MyDD :: What was so sexist about this campaign??

What was so sexist about this campaign??

by kbal, Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:21:35 AM EST

I have been hearing a lot in this blog, in the news and other places that this was a very sexist election campaign. But I have not seen many anecdotes that prove the point. Now i understand that as an avid Obama supporter I got offended by news stories that attacked him but not ones that attacked her, so my perception might just be a wee bit colored. So now that the smoke has cleared and we're not aggressively attacking members who aren't in our own camp I was wondering if we could discuss this in an honest and constructive way. So I would like to know why the campaign was so sexist. I would also like to know in which ways do you feel the obama campaign or the candidate himself were responsible and in which ways the main stream media was responsible.

Now my understanding of election cycles is that each election year there are about a few negative stories that are started each year that the news outlets bring out all their pundits and talking heads to lust over whether this story will be enough to sabotage any given candidate. In this election there were two big exposés if you will about Obama, Jeremiah Wright and his use of the word bitter (I refuse to conform to the practice of adding gate to every scandal). While Hillary had the Bosnia landing and Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark in regards to South Carolina. The Wright story (which was just hammered relentlessly into the ground) and Bill Clinton's remarks both had racial undertones. However the other two stories didn't seem to involve either sexism or racism but were just your average election gotcha moments. So feel free to tell me what i'm missing.

Now as i stated earlier I have a tendency (as I assume most do) to watch or read the stories I agree with and just get mad at the TV or internet for the stories I didn't. I also can't denie that sometimes sexism or racism are expressed more subtly so I could be missing alot of where this anger originates. But it is also a bit more difficult to prove this type of sexism or racism.

Anyways I would welcome any or all voices to the discussion thanks everyone for your participation.

Tags: Hillary, Obama, sexism (all tags)

Permalink :: 138 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (1.71 / 7)

Watch this, and you'll get it.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:34:32 AM EST

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry, but I truly believe that if you feel "periodically, when she's down" was a sexist remark that you have jumped the shark. Some of the attacks in that video, while vicious (e.g. "Hitlery"), were not sexist. But the video does make a point that she was attacked unfairly a number of times. I believe the other candidate had to deal with the same types of extreme haters as well. But I don't think the primary was an overtly sexist one.

by shalca on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

PICK MY COTTON
PICK MY COTTON
PICK MY COTTON

Oh wait, that didn't happen.

"The claws come out."

Listen, there has been nothing--absolutely, absolutely nothing remotely close to the kind of sexist hate directed at Hillary Clinton thrown at Barack Obama.

Do I personally think Barack Obama was sexist? Well, I think he slipped up a few times, kinda like us whiteys tend to do when we talk about African-Americans. I don't think that makes him a sexist. Just ask Gerry Ferraro, who I don't think is a racist, either. I don't hold it against him, personally. I'm a male myself, though; I'm sure that others feel differently.

A campaign though, like it or not, is about more than just the candidate. In fact, Barack Obama has made it a point to illustrate himself as the leader of a movement. There are parts of that movement which I really, really don't like, and that video illustrates it well.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're kidding right? (2.00 / 1)

You may not have heard about the racist hate directed at Obama, but it was out there. -Obama got a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in history. Senator Dick Durbin received "information _ some of it with a racial bent _ that made him concerned for Obama's safety." He and Harry Reid went to the Secret Service -Sammy Allred on the weekly morning radio show on KVET in Texas called Obama a "clean darky." -CBS.com had to shut down reader comments on Obama articles because of the racism on so many of the comments. -Obama campaign offices were vandalized in Indiana, WV, Kentucky, etc. Broken windows, racial slurs were grafittied on to the walls. The campaign downplayed the incidents. -Sean Hannity has implied, ad nauseum, that Obama is a separatist and a racist. -You may not have heard about the email going around saying Obama is a Muslim out to destroy American (1 in 10 Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim). -Geraldine Ferraro (and I do believe she's racist. She made the same comment 20 years ago about Jesse Jackson. She repeated it over and over on every media outlet she could get on, and then she blamed "all the black journalists" for the negative treatment of Hillary). -Hillaryis44.com and NoQuarter Just because something doesn't get press doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Obama campaign, with the exception of the Wright fiasco has tried to downplay race as often as possible. Although there has been sexism in the media, and in general towards Hillary, her campaign certainly played it up a bit. I don't make a judgement on that. It's the difference between point out wrongs or letting them lie and concentrating on the positive. Neither choice is wrong.

by shalca on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're kidding right? (none / 0)

ugh, sorry about the block.

I forgot to format it as plain text.

by shalca on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No one in this thread is arguing that there (none / 0)

wasn't racism. There was. It was universally deplored by all the progressives I know. But the same cannot be said of the sexism.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one in this thread is arguing that there (2.00 / 1)

I was specifically refferring to the commentor above me that stated, "there has been nothing--absolutely, absolutely nothing remotely close to the kind of sexist hate directed at Hillary Clinton thrown at Barack Obama."

by shalca on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok. I take the point. (none / 0)

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course it was (2.00 / 2)

"IRON MY SHIRT"--that was roundly and universally deplored by all the progressives I know. So was "MAKE ME A SANDWICH." So was Citizens United Not Timid.

But none of these things were coming out of the Obama campaign. Many of them were not even supportive of Obama in the first place.

That would be like blaming the Clinton campaign for Rush Limbaugh's ditty "Barack the Magic Negro" or this shirt:

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

I'm not a native speaker, but is 'the claws come out' really sexist? Can't you say the same about a man? In French in any case you can say 'Il sort les griffes' about a man.

Is there nothing more specific?

by french imp on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:46:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In English claws are sexist (none / 0)

"Fighting like a cat" would be a standard derogatory characterization of an overly aggressive women. I may be wrong, but I have never heard that characterization applied to a man.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In English claws are sexist (none / 0)

Yes, but he didn't say that. He said 'the claws come out'.

In French at any rate, the implication is that so far one has been playing in a good humoured way but now, one is trying to harm one's opponent. No reference to gender, as far as I know. It seemed to me that this is what Obama meant.

by french imp on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In English claws are sexist (none / 0)

Note that cats are not the only animals with retractile claws. Such is the case of most felids (but not the cheetah).

by french imp on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:18:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In English claws are sexist (none / 0)

I think it is definitely not gender-neutral. Whether it is hurtfully sexist or not is debatable, but I think there is no doubt it is a sex-based comment.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, there is some doubt (2.00 / 1)

He was talking about the mood swings of party insiders. That they were perfectly willing to ignore him as a novelty, but then "you challenge the status quo, and suddenly the claws come out."

He didn't even mention Senator Clinton, he mentioned all the people threatened by his "challenging the status quo."

Trust me, if you've ever owned a cat, you understand a different meaning for "the claws come out." It's all fun and games until suddenly it isn't. :P

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When two women (none / 0)

have a physical altercation, most folks here in the South refer to it as a "catfight".

by georgiapeach on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 2)

There is no doubt that Hillary was trying to cast Obama as the "black" candidate. It is the reason that we heard about Obama with Louis Farrakhan in debates. It is the reason that we saw pictures of Obama in African garb. It was the reason that Hillary left open discussion about Rev. Wright and muslim connections and so forth.

As far as I saw, there was never a conscious effort on the part of the Obama campaign to cast Hillary as a female candidate, with any related stereotypical vices and affectations. It just never happened.

Perhaps you can say that Obama should have been more vocal about sexism in the way that Edwards was. Short of that, Obama is pretty blameless.

by zadura on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:46:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

Okay, so, listen. I worked on the Clinton campaign. I met a lot of staffers who had seen a lot of things.

This is just flat-out BS. It's a media construct that the Clintons tried, at any point, to frame Barack Obama as "the black candidate." Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson reference was taken completely out of context. HRC was childishly accused of being racist for acknowledging Lyndon B. Johnson's historical role in the Civil Rights Movement.

The only way you can really believe that the Clintons have a single racist bone in their body is if you didn't take the time to find out what really happened, and just want to believe what the overtly and blatantly biased news media tells you.

I've never made the argument that Barack Obama was the main, or even a major, source of sexism throughout the campaign. But to deny that there was sexism in this campaign, and that it was condoned and promoted in a way which racism was not, is simply false.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

It is not like some big mystery that Hillary's team set out to cast Obama as a "black" candidate. Why reference Louis Farrakhan at all in a nationally televised debate? He's not any closer to Obama than Hillary is to Joseph Mengele.

This does not mean that the Clintons are racist. It means that there was a strategy that they employed that sought to curry favor with people who might have been scared by Farrakhan. That is what casting him as the black candidate does.

by zadura on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Point of correction (2.00 / 1)

I assume your "pick my cotton" comment is a reference to "iron my shirt." I just want to point out (again) that the guys who yelled that out were radio shock jock djs for a radio station near Boston. And they were on the clock when they did this. It was incredibly sexist and offensive, but it doesn't represent real sexism.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:20:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF??!? (2.00 / 1)

would you care to define "real" sexism for me because I'm seriously confused by your comment.

It's not a sign of "real" sexism that a couple shock jocks think it will boost their ratings and appeal to their audience to pull that stunt?

What is that, exactly..."pretend sexism"? "Harmless sexism"? "Playful sexism"?

Just wondering.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:32:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (2.00 / 1)

Pretend sexism works for me.

Whether those guys are actually sexist in their private lives doesn't matter for this discussion. What matters is that you are using that comment like it somehow elucidates the undercurrent of real sexism in this campaign. There are better (real) examples.

Using that comment is like taking something from In Living Color or SNL or MadTV and saying it shows all the racism or sexism in this campaign. There is a huge difference between sexism for shock value and real true deep individual sexism that leaks out (Matthews, Tucker, Olbermann).

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:37:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (none / 0)

"individual sexism" is the far lesser issue, unless the individual in question is a decision-maker. The real issue is embedded sexism in our culture and our institutions. that's where the real damage is done.

I would argue that it behooves us all to examine the appeal of sexist jokes and stunts as our acceptance of them only speaks to the pervasiveness of sexism.

This example of "shock value" sexism took place at a Clinton campaign event. I will continue to argue that had they held up a sign that read "shine my shoes" at an Obama event they both would have been out of work the next morning. (not sure...were they punished in any way for this stunt?)

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (2.00 / 1)

Your point that it is sexism is a good one, and certainly true. I don't mean to say it isn't a sexist comment. I mean to say that it isn't the best example of sexism, and it gets routinely portrayed (not by you) as the definitively sexist comment of the campaign, which it clearly was not.

I do also agree with you that sexism was often allowed to continue unabated and without condemnation by the media, while racism (or even non-racism that looked potentially racist) was usually rooted out and condemned very quickly. I also agree that, in general, we have come farther on race than on sex.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (2.00 / 2)

I believe too many things are being balled up together here and it will take some calm removed academic exploration to pull it all apart.

I think Clinton supporters outraged by the sexism are responding to several different things --
the embedded accepted sexism in our culture spotlighted by her candidacy;
the unique scrutiny she recieved as the first female true contender;
the old Conservative attack points, grounded in sexist loathing of first Lady Clinton, resurrected by her current progressive detrators;
the tacit acceptance if not outright cheering and adoption of sexist ridicule by progressive that seemed like betrayal of feminist ideals.

It's impossible to firmly determine what effect sexism had on this contest. Certainly she gave us all many reasons for her loss, and Obama many reasons for his triumph, that had nothing to do with gender. However, the victory of what many perceive as a less qualified male over a more qualified female is bound to hit a huge nerve, regardless of the reasons.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (1.00 / 0)

The "less qualified male chosen over the more qualified" appeal is one that's used because it's been true in many peoples' experiences, and for that reason it's primarily an emotional appeal, and seems to work well.

But it's not entirely salient in this context. Both candidates were "qualified" in that each potentially brought particular strengths to the position. I think it wasn't a matter of degree, but rather, a matter of type of qualification that the electorate and the party, in this year, preferred over another.

In another year, perhaps the results would have been different. But this year, for a large variety of reasons, the results are what they are.

Know Your Rights!

by BobzCat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (none / 0)

Agreed 100%. But that "more qualified female" situation rings too true with too many women over forty, although it may be a non-starter with most women younger than 40.

The point is, that's how it might feel, just like the nod going to Clinton would have felt all about race to many African Americans.

My next question would then be what sort of rhetoric would be flying about there if the situation was reversed? Would those African Americans who vowed to stay home be bullied and shamed into supporting Clinton? I guess we'll never know.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (none / 0)

At a certain point, hypotheticals have little more than academic value, and are pretty much impossible to ascertain.

What's important is to break the silence on issues of gender, race, and class. These have long been taboo subjects in American political discourse,

They need to be addressed honestly, without the background of a particular agenda or in the context of a single individual. As we move forward, away from the primary and into the general election, we should try to advance honest and constructive discussions instead of looking backward with a lot of recrimination.

Know Your Rights!

by BobzCat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF??!? (none / 0)

Agreed regardless of who did it, it was blatantly sexist the fact that it was a radiostation who did it and not some individuals makes it far worse because they have an audience who is entertained by it.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

The either/or game is getting tiresome. Some numbskull held up stupid sign and several numbskulls advocated the death of a candidate. Both sexism and racism still exist in America. Do a Google search for Michelle Obama and angry and get back to me with your results. Both deserve serious discussion but we do ourselves a disservice with either/or options. Somehow the good people of Kentucky and West Virginia appear to be the most enlightened in the country when it comes to sexism and resisting the incredible bias of cable news.

by niksder on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This video documents sexism against Hillary (2.00 / 1)

by the media -- but NOT by Obama nor his campaign.

There is not ONE WORD in it by Obama nor anyone associated with his campaign.

It is a shallow smear worthy of the rabid right, and it's disgusting to put forward the disgusting lie that this was the kind of campaign Obama waged.

I have no more desire to "make nice" with the politically despicable people who dump this trash than I do to make nice with Rush Blowhard and Richard Mellonhead Scaife (even though Hillary was willing to).

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This video documents sexism against Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Hi Freespeechzone,

I could be wrong, but I would venture to guess that you cut your teeth on DailyKos. Just curious.

I think it's pretty lame that you hide-rated my post, especially considering how I elaborated my viewpoint in a subsequent post. Barack Obama hasn't been horribly sexist. He said a couple stupid things along the way, yes. So did a lot of people in the Clinton camp. Difference was, they were called out on it, and perhaps to a point that was beyond necessary.

Your accusation that I am trying to say that Obama himself ran a sexist campaign is a bit much. I don't think I really said anything along those lines.

However, there was rampant sexism throughout the course of this campaign. Absolutely ugly and disgusting sexism, which was condoned and directed at HRC to a degree that far surpassed the elements of racism in this campaign. The difference was that when the spectre of racism was raised, we immediately started talking about it, and condemning it. I think it is a fair question to ask why the same didn't happen with the blatant sexism among many in the corporate media and many surrogates in the Obama campaign.

Like I said earlier, campaigns are about more than just the candidate. There was sexism almost everywhere you turned throughout the course of this primary. Why are we not allowed to discuss it?

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:13:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This video documents sexism against Hillary (2.00 / 1)

"I could be wrong, but I would venture to guess that you cut your teeth on DailyKos. Just curious"

Wrong again. I haven't blogged there for two years after having a run in with some jerks for criticizing some comments by Obama.

I hide rated your video because the images of Obama make it an attempt to link him to and defame him with the words of others; therefor a flat out lie directed at the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and clearly in violation of site guidelines because of it.

I've defended Hillary against unfair attacks, including ones which link her to Bill's behavior, and I'll help defend her against sexism. But I won't stand by while Obama is smeared with words neither he nor anyone in his campaign said.

And if I ever see that rotten piece of spam video posted by anyone again I'll hide it again.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This video documents sexism against Hillary (none / 0)

I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Was there something in that video that was somehow fradulently constructed? Because I seem to remember each one of them happening.

Please, correct me otherwise. I would LOVE for there to have not been sexism in this campaign. Really, I would.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's my pleasure to correct you (2.00 / 2)

The problem with your video is that it imposes images of Obama upon the words of others and fosters the impression that he is associated with them.

If you don't get how completely wrong that is, then you are being duped by political hucksters. If you do get it, the you are one yourself for spreading it.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:58:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Hillary=monster (none / 0)

That was from Samantha Power, Obama's adviser on national security issues. Reasonable people could disagree on whether characterizing Hillary Clinton as a "monster" is sexist or not. But one could certainly make the case, and in the larger context of the campaign, "monster" certainly has some sexist overtones. In any case, the term was offensive and inappropriate. Even Powers, herself, acknowledged as much.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Hillary=monster (2.00 / 3)

How would a reasonable person argue that calling someone a "monster" is sexist?

PS: Google "Bush is a Monster." Are all those people engaging in sexism?

by NeverNude on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Hillary=monster (2.00 / 1)

In fairness though she did lose her position in the obama camp for those comments. And secondly she's also a woman so i don't know if you can put that on the same scale as chris mathews and kieth olberman attacking hillary with their gender role insinuations.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:54:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't (none / 0)

I saw Samantha Power on the Colbert Report after the fact. She was really embarrassed about what she had done. Her explanations was something along the lines that she realized that she had gotten too invested in Obama's candidacy. This may be over Clintonism than sexism. But the two are not entirely disjointed.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't (none / 0)

"Getting too invested" in a campaign is tantamount to sexism and Hillary-hate? That's a six degrees of separation fallacy there.

What happened to Powers is what happens to people who get caught up in the emotional rollercoaster of a political campaign (something she perhaps wasn't ready for). They say stupid things, and lash out at opponents before thinking about the words they're using.

It's a tremendous reach to suggest that this is some kind of latent sexism. To say that is to imply that any impolitic criticism of Hillary Clinton is inherently sexist, and that's absurd.

Know Your Rights!

by BobzCat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about Hillary=monster (none / 0)

And Obama dumped Power within 24 hours. He sent a clear message to his campaign that personal attacks would not be tolerated.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that she was fired (none / 0)

I may be wrong about this, but my recollection is that Obamba said that Power was not asked to leave the campaign. It was her choice. I have also heard, though unverified, that she is actually still serving as an Obama adviser. But, no guarantee that my information is correct on either account.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

Thanks for the vid. However I saw only one reference to obama himself and that was the use of periodically which seems questionable as a sexist attack. For one i would rank periodically not far behind occasionally or from time time as one of the more common words to express that she feels down every once in a while. Now as he did use periodically we have to see if was attending for some double speak. Did he give a little wink wink to the audience or put some special emphasis on that word that wasn't there in other words and so I don't see how it can be really be sexist.
Now if Obama has a history of making sexist comments than I could understand not giving him the benefit of the doubt but I don't believe he has such a track record.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 3)

I think that my other post upthread did a pretty good job of explaining the perspective on this. I think it's fair to say that Barack Obama is no more of a sexist than Geraldine Ferraro is a racist.

However, the sexism that has come from the media, from the right-wing, and yes, even among some in Barack Obama's campaign (if not the candidate himself) has been rampant. That is the point I am trying to illuminate here, nothing more or less. If the diarist believes that the complaint regarding sexism throughout the primary is directed solely at Barack Obama, then I think they would be largely mistaken.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 3)

" I think it's fair to say that Barack Obama is no more of a sexist than Geraldine Ferraro is a racist."

Likening words that Ferraro said about race to words Obama never said about gender is likening ants to elephants.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:30:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

Well, that's your opinion. I happen to disagree.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But my opinion is based on facts. (none / 0)

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not making this up (none / 0)

When Rev. Wright let loose with some of his choicer preachings, it was common on sites like TPM, dKos, Mydd and Slate to minimize the impact of these comments by characterizing them as well within the tradition of black liberation theology.

Well, the simple fact of the matter is that Ferraro was attempting to use some pretty standard practices developed in the 1970s to get people to come to grips with their own sexism. The strategy consisted of a set of vignettes, some of which were a bit startling. The listener's response to the vignettes instantly revealed their own sexism unequivocally.

I believe that Ferraro was simply drawing on this feminist tradition. Though, admittedly, she didn't do a very good job at it.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:36:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mine is too. (none / 0)

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your opinion is based on wishful thinking. (none / 0)

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In your opinion. (none / 0)

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When it comes to differentiating (none / 0)

between fact and fiction, and valid criticism and smearing attack, you are somewhat challenged.

May I suggest you take up a hobby other than politics?

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When it comes to differentiating (none / 0)

May I suggest you stop acting like a child and move on? I think you only need look to the rating of my original post to understand how alone you are in perpetuating this nonsense and engaging in personal attacks on a fellow Democrat.

Really. May I suggest you evolve beyond the behaviors of an 8 year old?

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When it comes to differentiating (none / 0)

I submit that it's 8 year oldish to not know a baseless smear when you post one.

Or the difference between words said by Ferraro and words not said by Obama.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

I think hornplayer is saying that neither of the two are sexist or racist. Which is a fair point because I don't think Geraldince Ferraro is a racist either. I think her remarks were wrong and made no sense. But that doesn't make her a racist.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:44:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It wasn't the first time Ferraro said it.... (2.00 / 3)

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," -- 1988

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." -- 2008

Ferraro has a problem she needs to deal with.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a difference (2.00 / 2)

The difference between Obama and Ferraro is enormous. Obama has made comments that can be construed as sexist (periodically, sweetie, likable enough), but when he says them, they are sexist in the way that all men are unintentionally sexist because they don't think before they speak. They are not intentionally harmful or offensive (though we can argue if they are still offensive).

Ferraro's comments are thought out ahead of time and attack Obama about his race. They try to paint him as an Affirmative Action candidate. They are purposefully and consciously meant to demean and deride Obama.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated because this didn't deserve to be hidden (none / 0)

I would have mojoed it anyway though.

Fat finger freespeechzone?

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:21:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uprated (none / 0)

Much appreciated, as always, SG.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No....righteous indignation (2.00 / 2)

I direct you to my two comments above on the subject.

I'm good with you uprating it. But the time for Hillary's -- or McCain's -- fans posting lying attacks about the Democratic nominee should be over. Hopefully hornplayer at least will think twice before spamming that garbage again.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No....righteous indignation (2.00 / 1)

Nope. I'd post it again in a heartbeat, if someone else really thought that there had been no sexism in this campaign.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No....righteous indignation (2.00 / 2)

Then you would be posting an unjust smear again.

As alysson demonstrates below, you don't have to post a lie to make a valid point.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:17:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

alyssa chaos, that is. (none / 0)

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

Obama said Hillary was "likable enough" to be president. He also made her cry (by winning Iowa) and frequently used "periods" in the text of his speeches.

by Can I Haz Moar Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:41:21 AM EST

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 3)

The problem with sexism in this specific campaign is its so hard to decouple sexism from clintionism as everyone in american already had an opinion on Hillary before the election began.

by AIegra on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:47:27 AM EST

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 2)

Ex-fucking-actly.

Everyone basically accuses anti-clintonism as sexism.

Hillary Nutcrackers? You think it MIGHT have something to do with oh say anything between 1992-today? Seriously, the dead enders seem to forget that Hillary was never the most popular person in the world and intellectually lazy people will ALWAYS go for the cheap insult, hence some racism and sexism and so forth.

But by and large Clinton was SUPPORTED in the delusion that her campaign was still viable by the media. She had lost well before she finally ended her campaign. The media was her ally.. not her enemy.

by tqdmcgee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:08:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most of Clinton' image going back to 1992 (2.00 / 2)

is the product of a well-coordinated Republican attack. How it is that good Democrats could use that against her I really don't get.

As for viability, in addition to the string of victories in March, April and May, had Clinton managed to take North Carolina and Oregon, the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations might have come out differently. The super-delegates may have made some different choices, as well.

Obviously, NC and OR were long shots. But it wasn't totally unreasonable to think that she could have turned those two states around. It would have been crazy to give up with only a month of primaries to go after having invested so much in her Presidential campaign.

And, you remind me of one other point. The press and the Obama supporters tried to push her out of the race in March. However, this would have been a very unusual turn of events. The press has stood by and watched Democratic contests go well into the summer, accepting each candidate's decision as to when to quit.

Clinton, by comparison, got a lot of pressure from Jon Stewart, Colbert, dKos, Maureen Dowd, Ken Rudin, etc. When she finally did suspend her campaign it was with far more dignity than anyone expected. I recently heard about a recording of Kennedy's concession speech in 1980. It didn't happen until the convention and it was very grudging.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most of Clinton' image going back to 1992 (2.00 / 3)

Democrats didn't use it against her. Obama never attacked her using Republican talking points. Republicans did. In fact they were betting on her winning. They were begging to run against her and unload all their pent up Clinton-hate.

Now, for Clinton to have won she would need about 15 "ifs" to come in AND Obama would have to be found with a dead hooker in his bed. It wasn't going to happen. It's a damn shame when Romney appears reasonable when he dropped out when he mathematically still had a shot at the nomination.

I'd never accuse Clinton of not being a fighter. She's tough as nails (omg let me make that clear I mean actual nails like carpenters use not fingernails, phew almost ran into a buzzsaw there) and I am damn sure glad that she'll be in the Senate fighting for the Democrats. But she lost. It's doing a great disservice to her toughness and strength to just boil her loss down to a few anecdotal examples of minor sexism.

Hillary never claimed to be a victim so don't disparage her by turning her into one.

by tqdmcgee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:13:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most of Clinton' image going back to 1992 (none / 0)

And I ONLY mean Romney was "reasonable" in the sense that he dropped out when it was clear he couldn't win. I'm not at all intending that to mean he was "reasonable" in the slightest in his positions nor the manner in which he dropped out (with his FEAR FEAR FEAR speech).

by tqdmcgee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

I think there is a very good case to be made by someone smarter (and less lazy) than me that must/most/all of the Hillary hatred from 1992 til now is actually based on sexism, both from men and women.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:30:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I clearly remember (2.00 / 1)

how Hillary was trashed for wanted to keep her own last name: she was eventually pressured to use Clinton when he ran in 1992 because advisers said older voters would not accept that feminist stuff.

When she said she was not going to "sit home and bake cookies" on some interview early in the Clinton presidency, she was skewered by the right, and by much of the left.

She has been demonized for years and her heroic acts (standing up to the Chinese government) have been underplayed.
People can deny it until h*ll freezes over: much of this country's citizenry, most of the power brokers (male) are still threatened by strong women.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I clearly remember (none / 0)

how Hillary was trashed for wanted to keep her own last name: she was eventually pressured to use Clinton when he ran in 1992 because advisers said older voters would not accept that feminist stuff.

When she said she was not going to "sit home and bake cookies" on some interview early in the Clinton presidency, she was skewered by the right, and by much of the left.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I clearly remember (none / 0)

yes but then you're also romanticing or just plain forgetting the heavy handed manner in which Clinton tried to force feed both Democrats and Republicans her verison of health care.

Among other things that clearly really earned her little in friendship.

Don't get me wrong attacking Sen Clinton about cookies is wrong and rather sexist but it is possible to dislike her for her 'my way or the highway attitude' her sense of entittlement and triangulation that doesn't involve sexism at all.

Laying everything on sexism and using it to blugedeon people into agreeing with you is just wrong

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She went in as an idealist (none / 0)

and believed she could make positive changes for people. She made mistakes along the way. So big deal. Who hasn't? Idealists going back to the 60s and continuing with the bloggers here and other places use heavy handed tactics to get what they believe is right. Just because the hippies from the 60s felt peace and love were the ONLY way to stop the war, did it justify the violence some of them used to get attention to the cause?

Seriously, are you so naive to believe that Hillary Clinton is the only person to use heavy handedness to get something she thought would be good for the country? Do you honestly not get it?

Yes, she pushed hard and because she was a woman she p*ssed off a lot of men in politics and on the left and right who did not accept women being assertive. Pushing ideas in a democracy is hard and takes a heavy hand. If you don't get that concept and you think Obama is going to get thing done by being "sweet and nice", you are in for a shock.
People against universal health care are every bit as passionate as those for it. PUSHING bills through is hard......and that's why there is so much pork.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

as a rule (none / 0)

I do not like nor do I approve of heavy handed tactics or attacks.

Frankly I think that the progressive community should be better then that.

And further Clinton choose to fight fire with an attempt at an even bigger fire and it backfired right into her face.

Are you familair with the the core concept of ji-justu? If not it's is that you use your opponents power, speed and strength against them.

And frankly yes bills are hard to push though, that doesn't mean you have to use heavy handed tactics though. Then again maybe that's just another one of many reasons I'm not cut out for politics

For the record I don't think Barack Obama is exactly going to be 'sweet and nice' but I do think he's going to handle it exactly like he handled Libermann, smiling yet with iron and determination.

Just because you act nice doesn't make you weak.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This comment (none / 0)

may not show your own sexism but it sure as heck shows how gullible you are and how easily spun you are. How sad for progressives and liberals that some of you continue to use the myths and the spin of the right wing to justify your nastiness.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 5)

via Canadian gal, who originally showed this vid.

by alyssa chaos on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:51:31 AM EST

Once again -- Media sexism. (none / 0)

I'll fight the battle against it with anyone. But I'll fight anyone who tries to pin it on the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once again -- Media sexism. (2.00 / 1)

sure thing. Im not pinning anything on Obama, but merely trying to show what kind of shit went down...

by alyssa chaos on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:02:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Three points (2.00 / 1)

The sexism in this campaign wasn't limited to the campaigns themselves.

The progressive community failed to respond to the sexist comments with anywhere near the vigor applied to racist comments and were frequently the source.

Third, many members of the press became protagonists rather than reporters. In their advocacy, they used sexist language and imagery.

You can keep trying to deflect the debate off of the question of sexism to some narrower debate on exactly how sexist is Obama. But that's not the question on the table.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Three points (2.00 / 1)

"The sexism in this campaign wasn't limited to the campaigns themselves."

The difference was, the racist comments were coming from Hillary's campaign whereas the sexist ones were coming from the media.

It was impossible for Obama's supporters to focus on what the media was doing to Hillary when they were fending off racial attacks from the Clinton's surrogates, and even worse, from the Clintons themselves.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree (2.00 / 1)

You can decide whether Rev. Wright was part of Obama's campaign or not. But Hillary Clinton was not implicated at all in any racist comments at the time that Wright was making accusations of racism against the Clintons. The first sermon on this subject was right after Christmas.

The next accusation of racism came from Jesse Jackson Jr. Somehow he managed to argue that Hillary was willing to cry for herself in NH but didn't cry for the AA's who suffered through Katrina. That was racism in his mind. Here's the tape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7nd AA

The early accusations of racism against Hillary herself were totally bogus. I also think the later accusation that Hillary was trying to minimize the contribution of Martin Luther King to the civil rights movement was also bogus.

Bill's comments are more debatable, I'll grant you that.

By contrast, I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread that Edwards response to Clinton's NH moment were clearly sexist, and its my contention that Obama's reference to Hillary's periodic emotional problems were a reference to menstruation.

Now reasonable people can disagree on whether there were sexist or racist motivations behind any of these comments. But its a double standard to say that Hillary Clinton's comments were racist and that Obama and Edwards' comments were not sexist.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:23:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (2.00 / 1)

I don't give a damn about your charge against Edwards, but please provide the quote of whatever it is you claim Obama said, and a link, please. I'm tired of vague innuendo and guilt by disassociation.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree (none / 0)

If you honestly believe that Obama was in some way thinking about her menstration when he said periodically, then you are hopeless.

2 things.

Firstly, I doubt that Obama thinks about Hillary's gender all that much.

Secondly, I really doubt he was trying to attack her gender in any way. There are plenty of things he could have said about her gender to play up the fear card or something, but he didn't. It's just not how he operates.

If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.

by Darknesse on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WOW....what total and utter bs (none / 0)

I am sorry. I have no respect for this kind of lie and spin. The Clintons have many faults and I don't agree with some of their decisions but to paint them as racist is sick and perverted. It is not true, never was true. It is a Rovian ploy used by the Obama campaign, and used the same way the right used Vietnam against a Vietnam war hero, Kerry.
The Clintons worked with and for the minority community for years and years. And they were beloved by many. And then the Obama campaign knew that the only way to kill Hillary's campaign was to pain the Clintons as racist.
It is sick, a lie and I have no respect for anyone who continues to push it.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clintons didn't have to be racist (none / 0)

in their hearts to exploit it in others for their own political gain.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the problem, we didn't (2.00 / 1)

I don't know about you specifically. But the corporate media let loose with quite a few statements that should have been the subject of harsh rebuke by any self-respecting progressive. But may many went unchallenged. Many were the subject of glee on dKos.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:32:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The silence on the part (2.00 / 1)

of some of the very same people who got hysterical over a perception of racism (calling Obama's narrative of his stance on Iraq a "fairytale" was racist how?? oh that's right...the media spun that it was said the comment was calling an African American running for office a fairy tale....a blatant lie but pushed and spun as truth) when it did not exist.

And yet when the media and a few Obama campaigners played the "she's crying, fake tears to get women to sympathize" on the tube...nothing. Nary a word.

Some of the same people screaming sexism at Ferraro excused and defended Matthews, Shuster and the good old boys of MSNBC. And now they are upset that women are angry. Deal with it. We are angry and it won't end because some of you want to belittle and condescend.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:32:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As I pointed out. (none / 0)

It was impossible to charge to Hillary's defense for sexist attacks in the media when fending off racist attacks from Hillary's campaign.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No one I know (none / 0)

has ever pinned it on Obama. His supporters, his bloggers.....different story. The amount of Obama supporters online defending Matthews and Shuster appalls me. The silence of the DNC appalled me.
The insistence that sexism had no bearing on the outcome makes me laugh.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You must not get out much. (none / 0)

"No one I know has ever pinned it on Obama."

Did you not even see that video posted at the top of this thread that imposes Obama's image on top of smears by others not even associated with him?

Open your eyes.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

Pat Buchcan was an ass, is an ass and will always be an ass.

The things he said about both Obama and Clinton really should have cost him his job. I frnakly don't know why MSNBC keeps him around.

Chris Matthews is harder, the guy in general is already a bit of an ass and in your face.

That said he was reprimined by his bosses and if you really watched him over time you'd notice that someone clearly told him to play alot nicer to Clinton because around Feb he really changed himself noticably

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (2.00 / 1)

If you don't know, I'll never be able to convince you. Will you iron my shirts when I'm down and when my claws come out? I'd do it myself but I'm pimping out my daughter. Please, I'm likable enough.

by STUBALL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:59:03 AM EST

Re: What was so sexist about this campaign?? (none / 0)

Please don't assume my stupidity. I can appreciate a well stated case regardless. And you're right to completely change me may not be possible but you can still influence though only if you care to make your point.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for asking (2.00 / 3)

I have a long list. It's late, so I'll start with a couple of pet peeves.

I started this campaign mostly going to dKos. I was struck, offended and put on the defensive by extremely frequent uses of the words bitch, cunt, vagina, clitnon, etc. Requests for civility were ridiculed. John McCain isn't the only one who knows and uses these words to refer to the woman in his life.

By contrast, I recall very few uses of the word penis and not a single use of the word nigger.

Along these same lines, on March 2, Tim Russert had a round table on Meet the Press. This was the episode immediately following the Ohio debate in which he and Hillary Clinton really got into it.

Here's the quote:

MR. RUSSERT: [...]

Then Pew said, "Give us a word that you think best describes these candidates." The first one was McCain. Old was the first word people threw out. Honest, experienced, patriot, conservative, hero, liberal.

Then they asked, OK, Obama. Inexperienced, charismatic, intelligent, change, inspirational, young, new.

Clinton. Experienced, strong, untrustworthy, intelligent, smart, determined, rhymes with rich. That's what the poll said. They used a different word. But it's a family poll, and this is a family program. What does that tell you, James?

Here's the link: http://2008central.net/2008/03/02/russer t-in-a-survey-11-people-referred-to-hill ary-as-a-bitch-so-we-have-to-talk-about- it/

In order to be 7th on the list, bitch could have been only mentioned by 14 percent of the people in the survey at a maximum. In fact, this word was only offered by 11 respondents. Not 11 percent, 11 people. So as the author of the above referenced article pointed out

Russert: `In A Survey, 11 People Referred To Hillary As A Bitch, So We Have To Talk About It'

Now I feel quite certain that if we had been talking about Obama and the word "nigger" had shown up on the list and Russert wanted to talk about it, the entire progressive community would have gone nuclear (and I would have been right there in the middle of it.)

Here's one more just to convey the extent of the problem. My 14 year old daughter came home from Barnes and Noble one day and described for me the books they had on display on the Democratic candidates. For Obama, they had the ones you might expect. For Clinton, they had only a "Clinton voodoo doll kit."

OK, and one more. This one's from Obama himself. So for all you Obama supporters who claim that the Obama campaign was innocent in all of this, I think the jury is quite out.

Here's the quote:

Well, that's nice. Hillary does this "periodically" and gets into a bad mood. Like a lot of women, when they feel "periodically down."

Here's the link with video. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlas alle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=24313

The text is bad enough. But watch the video. Its hard to mistake his meaning.

There are more. I'll dig them up tomorrow.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:04:51 AM EST

Re: Thanks for asking (2.00 / 1)

It seems like most of the media quotes seem to be coming from MSNBC which is a bit disturbing since they are the main openly democratic partisan network and which contrasts itself with fox news.

Also you're quoted text is not the words of obama he did not add "Like a lot of women, when they feel "periodically down." which would have made it obvious and the point moot.

The quote was stated to be a dig at hillary saying that she attacks him from time to time to improve her image. That I think everyone can agree with. I guess where we disagree is that he worded his attack to have a double meaning i.e referencing her mood in relationship to her menstrual cycles. My point is that:
1. what he said was a perfectly logical way to state what he wanted to state.
2. He did not put any undue emphasis on periodically or wait for the customary chuckles from those who are thinking what he's thinking.
3. He doesn't have a history of such comments.

Elections 2008 Best reality show ever!!!

by kbal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IMO BO did nothing sexist (although some disagree) (2.00 / 1)

but he sure benefitted from it silently and his campaign took poll tested personal attacks (imo some rooted in misogyny) to a new level.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]