by canadian gal, Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:39:17 PM EDT
one day at a time...
"so now the press tells candidates when to quit"
"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?"
"gender is hillary clinton's achilles heel"
weep for our daughters.
Tags: clinton, Media Bias (all tags)
entitled because she has more democratic party member's votes than anyone else....
Remember that.
If you steal our nominee from the majority of the democratic party member voters you better have a boat load of GOP votes lined up to replace us with.
Seriously man - get a frickin clue. How anyone can look at these comments - anyone who calls himself a DEMOCRAT - attacking a good and decent DEMOCRAT and NOT be outraged is just sickening.
The fact that you not only ignore this hate-speech but GO ON THE ATTACK against anyone who has the AUDACITY to point out the MSMs hate-speech speaks volumes about the kind of followers your candidate not only attracts and welcomes - but encourages.
I'm sure Obama would be oh so proud of you right now.
Bill Maher imho really has a problem with women and also gays. I find this distasteful. Fostering an environment where women can be openly jeered, threatened, verbally assaulted, laughed at, called names---its set us back many years.
Watch the bloggers here cheer this, diminish women, get "cute" about their hatred, spam with photographs. Just watch.
I think he is gay just too much of a coward to come out. He makes a big deal about his overcompensating. He is also incapable of talking about women, religion, marriage, or Israel. Still the show is interesting when it has good guests. He is for Obama now but he likes the Clintons. Not sure where you think he fosters that kind of environment though, or that those things are specific to women.
I'm a regular, and sometimes he's a little too permissive, Of course BM is not responsible for the environment which I do think has been fostered by the media and others of mistreatment of women,
Still not sure where you are seeing it. Are you talking about the news media? Or music and the internet?
My personal oppinion it is religion and the religious taint our society has. Attaching shame to sex and sexuality causes so many problems, and allows for so much victimization, while at the same time repressing willingness to come forward.
Troll-rated for the "gay but too much of a coward" comment. You don't know him from Adam, and I disagree with baseless allegations on someone's sexual orientation. No place for that here.
FWIW, I also think that he is disrespectful to women, and I'm an Obama supporter.
I never really consider opinions allegations, and my "I think" was indicating it was my opinion. Because I cannot imagine that someone that derogatory can exist and call himself a liberal. Also the only insult was that he is a coward. Arn't we past thinking sexual orientation is something negative? If I said I think he is purple or a Republican, would you consider that enough to troll rate me?
And you don't have to explain why troll rating anymore, better than 75% of the diaries that make the Recommended list are nothing more than trolls. It's almost a badge of honor these days.
Do you want to go through the laundry list of racist insults about Obama? Or does it only matter when it comes from the media and not the opposing campaign?
but why is it that BO supporters want to make everything about him. this is not. read the last sentence of the diary - it says it all. thanks.
The reason I bring it back to racism is that your diary is implying that HRC is not the candidate because of sexism. If the candidate were a white male and we had not seen all the racist shit hurled at Obama, I might agree with you. Hell, I would probably still be an HRC supporter. However, we've seen both in this campaign. I'm not saying either is worse. I'm saying it's a wash, and that is not the reason her campaign fell apart.
there are plenty of good eggs among us Obama supporters. There are also a few people who are infrected with "primary insanity"
Hey canadian gal, how does the canadian media treat Hillary? Is it the same as here?
that's nice. as her parent it would be advisable to try and dissuade her from presidential aspirations though.
lol - for real? i guess you didnt bother looking at those links i provided or you're one of those that excuses bad behaviour as long as it benefits your interests types...
don't you tell me what behavior I excuse.
Lousy, rotten things have been said about both candidates. And I've denounced on this blog many of rotten things said about Hillary by the media and other bloggers.
your comment was "America will elect a woman President when the right candidate comes along."
this suggests that the disgusting treatment i showed is okay because its HRC who you clearly oppose.
whatever.
excuse or dont. its up to you.
Actually, it doesn't. Despite the vile media treatment, if Clinton hadn't run a shoddy campaign, she would be the next president of the US. This doesn't excuse the sexist and misogynist crap from the media (nor does it excuse the crap from Obama ("claws come out", "periodically", or "strident" in the post NC/IN primary press release), but it does mean that the US will eventually elect a woman president, we would have this year, if not for Obama's excellent campaign and Clinton's sloppy campaign.
It is conceivable that media sexism cost Clinton the margin of victory (although media racism has been nearly as bad, if different, racism and sexism operate in different manners in the US), but they didn't do Clinton as much harm as Mark Penn's incompetence. If she'd recognized his big state strategy for the disaster it turned out to be, she'd be the next president.
again - no where in this post do i discuss the primary, HRC or BO's campaign strategy, math, superdelegtes etc.
Seriously,
Where do you get off claiming that this country isn't ready or that Hillary has to be the chosen one.
Tell me which women you have voted into public office and we can compare notes.
I've voted for Ann Richards, Anne Eshoo, Boxer and Feinstein. Ann Richards was as feisty a governor as you could ever hope for (especially with her Bush "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" comment).
Don't pretend that just because your candidate ran a lousy campaign and ruined her own chances that she ruined it for all the really smart women in my generation.
Hillary wasn't a Rhodes Scholar. One of my female classmates in undergrad was (and she was damn impressive) and I know two more female Rhodes Scholars. Trust me, the US isn't hurting for accomplished women 40 and under.
Answer the question about why our daughters should weep when there are plenty of strong female candidates out there.
Sorry if I was unclear, I'm disagreeing with you disagreeing with a commenter about whether the vile media bias that you have been documenting means that we won't have a female president in the near future (next two decades). I think that Clinton, despite the vile media treatment, has demonstrated that it is possible for a woman to run a presidential campaign that will be treated seriously, and that misogyny and sexism are not so crippling that it would be impossible for a strong female candidate to win. I don't mean that Clinton isn't a strong candidate, obviously she is, and she came very close to winning.
I have no disagreement with your original post.
You're kidding, right? Hillary Clinton has paved a path that no other woman before has done, and in the process made it easier for all those that follow - and you're ready to throw it all away to make some petulant little point because she came up a little short?
I believe that it's been a hard road for her. It's a hard road for anyone who wants to be president. But when I read what you wrote I think that I hold your candidate in higher regard than you do. And that's too bad.
you're right - HRC has paved the way. unfortunately its not one that many women will rush towards seeing as how she has been treating by a largely sexist press corps.
and i think its highly unlikely that you hold HRC in a higher regard than i do. but if so - great!
I don't discount her historic achievements simply because she failed to win. Or appears to have failed to win, if you prefer.
I don't actually believe that you do, either. But even in snark to suggest that the road to the white house won't be considerably easier for the next woman thanks to her efforts is dismissive.
You can be disappointed in what she didn't achieve without discarding all she did.
nor do i discount her achievements and yes, the next woman who runs will (possibly?) have learned alot from this election cycle. but for certain, many would take a long hard pause before moving forward. a few months ago i heard a radio show panel discussing this - ill try and dig it up for you.
To make the leap that because Hillary is not going to be President this time around, NO woman can be President is fairly disgusting. Hillary has a lot of positives, but she also has a lot of negatives, and ran a not great campaign. There is plenty of room for another woman to run without Hillary's deficiencies and take the White House. Don't sell the rest of the female gender short because Hillary didn't quite make it this time around.
I'm not lifting the TR. He HR'ed my comment that is neither offensive, content-less, script-generated, nor meant to abuse the reader. As for bobswern, he called me a troll. When someone uses that term when I have regularly made conciliatory comments about HRC and her supporters, I'll call him whatever I like. You can use your TR however you like. I'll be sure to return the favor when you're being bashed.
o Obama supporters in the diary you did, it made me very sad, there were a lot of choice comments to choose from yet you ignored me...
...from me.
However, if you look at that diary which you're referencing here, I called out not a soul!
All I did was copy some comments. Nothing more.
but I freely admit that over on Dkos, I called Jerome biased, and maybe even referrence a would that rhymes with mack that starts with an H to refer to him (as he was cherry picking). Also I am pretty sure that I called myDD my Daily Dixiecrat on the day the George Wallace=Obama diary went up and stayed up for a long time. Possibly the same on the day of the slave card diary.
I am just saying that I have plenty of faults I just try not to piss off people by doing my venting in appropriate areas (except for my analysis of the racist vote (also on the day of the George Wallace diary) which I really should delete but it is really far buried in my diaries)
...I've said at least as much--if not more--directly to him in comments to his own diaries.
The problem is, when it gets to the point in a blog where you cannot say things like that--legitimate criticism--then your copy just gets t.r.'ed and buried! And, you're actually prevented from being forthright in your criticism. Then what do you do?
I've had my t.u. priv's removed so many times over there, I've lost count! LOL! A few times, I actually had them removed and returned more than once in the same 24 hours! LOL! But, that's been mostly in the past four or five months.
If you're lucky--and admittedly I have been--legitimate criticism, properly framed, will withstand at least some level of troll-ish effort. But, when stuff that isn't even really critical or significantly negative starts getting hidden, then what's the point.
All that being said, there's a certain amount of transparency between the two blogs--Kos and MyDD. And, I do hold folks accountable here for what they say there, and vice versa. Sorry, but I believe I have a legitimate right to do that--certainly when there's a level of gross hypocrisy and deceit tied into the activities of someone acting one way on one of these two blogs, then acting totally innocent about some overly aggressive and outlandish behavior they've perpetrated on an ongoing basis on the other blog.
And, there's been a fair amount of that going on here this cycle, by folks coming over from DKos and truly obfuscating their true sentiments here, only to bare their real feelings once they leave this place. So, it may be said that I have little tolerance for disingenuous, dishonest posturing, certainly by individuals that travel back and forth between these two blogs now.
Don't h.r. me (or many others) and call me (or many others) out and abuse me for legitimately expressing an opinion in one place, above and beyond any semblance of reasonable blogging behavior, and then act like you're not behaving that way when you attempt to communicate with me or others elsewhere.
That's all I'm saying.
Put another way, if you're going to continuously act like a lead torchbearer on DKos or MyDD, and then go over to the other site on a regular basis and deny your behavior from whence you came, don't expect me to sit back and swallow your b.s. I won't.
And, stud guy, I'm not talking about people if they're sincere and legitimately engaging in reasonable discourse, such as yourself.
In fact, I think--for what I'm assuming is a young guy--you're extremely erudite and reasonable, too!
Hey, we all have our moments. But, there's a difference between that and being downright sociopathic about it!
Keep on blogging man!
I've defended a Clinton fundraising diary (because I liked the concept it was the myPA event) in the comments section and I played Wolfson/Axelrod (constant rebuttals and disarming attacks).
I haven't lost the ability to rate here, but I did lose the ability to post for a short time (sometimes arguing with a mod can do that).
The reason I asked to be included is that you had Rage's comments out of context, I've been far more incendiary with my comments than he has been yet he was included (heck my racist vote diary [tracking who won the 'racist' vote] was far more bomb throwing.
Yes I am a kind of young guy (23 soon 24) and my off kilterness generally tends to snark rather than projection/hatred (except in the case of a true troll like rodhamclintonfeh/ilikebillnot/WWGWD).
Sorry for the snark directed at you (the wall O' Obama supporters bit) about that diary, I get riled up at times and it takes some rational discourse to settle me down.
Enough, she wasn't blaming Obama for this so there's no reason to pick a fight.
...the very worst Hillary hate mongers on all of DKos...and he comes over here acting like a reconciliator? Sorry, the shit's not flushing tonight. You can even smell it in the air.
You want to defend him. Be my guest.
With supporters like you, Clinton doesn't need the media working against her. You're more than helping display her in an entirely negative light.
for some of us Obama supporters, just like myDD is a place for Clinton supporters to vent a little. The fact that someone is here means they are willing to put up with some of the more dubious diaries that get put up here (like PaganPower's piece of trash or the George Wallace Diary, or Slave Card diary these are just a few examples). If a person is being disingenuous they are putting a lot of aggravation and most likely raising there blood pressure, the George Wallace Diary put me on tilt for about 1.5 days (including in school).
Is Bill Maher a sexist? Yes. Is that why HRC's campaign is on the rocks? No. The lead in delegates that Obama currently has was amassed in February. This campaign was over in February.
I mentioned delegates because that's how a campaign is won in the primaries. That is when she lost. It wasn't because of a stupid Bill Maher skit or a bumper sticker.
The supers? If this campaign were over, first, why are you here insisting its over, and why are people still voting? Why aren't the supers all on board? Or are you here just to drag the conversation backwards a couple of weeks?
I took your comment last night to heart, the only time I'll step into the primary war is to smack down idiocy/fear/republicans (like in NewHampster's diary about the "leader" of the NH republican party) or to comment in diaries like this.
I'm on to hitting John McCain with the corn belt (he will run poorly there due to ethanol, see the states of IA and IN and possibly NE as well as IL and MN being solidly blue).
Well, there's this diary on the math:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/9282 2/7106
And perhaps you aren't aware, but Obama has gotten 80% of the superdelegate endorsements since February. I don't care who each of them endorse; they're free to endorse whomever they like according to DNC rules.
What I said if you care to read what I wrote before you TR it, is that she lost the nomination in February. Yes, there was still a long way to go, and there are still a few more states to vote, but the lead Obama has goes back to the wins from February. And he will probably still win with that many delegates or even less. The wins that will take him to the nomination come from February, not any of the contests after that.
what part of this diary do you not understand?
-it does not talk about math
-it does not talk about delegates
-it does not talk about percentages
-it does not talk about superdelegates
-it does not talk about dnc
Sorry, I was just responding to the comment. I didn't mean to pollute your diary. My only point was that she did not lose the race because of sexism.
"and why are people still voting?"
The Republicans are still voting, and McCain has won.
You do understand that when everybody but the presumptive nominee has dropped out they still hold the remaining contests, right?
Those people still get to vote. Their votes still count. They just don't matter. However, they just don't matter in the same way voting for a Democrat in California won't matter (they'll win anyway) or a vote for a Democrat in South Carolina won't matter (they'll lose anyway).
Go out and vote. Do your part. It actually matters quite a lot. But don't expect that just because a particular state is among the last five states to vote it will somehow be determinative. As we run out of states, the significance of any particular one drops - we're amassing results from nearly the entire country already.
this cycle. They inflamed the race issue. They treat John McCain like he is a maverick while bashing Clinton on gender lines (I am fine with skewering over policy, but not on identity) and Obama on racial lines.
Matthews is going crazy (see his Chinese bus on the night of the potomac primary) Maher has lost a lot of respect form me (I used to love him last year). I still like Olbermann and most of his guests, but that is due to the very deep reservoir of good will I have for him.
retaining some rationality. The Clinton's have done a lot of good in their lives, why should I hate them? I may disagree with a few of her policies (gas tax and Iran) and her style (or is a better word strategy/tactics-I am talking about how she will fight for everything I am more a compromise/pragmatic kind of guy where it is possible), but that doesn't mean that "ZOMG she is evil" and must be defeated in the harshest way possible. She is a good democrat and deserves to be treated as such, some of her supporters aren't (see the guy who called Obama an Affirmative action candidate for an example, likewise some of the Obama supporters are out of bounds as well as can be seen a lot over at Dkos) but if this weren't primary insanity season most of the people here would get along swimmingly, I plan on sticking around after primary madness so what good does it do me to attack those who don't see the world the exact same way I do.
olbermann?!? uh no.
I know he has said some things that are not the greatest, but he mocked Matthews on the night of the "thrill up his leg" and has done fantastic work before the primary season. He reference Bush crossing the Rubicon, how could a prairie populist like me who was putting up with life in a very republican town (seriously without the college it was 80-20 not have a deep reservoir of good will for him.
And he did apologize for the context of that comment which is a step above a lot of the articles you cite here.
I'm with you on this one canada.
The guys in the media act like their in the boys locker room in
high school.
I don't think that has anything to do with Hillarys campaing being destroyed though.
Obama has seen the race issue crop up.
McCain will be teased because of his age.
Hillary has these pigs making jokes.
That's how they function. Sad, but true.
I love making fun of McCain though! (even if I not it's bad)
ageism tho.
Having lost my Dad, my mom, my step mom, and my brothers mother in law all recently (the last 3 in the last year), I have become intolerant of ageism.
All of these people were very SMART in different ways. My mom voted for the FIRST time in 2004 when she was 80. It took bush fucking everything up and my involvement in politics to get her to realize she needed to do this.
After that she voted religiously in every local election.
Bill Maher's a creep and, among other things, has very bizarre ideas about science (such as the transmission of disease). The "puppy right away" article is also particularly sad.
From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short.
I remember her mocking jaunt at Obama in the Iowa debates.
Her cackle at a question pointed at him. Oh such hubris.
Sigh... yeah I guess the double standards. total bias in the MSM and press and their complete and utter failure to properly vet BO had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Then there's the sexist garbage like that exhibited in your closing crack re her supposed "cackle."
Nice try.
weep for our daughters....
I remember, back at the height of Monica-gate, most of the action was on a website called Pathfinder. It was run by Time, this was before any of the now big political blogs existed.
And, from the right, there were many hewn cries:
Law and order itself is at stake?
The basis of the Republic is truth, and it will fall if Clinton stands...
But, the most famous one was:
What about the Children?
The point from the wingnuts was, Clinton has SOOO demolished morality, and justice, that if he wasn't removed from office, every child in the US was contaminated?
Now, the same statement, "what about the Children" is used for derision.
So, I think your "weep for our daughters." just because Hillary lost, is a little hyperbolic?
My daughter, and all her buds (she is 19) are backing Obama.
She's got her whole political life ahead of her, she will see a woman as POTUS in her lifetime.
And, believe me, I am sad for the Hillary supporters who are too old, they will not see one like she will.
Half the senior VPs at my company are women (no African Americans).
Two out of my three program directors are women with PhDs.
My sister has a PhD, my best friend's wife is an MD.
There are tons of accomplished and educated women under 40 that I know (especially in the Bay Area). A number of my female colleagues from law schools are partners at law firms (more than the guys I know).
Clinton is one of many trailblazers, especially those I admired and voted for or took classes from (including Barbara Jordan (black Congresswomen from Texas) and Ann Richards).
Trust me, that educated demographic that favors Obama percentage-wise is not adverse to voting for women. Some of us actually have issues with her vote for Iraq and her health care plan in the early 90s. Really....
hillary doesn't deserve this, but there's nothing new. a year ago, i started posting about hillary's historical highs in her negatives, and you've just posted some anecdotal evidence confirming that her negatives were historically high (for a non-incumbent). we knew all this.
i seriously doubt it has any impact on anyone besides hillary. the fundamentals were profoundly against her, not just because she was a woman but also because she was a clinton. in the end, she was unable to navigate through that burden, tried to use it as a bludgeon and was shocked that people didn't respond as they wished. these were strategic calculations, and this campaign will be studied for a long time as what not to do when running for office. let's hope your daughters learn that lesson, and they will be fine...
How funny, the diary talks about hillarys unfair treatment in the media adn yet doesn't mention hillarys treatment OF the media. Maybe if she hadn't called for the firing of several commentators she would have gotten better treatment. With all of her experience you'd think she would have at least learned how to win over the press. Instead the only press she tried to win over was the rabid right wing press. Once again hillary proves that her "experience" has proved to be nothing but words.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
96 Comments