who only come to keep anyone from saying anything good about Hillary or anything about Obama's flaws, vulnerabilities or background that we need to know before we select a nominee.  Even attempts to discuss his few "original" proposals or to look at lobby influences on his legislation are defeated.

So for the sake of some discourse, civil arguments and sharing information and concerns that might actually help us get the White House, we need to filter out the destruction and abuse or no good work can happen here.

If they are now advertising on the big orange about diaries over here to come run hit, we need changes made before we are orange all over.

This diary is perfect for depicting the change in recent weeks.  People interested in the party, the White House, and the future of the nation would most likely be very interested in seeing what this British perspective could teach us that would help.  Turns our it could teach us something that our own media is not about to help us with.

 But it is so significant that it could cost us the White House and the voters for a long time.  If we are to fix it, we have to study it and understand it.  If we are to take the naysayers as sincere, then their denial is removing them from the group who want to help fix this.  If the naysayers are here for sinister purposes working to try to
destroy the party and give the power back to the republicans, then they can't be counted as in the group wanting to help.

Since they can't help us learn about the problems and they won't help us solve them, we need to be able to filter them out.  If this article is not a wake up call, we deserve what we end up getting - and losing from ignoring it's sentiments and perspective.

In the meantime, how about we not engage them and try to talk around them till we can work something out.  And if the admin is no help in reigning in the beastieboyz, anybody want to recommend other sites where this behaviour is not tolerated and people of good will can work together?

by itsadryheat 2008-05-24 04:57PM | 0 recs
Please correct an ERROR

Just before your second block quote you wrote Andrew is Andrew Stephen.

Andrew Sullivan is a racist, sexist, misogynist who happens to support Obama.

by tarheel74 2008-05-24 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Please correct an ERROR

If you think Andrew Sullivan is sexist, racist, or misogynist, then you have never read Mr. Sullivan. You might want to give it a try. You might learn something about principle, logic, patience, and coherence.

It might be a shock to your system, just as changing your diet to healthier foods feels a little bad at first. But you'll be better for it in the long run.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-24 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Please correct an ERROR

actually, I've been reading Sullivan for years, and you're wrong.  The OP was right.  You have to wade through a lot of racist, sexist crap to read Sullivan.  Perhaps you don't read so well.

by slynch 2008-05-24 06:40PM | 0 recs

Why is it that the Brits can ALWAYS see us much more clearly and accurately than we can see ourselves?  

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-05-24 09:03AM | 0 recs

I dunno. but I think this is a devastatingly accurate take on what is happening. Always nice to see you :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:18AM | 0 recs

It raises another question to me, too.  If BO happened to be elected POTUS, how seriously would our European friends take him, considering that they are very aware of the tactics he and the MSM... and the DNC... used to elect him?  

Would they not look at him with very suspicious eyes, knowing that he is willing to go along with any malicious tactic necessary as a means to an end?

by mbolack 2008-05-24 09:25AM | 0 recs

I think they would see another Bush. this is one of my strongesrt objecrtions to Obama as our nominee--his tactics. they are just like Bush. And it scares the __out of me.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:31AM | 0 recs

Wow... how did you get there...?

No wonder you hate Obama so much... if I thought that of him, I wouldn't like him either.

Of course I don't think that of him because it is nowhere near the truth...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-24 09:37AM | 0 recs

Yeah. I do see a lot of his tactis as being like Bush. That's why this coming together is so hard.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:50AM | 0 recs

I don't see ANY of his tactics being like Bush... Of course I have said that when people have said that they think Clinton is being like Bush.

Bush is Bush... Obama is Obama... Clinton is Clinton.  No need to use analogies to describe any of them... we all have them defined in our minds... incorrect analogies are not needed about anything.

I realize you hate Obama.  I have read enough of your work to realize that... but comparing him to Bush is so far beyond reason and comprehension as to be laughable.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-24 09:53AM | 0 recs

I think what Linfar means is that Obama--like Bush--has a devastatingly effective coalition that is going to put him in White House.

However, unlike Bush, Sen. Obama also has vision, intelligence, organizational effectiveness, verbal accuity, and he won't have to steal the election to make it happen.

I give Linfar 3 out of 10. Please keep playing.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-24 12:02PM | 0 recs
Bush and BO both wear the same suit.

The empty one!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-24 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush and BO both wear the same suit.

If you actually think Obama is an empty suit, then you are either spinning, lying, stupid...or all three.

I could explain why that is so, but really, what's the point?


by Rationalisto 2008-05-24 12:03PM | 0 recs

Bush tactics like not taking responcility for ones actions, not being honest, andthreatening anihilation of foreign countries?

Those are all Clinton qualities.

by venician 2008-05-24 09:44AM | 0 recs

It's kind of funny reading how you guys are all tut-tutting Obama and "blaming the system" for Clinton's own dumb statement. As if this was the first time Clinton badly misspoke.

For a group of people who constantly attack Obama as  too inexperienced to survive under the bright lights of a general election, it's funny how Clinton's the one making the repeated gaffes.

And really, spare me the "let's have some decency!" bleating. You and your cohorts absolutely savaged Obama for the bitter comment. Yet here you are condemning everyone else for criticizing Clinton's own gaffes. How quaint.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-24 10:51AM | 0 recs

How idiotic.  As a Brit I can tell you he is wildly popular here - Clinton, not so much.  The Tuzla stuff was big news here, and she was a laughing stock in the media for about a week. This is a very obscure article, and I would doubt it resonates much here.  Sexism isn't much of an issue in the UK.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 11:01AM | 0 recs

True. We need Hillary to be installed in a backroom deal that would undermine the results of the primary elections. They respect Royalty. Let's put Hillary in the whitehouse. She is owed.

by kitebro 2008-05-24 11:32AM | 0 recs

Thanks Tarheel. Opps. too much coffeeeee. Fixing now...

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:03AM | 0 recs

As Brit (under my former username) and a Brit, I reject and denounce Hillary hate.

Let me put this in my native cockney Cab driver speak:

That Hillary Clinton. She's one hell of a lady. Had er in the back of me cab once, guv. Straight up. Lovely lady. A right laugh she was. Liked her a bundle.

But gor blimey, her bleedin' campaign has been a right disaster, innit? Honest to goodness, guv, she had all the spondulics, all those superdelegates and guv'nors and what have you in her pocket; even Elton Bloody John was wiv 'er, and blow me down with a feather - would you adam-and-eve it - that  Barack Obama e's gone a got more of those delegate thingies, and more of yer actual states and yer actual voters. She's a tough missus, no doubt about that, guv. And she's broken the glass ceiling or whatever you yanks call it, right enough. Trouble is, straight up, he's gawn and run a better campaign. Strewth. It's a diabolical liberty, innit? But fair's fair in love and war, guv. That'll be twelve pounds sixty if you don't mind sir. Or five hundred dollars in your currency. Ta-ta. See ya. Laters.

by duende 2008-05-24 09:15AM | 0 recs

kudos for an original comment, if not too brite :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:18AM | 0 recs
Not too brite?

Reverting now to upper class accent (think Jeremy Irons).

Darling, are you at alluding to the educational deficiencies of London Hackney cab drivers in all their munificent glory? Or did you aspersions about intelligence refer to to my expressions of malcontent with the Penn, McCaulife and Wolfson triumvirate in their strategic mishaps and miscalculations?

If the latter, allow my to suggest, in all humility, honesty and tenderness: isn't that a eensy weensy bit aloof of you I venture to aver: or indeed, dare I say it, a tad elitist?

DISCLAIMER: 'Darling' is a generic honorific greeting, used without any sexual or gender elements, largely among thespians and other luvvie London types.

by duende 2008-05-24 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Not too brite?

Wellllll, not elitist I don't think. Just saying I don't agree in a slangey way. But I do luv the accent. You can keep commenting with it all day. I wish I could do an Irish accent. My Dad could. John Wesly Hardin could actually write in gaelic.  

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Not too brite?

I can sing several Irish folk songs if you want.

I used to doing a fair county Wicklow accent, many moons ago it was I'm thinking, if that's what you're after having, young lady of the house.

by duende 2008-05-24 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Not too brite?

County Wickow will do. Too bad you can't send an audio clip of a folk song. irish eyes would smile on yu...

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Not too brite?

I never heard the term 'blimey' in Great Britain. And my time there wasn't spent in Knightsbridge.

by durendal 2008-05-24 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Not too brite?

That's because it's a cliche, and last known usage was Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

by duende 2008-05-24 04:27PM | 0 recs
Haha, okay that's really cute, Brit. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-24 01:20PM | 0 recs

"d just read an interesting alternate view, by a woman:

"Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you Google "Thatcher" and "You're just picking on me because I'm a woman." Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a superior philosophy.

* *

You know where I'm going, for you know where she went. Hillary Clinton complained again this week that sexism has been a major dynamic in her unsuccessful bid for political dominance. She is quoted by the Washington Post's Lois Romano decrying the "sexist" treatment she received during the campaign, and the "incredible vitriol that has been engendered" by those who are "nothing but misogynists." The New York Times reported she told sympathetic bloggers in a conference call that she is saddened by the "mean-spiritedness and terrible insults" that have been thrown "at you, for supporting me, and at women in general."

Where to begin? One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her loss.

So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:

It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.

It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."

And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.

* *

It is probably truer that being a woman helped Mrs. Clinton. She was the front-runner anyway and had all the money, power, Beltway backers. But the fact that she was a woman helped give her supporters the special oomph to be gotten from making history. They were by definition involved in something historic. And they were on the right side, connected to the one making the breakthrough, shattering the glass. They were going to be part of breaking it into a million little pieces that could rain down softly during the balloon drop at the historic convention, each of them catching the glow of the lights. Some network reporter was going to say, "They look like pieces of the glass ceiling that has finally been shattered."

I know: Barf. But also: Fine. Politics should be fun.

Meir and Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher suffered through the political downside of their sex and made the most of the upside. Fair enough. As for this week's Clinton complaints, I imagine Mrs. Thatcher would bop her on the head with her purse. Mrs. Gandhi would say "That is no way to play it." Mrs. Meir? "They said I was the only woman in the cabinet and the only one with -- well, you know. I loved it."" ns.html

by wrb 2008-05-24 09:21AM | 0 recs

I tried to read this and it is so garbled I couldn't. sorreee.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:26AM | 0 recs

Maybe you'll find this one more clear. It is also by a woman:"

"In her raw ambition and stubborn, grinding energy, Hillary will certainly cast a long shadow on young women aspiring to high office. She is both inspiring role model and cringe-making bad example -- an overtly feminist careerist who never found a way to succeed without her husband's connections, advice, and intervention.

Bill Clinton may have masterminded Hillary's runs for the Senate and for the Democratic nomination, but he has been a gross liability in recent months, as he has co-opted the hustings to maunder on about himself or to inject divisive racial overtones into the debate.

Hillary has tried to have it both ways: to batten on her husband's nostalgic popularity while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of sexism.

Well, which is it? Are men convenient sugar daddies or condescending oppressors?

As her presidential hopes have begun to evaporate, Hillary has upped the ante in the crusading feminist department. Her surrogates are beating the grievance drums, trying to scare every angry female out of the bush.

From that rag-tag crew, she will build her army. Let the red flags fly! Hillary is positioning herself as the Crucified One, betrayed, mocked, flogged, and shunted aside for the cause of Ultimate Womanhood. But doesn't this saccharine melodrama undermine the central goals of feminism?

For all her claims of media bias and ill treatment by her male fellow candidates, Hillary has got off absurdly softly in this campaign. No one -- neither her rivals nor mainstream journalists -- has had the guts to explore or even list the bursting catalogue of past Clinton scandals, in which Hillary was nearly always hip deep.

Charges of sexism have become Hillary's rote strategy for evading scrutiny. But by entangling the noble movement of modern feminism with her own knotty psychodrama, Hillary is reinforcing hoary stereotypes about women. Will every losing woman candidate now turn on the waterworks and claim to be maimed by male pride and prejudice?" jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/24/do2411.xml

The next major female presidential candidate will be well advised to stuff any errant husband into a rucksack and chuck him down a laundry chute. If they are to be truly equal, women must fight their own fights and not rely on a borrowed spotlight.

by wrb 2008-05-24 09:35AM | 0 recs

You outta send this to Ted Kennedy who wants his wife to take his seat. lol

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:47AM | 0 recs

Hopefully she won't play the victim.

I have no problem with Hillary's career having been advanced by her marriage.

by wrb 2008-05-24 10:01AM | 0 recs

That last sentence was meant to be within the quotes. It isn't mine

by wrb 2008-05-24 09:50AM | 0 recs

Overseas reporters have been able to see much more clearly, being more detached, and being less subject to pressure from the campaigns.  I am grateful that they are reporting what we have been saying all along... that were the situation reversed, Obama would be screaming and whining every single day about the treatment he was receiving.  Imagine an Obama nutcracker in airport gift shops!  Imagine Tweety suggesting someone take Obama into a room, and then come out alone! How would they respond if the press started to refer to "Michellarack?"

The MSM has a lot to answer for, and I predict that journalism textbooks will be using this election cycle as an example of the worst kind of journalism (and I use that term very loosely) for generations to come.

Thank you, linfar, for reminding us.

by mbolack 2008-05-24 09:21AM | 0 recs

As usual, mbolack your comments are thoughtful and free of vitriol--and clever. I love Michellarack. Is that yours?

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:25AM | 0 recs
Sexism in the city

Funny how sexism is perceived differently by different generations of women. I think women of a certain age, who's careers are now coming to an end, tend to look back at all of the "sexism" that "might" have harmed their careers, and blame their own inadequacies  on out and out sexism. Maybe they just never possessed the skills to succeed in their chosen profession, in the first place. Sexism is an easy excuse to use.

by venician 2008-05-24 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

Wow!! I was reading some stuff about the 8 term [?] Colorado Congresswoman the other day--Pat Schroeder. You ought to look her up. this was a woman every bit as brilliant as Hillary and someone all Democrats were proud of. So after Gary Hart had to drop out--Schroeder was his campaign manager-- she got talked into running for Pres. No one would give her any money. It was blatant sexism.  Mysogyny is real and much more than your idea of an excuse. You really need to opoen your mind and let information in.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

Because no one gave her money it's sexism? Women are half the population, surely some of you could have rallied behind her and funded her campaign?

by venician 2008-05-24 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

You never quite get it.  Purposely.

by Scotch 2008-05-24 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

You nailed it scotch. :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

How are you so certain that sexism was the cause?  Is it not possible that other factors made her a less attractive candidate?  Name  recognition, campaigning skills?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-24 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

Actually, what happens is that the men treat the younger, fertile, nubile women better than the ones over 30, in hopes of getting "favors" from them. After the women turn 30, many men start showing their true feelings and the women finally see the truth. You can't blame the younger women for that, it's difficult to see it when there are all kinds of false faces presented to you.

So, that's why  younger women think it's so much better. They haven't seen it in all it's glory yet.

Oh, and the biases accumulate as they go on in their careers. At first, the men and women start at the same level and it seems like everything is equal.

Over time, the men move up quicker, and after a decade or so the bias becomes far more obvious. Look at what happened to the woman that found out she was being paid so much less than the men that were doing the same work, who had her case thrown out because the right wing male wing of the SCOTUS said she should have sued sooner (Which was a real slap in the face because how could she have known? That ruling was another showing of the bias.)

It takes a while to realize you are being screwed, ya know?

by splashy 2008-05-24 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

I think this is accurate splashy. I remember when I worked at CNS. In the early days I was really green and there was a woman who I admired so much. I mean could she write. I used to think if I could ever write like she could, I would have arrived. Well,one day I got sent out of the office on a story. And then it became routine. I went out on the stories while this woman stayed chained to the desk. One day I asked another reporter why. He said, "You are better looking." That woman and I never became friends. I was too embarrassed and she was too angry.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

Up-rated.  I was outraged by that SC decision too.  Horrifying.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-24 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

I wonder, do you think that racism is also an easy excuse to use?  Maybe some black person has looked back at all the "racism" that might have harmed his career, when in reality he was just inadequate.

Unlike you, most Democrats are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who belong to historically disadvantaged groups.  

by Montague 2008-05-24 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

You are so clueless it's almost funny ~

"Maybe they just never possessed the skills to succeed in their chosen profession, in the first place."

Chosen profession?  How would you like being raised in a society where little girls were told to aspire to be a stewardess, a secretary, a nurse, etc. etc.

PLease don't take so much for granted.  Women have had to fight to be taken seriously, and it still goes on.  "Women of a certain age" my ass!

by Mags 2008-05-24 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Sexism in the city

Ouch.  I can't believe you just said that.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-24 06:42PM | 0 recs

I thought you were going to be talking about Britney Spears. I'm disappointed.

by terra 2008-05-24 09:29AM | 0 recs

I actually do have a comment about her and Paris and the other girls who get famous by behaving badly. The short version is men disrespect women who have no self respect. The sexism crisis is not helped by women who support the careers of hese girls. By supporting them, in the end you give sexism a chance.

by venician 2008-05-24 09:37AM | 0 recs

Venican, I know you might not credit this, but think what it would mean to millions of little girls to see a woman President. The media holds up an image and little girls need help and they have to fight hard not to think this is how they are supposed to be. We have training bras for 3 year olds now. Girls are being sexualized at younger and younger and younger ages--meanwhile child abuse is soaring.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:41AM | 0 recs

I couldn't agree more of how amazing that would be for not just young girls but young boys also. But a Hillary Presidency is not going to prevent any of what you just wrote. The sexualization of chhildren is only helped by parents who allow their children to dress in inappropriate ways and watch inappropriate television.

by venician 2008-05-24 09:53AM | 0 recs

I have no words for how strong an impact I believe a Hillary Presidency would have on the rampant sexualization of little girls. I don't know if it would stop it cold, but it sure as hell would put a dent in it. This Bristish guy in his article I think really nails the randy, unchecked sexism in America which is going on in the campaign without much complaint. Even here, it is minimized and derided.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:02AM | 0 recs

The sexualization of girls at younger and younger ages is a pretty powerful force - driven primarily by the desire to expand markets for certain products and ultimately fueled by pervasive sexism and objectification of women. To think that merely electing Clinton president would put a dent in any of this is giving far too much credit to the power of a single individual.

by Mobar 2008-05-24 10:16AM | 0 recs

You're right. And one has to look at who these markets are targeting and who is doing the purchasing. It's women. Why aren't women speaking with the POWER of their purses', no pun intended. I read somewhere that women make 80% of their familes purchasing decisions. Now that's alot of power.

by venician 2008-05-24 10:27AM | 0 recs

I can't pretend to have spent much time wading through serious works on this matter - but I suspect that the most powerful invisible hand in the US is consumerism. Buy useless shit so we can employ people to make, market and sell useless shit. Patriarchal culture controls the stylistics, but the substantive need is to have a market that's bigger than necessities because necessities alone can't support a society of this size. Women and men are both enculturated towards consumerism, so it's not just sexism that you're fighting off, it's the survival mechanism of the damn country.

by Mobar 2008-05-24 10:41AM | 0 recs

America's television and internet advertising has the effect of political propaganda for unchecked capitalism and consumerism.  The ads are America's version of Pravda, in which invention is the mother of necessity.

by Montague 2008-05-24 01:44PM | 0 recs
Wish I had more rec's to give this

as I couldn't agree with it more.

by leftneck 2008-05-24 02:21PM | 0 recs

I agree that the force is powerful.  Hillary herself can't put much of a dent in it - no individual could - but the symbolism of a powerful woman in the top job on the planet would, I believe, put at least a dent in it.  But it certainly would not end the objectification of women.

by Montague 2008-05-24 01:41PM | 0 recs

And the shortER version is that men create the careers of "girls" who get famous by behaving badly, i.e., like randy sexual objects.

by Montague 2008-05-24 01:38PM | 0 recs

Again, bullshit!  Are all men judged by the actions of celebrities?  Women who are idiots are idiots, all on their own.  Women who choose to use their sexuality to get ahead ~ that is their choice.  Women who choose to be "housewives" ~ that, again is their choice.  Do you see the one word that keeps repeating?  Women who choose to be doctors, pilots, architects, or even presidential candidates should not be judged by their gender but by their ability. That is what we have been fighting for ~ equal opportunity to be whatever we want to be!  So chill with your patronizing remarks.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

by Mags 2008-05-24 03:35PM | 0 recs

ah Terra, so sorreeee.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:42AM | 0 recs

"Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton.

Who, exactly, described those two putzes as "amusing"?

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right

Horseshit. No one seriously discounts her intellect.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been

about five different kinds of horseshit. All of those candidates were described as being done far sooner than Clinton. Tsongas, Bradley, Dean, McCain, Edwards, all dropped out when there was a hypothetical but unrealistic chance at winning.

Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done

And more horseshit. She, personally, no surrogate, no Geraldine Ferraro or Bob Johnson or Billy Shaheen, tried on several occasions to flog Louis Farrakhan. "Hard working white voters", anyone?
You can argue that using race baiting is not the same as being racist. Go right ahead.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 09:31AM | 0 recs

Blue, at least you read the diary. Credit for that. I have a challenge for you. Would you go back and read it with an oopen mind?  Seriously. I think this is a thoughtful account of the bias Clinton supporters have been sceaming about. And it is important.
by linfar 2008-05-24 09:37AM | 0 recs

And you should go back and read wrbs comment.

by venician 2008-05-24 09:40AM | 0 recs

I don't deny there is sexism in this country and in this campaign, in the media, but that's not why she lost. Just once, I would like to see a Clinton supporter acknowledge that there are valid reasons to oppose her candidacy that are based neither in misogyny nor in "kool-ade drinking" delusion. Just once, I would like to see this sixty year old woman, a United States Senator, take responsibility for her own record and her own campaign.

There has also been racism in this campaign and in the media: See the Daily Show on West Virginia? "I've had enough Hussein!" Why did Tim Russert ask Barack Obama to take responsibility for something Harry Belafonte said? Why did Hillary Clinton act as if Barack Obama is responsible for Louis Farrakhan? Have the two men ever met? (Serious question, I've tried to find evidence one or another and can't, but why did she bring it up?).

The silliest thing in this essay is the notion that HRC has been treated as the "junior partner" in the firm of Clinton and Clinton. I think most people recognize that she is the smarter, more disciplined of the two, and he is the better retail politician. Most people I've heard describing her as Bill's Wife are people who are saying, implicitly and probably less than they realize, that they are voting for him by voting for her. Tina Fey said this in her supposedly pro-Hillary, pro-feminist "bitch" bit (I still can't quite get over that self-contradiction).

As for calls for Clinton to drop out and/or media descriptions as the campaign as over: HRC has been treated with extraordinary deference in this regard. Case in point: Jerry Brown in '92 was treated like an egomaniacal crank for not dropping out sooner, and he was far less divisive than Clinton has been ("Zimbabwe"?)

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 09:54AM | 0 recs

Blue she hasn't lost. that is part of the media spin and Obama campaign propaganda. No one has won the magic number and no one will by the end of the primaries. The sds can't weight in officially until Denver. Obama went to Iowa to annonce his majority in a pr blitz to keep people thinking she has lost. But is just spin.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:57AM | 0 recs

Wars are usually recognized as being effectively lost before actual surrender treaties are signed.

She's effectively lost.

The pledged delegate majority are with Obama. Hillary's prior 100 SD lead has now changed to a +28 for Obama.

by catilinus 2008-05-24 01:05PM | 0 recs

Where did Hillary Clintin Ever bring up Farrakhan and Obama. Pat of the criticism of her campaign is they had the Wright stuff long before it broke and wouldn't use it.

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:59AM | 0 recs

In the Penn debate. Unprompted

by wrb 2008-05-24 10:02AM | 0 recs

See my comment on that. I thought in the debate what happened was fair for reasons I state below. But she has never brought it up again.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:19AM | 0 recs

My comment below...

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:19AM | 0 recs

That PA debate really pissed me off...Obama was asked about Clinton's Tuzla gaffe, and he gave her a pass.  Right after that Clinton was asked about Wright and Ayers, she had the chance to reciprocate, but did she?  Fuck no!!  Tore into him, telling Stephie we need to look more closely at the Ayers thing, then she interjected Farrakhan when talking about Wright...I was so pissed off about that...He threw her a lifejacket and she spit in his face...

by hootie4170 2008-05-24 10:41AM | 0 recs

Angry and entitled

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 11:16AM | 0 recs

Posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:33 PM by Chuck Todd
From NBC's Chuck Todd
Clinton wants to stay on this Wright topic; bringing up Hamas and now Farrakhan...

February 27, 2008
Clinton hits Obama over Farrakhan
Posted: 09:08 AM ET
Clinton criticized Obama for not outright rejecting Farrakhan's support.
Clinton criticized Obama for not outright rejecting Farrakhan's support.

(CNN) -- Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama at Tuesday night's debate for not directly rejecting the support of Louis Farrakhan.

"There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting," Clinton said. "And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching."

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 10:10AM | 0 recs

Oh, well, sure . We all saw that in the debate. And I thought it was fair. Given that Obama runs out a gay-hating preacher on his gospel tour, but then says he is for gay rights. Or he refuses to get his picture taken with Gaven Newsome but says he is for gay rights. Obama has played it both ways with lots of endorsers. Hillary wanted him to Unequivocally reject Farrahkan. And I thought that was fair to ask of him.  And he did do it. And I am a Hillary supporter, but I didn't think anything more about it. That was it. Unfortunately, Wright brought it all up again. Because Wright adores Farrakhan and if Obama is going to say that Wright is his spiritual mentor, it raises it again. But Hillary hasn't raised it

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:18AM | 0 recs

Given that Obama runs out a gay-hating preacher on his gospel tour

The fact that you're still flogging this dead horse says quite a bit about the Clinton campaign.

Oh, well, sure... But Hillary hasn't raised it.

Hee hee.

So Obama is responsible for Farrakhan because Wright said something about Farrakhan.

But Hillary's not repsonsible for Bob Johnson, Geraldine Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo, Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Ed Koch, Lanny Davis, Mark Penn....

But then: Hillary's not responsible for anything. Not her vote for Bush's war. Not her vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Not her pledge to obliterate Iran. Not for "hard-working white Americans", not for her eight years of passive inaction in the Senate, not for running a lousy campaign, not for making stupid statements about assassinations.

In all things, a victim.

I'm fascinated that you all seem to think the "Poor, poor pitiful me" strategery could have beat John McCain.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 11:16AM | 0 recs

yep, blue you are right when you say : "But Hillary's not repsonsible for Bob Johnson, Geraldine Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo, Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Ed Koch, Lanny Davis, Mark Penn...." so thanks for the list of all the Hillary supporters who got slimed by the Obama campaign. But you forgot someone. Bill Clinton. How could you leave out the Big Dog who had more AA's in his administratons than any other president in American histlory. Surely that is another indication of his incipient racism. Isn't it?

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:55AM | 0 recs

There is a very fine, lawyerish distinction, I'll grant you, that one can make between being a racist and using other people's racism (fears and resentments)  to get ahead in an election.

Morally, it's the same thing, but I'll grant you the split-hair technicality, just as I did when Bill asked what the definition of "is" is.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-24 12:52PM | 0 recs

I believe Hillary is treated as the senior partner, actually.  Bill will always be delegitimized by the tabloid sex scandals in a way Hillary never was.  And Hillary will always be the victim of infidelity who bore it like a trooper.

That being said - I do believe Bill's tabloid scandals shape how the media treats Hillary, and opened the door for the right-wing to get muckier than normal as well.  I would be surprised if other female candidates are ever treated in such an undignified way as she's been.  I'll be pretty upset if I'm wrong.

But that's how I think both Clintons are treated now.  The word I'd use is tabloidal.  (Not sure if that's actually a word.)

by Matt Smith 2008-05-24 06:52PM | 0 recs
You pinpoint Stephen's clearest and vilest fault

... his dishonest abuse of the passive voice.

Whenever I see someone making accusations such as these in the passive voice, as Stephen does consistently in this column, I know immediately that he can't back up his accusations with sufficient examples to give them credibility, so he is just throwing them out, hoping nobody will notice the weakness of his argument.

Never trust such writers.

by tbetz 2008-05-24 10:38AM | 0 recs
This is pathetic

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

I think you overuse the word pathetic. Can't you come up with some new ones?

by linfar 2008-05-24 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

I'll use a new word as soon as you start writing different diaries.

Your work is PATHETIC.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 09:55AM | 0 recs
HR'd for personal attack

If you have nothing to contribute without attacking personally, then you have nothing to say.

by splashy 2008-05-24 10:01AM | 0 recs
This person writes the most outlandish

diaries around. Her work is sad and mean.


Hide rate away.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: HR'd for personal attack

thanks, splashy. I wuv yu :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: HR'd for personal attack

You are welcome.

I pretty much just try to uprate, but now and then it just seems to be the right thing to do to downrate.

by splashy 2008-05-27 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

would you care to back up this assertion?  Why, exactly is it pathetic?  Because you don't agree with it?

Interestingly, everywhere I go and read your comments, it just proves more and more the points I was making about you the other day.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

Your work is hateful and sad.

You have no credibility.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 11:27AM | 0 recs

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

ROFL. Truly. I have reached the point that pathetic and sad make me smile. Don't you guys have a better script?

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

Should I use copy/paste as you do?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

I think you overuse ALL words.  Can't you just, you know, stop?

by fogiv 2008-05-24 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

why don't you leave this site and find some other place to troll.  You are nothing more than annoying pest with nothing to say.  YOU are PATHETIC.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This is pathetic

this comment is for spiff.  It somehow attached incorrectly.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:06PM | 0 recs
Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

Again, you conflate MEDIA sexism with sexism by Obama.

I GUARANTEE YOU Obama and his campaign know that 60% of primary voters are women - NO MATTER WHICH STATE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.  

I'll say it again: it's pretty tough for Obama to play the sexism card when it would REALLY hurt him in the primaries.  Playing the race card, on the other hand, COULD be helpful to the campaign when the AA vote is approximately 20-25% of the Democratic vote and VERY SMALL in states like:

Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas - many of which are states won by HRC.

by yankeeinmemphis 2008-05-24 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

well, didn't Obama state early on that Hillary couldn't get his supporters but he could get hers?

so, he is banking on the democrats to line up like good little women/men - or as I like to call it "Stepford Wives" (or Husbands, depending on your gender)

by colebiancardi 2008-05-24 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

I am not a stepford wife :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

They had to take Hillary out first. And the sexism from the Obama camp has been horrific.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

Please give some examples.  I am sure the 'claws come out', 'sweetie' are probably the best two examples you can give.  And those are pretty weak.

Apparently, the MAJORITY of women under 50 DON'T seem to think that the sexism of BO's campaign has been 'horrific'...because they voted for him.

And, 90% of AA women probably don't think that BO's sexism has been 'horrific' as well...because they voted for BO as well.

So, are the majority of under-50 white women (or 90% of AA women) stepford wives, uninformed as to BO's 'horrific' sexism or just plain sexist?

by yankeeinmemphis 2008-05-24 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

I think it is safe to say that a majority of AA women will put race idedntity before sex identity. And sorry, Obama has not carried a majority of under-50 white women by any means. His record with this group is spotty and WV and Ky he lost them completely.

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

Oh and the women from Idaho, Oregon, Vermont and other states where BO won with over 60% of the vote...they're not real women either?

by yankeeinmemphis 2008-05-24 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Quickie update: 60% of Dem voters = women!

the belief that women can't buy into sexism is bogus.  Just because a woman/women is ok with something doesn't mean it isn't sexist!  In fact, I'd say one of the greatest consequences of sexism is that (some) women might actually not be able to recognize it for what it is!  In the 1950s, the majority of women agreed with the statement that a woman's place was in the home.  Does the fact that women agree with that statement make it less sexist?  Of course not.  So, the proportion of women voting for Obama is irrelevant to the question of whether sexism has played a role in the process.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:12PM | 0 recs

Wow. What an article!

So much hatred and vitriol against a woman.

On CNN just a few days ago, wasn't there a scum of a man who justified insults hurled at Hillary by saying that some women really are b**ches?

What kind of upbringing do these people get? Are they raised in the same kind of filth that they spew  out as adults?

It's quite repulsive. But I guess it takes all kinds to make the world!

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 09:54AM | 0 recs

Yes, optimistic boy a commenter on CNN refused to drop the bitch synonyn for Clinton--and nobody got upset. Impagine if it was a racist epithet for Obama.  

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:11AM | 0 recs

linfar, what many people probably don't know is the fact that the scumbag that I was talking about actively advises the McCain campaign.

He has a history of promoting racially charged ads. But CNN has hired him as a contributor.

Also, Carville and Begalus are explicitly named as Clinton supporters, while Donna Brazile is touted as an undeclared superdelegate, even though it doesn't require rocket science to figure out that she's a passionate Obama supporter.

Everybody reading this diary should know that CNN is effectively a McCain leaning organization that shows a natural inclination towards Obama because of their loathing of Hillary.

Yeah I agree with you - imagine if something racist was hurled at Obama. There would have been an outrage.

Seriously, what kind of double standards are these?

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 10:25AM | 0 recs

Hey OBm Even I didn't know this.CNN has a lot of explaining to do about their commentators--so-called. Brazille is so obvious it is painful to watch.

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:01AM | 0 recs

I got up to this:

"Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton.

And threw it in the "Wilentz" file.

by Jess81 2008-05-24 10:01AM | 0 recs

I see.  If it makes statements you don't want to believe, you ignore it.  Interesting way to be.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:15PM | 0 recs

sweet!  Send her to the UK.  Everyone wins.

by lockewasright 2008-05-24 10:13AM | 0 recs

Long before there was a Barack on the national scene there was Hillary Hate. From when her husband was first running, there has been Hillary Hate.  It may take us until long past this election cycle to have our own pundits speak about it and get a thoughtful audience that doesn't think it's really all about Barack  

This was a missed opportunity for Barack to show leadership and denounce this hate. But not to worry, I'm sure he'll get more chances.  Since he's sure it's in the bag for him and she's just wasting our contributions, he might think of winning us back to him through demonstrating judgment, and through real leadership.

I've heard from a lot of his supporters that it's my duty to vote for him because of McCain and that he has no duty too win me back, because he's better than McCain.  I'm told if he loses it will be my fault because I expected too much of him.  

In case he doesn't agree, let me address him here:

Dear Barack, step back from the rivalry and speak to the issue.  If you're to be our nom you'll have a better chance of winning and if you're to be our prez you'd have a head start in leading.  You have the pulpit now, everything she says is listened to as if it's really about you. Only you, it's your big moment listen up, only can speak about it today and have any credibility. I'm seen as deluded and self-serving and she's seen as trying to sink your ship to raise up her own. See, right now it really is all about you.

Note:  Please forward to Senator Obama

by anna shane 2008-05-24 10:14AM | 0 recs

Excellent comment Anna.

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 10:27AM | 0 recs

A fair point about the Obama campaign.  Indeed it is each candidates responsibility to reach out to us, as well as our responsibility to learn all we can about them.

I would guess, and it is just a guess, that there exists a worry in the Obama campaign that if he comes out and says that things over the last couple months have been rough on Sen. Clinton, that it would be latched onto as a reason she should have won, and a reason to deny him the nomination.  Which could weaken him going forward even if he wins the nomination.

After it is over and assuming he is nominated I would expect a full month of him addressing Hillary supporters daily, and letting them know why he stands with them going forward and wants them to stand with him.  But until he knows she won't turn those words against him as being the lesser candidate for whom coverage was unfairly biased it isn't likely to happen.

Question to any who wish to answer, which would be a better choice concede things have been rough on her - now or in a speech accepting her endorsement?  I think before she concedes would pay off more in the summer and fall, assuming it didn't get used against him.

by patooker 2008-05-24 10:55AM | 0 recs
I think Obama has had a full year to address those people who now support Clinton and try to win them over. At the time he was getting lots of media coverage he could have spoken to the 'groups' of people he knew he was having trouble connecting with so it would be easier to continue the dialogue if he became the nominee. He didn't.
I'm under the impression that if he becomes the nominee he thinks it's someone else's job (Clinton's) to convince those large groups of people that he is the most qualified. She can't, but she will try to paint him with the better than McCain brush.
 If he becomes the nominee it is really entirely up to HIM whether he succeeds or fails to build confidence in the people (1/2 the dem party, Indys and a few Republicans) that he has the leadership qualities they are looking for in a President in a very crucial and critical time in America.
by Justwords 2008-05-24 11:45AM | 0 recs

So you're of the opinion that he should move ASAP to reach out before it's over and risk she uses it against him for leverage somewhere, rather than wait for her to step aside and risk that her voters blame him for not trying to block any of the MSM negatives against her sooner? It's a tough situation either way I think.  From the outside looking in I'd go with option 1, at this point it is worth the risk.

by patooker 2008-05-24 12:03PM | 0 recs
The tragedy here

is that given the opportunity to do a national campaign and convince a not insignificant number of voters to reconsider their image of her, Clinton started out strong but veered off in a direction that caused many people to replace their irrational hatred of Clinton with solid substantive reasons to not support Clinton. She also managed to convince quite a few longtime supporters to reconsider their image of her in a way that wasn't good.

It's sad. I think Hillary Clinton is smart, passionate and dedicated. I have no doubt that she loves this country deep in her bones and only wants to help make us better. I disagree with her fundamental belief that she's the best person to be president, but I didn't start out this campaign thinking she was unqualified. The manner in which she has conducted her campaign has convinced me that she is unqualified. I'd campaign and vote for her if she were the nominee, but the measure of the woman was less than I expected and wanted it to be. And it's not like I started out thinking she was a saint.

by Mobar 2008-05-24 10:29AM | 0 recs

I'll let linfar comment for me:

"I tried to read this and it is so garbled I couldn't. sorreee."

by venician 2008-05-24 10:33AM | 0 recs

That was a reply to anna.

by venician 2008-05-24 10:33AM | 0 recs

Well you know, America is too good to examine it's own faults.  Especially the part of America who thinks Obama is the One.  I mean how can a perfect person, with perfect followers learn anything imperfect about themselves from self reflection?  It would be a useless exercise.

by Scotch 2008-05-24 10:41AM | 0 recs

Thanks Anna--this is a wonderful point.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:59AM | 0 recs

Woooh! I guess we can safetly say that now the Brits, who of course have an impeachable knowlegde of our politics. I appreciate the article, not really the diary, since it was a shabby copy-and-paste job.

It presents an interesting perspective. Without a doubt, sexism has reared its ugly head. I, personally, do not believe for a second it's why she lost though. Also, to pretend that the sexism was more malicious than the racism directed towards Sen. Obama is silly.

They both were attacked on the basis of not who they were, but what they were. We should all accept that and try to combat it at every turn.

by Archer2 2008-05-24 10:31AM | 0 recs

Darn those Brits.  If they would only stick to systems that were designed after theirs, they would know what they were talking about.  

by Scotch 2008-05-24 10:37AM | 0 recs

This is a horrible diary and I am that much more pissed at MyDD for allowing it on the Rec list.  I don't agree with the content, but that's not what bugs me.  It's the fact that this is literally a cut & paste with a bunch of "Yeah what they said."

by brathor 2008-05-24 10:38AM | 0 recs
Did anyone else read the title

And instantly assume that Britney Spears had decided to weigh in on the current Clinton gaffe?

At least that would have been an interesting diary...

by lollydee 2008-05-24 10:39AM | 0 recs

Wow, a real live Brit?

by Rumproast 2008-05-24 10:42AM | 0 recs
They are far wiser than us. They know we Obama supporters don't really like Obama. We just hate women and want them to fail at all that they do. All Obama supporters are racist and sexist. Hillary only wants what is best for the party and this country.
by kitebro 2008-05-24 11:28AM | 0 recs
Actually, in a poll recently, Obama beat Clinton

as the candidate most Brits want as president, but both trumped McCain by something awful.

But then, I guess Brits are stupid and sexist and racist or whatever. I dunno. :)

by grass 2008-05-24 12:43PM | 0 recs

Those chickens will come home to roost for David Axelrod and the media in November.

I have never seen so many pissed off older women.

by rossinatl 2008-05-24 10:45AM | 0 recs

 It is certainly looking that way.

by linfar 2008-05-24 10:55AM | 0 recs

..looking what way?  Did Bingo get cancelled again?

by fogiv 2008-05-24 04:23PM | 0 recs
Is this Brit...

...going to help me pay my bills?...find a good job?...Is he going to get us out of Iraq? No?  Then I could give a shit about his opinion...

by hootie4170 2008-05-24 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this Brit...

So many, may feel the same way about your opinion. In fact, it is a cast of thousands.

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:45AM | 0 recs


by kyle in philly 2008-05-24 10:51AM | 0 recs
Good article and diary

I would rec this if I could. Interesting comments over at that article too.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 10:53AM | 0 recs
Well, I do

give a shit about his opinion, but I find it silly that linfar and co. are probably using this to further their retarded talking points.

I think this guy is wrong, but that's just my opinion. The Clinton's lost because Obama and Axelrod and whole media axis of evil hated her?
Yeah, way to make Obama the villian.

They lost cause the Obama camp made them into racists? Yep, he sure did put words in their mouths. Now, I don't think that the Clintons are racists at all, but some people could have intepreted certain comments like that. Not the fault of your opponent if you screw up.

And the last paragraph basically seems to say, people will feel bad in November, because the black guy can't win.

Riiight. Let's hope you're wrong.

by Archer2 2008-05-24 10:55AM | 0 recs
Isn't this a fair use violation?

Forget the content of the article, doesn't this massive cut-and-paste job put MyDD in legal jeopardy? Seriously.

I tell my students to paraphrase and quote selectively. A long extended quote is just plagiarism - or in the bloggin world - a fair use violation.

by elrod 2008-05-24 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Isn't this a fair use violation?

It is not plagiarism if it is cited appropriately.  Fair use violation is a different issue, but usually to claim this the 'victim' must show that the 'perpetrator' gains financially.  That's not the case here.  

It seems to me that all these people, you included, bitching about the copyright issues are really just making a smokescreen to avoid discussing the issues raised.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:22PM | 0 recs
This man knows little about American history

Forget the fair use violation, this author knows very little about the backdrop of racial politics. He conveniently leaves out Hillary Clinton's "hardworking Americans, white Americans" line. Anybody who knows a thing about American history understands that politicians use "hard working" to equate with "white" as a dog whistle racist tactic. Hillary may not have meant any offense by it. Just like she may not have meant any offense by the RFK assassination comparison. Just like Bill Clinton may not have meant any offense by the Jesse Jackson. Just like Shaheen may not have meant any offense by the "drug dealer" line. Sure, all are plausible in isolation. But to suggest that black people are slavishly following an "anti-Clinton media" into believing that these lines are inappropriate is, well, racist.

There's a long history of suggesting that blacks only become upset when some "outside agitator" comes in and "stirs them up." It seems the author here is unaware of the racist implications of his argument that Obama himself - or the media - is responsible for turning the black community AGAINST Hillary Clinton (rather than FOR Barack Obama).

What he says about gender is largely true. But by ignoring race and its intersection with gender, he has gone into Geraldine Ferraro territory. And that doesn't help anybody.

by elrod 2008-05-24 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This man knows little about American history

Hard working now equals code for white????? WTF. I mean I have heard everything now...

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:43AM | 0 recs
Yep, I think this is a concerted effort. . .

I think a few specific Hillary supporters are putting up short diaries and cut and paste jobs with help from fringe sites and NoQuarter to get the negative diaries about Clinton off of the rec list.

by shalca 2008-05-24 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I think this is a concerted effort. . .

shalca, I know this will come as a shock. But I really felt this diary has a lot of substance people could actually discuss. Was it above your reading level, is that why you can't comment on the content?

by linfar 2008-05-24 11:42AM | 0 recs
Content? You just cut and pasted an article

from the New Statesman breaking any possible interpretation of fair use that exists.

by grass 2008-05-24 12:29PM | 0 recs
Content, why don't you add some?


You are a hollow sounding board.  There's absolutely no analysis of this cut and paste job.  Aspects of this can be clearly discussed.

Why do you think that a higher level of educated women are voting for Obama?  Is it that educated women are intimidated by Hillary?  If that's the case, what aspect of Hillary's personality makes her different than Feinstein or Boxer.

How do you perceive this as across the board sexism, when Hillary is winning the white male vote versus Obama?  How does this fit into the context of racism versus sexism since Obama is receiving fewer white male votes.

How does Hillary's vote for Iraq play into this equation?  Are you stating that it's a non-factor.

Consider that that LA Times just polled that fact that Obama would win CA if the primary was in June, how do you explain Hillary losing support in the educated urban blue hot spots.

Are you truly going to say that sexism is the reason that she lost most of the graduate degree crowd (or is she innately an unappealing person, (like Nixon)).

by Regenman 2008-05-24 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, I think this is a concerted effort. . .

Ouch.  This personal attack is worthy of a TR.  

by Matt Smith 2008-05-24 07:09PM | 0 recs
He's on to a Good Wicket

There has been a concerted effort to portray the Clinton's as racist, which certainly is far from the truth, but did have the effect of mobilizing and homogenizing the black vote. There has been an undeniable sexism under the surface of the obama campaign. Ain't that right sweetie?

by hypopg 2008-05-24 12:28PM | 0 recs
So what...

Seriously, does anybody doubt that there is sexism, racism and classism in these United States?  And guess what... there is a ton of it in liberal Continental Europe and Great Britain as well.  That is hardly a very enlightening conversation nor does it address very effectively why people may or may not be voting for either candidate.

I expect Hillary and her supporters to do more than grouse about every perceived slight.  I expect leadership on the issue of sexism and misogyny.  I expect frank discussion and solutions.  In the absence of leadership, we have you.  We have bitterness.  We have spitefulness.  Ultimately, if we do not control the problem, we have aimlessness and we get John Sidney McCain.

by zadura 2008-05-24 12:28PM | 0 recs
The dems will have to do some soul-searching

on this one.  It just shows how far America is going to have to go to truly embrace its humanity by finaly embracing women as equal partners in this world.

Ironically, the more they dismiss her and insult her, like what goes on daily here, the more they are proving the author's thesis.

by 4justice 2008-05-24 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The dems will have to do some soul-searching

ah, 4justice, thee be rightly named

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:19PM | 0 recs
Ignore Feinstein, Boxer, Eshoo, Richards etc

The only problem is that this analysis conveniently forgets that a majority of white men are voting for Hillary and that we have a fairly strong set of female leaders in Congress.

You know sometimes it is about the individual and not about race or gender.

I like Boxer and Feinstein, I don't like Hillary. I don't liars and I don't like the Iraq War vote.  

Wow, I'm sexist /snark.

by Regenman 2008-05-24 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Ignore Feinstein, Boxer, Eshoo, Richards etc

Not everyone who opposes hillary is a sexist or does so for sexist reasons. But the sexism dished out by the media and the Obama campaign has been all out sexism.

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:18PM | 0 recs
Let's quote Andrew Sullivan biased observer.

It took a 60-year-old Obama groupie, furious that the Obama camp had nonetheless behaved haughtily towards her, to seek revenge by leaking her secretly taped recording of Obama, speaking when he thought the masses were not listening. Hillary Clinton, the only one of this year's three presidential contenders who went to a state high school, immediately saw the opening she had been longing for: an opportunity to depict Obama as the privileged yuppie he is, without giving her rival's camp an opportunity to paint her yet again as racist.

The genius of Obama's campaign is that it has somehow been able so far to put forward a public persona that is completely at odds with the yuppie reality; his weakness, as his last televised debate with Clinton showed, is that he is easily rattled. Clinton, in turn, has shown enormous physical and emotional durability but at the expense of seeming less human. She has been strangely reluctant to put the knife into Obama, too, despite a plethora of potentially harmful material still ignored by the mainstream media.

The choice facing the nation for its 44th president, therefore, is between an elderly and possibly still very ill man with a notoriously unpredictable temper, a 60-year-old woman disliked by many, who brings with her the baggage of 33 years of marriage to Bill Clinton, and a 46-year-old biracial yuppie who would enter the White House with even less political experience than George W Bush had when he became president in 2001.

The conventional wisdom in Washington - which is always wrong - is that the Obama-Clinton prizefight is wreaking untold damage on the Democrats, while McCain has been handed the luxury of being able to draw up battle plans and start raising funds. I suspect the reverse is true.

Had the Democratic nomination been settled, McCain would have been under much more scrutiny - and his ratings would have speedily plummeted. His shortcomings would have been ruthlessly exposed. His great strength, for example, is supposed to be in foreign affairs and national security; but one of his many recent gaffes is that he appeared to not know the difference between Shias and Sunnis - a show of ignorance that would have immediately sunk Obama or Clinton.

But you imply that as a Brit he would be an unbiased observer, while the reality is he has consistently been anti-Obama. This is just another Hillshill article, by a yellow journalist.

by Tumult 2008-05-24 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's quote Andrew Sullivan biased observer.

Tumult, I made a mistake with the name towards the end of the introduction. It was not sullivan :) Sorry for the mixup  

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's quote Andrew Sullivan biased observer.
I meant Andrew Stephen, that is who the quotes are from.   And you can tell he is biased by the language he uses when making Obama discriptions, throughout multiple articles.  So pointing to this as an outside and unbiased observer is wrong.  He has been living in the US for 10 years.
And this magazine he works for has a socalist-communist history.
by Tumult 2008-05-24 05:39PM | 0 recs
Let's not have a battle of the most hated

Sure we could find sites, statements, views and opinions that have been biased toward both of our candidates - no need to compete for whose attacks have stooped the lowest as their is plenty evidence to go around.

However, where the Dems have had the opportunity to elevate the dialogue, as opposed to feeding the frenzy, we seem to delight in playing the victim here. Blacks and women still have a ways to go to achieve equality on many fronts, and being a black woman, I feel that see things from both perspectives.  Where we could have had a dialogue on Race AND Gender, we were left with a dialogue on Racism and Sexism facilitated by overzealous supporters on both sides.  Whereas the former could have edified the world, the latter has reduced our national dialogue to the juvenile bickering of unchaperoned children who have had the nerve to lament at how the "Republicans would have decided this already."

Personally speaking, I have NEVER seen or experienced success in life through playing into the hands of those who have sought to disenfranchise.  To me, this only serves to empower and legitimize the attacker!  How many times have I been passed over for recognition or reward being fully aware that my race AND/OR gender were a factor only to be told that I had not met the criteria even though there were plenty of white men less 'qualified' than I holding the positions I sought.

I overcame and reached my goal of VP within my organization not by validating the attacks of those who sought to deny me, but by proving that I was qualified and could rise above their pettiness, not succumb to it.  This requires a sophistication that I had to learn over time, but it is what one MUST do to confront the hatred out there.  I could not ignore my own failure and shortcomings while blaming others for my lack of success.  I had to learn how to play the game in my world and not give them reason to deny me.  Most importantly, I could not quit.

In lies the dichotomy that exists in Sen. Clinton's campaign.  On one hand, we women understand that if we 'quit,' we again allow the bigots to win.  But what we also know is that we cannot just be good, we have to be better.  And no one realizes this more than the black professional who learns about the "black tax" early on in their career.  We know we have to be the best!  Moreover, we know that no matter how many "no's" we get we cannot give up.  

That being said, what seems lost in our political discussion now is the importance of "how we fight" and not just "that we fight."  My mentor was the CEO in the Fortune 500 company that I worked for, who was also an African American.  He reminded me that if I was going to overcome the hurdles I faced in the organization then I would have to make a bullet proof case that I had done all to earn what I was looking for.  

If she worked for me, I would advise Mrs. Clinton that it is imperative that she analyze her own performance and deal with her own challenges before she can be successful in bringing down the walls and ceilings within the organization.  Sure, sexism is present, but you cannot come to the table and expect that  because of your gender your shortcomings will be overlooked (e.g. how your campaign was managed, how you conducted yourself, your experience, statements, etc.) anymore than you should want your qualification to be ignored.

I will end my rambling with this:  I will be proud when we elect either a woman or and African American to the WH - I am 'lucky' in this regard in that I embody both.  However, I want that person to not just represent my gender or race or culture, but to also represent the best that either has to offer.  I do not want them to receive special treatment because of their race or gender.  I want the pride of knowing that they worked hard and met the challenges before them and will serve this country well as President of the United States.

Thanks for tolerating my rambling.

I wish Sen. Clinton the best.  She has not represented herself as best she could IMHO - I want so much to believe that she is better than her campaign - and that has cost her at key points along the way.  Nonetheless, no woman I know has achieved their goals with pride

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 01:39PM | 0 recs
completion of last sentence...

Nonetheless, no woman I know has achieved their goals with pride by any other means than by doing their best and then challenging the status quo, in that order.

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: completion of last sentence...

I believe this is Precisely what Hillary is doing. That she is still standing at all is remarkable--but she is standing tall.

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's not have a battle of the most hated

great essay

would give mojo if I could

by wrb 2008-05-24 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's not have a battle of the most hated

Sorry your site priveleges have been restricted.  Have a rec on me! <smile?</p>

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's not have a battle of the most hated

Hi, I Lean Left,

Thanks for this comment. How do you know Moh-Tze? I lived in China for a few years...

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's not have a battle of the most hated

I was reading a piece by a scholar from California post 9/11.  His piece referenced Moh-Tze and I read more from there.  

Not an expert, by any means, but I like to acknowledge wisdom when I hear it and THAT was as wise a statement that I've ever heard.

Can you shed more light or suggest additional literature?  I'd love to learn more.

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 08:02PM | 0 recs

To be totally honest, there isn't much reason for MyDD any more.  Nearly everyone on this site (myself included) has become hopelessly polarized against the opposition.  There is nothing to say to change any of the hardcore Clinton supporters' minds about anything; same goes for the hardcore Obama supporters.  

Heck, at this point, I only come here to refute all the lies and half-truths that get spouted in favor of Clinton.  I'm done trying for reconciliation on this blog.  I am glad the newer generation/s of voters are more like Obama than Hillary; even if McCain somehow gets this election with the help of Hillary's over-50 rabid fans, the future looks brighter.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 01:55PM | 0 recs

Honestly, I don't know what to do with a comment like this. If you don't see the rather blatant -- it's not even hidden or coded anymore, especially on the blogosphere -- sexism involved in Clinton hatred on the left, then there's something very very wrong. Just ask yourself one very easy question. Take any random male Senator -- say, Joe Biden -- and imagine he was the last standing opponent to Barack Obama. Can you even imagine anyone calling him "calculating" and considering that in insult? Can you picture someone coming up with any of the widely offensive names people use to define Hillary? Is it possible anyone might accuse him of being just a tool of his wife?

Come on. I'm assuming you're young and male, like virtually all of the blogosphere. I'm old and male myself. Please thing about these things and reflect before you -- or perhaps as you -- grow up.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-24 03:11PM | 0 recs
I think we see it aimed at both candidates

but blaming Obama or taking your toys and going home seem a bit over the top and I suppose that where the exasperation comes from on the the part of many!  Obama has not run a perfect campaign, nor has Hillary, but we are where we are and we need to now move on...period.

by ILean Left 2008-05-24 03:34PM | 0 recs

Does being calculating have anything to do with being a female?

Seriously, I have called Cheney "calculating" a dozen times.  It has no gender-based meaning.  The problem is that when be become so sensitive to our language that we go crazy at the use of "calculating" and "periodically" and "sweetie," we undermine real, bald-faced sexism and its negative consequences.  

by zadura 2008-05-24 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Calculating?

zadura, here is a little feminism 101: there are words that can be applied to both sexes and are, but some words such as 'calculating' have a long, long history of being applied tgo females in a demeaning and derogatory way.

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Calculating?

"Calculating" is a common description of politicians.  It is the antonym of either "charismatic" or "transparent," and it is a completely appropriate to call a wonky, policy-focused politician calculating without even considering their sex.  When you call the use of "calculating" misogynistic, you trivialize feminism.  

You are definitely too invested in this politician to think clearly right now.

by zadura 2008-05-24 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Calculating?

perhaps you are too invested in yours to think clearly.  I'm invested in neither--both have their problems, and I honestly believe neither will beat mccain this fall.  

That said, linfar is right.  To call a woman calculating is demeaning.  To call a man calculating is not as bad.  If you don't realize this, then perhaps I'm right that YOU are too invested in your candidate to think clearly.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:33PM | 0 recs

Dear Colorado Guy, this comment is much appreciated. Much :)

by linfar 2008-05-24 04:07PM | 0 recs

To take your example, Biden would have been pushed out of this race months ago.  The only reason Hillary is still in is because she IS Hillary.  And if the roles were reversed and Obama were the one in a mathematically untenable position, he would also be long gone.  I agree there has been sexism directed toward Hillary.  And I think there has been more overt sexism than overt racism.  I don't think we will ever know if that sexism helped turn the race.  But Hillary has made huge mistakes that her supporters never acknowledge.  

When she said Obama had not passed the Commander in Chief threshold, and implied that he would not be ready at 3 a.m., I saw it as a political ploy that probably did not reflect her true beliefs.

When she exaggerated about Tuzla, it was a misspeak.  Ok, I can accept that.  

When she told the incorrect story about the pregnant woman dying for lack of health care, I did not blame her for that.

When Mark Penn was double dealing and she refused to fire him, I was suspicious, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

When she consistently rounded up Pennsylvania's win to "10%," I saw that as generally correct, if not technically so.

When she said "hardworking white people" I saw it as a gaffe, but not indicative of racism.

When she says RFK was assassinated (twice), I am done giving her the benefit of the doubt.  She means, "Obama may be assassinated, and you will need me to pick up the pieces."

Doesn't mean she wants him dead, but it is indeed a cold, calculating, mean-spirited position that is more symbolic of Republicans than Democrats.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 04:39PM | 0 recs
Progressive, I think dialogue, any dialogue, no matter how skewed and partisan has value. As hard as it has been and how hateful many times, I learn things. I was out and about a while ago and a comment by someone on here about Obama in a debate kept coming back to me. And I kept thinking, "I just didn't see what he saw at all." And I wondered why.
This is a good thing.
by linfar 2008-05-24 04:10PM | 0 recs

Fair enough.  But when my own grandmother, indeed a "typical white person," says that she would vote for McCain over Obama because she does not want both a black governor (she is from NY) and a black president, I cease being in a cooperative mood.

And typical white people, meaning middle class and upper class, lock their doors when they drive through an "ethnic" neighborhood.  They cross to the other side of the street unnecessarily.  They don't look minorities in the eye when they walk past them.  They don't say hello.  And I know this because they are my friends, my colleagues, my family.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-24 04:42PM | 0 recs

I agree with you largely, but I just come here these days to put down the rabid Obama supporters lies and ridiculousness.

by slynch 2008-05-24 07:35PM | 0 recs

Revealing of who this British character really is is very enlightening. I expected as much already, but he seems to be even more hard-core anti-Obama than I thought.

Privilegded yuppie? Easily rattled? Yeah, you try having to go through months and weeks of having your life torn to strips and grilled.

Both Hillary and Obama are tougher than you, Mr. Enlightenment.

by Archer2 2008-05-24 02:52PM | 0 recs

I made a funny comment upthread, but I must make a more serious comment now.

As a Brit I can tell you, there is a huge excitement over Obama, and a huge disappointment with Hillary after a promising start to her candidacy. Even my 15 year old daughter living in London echoed that feeling.

ALL the liberal papers are FOR Obama. The New Statesman is like the New Republic. And taking one article is like just citing Sean Wilentz

Please don't spread any further this myth that the rest of the world is not excited by a biracial man with a name like that, Kenyan ancestry and an Indonesian upbringing.

It's a no brainer...

by duende 2008-05-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Amazingly, Britney Spears

has also weighed in.

by kellogg 2008-05-24 04:13PM | 0 recs
How many delegates and pop votes will Great Britain have?
Forget MI and FL..
Wouldn't this put Sen Clinton over the top?
by nogo postal 2008-05-24 05:56PM | 0 recs
How about The London Times?

This is parts of an article by Gerard Baker of The London Times.

Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world's labour market been destroyed - as in the end we're told all women's efforts inevitably are destroyed - by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?

To the cynics this US presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton's collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.

In the end the beauty of the "We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid" argument is that it can't really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman - this woman - should become the most powerful person on the planet.

The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don't trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.

As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama's grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality. This week, as Senator Obama moved closer to securing a majority of delegates needed for the Democratic nomination, she was insisting with more urgency than ever that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted.

These states, you'll recall, broke the Democratic Party's rules and went ahead with their primaries earlier than they were supposed to. As a result the Democratic Party - not the Republicans, or the Supreme Court or the Bush Administration - decided to disqualify those states from the process. In Michigan, Senator Obama was not even on the ballot papers, yet now Senator Clinton not only insists those votes must count towards the final vote totals, but says it would be a terrible denial of Americans' civil rights if they did not.

She compared her effort to overturn the decision not only to Al Gore's controversial defeat in Florida in a disputed recount in 2000, but to the victims of tyranny throughout history - from enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America to the cheated voters in the election in March in Zimbabwe.

This is, truly, disturbing. It matters not whether it is a man or a woman saying it. It is not only hyperbolic and cynical. It is inflammatory nonsense. But it is at least of a piece with her increasingly desperate struggle.

Now, there is much talk that if Mrs Clinton cannot be president she must be Mr Obama's vice-presidential nominee. But in her most recent speeches and actions she has surely demonstrated how dangerously unfit she would be. It would not be sexism or chauvinism but the clear-headed decision of a wise statesman, if Senator Obama brought this particular woman's presidential hopes to an unmourned end.

So do you find this more true because it can from a Brit from the London Times?  Will you abandon the talk of sexism because of it?  I doubt it.

But here is a diffrent article from the same author, that casts Obama in a negative light.

But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.

There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.

While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship ("We are not blue states or red states, but the United States" is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.

Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.

by Tumult 2008-05-24 06:27PM | 0 recs

Pls cross-post this diary at Kos

by NY Writer 2008-05-24 08:20PM | 0 recs

You lied in your diary yesterday about Robert Kennedy, no one should ever believe you. Go back to

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-05-24 08:57PM | 0 recs

Jolly good take, Bloke.  Those across the pond get it better than the commies in our midst.

by curiosityhasme 2008-05-24 09:00PM | 0 recs

HaHaHa.  The cold war is over.  It is 2008.  Quit using 1968 analogies, doesn't seem to work for the Clinton campaign.

by temptxan 2008-05-25 04:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads