NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

NOW is providing us the opportunity to check out the most outrageous moments of sexism from mainstream media's coverage of the 2008 elections, and rate them yourself on NOW's Misogyny Meter. You can also nominate these geniuses for NOW's Media Hall of Shame "2008 Election Edition".

During the 2008 presidential primaries, media misogyny reached an all-time high. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- who broke new ground for women with her inspiring campaign and came close to winning the Democratic nomination -- was the target of the most extraordinarily sexist attacks we've witnessed in a long time. NOW warned that Michelle Obama would be their next target, and we were right. The media seem intent on outdoing themselves by combining sexist and racist slurs against the potential first lady. From the national to the local level, any woman who serves or runs for political office (or is the spouse of someone who does) is subject to gender-based double standards and sexist attacks. These insults serve to demean and stereotype ALL women. Any question of whether we still need a feminist movement is being answered every day in the media, and the answer is a resounding Yes.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/about.html

Please check out each one of giants of mainstream media caught in action in video. The illustrious bunch for the Media Hall of Shame includes likes of:

  1. Keith Olbermann insinuates violence against Clinton.
  2. Glenn Beck complains Clinton sounds like his wife.
  3. Ken Rudin says Clinton is Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction.    
  4. Marc Rudov says Hillary acts like a "B-word."
  5. Maureen Dowd is a chronic offender who relies on gender stereotypes.    
  6. Charlotte Allen claims Clinton and all women are stupid.
  7. Robin Givhan brings attention to Hillary's cleavage.    
  8. Mike Barnicle sees Hillary as the first wife outside court.
  9. Tucker Carlson is scared of being castrated by Hillary?    
  10. Bill Kristol thinks white women are the problem.
  11. Andrew Sullivan tries to turn feminist voters away from Hillary.    
  12. Chris Matthews attributes Hillary's success to Bill messing around.
  13. David Shuster sees Chelsea as being pimped out.    
  14. Cameron Cardow thinks its noteworthy that Clinton wears pantsuits.
  15. Cameron Cardow fits three insults into one cartoon.    
  16. Daryl Cagle draws violent imagery of Hillary Clinton as the slain beast.
  17. Sandy Huffaker draws Hillary as a sleazeball slugger.    
  18. Michael Ramirez draws Clinton as the Wicked Witch.
  19. Jack Cafferty imagines Obama wanting to run over Clinton with a truck.    
  20. Peggy Noonan says Hillary "needs space because she's a woman."
  21. Rush Limbaugh doesn't want to see a woman age in the White House.    
  22. Randi Rhodes slurs Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
  23. Glenn Beck calls Clinton a "stereotypical bitch."   
  24. Chief offenders: NBC and MSNBC
  25. Fox News labels Michelle "Obama's baby mama."   
  26. Lars Larson thinks Michelle Obama got a free ride.
  27. Gary Langer pits wife versus wife.    
  28. Cal Thomas declares all black women are angry.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_ shame/index.html?open=1&page=1

Surely these media giants make us feel proud of them, don't they?
If somehow you don't approve of the actions of these great geniuses, please ACT. Act NOW!!

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_ shame/sample_letter.html

Tags: Hall of Shame, Mainstream Media Sexism, misogyny, National Organization of Women, NOW (all tags)

Comments

136 Comments

Now are you surprised by some of the names there?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Now are you surprised by some of the names the

Uh, no?  Do people actually think this isn't a sexist country?

by Whash 2008-06-27 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Now are you surprised

ghosh men bashing women in power... nooooo

honestly thou, last nights hell's kitchen sparked a comment from my wife , which was interesting. So we had 2 females and 1 man left  in the final 3.

and both females or atlest one had won several previous rounds and were definately better in talent than the 1 guy left. but both voted to kick the other woman out but not the 1 man .  My wife said " sometimes you wonder why we are our own worst enemy and yet we only call out the guys".

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-27 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Now are you surprised

Oh and rec and mojo to you btw

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-27 09:13PM | 0 recs
What a joke

And what a coincidence: not minutes after you stop posting, someone else signs on and seeks out all your still visible comments, and only your comments, to uprate.

When are the admins going to start taking some responsiblity here? This site has some great people, but it has too much of this bullshit going on.

by BobzCat 2008-06-27 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke

Oh my god.

Blogs, none.
Comments, none.
30 ratings, all +2s for Aliveandkicking, all within the past few minutes for comments going back weeks.

Everybody, let's give a big handclap to AK's newest sockpuppet, workitfool!

by MeganLocke 2008-06-27 10:10PM | 0 recs
LOL!!!!

What is that?

4?

aliveandkickin
rankles
srickki (imposter)
workitfool!

This troll should have his IP banned.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-27 10:17PM | 0 recs
It's not that easy

A dynamic IP could make that difficult. Even so, there are some sophisticated tech tools available for spotting socks. They may not block them, but they can identify them when they appear.

However, it would require a more active role by the admins than they apparently care to take.

The community is doing its job by dumping them into the garbage bin. It's up to admins to actually take out the garbage once in a while.

by BobzCat 2008-06-27 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke

what you repubocrats now talking about?

I had 300 TR's given to me by 1010101 in one day , so no 30 Mojo's will make a diffrence. But if I have someone mojo'ing my comments , like I mojo's mass comments of others.  I take it as we have a true democrat in our midst!

whooo.. its growing...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-27 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke

I saw that and decided to hit some your way.

by workitfool 2008-06-27 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke

ahh so there you are... thanks , but I doubt I'll be getting off 300 mas TR's anytime soon :)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-27 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: What a joke

so using your "logic", O.J. really didn't do it...

by zerosumgame 2008-06-28 07:00AM | 0 recs
HUGE mojo for this diary!!! Rec'd!

The media's grossly sold out and simultaneously gone wild in this country. It's way past time to really kick the shit out of them, too. To a great extent, they've been asleep at the wheel and/or furthering their own agendas (both realities are just as bad as the other), all at the public's expense.

Many thanks for bringing this story to our attention.

by bobswern 2008-06-28 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Now are you surprised

louis, thanks for this diary. It's important to keep this record. And this is the best compilation that I have seen, verbally anyway, of the bias she faced. rec'ced

by linfar 2008-06-28 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Now are you surprised by some of the name

Not surprised by the names, but I'm kinda surprised that Keith Olbermann is at the top of the list. And no, I'm not trying to say that he shouldn't be on the list (because his comment was completely out of line), but I would put Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson closer to the top.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-28 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

Actually the most offensive statement I heard all through the primary season was Tucker Carlson's.

The castrated crap , it made me really livid.

However Carlson's statement symbolized and crystallized the crap NBC/MSNBC had become.

by lori 2008-06-27 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

I was rather fond of Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" song myself.  

by Whash 2008-06-27 09:04PM | 0 recs
It is pretty sad to see that NBC/MSNBC had been

nominated. I would have expected this from Fox News and Murdoch's News Media Corp. But Mr Jeffery Immelt: Sir what's happening to your Zucker's organization? Are you hearing not back from us?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:05PM | 0 recs
Flame suit on.

A lost of that stuff isnt sexist at all.  Yes, clearly some of it is, there is no doubt, but much of it is not and you only take it as sexist because it was against a woman.  I dont mind when people call out sexism, that is a good thing, but i think "just because its a woman" should not be a catch all for sexist remarks.  

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:05PM | 0 recs
Great, please point out the ones where NOW

went wrong?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:07PM | 0 recs
One easy example is Jack Cafferty

He says, in what was clearly a non serious joke that "She says that she will debate him any place at any time, adding that it could even be done on the back of a flat-bed truck. He would probably prefer to run over her with a flat-bed truck at this point."

There is nothing sexist there, its dumb to say it, but not sexist.  I fear that if it becomes what some people use it as, a catch all, it loses all meaning.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: One easy example is Jack Cafferty

did mommy leave you at an early age brandon?

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-27 09:14PM | 0 recs
Nope

I just know BS when i see it.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:15PM | 0 recs
Imagine if Hillary were a man.

If Cafferty had said, for instance, about Bill:

"Bill says that he will debate him any place at any time, adding that it could even be done on the back of a flat-bed truck. He would probably prefer to run over Bill with a flat-bed truck at this point."

A very rude thing to say, but it wouldn't be anti-male.  Yet, because we are talking about a woman candidate, you are saying it is sexist.

It seems to me that the trip-wire is set too sensitive.  There is real sexism in this country, but unless you are saying that Cafferty meant that Hillary should be run over because she's a woman, then this accusation is far-fetched and only trivializes the meaning of the word sexist.

This is all just part of a payback gimmick against people that opposed Hillary for president.  It does trivialize sexism.

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 03:16AM | 0 recs
Let's put Mr Cafferty's statement in context of

in a country where 1400 women die each year (4 women everyday) as a result of domestic violence, 572,000 women officially report battery/physical assaults et al. Suddenly Mr. Cafferty doesn't that innocuous anymore..

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats .html

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:19PM | 0 recs
Okay

Its still not sexist.  Thats like listing the number of black people killed and saying anything said against black people is racist.  Its wrong and BS.  

I sympathize with the feelings of misogyny, but throwing the word sexist around this lightly cheapens what it means.  

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:22PM | 0 recs
Sorry, I don't think you understand the meaning

of sexism...

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:24PM | 0 recs
Actually, I do.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

I dunno, maybe you have a different meaning then I do.  I am saying there are things on that list that are not sexism, NOWs only reason for putting them there is because it was against Hillary.

If the list only included things that were actual sexism, like the guy talking about breasts in Congress, the list would be legit, as it stands, it hardly is.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:28PM | 0 recs
No, you and NOW are making the word

meaningless by needlessly trivializing it for political payback.

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you and NOW are making the word

political payback, why, whatever would give you that impression other than putting unabashed Obama-advocate Olbermann at the top of the list?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-28 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you and NOW are making the word

because he was supposed to be on the side that decried BOTH sexism and racism yet then turned to sexist BS for ratings or partisan opportunism? maybe a bit of feeling betrayed went into it?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-28 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you and NOW are making the word

oh, baloney. He made one comment, which he then apologized for. Contrast this with so many of the other clowns on that list who made far more frequent and deliberately sexist remarks against Clinton and never looked back.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-28 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you and NOW are making the word
Olbermann has a long and documented history of sexist and misogynist behavior on his broadcast show, and his sexism is hardly limited to Hillary Clinton. Here is a litany from a year and a half ago.
Olbermann has a nasty habit of making sexist, derogatory statements about female celebrities. The things he's said are shameful and should never have been uttered, let alone on television.

His sexist history extends back to his career as a sportscaster. So no, his comment about beating Hillary Clinton in a back room is not an isolated incident.
by souvarine 2008-06-28 10:12AM | 0 recs
For a male media person to call for a violence

against a woman is misogynistic. Plain and simple. Good Sire, you're completely out of bounds here.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: For a male media person to call for a violence

He didn't call for violence against her.

by Whash 2008-06-27 09:30PM | 0 recs
You say he didn't ...Only it was

In a discussion about how Clinton should drop out of the Democratic race, Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggested that someone in the party needed to step in and "stop this thing," to which MSNBC's Keith Olbermann replied "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

And what is left unsaid?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:37PM | 0 recs
ok

That doesn't make it sexist.  

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:39PM | 0 recs
More political payback.

If Olbermann had said, for instance, about Bill Clinton:

"Right. Some guy who can take Bill into a room and only he comes out.""

A very rude thing to say, but it wouldn't be anti-male.  Yet, because we are talking about a woman candidate, you are saying it is sexist.

It seems to me that the trip-wire is set too sensitive.  There is real sexism in this country, but unless you are saying that Olbermann meant that Hillary should be physically beaten because she's a woman, then this accusation is far-fetched and only trivializes the meaning of the word sexist.

This is all just part of a payback gimmick against people that opposed Hillary for president.  It does trivialize sexism.

(I can just cut and paste this boilerplate comment, this matter is so trivial.)

It especially angers me, in this case, though, because Olbermann is a fucking progressive hero.

by Dumbo 2008-06-28 03:22AM | 0 recs
Re: More political payback.

As I have stated before, this is why us progressives aren't allowed nice things.  We overreact to something like the Olbermann comment and do major damage to the extremely slight progress we make getting a progressive voice in the media.  

Just look at Olbermann.  He's fighting the entire right wing media establishment.  Now we have a bunch of Clinton deadenders going after him for a comment that in no way shape or form sexist.  You can think it was a stupid comment, but it's not sexist.  If you plug in anyone else's name it's still the same comment, gender is irrelevant to the comment.  

by tqdmcgee 2008-06-28 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: For a male media person to call for a violence

Wrong, that is crying wolf, nothing more.  

Mysogeny-hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Please understand, I am against sexism, but I am also against false accusations.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:30PM | 0 recs
Look I've already checked out your other comments
in other diaries..and I'm not impressed. Try something else.
And no you don't understand..Sorry..
by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:32PM | 0 recs
Ok

By your standards? I am clearly the biggest sexist pig to walk the earth, my mother ans grandmother would be ashamed of me.

Now back in the real world, I am no sexist, because anything said not in a positive light about a female does not make said comment sexist.  You do your cause a great disservice.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:35PM | 0 recs
Nobody called you anything..What you're

doing is plain calling hijacking a diary..Good luck..my advise again.. try something else.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Nobody called you anything..What you're

He's not hijacking this diary. He is disputing the inclusion of certain people on a list of sexism offenders. That is hardly off-topic.

PS uprated for ratings abuse.

by unspeakable 2008-06-28 08:41AM | 0 recs
Really?

Fir a male to call for violence against a female
is sexist?  Really? Always?

No matter who the male and female are?
Or what the context is?

As a female I find this demeaning - I can stand
my own & don't need the "defence" of my gender.

by lolo08 2008-06-27 11:05PM | 0 recs
That's a reach

It was a stupid and mean statement for the violence it inferred. Stupider even than the "throw under the bus" phrase that gets far too much play this season.

Yes, there is much violence directed at women in this country. Yes, Jack Cafferty made a comment that unwisely used a violent image in making an observation. Does that mean his comment was thus inherently sexist? No. That's a logical fallacy. It was just stupid and mean-spirited, but not sexist.

I suspect he might have said the same thing if the two candidates he was discussing were male. Or, had the circumstances been reversed, he might have switched their places.

There's a lot of ugliness on that list. This one's a reach, though.

by BobzCat 2008-06-27 09:30PM | 0 recs
I am really fucking sick of Jack Cafferty

he still has nothing nice to say about the Clintons, and puts them down every day of the week. There is no counter balance to him. Sadly, all the other networks are even worse.

by Lakrosse 2008-06-27 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Great, please point out the ones where NOW

You can't win this with them, it's the Clinton standard. Joking about violence against a woman is sexist. Joking about violence against Barack Obama is racist (see: Huckabee, NRA, chair). Joking about violence against Hilary Clinton is not sexist because, apparently, she is not inherently a woman.

by souvarine 2008-06-27 09:42PM | 0 recs
I'm surprised..but then why am I not?

I'm sorry to see this though...

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

I guess some people will disagree with me, but I don't think that Olbermann's remark was sexist, if it is the one that I'm thinking of.  A corny analogy perhaps, but certainly not sexist.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

This is another obvious one.  Deeper in when it refers to Olberman again in reference to Katie Couric is also BS.  I watched that show, he called her worst person for being a bad journalist.  Had nothing to do with sexism.  

by Brandon 2008-06-27 09:19PM | 0 recs
Corny? That's really the understand of the year...

Good luck..

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the

Well, maybe you can explain it to me then.  If McCain and Romney were in an electoral stalemate with a few months to go, though it was clear that McCain would end the primaries with more delegates, and Olbermann had then said, "Maybe RNC officials should take Romney into the back - two people go, one person leaves" - would that be anti-Mormon?  Anti-middle-aged guy?  

It was a snarky Mafia allusion directed at Clinton, but not every snarky comment is sexist.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the

Two men duking it out to work out differences between is one thing in our society. Hell in the movies, they sometimes even bond over such a thing. The image of a man and woman in an actually  physical altercation brings an entirely different image to mind. As most women are still considered physically weaker than most women (although this may be changing, go Starbuck) the fact is that the thought of some guy taking Hillary into a back room and leaving her there... Is so horrifying and disgusting, it leaves me beyond speech.

If this image does not help you get it, put your girlfriend, mother, sister or any woman you care about into this image. if you don't get it by then... Well, perhaps you should ask your mother, sister, wife, or girlfriend and perhaps they will explain it better.

by Hollede 2008-06-27 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the

Oh. I should have previewed that better. Darn you louisprandt for writing such an excellant diary and keeping me up so late ;-). No really it a wonderful diary, thank you!

Now one more time:

Two men duking it out to work out differences between them is one thing in our society. Hell, in the movies, the men sometimes even bond over such a thing. The image of a man and woman in an actual physical altercation brings an entirely different image to mind. As most women are still considered physically weaker than most men (although this may be changing, go Starbuck) the fact is that the thought of some guy taking Hillary into a back room and leaving her there... Is so horrifying and disgusting, it leaves me beyond speech.

If this image does not help you get it, put your girlfriend, mother, sister, or any woman you care about into this image. If you don't get it by then... Well, perhaps you should ask your mother, sister, wife, or girlfriend and perhaps they will explain it better.

by Hollede 2008-06-27 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the

That doesn't make it sexist unless she was attacked because she was a woman.  Violence on its own is violence.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 11:08PM | 0 recs
Brandon

everything is in the context of history.

Because of HISTORY, using the word "lynching" with African Americans is unacceptable and yes it is "racist".   I grew up in a time when the words "lynch mob" had an acceptable connotation for whites and thus could be used: eg....a white boss in an all white workplace could say "if we don't get this done by such and such time, the higher ups we'll send a lynch mob after us..."  Why?  We heard that term associated with westerns all the time...
No one would blink....but if one said that about an African American employee...DIFFERENT.  It just is.

Because of HISTORY, because beating women was acceptable, and often ignored by the authorities and in some place accepted as the "right of husbands and fathers and brothers", violence against women has a different history.
Taking a woman out to the back to punish her for some behavior unaccepted by the men of the society and her not coming back happened.  And people/families were silent about it.  In fact, in some parts of the world, it still happens.  A woman can be taken out, beaten, shot, killed and nothing happens.

Women of a certain age and those who know the history of women and the current plight of many women in other parts of the world, are quite sensitive to remarks that perhaps some of you just don't see as a big deal.  It is a big deal.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-28 05:54AM | 0 recs
Your last statement is unfortunately has

the timelessness, cutting across all geographical boundary aspect to it. Unfortunately folks like Olbermann or Cafferty or others still don't get it.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-28 08:00AM | 0 recs
So according to you Keith Olbermann is being

corny when he is insinuating violence against Clinton? Am I reading you correctly?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: So according to you Keith Olbermann is being

See my comment above.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 09:32PM | 0 recs
If you cannot understand the allusion of violent

imagery against women being misogynistic or sexist, there's little to discuss..

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: If you cannot understand the allusion of viole

Violent imagery of women isn't sexist, violent imagery of women because they're women is sexist.  

by Whash 2008-06-27 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: If you cannot understand the allusion

If you cannot understand that the comment works for anyone in Clinton's electoral circumstance at that point in time, then there is nothing to discuss.  Is your position that the statement would be acceptable as applied to any candidate but Clinton?

A sexist comment is one directed at someone because of their gender.  You're stating that the comment is sexist because it was directed at Clinton, who just happens to be female.  That is a different situation.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 09:38PM | 0 recs
I thinking you're suffering from Clinton

fatigue. White males sitting around in mainstream media making up allusions of violence against the a woman running for Presidency..now that doesn't make  it sexist? What does? Are you seriously kidding me?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton

Look, don't put words in my mouth.  I see a lot of comments on that list that are abhorrent.  However, I do think it weakens the entire list when #1 seems to be nothing more than a snarky comment.  Again, where is the gender-based animus?  It was a statement directed at Sen. Clinton, who happens to be a woman, not a statement directed at Sen. Clinton because she is a woman.

As an analogy, Huckabee also made a joke at an NRA convention about someone shooting Obama.  Was it in poor taste?  Yes, I think so.  Was it racist?  No, probably not.  I haven't seen any evidence that Huckabee made the joke because Obama was black.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 09:50PM | 0 recs
by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton

I'll give you credit for consistency, at the time you also tried to walk back Obama supporters outrage over Clinton's recollection of the RFK campaign.

by souvarine 2008-06-27 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton

That was Dumb with a capital D.  The problem is that few people think rationally in the thick of battle.  

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 10:06PM | 0 recs
3 reasons I think you are wrong

1. I was completely horrified when Huckabee made that statement about Obama and yeah I kinda think it was racist. And if it isn't, it certainly appeals to a certain type of person. Oh and I was mortified when Hillary made the RFK assassination comment (twice). That was really stupid.

2. Advocating violence against anyone is wrong. Advocating violence against a presidential candidate is wrong. I was born eight days after JFK was killed. I remember the shock and horror of the murders of RFK and MLK. We should never joke about such things.

3. I do not remember the MSM suggesting violent imagery in the context of other presidential candidates. I may be wrong here, but I would think I would remember something like that.

Oh hell, one more...

4. Jack Cafferty and most of the other names on the list a complete tools.

G'night everyone. Go to bed and maybe you won't be so crabby...

by Hollede 2008-06-27 11:06PM | 0 recs
I have to agree with you..
1) The assassination comments are insane. At one point last year there was an underlying current of fear in the African American community that Obama would be assassinated if he is elected President. This was because of the historical nature of overt racism in this country and ongoing latent racism.
2-4) I would let your comments speak loudly for themselves..
yes it is time to go to sleep..
by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you..

Yeah, my mother (68) and a lot of other people who lived through that time are really terrified that he is going to be harmed. Personally, I want a Star Trek type forcefield placed around him to protect him. I also say a prayer for him and put tobacco out whenever I worry.

by Hollede 2008-06-28 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton

It's only sexist if it's being done because of her gender.  

You can't let a general distaste for and rejection of violence (both real and metaphorical) get mixed up with a rejection of sexism and misogyny.  Many of these phrases and images are perfectly common things used throughout politics and life.  They're used when talking about people of both genders.  

If you want to criticize the media (and our culture in general) for using these sorts of violent images, please do so.  But to insist that they are or become sexist only once applied to a woman misses the mark.

by Whash 2008-06-27 09:52PM | 0 recs
Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty

used the same analogy of violence against any male candidate?

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty

Offhand, I'd say, yes, they probably have, and for years, since violent metaphors and images are part of the cultural lexicon. Our political language is strongly inflected with violence: consider the "war rooms" and "war chests" of the camps and the incessant "battle" imagery of a campaign. During the primary season, "heads rolled," people were "thrown under the bus" (and sometimes backed over repeatedly), candidates "took a beating," "weathered attacks," "returned fire," and so on.

So if Cafferty and/or Olbermann did make allusions to violence, they probably went unremarked upon because beyond being juvenile and dumb, nobody would actually believe there was actual violence being advocated or even alluded to.

Personally, I don't like any of it. It turns something as important as an election into a cross between Monday Night Football and the Military Channel, amplifying and exacerbating conflict instead of highlighting and celebrating the exchange of ideas.

by BobzCat 2008-06-27 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty

I'm sorry but I've faithfully watched Olbermann's Countdown over the years till his comments in April.  I have never heard him using violent metaphors against any male candidate for Presidency. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope you read Hollede's comments above thread. There is a significant difference in our society when a man uses violent imagery to describe an interaction with woman than with a man. Given the repeated incidents of violence against women in our society, why such violent imagery against women are cited as sexism/miso especially when coming from male (white) mediapersons who actually dominate the industry.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty

My point is that, even though you've watched him for years, you may simply have not noticed. Metaphors of violence are endemic in our political discourse, are used routinely to describe power dynamics, and are part of nearly every political conversation we have. Between male competitors, it's practically reflexive to talk about them "bloodying each other" and "throwing knockout punches," etc.

But as you apparently agree, it's significantly different when women are in the picture. Our ears prick up upon hearing an aggressive or violent metaphor used in reference to mixed gender competitions.

But should we? Or does that itself bespeak the kind of bias we want to eradicate? What if we just found another way to talk about competition, one that didn't amplify the aggression, and provided a less charged vocabulary in which to express differences?

I believe that too many commentators this cycle fell into their usual habit of using violent imagery to describe poltical developments in the campaign. But had there not been a woman in the race, I doubt anyone would have been decrying it, or even noticing it. Even so, only a few examples are being pulled out of a campaign season rife with the usual violent analogies.

On a slightly different topic, I wish NOW would do some research into local, state, and gubernatorial races, and find out the degree to which sexism was evident in the coverage of woman candidates at that level. If we're really interested in learning something here about gender relations, we should try to avoid using only Hillary Clinton examples, and examine the impact on women aspirants across the board.

by BobzCat 2008-06-27 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty

Your last point is a great one.  It can't be the case that sexism only rears its head every four years.  Moreover, if there is a media bias affecting state and local races, then fewer women will be able to reach the national stage and compete for the presidency in the first place.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 11:50PM | 0 recs
you make good points..however it pricks our

ears to use your analogy because of the history of violence against women in our society. I'm not sure what is your objection of HRC examples, although all I did was to highlight NOW's examples. Given the historical nature of HRC's candidacy and the fresh memory of it, you would more of her examples. When Shirley Chilsohm ran for Presidency in '72, she did make a point that she faced more sexism than racism. So did Pat Schroeder..et al.

About NOW, you have touched a nerve about one of my pet peeves. Hence your comments are rec'ed.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 11:52PM | 0 recs
I'm uprating your comment because

somebody troll rated your comment which is totally uncalled for. Somebody troll rated me above. It is getting very close to troll rating abuse.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm uprating your comment because

troll rating is abused here, I think its just something I am getting accustomed too.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 11:23PM | 0 recs
I on principle don't troll rate anybody

I'm a firm believer on self responsibility and restraint. I do call out folks in the threads if I feel they did something wrong, hoping they will understand and rectify their words.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 11:31PM | 0 recs
just to be clear..doesn't mean that I've

been always right or haven't written something that I didn't regret later..

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 11:34PM | 0 recs
Sorry..it should be the understatement of the year

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

Phew!

Glad I'm not on it!

by Bush Bites 2008-06-27 09:52PM | 0 recs
I do understand the urge of some to defend

likes of Olbermann by minimizing what they did or said. Likes of Rachel Sklar and Joan Walsh called him out on this incident.

Rachel Sklar is my hero today for this blog post calling out Keith Olbermann for his vivid, seemingly violent comment about how to get Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic primary race on Wednesday night. (In case you missed it: Howard Fineman suggested that some unnamed super superdelegate was going to have to find a way to persuade her, and Olbermann answered: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out." Video here.)

Today, Olbermann apologized. "It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic 'he' gender could imply something untoward," Olbermann said, in a statement MSNBC spokesperson Alana Russo forwarded me a few minutes ago. "It should've been 'only the other comes out -- from a political point of view.'" Reading Sklar this morning I realized I pulled my punches (no pun intended) when I wrote about it that night. But it was tacked on to the end of a blog post that I had written carefully, to be fair to both sides of this split-almost-perfectly-down-the-middle Democratic race, and I didn't want to risk being shrill. I want to be one of the people who, at the end of this race, facilitates Democrats coming together. I like and admire both Clinton and Obama. I strive for balance in our coverage and in my personal blog posts.

But I admit I get pulled sharply off balance by the nauseating sexism that has pervaded Clinton's coverage, and it happened again Wednesday night. Even though I've gotten used to Olbermann's unfair coverage of Clinton, I winced at his remark. So I just wrote up a quick "note" about it and tacked it onto a post I'd just completed. Honestly, I would differ a bit with Sklar's headline: I don't think, as she put it, his idea for beating Hillary was "literally beating Hillary." Not literally. But the figurative Hillary bashing, and the creepy tone of violence, did cross a line, and I should have been stronger about it. A reader called me on it this morning, and s/he is right. I apologize for wimping out. I've been thinking a lot about why. Some of it is just being weary of the "Sexism is worse! No, racism is worse!" argument. Some of it is just me.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/elect ion_2008/2008/04/25/olbermann_apologizes /

When women media personnels and women organizations are calling something misogynistic or sexist, it is pretty ludicrous in my opinion to continue to defend the indefensible.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 09:55PM | 0 recs
BS

There is nothing sexist, and just because a self Identified Clinton supporter has the same warped view of sexism you do doesn't make it so.  And the fact that she is a women adds no more credibility then if it were a man.  If he said the remarks BECAUSE  she was a women it would be sexist, he said it and she happens to be a women is not.  

If your official stance is anything said that is not positive about a person that happens to be a woman is sexism, you have a warped vision of what sexism and misogyny is.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: BS

Brandon, I think you really need to tone it down.  There is no need for insults on an already heated issue where there are a number of different viewpoints.  Don't insult the diarist.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: BS

The warped comment was over the line, and I apologize.  The central theme of the post stands though, just because something is towards a woman doesn't make it sexist.  If it was said because she was a women, I would agree.  

by Brandon 2008-06-27 10:18PM | 0 recs
Please do not include personal attacks in

your comments. Thank you.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: BS

I think the big issue is that you can't really know if it was because she is a woman or because she is running against Olbermann's (and my) favored candidate.  It could very easily not be sexist, but it certainly looks suspicious in the context of everything else that has gone on this cycle.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 05:30AM | 0 recs
Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

Since my friends here want to make a point. Let us revisit what happened. HuffingtonPost not really a Hillary friendly territory posted this commentary from Sklar:

There are two kinds of people in the world: People who think there's an ugly strain of misogyny running through Hillary Clinton's media coverage, and people who think she's just not very likable and deserves it for running such a mean campaign and is ruining the Democratic party and has an annoying laugh and should just shut up and get out of the race already. Regular readers of this column won't be surprised to learn that I fall into the former category, having cataloged a fair number of examples here, but I'd think that even if I agreed with the second part I'd still agree with the first, because her coverage is just that bad. I am not going to run through it now -- if you're interested, there are 83 specific examples documented here -- but I am going to offer up an unbelievable statement made by Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night's show as proof.

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take "some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this."

Said Olbermann: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

Watch it:

What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out. At minimum. We know this. We know this because we have all seen movies where people are invited into private places to have "discussions" and the unruly party is, um, dealt with accordingly. It's an unmistakably violent image.

Do I really think Olbermann thinks Hillary Clinton should really be violently beaten to the point of physical incapacitation, or worse? No, though some have taken that statement to its logical conclusion. But it is an unmistakably violent image -- and that point seems to be undisputed by those who have written about it so far (Google "Olbermann" and "take her into a room" and you'll see results like "Keith Olbermann Advocates Violence Against Hillary" "Olbermann: Misogyny 101" "Calls To End Race Turn Violent""Olbermann: How To Snuff Out Hillary Clinton"). Even Fineman seemed taken aback by the statement - there is a distinct pause after, and it's an eternity in TV time. He's not facing the camera but you can tell that the statement was jarring. (Even so he agreed, saying, "Yes, yes exactly.")

There really seems to be only one interpretation here, and the only point of debate is on whether it's okay or not. I'm going to cut that one short: It's not. To the fellow (male) journo I wrote to about this yesterday, who waved it off as just some colorful film-noir imagery, I say: can you IMAGINE if someone had said that about Obama? That he should be taken somewhere and dealt with, so that he wouldn't come back? Can you imagine if some right-winger had talked about getting Obama out of the race "the old-fashioned way?" If that last one makes you cringe, it should, because it evokes a history of violence against black people in this country that is raw and real. Well, frankly, the same goes for women -- many of whom have been taken somewhere private, and never returned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25 /keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

To be fair, in the Salon article you cited, Walsh disagrees with Sklar's literalist interpretation.   But, this is counterproductive.  I agree with the majority of the list and it's unfair to waste more space on this one point.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

I fully admitted there was Sexism in the coverage, nowhere did i deny that.  I simply pointed out that some of the items listed as proof were in fact not sexism at all.  We both agree there was an ugly amount of sexism, but i just believe they are using things that aren't sexist, while they might talk about metaphorical violence, that is in itself not sexist.  If you could, supply me with your definition of sexism, if it differs from the one I know.

by Brandon 2008-06-27 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

That means that comments that are specifically meant to harm a woman's (Hillary's) chances of becoming President are very likely to fall under that category.  It doesn't have to be oppressing her "because she is a woman" to still be oppressing her.  Olbermann's opinion of Hillary is entirely based on personality, not policy positions.  Now, that might mean he thinks she is too old, or he doesn't like the Clintons' habit of holding a grudge, or it could be that he just doesn't like her because she isn't Obama.  But it could also be that (consciously or otherwise) he doesn't respect her because she's a woman.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

you mean like this? (note the byline)

or this?

or how's about this?

it always blows my mind when 'progressives' stand up for a
guy that has a history of inappropriate comments about women.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

These would have been better examples, because they were actual sexism.  That is the point of my contention, some of the examples given in the NOW list were not.  These were not listed though, and that were listed were not sexist in the least.  If these were the examples, I would not have had to speak up at all, but they were not.

by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

i dont think you want to argue over each specific example with regards to what is or isnt sexist right?  but someone upthread (maybe was it you?) said (and in fact people keep defending him) KO's remarks were not sexist.

sorry but i disagree.  in context of his history, bringing up analogies where a woman and a man go somewhere out of sight and only HE comes out brings to mind horrific and violent imagery.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

Like I said somewhere else in this thread, by your usage of the word, it means nothing, because everything is sexism just because you say it is.  I wish I had the audacity to use race like this, but my mother would be ashamed of me.

by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

i have no idea what you mean.  

but clearly you are as they say 'an immovable object.'  and i think its a bit strange that when a group of women (and men) tell you that they perceive something as sexist - you keep arguing with them and telling them they are wrong (and have audacity?).  strange indeed.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

I am done.  I think I'll take my sister out somewhere today and find out if this outlandish victim mentality is affecting 15 year old girls as well.  Good luck fighting sexism, whatever it now means.

by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:53AM | 0 recs
thanks!

us progressives will.

by canadian gal 2008-06-28 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

Women or woman?  

Oppress or not elect?

I was at an Uno's last week.  My girlfriend and I got a waitress who introduced herself as a Russian exchange student and that it was her first day.  She couldn't understand our order and we saw the manager have to go to every table around us as the night went on.  Sure enough, she was not able to do the job, not understanding the concept of appetizer (apparently thinking the two of us wanted to share mozzarella sticks for our main course), had to watch us point to what we wanted and write down each letter and making several errors on our bill including triple billing us for my girlfriend's main course.

Of course this was a point of conversation.  Someone should have been shadowing the waitress we agreed.

Now, were those comments sexist?  Was not shadowing the waitress sexist?  What about when my girlfriend said the manager (a man) should come over and put the waitress "out of her misery"?

If the comments about an individual would be made regardless of gender, it can't be sexist by definition.  There are thousands of examples of violent/combative imagery in politics and its used every time talking heads are on the air, and generally in blog posts as well.  The same thing occurs in sports (Team A destroyed Team B), business (Company A had a killer quarter, Company B is getting choked by a supply problem) and entertainment (box office smash, a CD blowing up).    Trying to portray half of what NOW is trying to portray as sexist, especially when a metaphor is used that involves violence is called sexist simply because one of the people is a woman, is crying wolf.

by PantsB 2008-06-28 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

I agree that not everything on the NOW list is specifically sexist, though it probably does hurt women in the long run.  More to the point, your comments about your waitress may not have been based on the fact that she is a woman, but I doubt you would use the language "put them out of their misery" for a male waiter.  It's just not the way we tend to talk about men.  It's the way society is.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

but I doubt you would use the language "put them out of their misery" for a male waiter.  It's just not the way we tend to talk about men.  It's the way society is.

Bullshit.

A Google search for "put him out of his misery" results in 3x as many results as "put her out of her misery".  For instance on the first page,
Barry Obama Urges Staff to Put Him Out of His Misery(Wonkette).  Google search results can vary but a majority of the first page for the male pronoun use is the metaphorical use, while the opposite is true with the female pronoun use (relating to a very ill or wounded person or animal who was female).  

If I go to Google News, the male pronouns result in the following usage - pets(5x), a literal meaning, "They need to waive first baseman Sexson, put him out of his misery", "Three successive Test ducks in Sri Lanka before Christmas were followed by a gruesome 23 in a one-dayer in Hamilton, at which point the selectors put him out of his misery."(cricket),
and "So buy the poor guy a GPS unit and put him out of his misery, right?".  Female pronoun use was less prevalent but similar minus the pet use - 2x literal, 3x sports.  

People do use that kind of language with men.  When my girlfriend (a successful Ivy League educated professional) said it, it was not because of her gender, sexism or to advocate violence against women but because of the waitress's performance.  

This is the exact kind of nonsense that makes people dismiss real cases of prejudice and discrimination.  Crying Wolf by claiming sexism on any criticism of an individual female for attributes other than her gender trivializes actual sexism or misogyny.  Half of the list in this diary is sexist/misogynist.  Half of it is not.  The non-sexism discredits the legitimate claims of sexism and makes those complaining (and therefore their complaints) appear unreasonable.

by PantsB 2008-06-28 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

I agree that it is a problem calling something non-sexist sexist.  And I will concede your point about the language of "putting them out of their misery."  Maybe I just only notice it when it refers to women?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

'For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

That means that comments that are specifically meant to harm a woman's (Hillary's) chances of becoming President are very likely to fall under that category."

This seems to expand the definition of sexism to the point where it becomes meaningless. Do you really think that all of the other candidates in the primaries, simply by running against Hillary Clinton, are sexist? Do you really think that the majority of democratic voters, simply by voting for some other candidate, are sexist? Is Hillary Clinton a sexist because she made terrible mistakes in her campaign that lost her the nomination? The answer to all of these, fairly obviously, is "no". By "crying wolf" you're training people to discount claims of sexism, undermining the case of all women that are suffering real sexism.

There are clear examples of sexism related to Hillary Clinton - about half of the examples on the list are very clear and indefensible examples of sexism. I'd suggest that it's better for to use the charge of sexism as rarely as possible, so that it retains its power.

by laird 2008-06-28 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident..

Ok, fair enough.  I probably didn't explain my position very well.  I am an ardent Obama supporter, but I think trying to forcibly keep Hillary off the roll call at the convention is stupid, meaningless, and sexist.  Here's why:  Hillary has no chance of somehow stealing the nomination there.  None.  Zero.  So having her name officially called and voted on has no negative consequences.  What it does is set a point in history where a woman officially comes in a very close second for the first time in a major party's primary.  Maybe that won't be a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it does seem like a very important next step for feminism.  And a female VP would as well (though I don't think that, by itself, is enough reason for Obama to choose her, obviously).  

I have come around to the opinion that she was treated vastly differently than any man in history has been.  I don't think the calls for a man to drop out (and they would have been there) would have had the same tone and tenor as the ones for Hillary to drop out.  And I was one of the ones asking for her to quit multiple times.  But she was demonized in a way that male Democratic candidates never have been (to my knowledge).  

I understand a lot of this is because people don't like HIllary.  That, by itself, is certainly not sexist.  But I think a lot of the irrational Hillary hatred DOES come from sexism.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 12:35PM | 0 recs
Yes she does..However I also tried to find

where likes of Mr. Olbermann or Mr. Cafferty used the allusion of violence against other male candidates? Did they do so? If not, why not?

I agree with your latter point...hence rec'd..

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes she does..However I also tried to find

No idea - unfortunately, both air before I usually get home from work.  I get most of my information secondhand.

by rfahey22 2008-06-27 10:33PM | 0 recs
sorry..this was posted in the wrong place..

should have followed rfahey22's last comment.

by louisprandtl 2008-06-27 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes she does..However I also tried to find

Cafferty

And it leaves Barack Obama in a very awkward position. What's he supposed to do now? The first time around he rejected Wright's comments without throwing the man under the bus. He can't afford to be that generous this time.

Combative/violent imagery is inherent to discussions about competition.  Synonyms (and psuedo-synonyms) for "to defeat" include destroy, annihilate, kill, blowout, trounce,  finish off, murder, and of course "knock out".  The examples are numerous of terms such as "knockout blow"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7227 637.stm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glynnis-ma cnicol-and-rachel-sklar/just-another-sup er-tuesda_b_90030.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102753. html
or kicking when down/kick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25 hillary-resists-urge-to-k_n_83330.html
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/20 08/03/11/hillary-clinton-should-condemn- spitzer-asap

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 4063139.ece
or destroyed
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 7/5515.html

etc.

by PantsB 2008-06-27 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes she does..However I also tried to find
Jon Stewart had a bit on violent imagery used on the night of the PA primary.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play 28643/2/tds_pa_primary_race_042208.mov
(second segment, after saying what was a win or loss by margin)
by PantsB 2008-06-28 07:53AM | 0 recs
I agree with most of the comments here

Not everything on that list is sexist.

  • Olberman was not advocating violence against a woman (which would be unethical but not sexist) or women in general (which would be unethical and sexist) but to get a superdelegate to get her to drop out for reasons other than her gender.
  • "Andrew Sullivan tries to turn feminist voters away from Hillary" - not sexist by any interpretation.
  • "Jack Cafferty imagines Obama wanting to run over Clinton with a truck" is not sexist because the reasons behind the hyperbole of wanting to run HRC over with a truck is not related to her gender.
  • "Cal Thomas declares all black women are angry" is much more racist than it is sexist I think most people would agree.
  • "Gary Langer pits wife versus wife." - don't see how this is sexist.
  • "Lars Larson thinks Michelle Obama got a free ride" - wrong but not sexist
  • "Fox News labels Michelle "Obama's baby mama."" - again racist much more than sexist.
  • "Chief Offenders: NBC and MSNBC" - seems to be a summary
  • Robin Givhan is a fashion editor not a political reporter so her comments on HRC's fashion choices seems to be a stretch on the sexist front.

    Now some of the list are certainly based on sexist stereotypes or derogatory based on sexism, but they're essentially all from right wingers!  Matthew's claim that HRC won her seat because of her husband's adultery (when in reality it was a more straightforward because of her husband the former popular PotUS, given her lack of any connection to NY state or any political office prior to running and the pull within the party he had) was inappropriate and at the very least arguably sexist but wasn't a big departure for the over simplification of why people win that TV analysis provides.  Randi Rhodes went over the top and said sexist things about HRC (Ferraro deserves anything she gets) using terms she wouldn't have used if HRC was male but the sentiment would likely have been the same.  

    Yes, Rush and Beck and Carlson and far right wing writers no one has ever heard of are sexist.  That doesn't amount to this mass sexist conspiracy.  

    HRC is not womanhood.  An attack on Hillary Clinton is not a sexist attack inherently any more than criticizing Obama makes one a racist.  

  • by PantsB 2008-06-27 10:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: I agree with most of the comments here

    That about sums it up.

    One thing to realize is, if you look for something hard enough, you will find it, i think that may be the problem.

    by Brandon 2008-06-27 11:06PM | 0 recs
    Violence against women

    Apparently some men don't understand the bedrock of all sexist practice is physical domination of and violence against women...by men.  
    Had Olbermann said "Clinton and a superdelegate should strap on six-shooters and settle this" that would be violent imagery, but not sexist.  However, the imagery of a male taking a female to a private place and doing something to her that teaches her a lesson or prevents her from returning most decidedly is.

    It seems somewhat ridiculous to have to explain the difference between simple violent imagery and sexist violent imagery, but judging from this comment thread, the need is apparently there.

    Far too many women out there, if not all women at some level, understand that in any argument with almost any man in the end he retains the ability to "settle it", shut her up or win through physical assault. This sad inescapable fact dwells beneath the surface of female consciousness in any passionate altercation with an able-bodied male, particularly in private. (or "out back")

    Whether Olbermann realized what he was saying as he said it or intended to conjure up the image of domestic violence, he did.  

    I wouldn't expect all men to understand this fine point, but for women there is no teasing apart violence from gender-based domination and subservience.  One only needs to become familiar with the statistics on male versus female violent crime and domestic violence.  Put bluntly, women fear male violence, and with very good reason.

    I find it interesting as hell that somehow NOW and it's members are not the authority on this and individual males would consider themselves better equipped to parse sexist from non-sexist commentary.  

    Just like the black community can "read the code" in phrases like "articulate black man" women know male dominating language when they hear it.  We've been shut down by it, pushed aside by it, our entire lives.  

    by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-28 01:18AM | 0 recs
    Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    I am particularly angered by the misogyny slur against Keith Olbermann.  How dare they.

    They are taking any colloquial statement of a physically violent nature and are calling it sexist because it involves a woman running for president, even though this is de rigeur in all presidential campaigns.

    And it trivializes the meaning of the word sexism.  For shame.  There are real victims of sexism in this country, and yet they throw crap around like this, some of it at progressive heroes like Keith Olbermann, and all for petty political payback because their preferred candidate didn't win.

    by Dumbo 2008-06-28 03:26AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    First of all, no Obama supporter should be using the phrase "de rigeur in all presidential campaigns" since Obama is supposedly the anti-de-rigeur candidate (which makes him exciting, until he isn't de rigeur, which makes him brilliant. Go figure).

    Second, this was NOT de rigeur.  When was the last time you saw the effort to force a viable candidate out of a primary race when it was a virtual tie, he or she still had a chance of winning, and there were still primaries to be held?  

    Never, that's when.

    The sexism was in Olbermann's joining the "Hillary, please go away quietly" brigade. The crassness was using a suggestion that she'd have to be beaten to a pulp, if not murdered, to succeed at doing such.  

    It was shocking and disgusting to see what the Obama campaign turned some people into, Olbermann being one of them.  These same foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Hillary loudmouths who are now insisting we must unite.

    by Juno 2008-06-28 05:06AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    Well, when Olbermann made his comment on April 25th, there was almost no way for Hillary to come back.  We already knew Obama was going to win the Iowa district conventions big the next day, on the 26th.  That means the remaining "states" with their total available votes were Guam (4), Indiana (72), North Carolina (115), West Virginia (28), Colorado (55), Nevada (25), Washington (51), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Alaska (13), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16), and South Dakota (15).  [There were some additional add-ons still to be determined later]

    This is what the NY Times said on May 7th, after Indiana and Kentucky:

    "According to a New York Times count, Mr. Obama leads 1,591 to 1,423 in pledged delegates. Because results are incomplete, not all delegates have been allocated.

    To win this count, Mrs. Clinton would need to pick up more than 80 percent of the unallocated pledged delegates. One measure of how difficult this would be: in her best state so far - Arkansas - she won 77 percent of the pledged delegates."

    It was just as unwinnable BEFORE Indiana and Kentucky, as it was after.  So Olbermann was right in saying that the race was effectively over.  He was not right in using a potentially violent metaphor.

    by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 05:54AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    Rationalizing.

    Again, when was the last time you saw any effort, let alone one of this magnitude, to push a candidate  THAT STILL HAD A CHANCE OF WINNING, out of a primary race, let alone in such vulgar ways, when there were still unpledged Superdelegates and primaries to be held, and pushed out by Inspired, Hopeful Unfiers who want change and to end negative, divisive politics?

    Nevah.

    by Juno 2008-06-28 06:13AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    She did not, unless some outside event occurred.  That is rehashing a long primary that some people are still fighting, and it is not worth it.  

    Here is my point, if sexism means what some people in this thread suggest, which is that it is a catch all for anything against any particular woman, then the word officially has no meaning.  

    by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:19AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    Well, it's looking like McCain is a long shot. Perhaps he should just drop out too and hand Obama the presidency?

    It is you who is missing the point.  I'll answer my own question, for the third time for you:

    It has never been done.

    Never.

    Ever.

    Never ever ever.  No excuses like, "He doesn't have a chance." No such conditions.

    It's never been done.

    Obama and his supporters felt entitled to the nomination. And I disagree with you that she had no shot.  I personally felt the SD were going to figure out that Obama had real flaws that could cost Democrats the election in November and swing their support to Clinton.

    I don't care if God himself said she had no chance. She had every right to stay in that race as long as she wanted, and she was bullied to get out of it like no serious candidate before her.

    That none of you Obama supporters condemn, and indeed are rationalizing such a gross thing to say by Olbermann, says it all.  It says the Obama rhetoric about ending division and negative politics is just that: rhetoric.

    by Juno 2008-06-28 06:39AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    This is about sexism, and the belief that you can apply it to anything on call even when it doesn't apply, that you wish to continue fighting a primary is none of my concern. Get over it.  I am sure you will say that is sexist as well, but I have come to assume as such.

    by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:41AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    I didn't write this diary.  Take that point up with the author if it is how you feel.

    Republicans also didn't want Election 2000 every discussed again either and also called Gore supporters sore losers and told them to get over it.

    Get over the gross sexism.

    But Obama is brilliant when he courageously raises the issue of race.

    Give me a break.

    by Juno 2008-06-28 08:12AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    The votes were largely in.  If it was an actual election it would have been called.  The fact that HRC supporters deceived themselves into believing HRC could still win several months after it was possible doesn't change that.

    by PantsB 2008-06-28 07:04AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    "when was the last time you saw any effort, let alone one of this magnitude, to push a candidate  THAT STILL HAD A CHANCE OF WINNING, out of a primary race,"

    Candidates are routinely pushed out while they technically have a chance of winning. Every primary since 1980 has been effectively resolved by all but one candidate dropping our well before the voting was done. This year there was a lot of pressure on Edwards to drop out, and that was very early in the primaries. McCain was frequently asked when he would drop out (when he ran out of money a few months ago). So there's nothing particularly unusual about there being a strong push to convince candidates who are likely to lose to drop out for he good of the party.

    It was obvious for the last few months that it was impossible for her to win the nomination, so by covering Clinton as a viable candidate when that was no longer the case, the press was actually quite favorable towards her. If they'd treated her as they did all of the other losing candidates, she would have had no visibility or leverage.

    by laird 2008-06-28 08:56AM | 0 recs
    Re: Political payback concealed as civil rights.

    I actually agree that the WAY she was called to quit was, at times, vicious and sexist.  The calling in general, was not.  I think that a man in the position of Hillary would also have been called to quit, but not in the manner she was.  I don't know if that makes any sense, sorry!

    by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 12:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    My first instinct was to disagree with the Olberman line - I didn't initially see the gender-bias.  But then I read it again and read the Salon article linked in the comments and noticed that when Hillary doesn't come out of the backroom, a "he" does.  That certainly carries weight.  When we are in a world where women aren't playing in the "male world" of politics references that are harsh with regard to women might be more acceptable.  But as long as women are being required to play in a male dominated world (specifically a white-male dominated world) these kinds of references are, in fact, harmful.

    It's hard though, for men to see this I think.  My eyes were really opened recently to how this kind of oppression works.  I led a group of people on a mission trip to Greensburg, Kansas to do rebuilding work.  Throughout the week, several of the women were getting more and more discouraged.  As I spoke with them, I learned that, though I hadn't even noticed, they had been the subjects of considerable sexism.  Most men would have brushed off what was said to them in the same way we are tempted to brush off these statements, but that's because we can't imagine what it'd be like to be 2nd class in our world.  It opened my eyes and helped me to imagine and experience what it'd be like to be the subject of these kinds of attacks as a woman.  It's just different.  Just like replacing "black" with "white" to test if something is racist doesn't work, you can't just say, "Well, he could have said this about a man."  The truth is, Olberman and the like didn't.  The coverage was awful.  I'm just sorry it took so long, and took the pain of some teenagers I care about, for me to experience this.

    by proseandpromise 2008-06-28 06:23AM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    I am sorry, but that is pure BS.  I understand perception is everything, but there is a growing trend of perceiving everything as sexism, and is is destroying anything the word meant.  Look through this thread, there are examples from these same people using said terminology for men.  

    Maybe people are so jaded by some things during the primary that they see everything as sexist, and I will not be patronized by being told that a man cant understand that.  I know what prejudice is, and it is ugly.  But i know just because someone says something to me I don't like doesn't make them a racist, it would be silly to assume so.  

    by Brandon 2008-06-28 06:32AM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    Perhaps you are a better man than I.  I know I have unintentionally said hurtful things to women considering them jokes or said lightly without understanding that they have profound impact on someone with a different perception of the world based on their status as second class in very real ways.  From this standpoint, I understand why women see sexism in what men say even when we don't intend it.  

    by proseandpromise 2008-06-28 09:01AM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    I can't recall her name, but I saw this one horrible woman on MSNBC (not an anchor or anything...just a guest) who happened to be a GOP consultant or strategist or something in that vein.

    Anyway, when asked why women tend to vote Democratic, she replied that "they're too emotional" and "vote their hearts over their head."

    Ugh.

    by freedom78 2008-06-28 09:59AM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    Ha, was her name Ann Coulter?

    Speaking of which, the names we all call Ann Coulter (I have done it too) is sexist too.  Calling her a bitch, a man, a hermaphrodite, Anne Cu*ter, is just as sexist as doing that against Hillary.  I'm trying to realize that we have to be better than that, even though I really do hate her.

    by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-28 12:39PM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    No, it wasn't Ann.

    As far as sexism goes, I tend to think that sex has to be at the root of it.  Any negative comments I made about Coulter wouldn't be rooted in her sex but in the fact that she's a vile human.

    by freedom78 2008-06-29 05:21AM | 0 recs
    Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

    Agreed, but using sexually-based language (cu$t, bitch, whore) makes it sexist even if the intent isn't based on her gender.  Better to use words like asshole and jackass.  :-)

    by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-29 09:13AM | 0 recs
    David Gergen, on the night of the SD Primary

    Hillary gave a speech on the night she won the SD Primary. To blunt the effect of her victory that day--major embarrassment to Tom Daschle, btw--it was decided in advance by the Party's brain trust (Reid, Pelosi, Dean) that there would be a steady stream of super's to Obama during the day, leading to him being designated as the nominee that evening. God, isn't democracy just great?

    CNN cooperated with a tote board all day, showing how close Barack was to "the magic number" (oh, be still my heart!) The usual mediocrities--Borger, Toobin, Gergen, et al., turned it into a party atmosphere.

    Hillary--who was going to be condemned whatever kind of speech she gave that night--gave a graceful speech, and asked her supporters for feedback and guidance.

    So afterwards, David Gergen--who has all of the characteristics of a dog except loyalty--compared her statement to Nixon's "Checkers Speech". I guess he should know...he worked for Nixon.

    So David Gergen--whose thoughtful and incisive views of the contest this Spring depended on whomever was winning that particlar night's primaries--is my nominee--above all others--for the Media Hall of Shame. Although for me, he just barely noses out Chris Mathews ("I just felt a chill run up my leg, oh my God!) for the top spot.

    by BJJ Fighter 2008-06-28 04:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: David Gergen, on the night of the SD Primary
    She was not going to be condemned whatever speech she gave, she was correctly criticized for not conceding.  
    I guess he should know...he worked for Nixon.

    And Clinton.  
    by PantsB 2008-06-29 12:21AM | 0 recs
    Well...that's kind of the point....

    This is a man who went from administration to administration, who changed his colors depending on whomever he was trying to get a job with. He hasn't really left a mark anywhere...except as a one of the worst leakers in Washington.

    by BJJ Fighter 2008-06-29 01:01PM | 0 recs

    Diaries

    Advertise Blogads