a huge departure from the patriarchal past? um no.

last night was an extremely sad night for some HRC supporters, not necessarily because they are ceding defeat (although some are) not because BO supporters were calling for party unity as a signal this contest is over (many here were extremely classy, some were certainly not - especially in the media) and not because last night's primary results were a surprise.  

no - many were sad because last night was a confirmation that for all HRC's mistakes and missteps, there's no question that sexism has played a part in her ailing campaign.  with her having to endure scrutiny and criticism that no other candidate in this election or history ever has had to put up with.  whether we like it or not, the media does play a large part of the campaign narrative and it has not been kind to either candidate - but the coverage of HRC has been brutal at best, misogynistic at worst.

the media coverage of the clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office. on the one hand, they have to appear tough, nothing at all like a sniveling female, and when they do talk tough, they are called "shrill."

as barbara pendleton told the peoria chapter of the national organization for women on march 8, the deeply rooted sexism in the us as seen in the campaign coverage of sen. hillary rodham clinton "hurts us all,"

gender bias: discussion of how clinton looks, laughs, wears, talks, behaves, "even how she claps." "a man demonstrates roughness and strength. a woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid.  "his behavior shows compassion and warmth, her behavior shows emotions and weakness. he knows how to work the system, she is manipulative" and "calculating."

discussion of ambition, motivation and drive: "frequently sen. clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win. when she campaigns hard she is often described as strategizing, calculating or fake. but when men campaign hard it is refusing to cede an inch."



discounting of qualifications and accomplishments: "since her first run for the senate she has been presumed to be where she is today because of her husband. they discredited her achievements and implied that she never could have made it on her own. there were no such implications that george w. bush got a leg up because he was the son of a president and a member of a powerful, rich family."



attacks on supporters: "there is the claim that women who voted for her are somehow irrational, and voting only on the basis of gender. they implied they were stupid or shallow."

for those that doubt me, here is a sampling of some of the `hits:'  

rhymes with "rich"

nagging voice

the double standard

i just want to be happy. why can't you just love me?

crying fits

why does HRC dress so bad?

i hate her. i hate her. all that she stands for

you know how when your dog dies, your wife wants to get a puppy right away?

the reason she's a U.S. senator, a candidate for president, or a front-runner is that her husband messed around."

what has been so troubling is that many democrats actually are denying that this is taking place.  BO may well be the nominee, but please, ask yourself what progressive would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party or political foe?

Tags: Bias, clinton, Democrats, Media, obama (all tags)

Comments

95 Comments

standing silent...

is the real injustice.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 10:52AM | 0 recs
Thank you so much

for putting this list together!

It's a great reminder for us Obama fans, exactly how illtreated Hillary has been.

Man (lady?), we need a better media, and stat!

I don't have a TV, so I dont' always hear about everything... ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Has there been sexism in this race? And has there been racism and race-baiting? And has there been ageism?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

As to Clinton's feminist credentials and the actions of the feminist community, take a look at these provocative pieces:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/be tsyreed
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai th/sally_quinn/2008/05/judge_not_hillary .html?hpid=opinionsbox1

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

no thanks - im tired of hearing it.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Sally Quinn is a feminist now? Wow.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Quinn raises good questions about Hillary's actions towards women.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Not really. All I see is more of her pathological hatred of the Clintons.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

HRC did work to attack the women who came forward about Bill's womanizing. And it's not like it's not true that he had wandering eyes and more...he and she have acknowledged it. Now, I don't think that one's sexual behavior has anything to do with whether one is a good elected official, but I don't like smearing women who have come forward to talk about it.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 12:06PM | 0 recs
Hillary's done A LOT for women, more than Quinn

I have had it with so-called feminists.

What jumps out in her book is how much she's done for families and children. And also how much support she has abroad, due to initiatives for women.

Women's rights are human rights. <- that's Hillary's legacy.

by catfish1 2008-05-07 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re:

Ya know, I might say it was an unfair advantage to her opponent if she wasn't running against a black guy. Roughly half of the population is female, the proportion is much smaller for blacks. I mean, did it ever occur to anyone that her age and gender could've helped in some rather large demographics?

by Djo 2008-05-07 10:58AM | 0 recs
It isn't an unfair advantage...

but please, try to understand that Hillary has been wronged here, and that some people's reactions are to support her, sometimes at any cost.

One third of our military servicewomen are sexually assaulted.

Isn't it time for a change?

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:15AM | 0 recs
Certainly, but I fail

to see how electing a woman president will lower that appalling statistic, other than pretty much any woman alive would do a better job as commander-in-chief than George W. Bush.

As to how to affect that particular change, I'm not sure.  Stiffer penalties?  Unit segregation by gender?  Issuing tasers to female recruits?  I suppose changing the military culture, making that sort of thing considered unnacceptable in any situation would be the best way.  Not easy though.

by corph 2008-05-07 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Certainly, but I fail

I know you're trying to help, but it seems clear from your response that you don't know much about sexual assault.  (If I'm making an unfair accusation and you have personal experience, then I apologize.  It appears that you don't and you should really stay out of these kinds of comments and let someone who does have personal experience answer them.)

by The Distillery 2008-05-07 12:46PM | 0 recs
Admittedly, I don't.

Thanks for trying to be polite, but I'd have appreciated some explanation as to why those are bad ideas or what would work better.

When people post about topics I have professional experience with, I like to educate and correct any misconceptions.  I don't tell people to stay away from the topic, no matter how sensitive.

Anyone can make a claim to authority on a blog, but it only means anything if you can demonstrate thought the content of posts.  The good thing about open forums is that it lets experts and novices (such as me, in this case) discuss and debate.

by corph 2008-05-09 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: It isn't an unfair advantage...

Forgive me if I miss the connection. But are you implying that electing Hillary will somehow reduce the number of servicewomen who are sexually assaulted?

Perhaps that has more to do with changing the attitudes towards women, within the branches of the military internally. Additionally, I think that this statistic is not helped by the fact that we are letting more and more convicted felons join the military because we need them to fight a war that Hillary voted to authorize.

by Djo 2008-05-07 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: It isn't an unfair advantage...

There are 2 big things wrong with what you just posted.  The second one is why I HR'ed you.

1)  Electing a female leader does nothing to change the sexual assault incidences in a country.  You should look up Margaret Thatcher and Benezir Bhutto for starters.  The rape statistics in those countries are unchanged by the election.  What does change statistics is education on what rape is.  As much of a shocker as it is, many men do not actually know that what they've done is rape.  They still don't understand that going to far with someone you know or care about is rape.  The majority of rape in developed countries is acquaintance rape or date rape.  It's not some boogie man in the bushes.  In war-torn countries, rape becomes a tool of war.  Since our military servicewomen can fall into both categories, it is safe to assume that they are a mixture of the two.  So we need more education in our society on what exactly rape is, and in the military, we need more education on women being equals.  The culture needs to change.  I have gone through Hillary's website.  There is absolutely no mention of sexual assault.  Obama talks extensively about domestic violence, VAWA, and rape in Darfur.  While he needs to do more than this (and I have emailed the campaign expressing that), he has spoken out a hell of a lot more on violence against women.  This is where Barack stands: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/w omenissues.

2) HOW DARE YOU.  I am a survivor of sexual assault.  How fuckin dare you usurp MY EXPERIENCE, MY PAIN, MY PTSD to advance your candidate's agenda because she has the same anatomy as me.  I would HR you five times if I could.

by The Distillery 2008-05-07 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It isn't an unfair advantage...

im sorry to hear about what happenned to you - and i dont necessarily understand what this topic has to do with either candidate, but i think you misunderstand the poster who is in fact a BO supporter.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It isn't an unfair advantage...

It doesn't matter who they support.  It sounds from the comment like it is a pro for HRC.  If it's not, my comment still stands.  It's not the first time I've seen violence against women thrown around willy nilly as the reason to support a politician.  And this comment is over the top.

And my comment has nothing to do with your diary.  I agree sexism exists (of course!), but I think it's a wash compared to racism.

by The Distillery 2008-05-07 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge

You forgot that HRC is a pathogical liar.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge

Absolutely no reason to go there.

As to the sexism While I'll agree there has been "isms" enough to go around. I think both the race and sex thing have been overstated and over played. Now, I will freely admit as a white male I may well not be a sensitive to these things as either women or African Americans.

However, Hillary would have won this if for not for several serious missteps.

Assuming, as many did this was hers. Failure to have a cohesive plan after Super Tuesday. Sticking with Penn when she probably should have cut him lose. Never deciding until it was too late what her message was and her tone.

I also think this country is ready for a woman as President, if it was not Hillary would have been out of this a long time ago. The larger question - and 20/20 hindsight here -was she the right woman to lead this charge?

by jsfox 2008-05-07 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge

You said "women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office", and I completely agree with that. But what you just pointed out is how Hillary did not possess the necessary skills to walk that very thin line to succeed in this campaign. Hillary chose to take the advice of the the discusting pig Mark Penn. Instead of using her own unique skills, she chose to listen to some stupid man, and because of that,she lost.

by venician 2008-05-07 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge

Oh brother, David.  I've overlooked your dimwitted grammar, spelling and thoughtless comments for too long.  Please stop!

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-07 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge

Am I supposed to troll-rate myself?

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-07 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Again, I can't understand why Hillary supporters keep bringing this up.  The idea that the media dislikes Clinton for whatever reason is a mark against her when we are deciding who the best candidate is.  If she can't find a way to get past the prejudice of the media then she doesn't deserve the nomination.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-07 11:00AM | 0 recs
Obama hasn't gotten past it either...

no one will.

not even haircut edwards.

the media would honestly like Hillary to win, because she would let them and their analysis have a field day -- and yes, that includes reducing everything to sexist rants. Expect comments about blowjobs too.

I know hillary volunteered, but do you think she really volunteered for that?

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama hasn't gotten past it either...

Yes, I do think she volunteered for this.  If she can't overcome the press'/the voter's prejudice then she is a weaker candidate than someone who can.  McCain is deflecting the age bullshit quite well and Obama gave a speech on race that had the MSM praising him for weeks.   This is what needs to be done in order to win.  If Hillary can't do something similar then she has no one to blame but herself.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-07 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I agree completely with this post. Clinton had to put up with a lot of sexist shit, and while the nut cracker or the offensively named anti-Clinton 526 group may be the most blatant expression of it, I think the tiny window of overlap between "acceptable female presentation" and "what presidents look like" that Clinton had to try to pass through was even more of a problem for her.

I think the same was true of Obama, and I'm amazed an over-joyed that he has managed to fit through the equivalent restrictions of running for president as a black man, but the fact that he faced that in no way lessens the fact that Clinton faced sexist hobbles.

by letterc 2008-05-07 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

He overcame the prejudices in his way and she didn't.  I am not denying sexism exists or that it was a problem for Clinton.  The point I am making is that she wasn't good enough to overcome those problems.  I think the US is ready for a woman President.  The fact that it won't be Hillary has more to do with her than with sexism.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-07 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

"He overcame the prejudices in his way and she didn't."  What?  Part of his campaign platform was to run with those "prejudices".  How else do you explain the "first black president" and his wife, a presidential contender, being labeled racists?

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-07 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

On the first point, absolutely. On how much of that was Clinton versus Obama, and how much of it was racism versus sexism, I don't know. It is clear that both were hampered by racism or sexism, and it is clear that Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton did, but other than that, I think it is hard to say.

Before the Wright garbage and the "blue collar voters" crap, I would have said that Clinton was getting hit by sexism more than Obama was by racism, but at this point it is hard to say (and oppression olympics is never a good idea).

If Clinton had run a better campaign, she'd be the nominee, so in that sense it is definitely more about Clinton and Obama than it is about sexism and racism.

by letterc 2008-05-08 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:24PM | 0 recs
Why don't blacks, women just get over it.

Is that what you're saying?

by catfish1 2008-05-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Scrutiny that no other candidate

except Obama has had to endure.

That'd be more accurate.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

did you even read the diary?

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

Yes...

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

didnt i say BO's coverage has been awful?  yes.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:07AM | 0 recs
No

You said it hasn't been "kind". But, in fact, it's been blatantly racist.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

Are you Alegre? Because that's what she always writes, it's almost her catchphrase.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

what exactly is the point you are making - peppering your comments here with not much to add but more bashing?  feminist - ya.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

I was just wondering. It is well known that some people have multiple accounts with multiple names here.  And it really did sound a lot like Alegre. She always asks "did you read the diary" as if any criticisms or comments must have arisen because we didn't read or didn't understand it, not that, no, we just disagree.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Scrutiny that no other candidate

clearly - you disagree - you have made that clear in the 6+ comments you have made in this diary.  and yes - i asked the commenter if he read the diary because the comment suggested that i omitted BO's coverage being negative - which if the diary was read - was clearly stated.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:39PM | 0 recs
Frederick Douglass ditched Susan B. Anthony
in 1860. It took women only SIXTY MORE YEARS after black men to get the right to vote:
In 1869, long time friends Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony found themselves, for the first time, on opposing sides of a debate. The Equal Rights Association, which had originally fought for both blacks' and women's right to suffrage, voted to support the 15th Amendment to the Constitution granting suffrage to black men, but not women. Anthony questioned why women should support this amendment when black men were not continuing to show support for women's voting rights. Partially as a result of the decision by the Equal Rights Association, Anthony soon thereafter devoted herself almost exclusively to the agitation for women's rights.
by catfish1 2008-05-07 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Frederick Douglass ditched Susan B. Anthony

Irrelevant but tell that to Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Any sexism in relation to Hillary Clinton is obnoxious. Any racism in regard to Obama the same.

But just as we know racism can be internalised by its victims, so too can patriarchy be internalised by victims of it.

I lived for eleven years under the government of Margaret Thatcher who, though a cold war figurehead, did nothing to advance the rights of women or equal pay. Symbolically she was important. Practically, she was an enemy of feminism.

To be completely honest, I feel Hillary has internalised (or at least utilised) several of the intolerant, patronising and controlling elements one might associate with patriarchy. I don't blame her. This was the world she was born into, and politically educated by.

But let's not pretend that one's gender or race de facto leads to enlightenment.

And let's  not pretend that the horrible sexist vitriol spewed by some people towards Hillary is the sole reason for her failure.

by duende 2008-05-07 11:03AM | 0 recs
Sexism Vs. Racism

Both have not surprisingly been problems in this primary contest. There have been sexist attacks on Clinton and racist attacks on Obama. My girlfriend and I, both Obama supporters, were furious when we saw a guy with one of those "Life's A Bitch" Hillary stickers on his laptop in a coffee shop.

I really really really really don't think Hillary lost because of sexism, though. It's much more complex than that, maybe it was a factor but not a significant one.

by Hatch 2008-05-07 11:06AM | 0 recs
Man, I woulda punched someone...

Then again, I was vehemently disagreeing with Obama supporters on the bus, when they said "any man with kids and who works for a living would never vote for a woman"

And me with an obama pin on!

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:19AM | 0 recs
superbad

well i do think that alot of the arguements you presented were true... it is hard to be a woman politician for there is the double standards you speak of in your diary.

It sucks.

Its like Hillary is damned either way. She damned if she shows too much emotion and shes damned if she doesn't show enough cause then everyone calls her a cold bitch.

Consider why she looses so much support amongst the millenial gen. We are the 'superbad' generation. she never had a chance with us. come on, we refer to woman as 'pussy'. she was never going to get that vote...

Honestly, its a wonder she even got this far. Considering the double standard and sexism against her.  

[on a side note: i just heard a rap song on the radio with obama and hillary in it]

by amde 2008-05-07 11:06AM | 0 recs
I Don't Know About You...

But I don't call women "pussy" and neither do any of my other so-called "Superbad generation" friends.

Our generation supported Obama over Hillary because of the AUMF vote, the lobbyist money, and any number of other totally non-sexist reasons.

by Hatch 2008-05-07 11:09AM | 0 recs
A Sidenote

You are, however, 100% right about the difficulty of navigating the too feminine/too masculine thing. Just as it's been difficult for Obama to navigate the too black/not black enough thing.

by Hatch 2008-05-07 11:13AM | 0 recs
on the ohter hand...

there are differences.

obama started by winning whites, whereas I don't think hillary really started winning men until much later...

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Know About You...

come on. you saw the movie. did you laugh? I didnt because I was sitting in front of a jerk who laughed so hard he spit his drink out.

also. you know when a guy is being chicken about something or isn't acting macho enough everyone is always like

"come on man stop being a pussy"

---its those things that are little windows into the psyche.

by amde 2008-05-07 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Know About You...

I think you'll find that that usage of the word pussy is a good deal older than the current 21-29 generation.

by letterc 2008-05-08 01:24AM | 0 recs
Very good diary.

It is undeniable: it's much harder for a woman to compete.  Press coverage is almost universally gender-biased and the dismissive narratives come very easily for the male pundits who own the airwaves.

And having President Hillary Clinton would represent more social progress in that regard than electing a black man will.

And I despair along with you that it may be a long time before we see another female candidate who is able to compete as Senator Clinton has.  I'd love to be wrong about that.

Having said all that, I do think Senator Obama is the superior candidate and I did not hesitate to support him.  I hope he gets Senator Clinton's support soon.

by McNasty 2008-05-07 11:07AM | 0 recs
Sibelius for VEEP!

and there's a not so small probability that she'll be president in the not so long future.

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Sibelius for VEEP!

What does that mean?

by Rationalisto 2008-05-07 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Sibelius for VEEP!

Veep == vice president.

Sebelius (I can't spell, sue me later) is the Gov of Kansas, and someone with a similar style to Obama.

as to the other comment, the risk of assassination is much higher with obama than with Hillary (not that it is 50% or anything, thank the heavens above)

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 12:11PM | 0 recs
Ugh she is too cerebral and soft

It's because Hillary has nerve and is strong that people react so much to her (either with love or hate.)

by catfish1 2008-05-07 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary.

And I think having a black president would do more to heal the scars of slavery that are still with us today. I don't remember white women being hung from trees all across the south. I don't remember white women ever being sold at auctions. No, for a country that was literally built by the blood and sweat of black people, an Obama presidency will truly show how far WE have progressed in this nation.

by venician 2008-05-07 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary.

You are quite correct - women are not lynched and rarely have been.

Instead, they're beaten - every day - and murdered - every day - and raped - every day - by their husbands and boyfriends and acquaintances, and occasionally, by a stranger.

I cannot believe you wrote what you wrote with any sincerity.  Engaging in a hierarchy of oppressions gets you nowhere.

by aggieric 2008-05-07 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary.

"I cannot believe you wrote what you wrote with any sincerity.  Engaging in a hierarchy of oppressions gets you nowhere."

EXACTLY

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Very good diary.

would mojo twice if i could ;)

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

I don't think that Clinton's supporters have been positive in their use of gendered language. Easley called Obama a pansy. Carville said that Hillary has more balls than Obama. And some speaker said Clinton has "testicular fortitude."

As a woman and feminist, I find that masculinist language offensive, as if women have to be men if they are to be taken seriously and also in the use of soft homophobic language against one's opponent.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

thats a fair comment about the language being used.  but with due respect - i find it hard to believe that you are a feminist considering that i have provided several examples here of coverage  and language far worse than surrogates have used and you still are finding ways to make this about HRC rather than how she has been treated in the media.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Frankly, some of your examples are examples of sexism, but others are statements that could be made about any candidate, male or female.

Now, you may think it's not very feminist to say this, but I don't think so.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-07 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Easly did not call Obama a pansy. He said Clinton made the fictionary character Rocky Balboa look like one. You can argue about whether it or not it was offensive, but it he didn't call Obama one.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 11:31AM | 0 recs
thanks for the citokate

we like FACTS people.

Now, in the same vein, by implication, he was calling Obama a pansy.

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for the citokate

Those are facts. He was building up his candidate and didn't say anything about Obama. Every statement is not about Obama, believe it or not.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

You are correct. But wasn't the implication that Sen. Obama was not as tough as Sen. Clinton?

BTW, as a 47-year-old gay man, I can tell you that "pansy" is definitely a homophobic slur. I think the intent was clear. But the effect? Doesn't bother me. I like my bigots out in the open.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-07 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

"Not as tough as" isn't the same thing as calling someone a pansy though. "I like Obama because he's honest" does it mean that this person is calling Clinton a liar?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Correct. I was making two separate points here.

I think a better analogy would be: Hilary Clinton is so honest she makes George Washington look like Richard Nixon.

The assumption in this case would be that Clinton is extremely honest. Perhaps the most honest person ever. Obama, therefore, would be at least slightly less honest.

Having said that, do I really think anyone parsed Easley's words that carefully? No.

Do I think that Clinton's silence over the word "pansy" is disappointing? Yes.

And do I think that trying to beef up her "toughness factor" in this way is a legitimate tactic? Yes, but highly unnecessary.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 03:08PM | 0 recs
yeah

hooray for more bullshit.

I wonder if people like this will keep chanting on and on.

Alot of patriotic Americans were disgusting at the acts of Monarchy with poppa and baby bush.

People here are sounding the same drum, but taking it one step further, nominating Chelsea as a future canidate.

you guys need alchohol, lots of it.

If you are a leeebral like me, I hear that we prefer wine.

If you are a middle lower working class voter who eats lunch out of a box while bowling,  drink beer.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-07 11:20AM | 0 recs
I don't know about you...

but i'm from pittsburgh. When we drink, we DRINK! We got a nice belgian pub called the Sharp Edge -- and everyone hangs out there, from professors to working class joes. That's cause it's good, and we like good beer! (food's cheap too, always a plus).

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know about you...

Amen to that.

Personally I like all alchohol.

When I go to bars I generaly drink Redbull/grey goose.

But in a setting you just described I would be drinking with beers with the rest of you, the one you described sounds delicious.

But, when I watch politics on TV I prefer to drink Pinot Noir.

I think I drank a bottle after Obama won SC  :P

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-07 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know about you...

Oh yea, Im from Baltimore, forgot to mention that.

Never been to Pittsburgh though....  the furthest point in PA for us.

by GeorgeP922 2008-05-07 12:25PM | 0 recs
I like a Lindeman's llambic

... it says something when a bar has that on tap!

by RisingTide 2008-05-07 12:33PM | 0 recs
You can search through

all of my comments in MyDD and not find a single adhom attack.  Until now.

You have been an ass all day long and this comment exemplifies that.

by aggieric 2008-05-07 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

isn't there something to be said for not extrapolating based on one instance?  that is, maybe it's not "all women who run for high office" but maybe just hillary?  maybe ALL women who run for president won't be called calculating or scheming ~ maybe people think that HILLARY is calculating or scheming.  

i'm sure i'll get flamed for this, but it's not very logical to generalize from one specific.

and really, no one spoke up and said W is where he is b/c he's a bush?!?  really??  

by pholkhero 2008-05-07 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

this is not about HRC - rather how she has been treated in the media.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

The first woman president will be treated just as badly but she will overcome that obstacle instead of being tripped up by it.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-07 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

my point still applies, regardless of who it's about.  

The way the media has treated Hillary is NOT indicative of how the would treat EVERY woman.

The way the media has treated Obama is NOT indicative of how they would treat EVERY black candidate.

The way the media has treated McCAin is NOT indicative of how they would treat EVERY old, white man.

Period.

by pholkhero 2008-05-09 07:54AM | 0 recs
silent no more

to date i have ignored all the cries of sexism from hill supporters here....but my 2 cents:

hillary was at best a silent bystander and at worst an accomplice to the charactor assasinations of all of bill's lady friends.

if anyone in the tight circle of democratic candidates has exhibited misogynistic tendancies through the years it is bill and his partner and enabler.

so, if your knickers are twisted......fire away.

by citizendave 2008-05-07 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: silent no more

your response says it all - v. sad.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:36AM | 0 recs
i agree

it is very sad

by citizendave 2008-05-07 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past?

Nice diary! I think Hillary has been severely misrepresented by the media. There is also a gender bias when a woman fights back - it is okay for a man, but not okay for a woman to be strong in this country. Strong women get a bad rap - look at Nancy Pilosi, Condoleeza Rice, and even Obama's wife - if they say anything strong they are often demeaned and sidelined. Maybe this is because many American men are insecure in their manhood. ;) In most of the rest of the world women have been in presidential positions (UK, Canada, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, Germany)- even Pakistan and India had women leaders.

by sunnyaz08 2008-05-07 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

canadian gal, this is a brilliant compact stating:

"[A]sk yourself what progressive would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party or political foe?"

I'd like to have it as a lapel button.

by AM 2008-05-07 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

Damn. I hope you have some clothes from the 70's left.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-07 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past? u

thank you - but why did t/r rate me above?

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: a huge departure from the patriarchal past?

Canadian Gal; excellent post. Rec'd!

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-07 11:52AM | 0 recs
Well, imagine being black ....

by bigdcdem 2008-05-07 12:37PM | 0 recs
Canada lucky to have you, cgal

Move down here, we need someone with your spirit on our side!

by catfish1 2008-05-07 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Canada lucky to have you, cgal
thanks ;)
i have been shock and dismayed by what i have been seeing south of my border and yes - we have already had a female prime minister albeit only for a short time.
by canadian gal 2008-05-07 12:59PM | 0 recs
Kim Campbell? Saw her on Bill Maher

do you think another female could be elected again soon? Or was she a fluke. Don't know a lot about her other than she is blond.

by catfish1 2008-05-07 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Kim Campbell? Saw her on Bill Maher

kim campbell was only in office for a short time - she was part of the conservative party (equivalent of repubs) and sadly only got into office when the PM stepped down in the months before an election befoer the liberal party took over.  sad that both our countries really have not come very far in this regard.

by canadian gal 2008-05-07 01:13PM | 0 recs
I fear first female will be a Repub

What is so unique about Hillary is she isn't a hawk in the style of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir.

She's a complete package candidate who serves all voters, men and women, but she also brings to the table the unique perspective of a woman. And the track record of fighting for families and children.

I don't think we'll see a candidate like her for a loooong time. That much compassion and that much strength in one person.

Crap! Writing this gets me pissed all over again. Why don't more people see this?

by catfish1 2008-05-07 01:17PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------