Yet while the political correctness of defending race is not questioned the feminist bashing talking heads for the most part are given a free pass. If you caught Keith Oberman and Chris Mathews discussing bias in the press for Obama last night before the debate you might have though you where watching a Daily Show parody of themselves
On “This week with George Stephanopolus” last Sunday morning, Cokie Roberts got on to the subject of how many women have a life of accomplishment only to have a younger well spoken man with less experience take their job (like say when George Stephanopolus got Cookies’ job on This Week, and she was staring right at him while making that comment). A good read is Leslie Stalls auto biography ” Reporting Live” about what she and others of her age had to endure to get recognition through the all boys club of network news and still have to do to keep up appearances so as not to be set aside by the younger NILFS http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi… A Daily Show Parody of the porn acronym MILF’s, the young mans cougar fantasy brought to you online.
Last night on the Daily Show, Madeleine Albright was the guest, comfortable in her age looks and wisdom (and IMHO) the best Secretary of State we’ve had in decades, but who one commentator said was just another of the old fogy’s of Hillary’s Campaign.
The SNL parody of Debates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… speaks to the double standard that will be the sad legacy of this election that change for women is still a fight whose rules are defined by what men want them to be (the rules that is). The furor over the Obama Muslim Garb Picture is front page lead off but this cartoon of Hillary http://men.style.com/gq/featur… from a GQ magazine spread requires a google search to find it.
I realize this is the time when the party faithful should be turning towards Denver and bowing 5 times a day in praise of party unity but some of the steps taken to get there have been on the heads ambitious women who thought it was their time to shatter the glass entrance to the all Boys club.
What were they thinking………..
…he means to imply just the opposite.
It is hard to tell, isn’t it?
…that Obama is beating her because voters just like him better.
it’s also possible that the media’s unfair treatment of Hillary — and, really, there can’t be any serious debate about that, can there? — has something to do with how much people “like” her.
…or perhaps it has to do with how much people like “her”.
<
p>Pretty hard to separate the two.
<
p>I err on the side of my emphasis because so much of what people say they don’t like about her is not rationally or factually based.
….how much people don’t like “her”
I find her “portrayal” to be unfair. What I mean by that is this: When I pick up the NYT, and the photo leading a piece on the campaign is the worst possible photo of her that they could have picked, I realize that it’s a conscious decision. Does that portrayla play into why some people dislike her? Maybe.
<
p>But that’s not the reason I dislike her. I find her to be disingenuous. Take, for instance, last night’s accusation that Obama wanted to “bomb Pakistan.” As a voter, I found that extremely frustrating. I want my Democratic candidates to have an honest debate about their policy positions. There’s frankly enough to criticize Obama about without resorting to making stuff up. As soon as I realize a candidate is being deliberately dishonest with me in order to gain my vote, under the guise of “fighting hard”… that person has lost my vote. Obviously she lost mine well before last night, but mostly because of 15 years worth of that sort of thing. She hasn’t turned over her tax returns and says she will…but I’m reminded of her lawfirm records in 1994. She finally comes out and admits her vote to authorize force was a mistake (she must not have read “theopensociety’s” passionate defense on these boards this week), but where was that six months ago (to say nothing of years ago)?
<
p>So, when the media portrays her poorly, I think it’s possible that they’re doing so because they don’t like her as a politician, and that it has nothing to do with sexism, which I think it what is being suggested here.
But I find it very hard to ascribe Chris Matthews’ conduct in particular to just not liking her on the merits. Or Limbaugh’s infamous “old lady” comment. There’s plenty of evidence that it’s not just about “the Clintons,” or disagreement with her stances, or any of that.
I understand that point. Matthews has been unfortunate throughout.
<
p>But I do think it has a lot to do with Clinton’s personality. I can’t even imagine someone pulling the same thing on, say, Jeanne Shaheen, who as far as I can tell is widely respected and liked.
Furthermore, Shaheen wouldn’t have a shot at being elected president, would she? Tina Fey was really onto something in her now-famous SNL weekend update last weekend — especially the bit at the end.
<
p>
That was at the end.
I think reasonable minds can differ on this stuff. What I really can’t stand is the assertion, repeated by CMD (who I like)on this thread, that Obama supporters won’t admit that the root of Hillary’s problems are sexism rather than her own misteps, and all because we drank the “messiah’s” koolaid. Gimme a break. I said a long time ago that there wasn’t a candidate in the race i’d take a bullet for, and my choice of Obama over Clinton was a narrow one. But the more I hear that I’m just another brain-washed sheep, the more I can’t stand Clinton and what I’m starting to perceive as her cult.
<
p>About Shaheen: What fascinates me about Presidential politics is that as smart as we all are, we still don’t really know why things seem to shake out the way they do once people declare their candidacy. It’s amazing to me that guys like Romney and Huckabee were right in this thing for a long time, and guys like Dodd and Biden had no shot from day 1. We’ve seen a young senator from Massachusetts and two obscure governors from the south capture the oval office since 1960. So, who knows? If Shaheen wins the senate and serves about two terms… why not her?
<
p>The only cult I refer to is the one that lets a woman get so far and whatever your feelings about Hillary that is a speed bump she has had to deal with. It is interesting to me how many times in a talking head pow wow when the question about bias goes to the senior female I sense she is biting her tongue not to share her own story and remain neutral.
Maybe the root of HRC’s problems are ythat she is too liberal, not liberal enough, or from NY.
<
p>All I’m saying is it is hard to tell.
<
p>FWIW, I do happen to prefer Clinton to Obama, but mostly because I am unsure of his ability to win in November, and because I think, with his outider messiah/reformer schtick, he is setting himself for a replay of the Carter administration: Big letdown, weak president.
Both the media and the public don’t like Hillary (and the Clintons for that matter, although Bill is liked by many because of his warmth and charisma but still is not trusted) because they don’t trust her and don’t think she is authentic – and frankly she and her campaign do plenty of things to feed that perception.
<
p>I think a lof of people, me included, ultimately think the Clintons are too self-motivated and willing to say-anything-or-anything to win – worse than other ego maniac pols. And people don’t like that.
<
p>This whole blame the media crap is lame. Hillary has used the media effectively when she has needed to as well. The constant spin of her campaign bugs reporters and the public. The war room/bunker mentality is a turn off and reminds people what they don’t like about politics
<
p>If people can’t see that Hillary and the Clintons bring a lot of this on themselves than you are blind. Its all a conspiracy and sexism. No. Obama is just a more compelling candidate.
I think this is evidence of the self-delusion of the Obama camp.
<
p>The very act of running for President–never mind to be President, is to say:
<
p>”Spouse, family, I do not care about you at all. I am going to cause you to move away from your friends and family. I am going to subject you to to the most intense public humiliation that can possibly be inflicted on a family. Remember “Chelsea” on SNL? Remember pictures of Bush girls falling down drunk on Page 1? Just look at what has been said about the previous two First Spouses. Deal with it, because I am more important than you, and my career is more important than you, so your well-being and happiness is a risk I am willing to take. If I win, you will not see me, except at warm family photo ops during the holidays. Indeed, I could care less what you do, so long as it does not cost me in the polls.”
<
p>To run for President is, ipso facto, evidence that the candidate is self-motivated and ambitious to a degree that normal people would find unhealthy and even creepy. Its, like, in the job description.
<
p>So what you are really saying is that you don’t like “the Clintons” because they dared oppose your Messiah.
<
p>What is going to happen when everyone realizes that this Messiah is Just Another Politician?
<
p>It sure looks like Obama is going to be nominated, and, unless he proves not to be up to the task of campaigning in the general, will be President. As things stand, I will most likely vote for him.
<
p>But, boy, once the bubble bursts this guy is going to get stuck in neutral just like DP has done in Massachusetts.
She has consistently said that if she knew President Bush was going to abuse the authority he was given, she would not have voted the way she did. That is quite different than apologizing for a vote that at the time was the correct vote. Her response and what I have posted about her vote are consistent. (And for those people who insist that they knew that President Bush was going to invade anyway, unfortunately we cannot go back in time to confirm your amazing predictive abilities. In reality, no one really knew that George Bush was misrepresenting what he was going to do and that he would abuse the authority he was given.)
<
p>And when you say, “I want my Democratic candidates to have an honest debate about their policy positions, ” does that apply equally to the Obama’s distribution of blatantly false and misleading fliers about Hillary Clinton’s positions on health care and NAFTA? (Not to mention the health care flier that had images very similar to the old despicable “Harry and Louise” ad.) Obama has publically maintained that the fliers are true, even after they were shown to be false. Hmmm, is that the kind of honest debate you were looking for?
Look, they all knew he was going to go in. Maybe not to the extent that he did, but they knew he was going in. Why else would he have asked for the authority to go in?
<
p>The real reason Hillary and other Dems (who were up for reelection) voted with Bush was in case he was right. If Bush was right, and his plan worked, then Hill and all the other Dems would have been on the wrong side of cheap gas and a fallen bad guy. They didn’t want to take that chance politically and therefore did not stand up for what they believed in. The fact that all of the Dems who were not up for reelection voted against said authority speaks to that. They knew it was wrong, and didn’t have anything to loose in speaking their minds. Too bad that didn’t carry.
<
p>The fact is, the way Hillary voted her politics was a mistake. Now, for whatever reason, she just can’t admit it. That’s not the kind of leadership I want representing our country. We’ve tried it and look where we are now.
<
p>As far as Obama sending out those mailers, you are right. I think they were wrong.
They are just as wrong as the mailers that Hillary put out in NH falsely questioning Obama’s positions on choice (a core Dem value) and the false accusation that he would raise taxes 1 trillion dollars (a right wing talking point against Dems).
<
p>You still want to play high and mighty?
Just explaining what the truth is as opposed to what people think the truth is. For example, how do you know that Hillary is lying about her reasons for her Iraq vote? How does anyone know that? Did someone find some secret memo where she said, “Oh, by the way, I was lying when I said that?” No. In fact, she has been pretty consistent in her reasons for her vote.
<
p>In any event, your evidence for claiming that,
has left me speechless, but happily not wordless. “They,” including Hillary Clinton, thought the president needed the authority, with Congress’s backing, in order to convince Saddam Hussein to let the UN inspectors back in and to let them do their job. Sadly, sometimes in dealing with a ruthless dictator, one has to use the threat of violence, and in this case it worked. The inspectors were let in and were allowed to start doing their job.
<
p>Unfortunately, George Bush was lying about how he would use the authority and he ordered an attack anyway. (BTW, even if Congress had not voted to give him the authority to invade Iraq, he probably would have anyway. He would have claimed he had the authority to do so under the Authorization of Use of Military Force resolution that Congress passed in 2001. That was the resolution that Bush claimed allowed him to engage in illegal wiretapping.)
<
p>Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush was sincere and really did not intend to invade Iraq if the inspectors were let back in and allowed to do their job. How could he have accomplished that feat without telling Saddam Hussein in a really big way (ie, a vote from Congress) that the U.S. would invade Iraq if the inspectors were not let back in? Or is it Obama’s position we should have just left Saddam Hussein alone and forgotten about enforcing what Iraq agreed to at the end of the Gulf War?
You are completely mistaken. The UN inspectors were already in Iraq and working for 6 months prior to the US invasion. The inspectors were only pulled out in March of 2003, as US forces prepared to invade. Hans Blix issued this U.N. report in January of 2003, with the following conclusion:
<
p>Whatever her reasons for voting “Yes” on the Iraq War Resolution, it can’t be the reasons that you give, because the U.N. inspectors were already in Iraq prior to the vote on the resolution.
<
p>BTW, 21 Democratic Senators ( out of 50 ) voted “No”, on that resolution , including Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Durbin, Wellstone, Murray, Mikulski, Leahy and Corzine among others.
<
p>48 out of 49 Republican Senators voted “Yes”.
That was supposed to be one of the big arguments in her favor, that her past experience working on Bills campaigns and her experienced campaign staff would have a much better chance of beating the Republicans in the fall. Doesn’t that include manipulating the media to her own benefit? Wasn’t that something that Bill Clinton was known to be good at (at least pre-Monica)?
<
p>I actually do think that the media has been unfair to Hillary in many ways, but I have seen unfairness directed at Obama as well. It just doesn’t seem like a very convincing excuse for Clinton’s campaign problems.
I too am always making “genital based assumption(s)”.
Now that Hillary is not winning, it seems that people are pulling out the double-standard unlevel playing field arguments. It’s getting very tiring, and it’s these same old arguments that are turning off voters to Hillary even more.
<
p>I for one, was very excited about the possibility of a woman being president. However, I feel very strongly that Hillary is not that woman. Obama has simply run a much better campaign with a message that resounds with more people.
<
p>I have always felt that Hillary has a very nasty streak inside her that comes out when she doesn’t get her way, and it’s showing even more now that she’s behind in the race. I don’t want four more years of Clintons in the White House, although surely they would be better than George W. Bush.
<
p>Most people who I speak to who aren’t voting for Hillary have absolutely no problem with her being a woman. They just don’t like who she is as a person and disagree with her message.
…sorry to hear you are tired of the “double standard talk.”
<
p>I on the other hand am tired of the double standard, which is another thing entirely.
Hillary supporters can accuse those who prefer Obama of sexism, but you never hear Obama supporters accuse those who prefer Clinton of racism.
… of Bill Clinton before, during and after South Carolina I have to assume this is sarcasm.
…mention “traditional costume photo”-gate.
that show that, “Hillary has a very nasty streak inside her that comes out when she doesn’t get her way.” I really would like to know what you think she has done that shows a nasty streak? Was it unfairly characterizing her opponent and his spouse as racists when their whole lives have been about inclusiveness and fighting for equality? Oh no, wait, that was the Obama campaign. Was it sending out fliers about her opponent’s health care plan that not only misrepresented the facts about the plan, but also possibly undermined the Democrats’ability to obtain universal health care in the future? Oh, no, wait, that was the Obama campaign again. Or was it accusing the Obama campaign, in a very nasty way, of releasing an unflattering photo of Hillary based on what some right winger said was the source of the photo, without checking to see what the real source of the photo was? Oh, no, wait, that was what the Obama campaign did on a day that Hillary Clinton was giving a major foreign policy speech. (BTW, someone here proved how easy it would have been for the Obama campaign to have done a google search and to have discovered that the photo of Obama in native garb was posted on other right wing blogs days before.) But then, it would be unthinkable to believe that Obama has a nasty streak in side of him, wouldn’t it, even if the evidence were to the contrary.
As an Obama supporter, I completely agree that there has been a double-standard and that Senator Clinton has not gotten the same treatment in the media. They have been much tougher on her than they have been with Senator Obama.
<
p>However, I also resent the notion, implied far too often around here, that the only reason one would support Obama over Clinton is because she is a woman. That’s insulting.
My Point is we will never know what really might have occured if the Gender bias was not there.
It is very clear that you equate the dislike and criticism of Hillary to the dislike of women.
Despite the millions of women who endorse Obama both publicly and privately, despite all of the reasons people have to dislike her brand of politics; you have chosen to turn a blind eye in favor of turning Hillary Clinton into a symbol for all women.
<
p>It only hurts your cause when you act like Al Sharpton.
<
p>If Obama was loosing, He would say that we will never know what really might have occured if the Racial bias was not there.
<
p>That said. No One denies that there is gender bias in America. You just can’t go blaming all negative press on it.
…still to a large extent set the rules other wise I would not have gone into the other examples. It is perhaps to subtle a point for someone who sees with Obama colored glasses on but I’ve gotten used to that reality.
Perhaps you should take notice and stop clinging to the old mantras that have less impact than you realize.
Your points are less subtle than you think, which is what sparks this criticism.
<
p>My Obama glasses are indeed colored, because the future is bright.
..are now substantially in charge to the same degree as men across the board in politics and the media?
If you read what I wrote, you would see that I used the the word changING and not changED, and I’m not about to give a grammar or reading comprehension lesson here.
<
p>This change is something I am very proud to see happening in America and many examples can be seen from Sec Rice, to Speaker Pelosi, to Jeane Shaheen, to Sen Clinton.
To argue that the rules are not changing for the good is ignorant at best. We still have a ways to go, just as we do with racism, but they are changING.
Just because people don’t like what Hillary represents politically, does not mean that they don’t like what she represents for gender equality. To rest your arguments on that is like using the gender issue as a crutch or a scapegoat. It does not help and ends up being more divisive than constructive.
<
p>And no, the lack of an E on the end of my first name is not a typo. (and the last name is one my immigrant grandfather used to say to me when I was young)
HRC should be forgiven every misdeed from her thirty years of “experience”. Mrs. Clinton has become a chronic complainer of late. She who would have no problem cutting someone off at the knees professionally and personally (CO of the bimbo eruption squad)
<
p>Spare us the indignation. The current governor of Alaska would undoubtedly have faired far better.
<
p>Madeleine Albright has been the best Sec of State in decades? That in and of itself speaks volumes.
she’s no Donald Rumsfeld…..
you mean Colin Powell or Condi Rice?….doesn’t sound as good though
Do you also say that Dick “Go BLEEP Yourself!” Cheney has an infamous disposition and uses intemperate language?
<
p>How about John McCain? Is he “passionate” or “a fighter?”
<
p>Clinton has a foul disposition.
<
p>
Thanks for the great post. No one should doubt that sexism is rife in the media, as a reflection of American society. Anyone who believes the US is gender-blind or color-blind is just plain blind. Just count the numbers of men who sit in anchor chairs. Just read the names of the producers, and those in management positions of power.
<
p>Both Clinton and Obama have faced huge undeserved, unearned, and unfair hurdles and have overcome them to now challenge each other in the Democratic Party primary for President of the United States. This is a great achievement for our country.
<
p>As a woman, a feminist, and a person of color, I find these discussions about which oppression is worse, disquieting, painful and counter-productive. As I have encouraged you in a previous paragraph, count the numbers of men who populate the anchor seats, and count the numbers of whites who populate those anchor seats, too.
<
p>We all have a lot of real responsibility to do what it takes in this country to further a progressive agenda. This means, for me, that where we each have privilege and power, we recognize how we benefit from the ways we are privileged; We conciously use that power to work on behalf of those who do not have power to create that fair and even playing field. This means MEN (of all races) need to take an active role and fight the destructivenss of sexism, and WHITE people (of all genders) need to take an active role and fight the destructiveness of racism. As a person who benefits from a college education and the choices and respect this has entitled me as a rite of this privilege, I am obligated to active role to right the destructiveness of classism.
<
p>I agree that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly judged because of sexism. I also agree that she has benefited from her whiteness. Barack Obama has been unfairly judged because of racism. I also agree that he has benefited from his maleness. Each benefits and suffers because of their bifurcated identities. However, I do not see how it ultimately benefits any oppressed groups when we engage in discussions of the primacy of oppression. How does this change anything?
<
p>I wholeheartedly agree with your points on sexism and Clinton, which is awful and more than enough fodder for justifiable outrage; you lose me when, to prove your point, you appear to engage in a comparison of oppression. Let me say, I have made this same point on other sites that declare a primacy of racism over sexism. In my personal experience, both suck, irrespective of the other, let alone doubled or tripled.
<
p>I would hope we can stop fighting over a small slice of the pie. But let me add, since I do appreciate your post, I look forward to the day when a man would write a post like yours, challenging as personally as you have, the sexism in this campaign. Until we each hold the other’s oppression as seriously as we hold ours, we will end up with nothing.
<
p>…I am a middle aged White Male who when he first heard Clinton was really going to run had the OH MY GOD NOT THAT reaction, typical of my demographic. But over the course of listening to her had come to realize that I judged her through my own reaction (negative) to Bill. I found her articulate, intelligent and warm even before the New Hampshire Tears.
<
p>The reason I don’t support Obama is one of experience. I do believe you need to know the sorted mess of Washington to be effective. I am glad that there is outrage at any hint of racism (even though it will still try and rear its ugly head)
<
p>But as much as I am resigned to her not gaining the nomination that blatant double standard that still manifested itself before during and after the Debate last night does not sit with me and it is interesting how the little experiences of the morning led to my translating that into words. That’s how pervasive it is (I mean the LL Bean Catalogue??) It made me see the gains made in the 70’s for women have steadily eroded. (Though not entirely)
<
p>It is like the example of the Frog that when you try and throw it in boiling water it will jump out to save it self but if you put it in and then heat the water slowly it will not know what hit it.
<
p>I hope along with other things this primary campaign season is a call to action for women.(again).
<
p>BTW Love your Blog Name! And enjoyed your thoughtful response.
can I say I love you!
’cause I love him, too. 🙂 He’s been the recipient of many a “6” from me.
…. but also in a brief review of this and other posts the Hillary Hatters are alive and well, Something someone said in one of the comments floating around is seemingly not rational or based on anything other than some visceral deep reaction to her.
<
p>Most surprising when imbedded in the same vitriolic spewing they end up announcing their support for Obama because of his positive stance in life. Certainly the vast majority of Obama’s supporters do not behave like this but it is interested how these angry few justify Hillary Hating as a reason to vote Obama.
I think it does women no justice to blame this on sexism.
<
p>Blame Iowans – if they hadn’t put her in third place Hillary would have locked this up. Obama beat Hillary in Iowa among women. No one at that point was talking about a double standard or sexism. At that point, they talked about how young people and new voters and independents, including a majority of young women – came in en masse to give Obama a victory over a better known rival.
<
p>Maybe Iowa is just a really sexist state. Or maybe the Clinton campaign just did not run a good race there – getting our organized and maneuvered. Maybe gender had nothing to do with it.
..one have been talking about sexism and Hillary when Bill Clinton was running for president and have been having this conversation ever since. I am not alone.
<
p>Maybe if the media treated Hillary with a little bit of the sweetheart soft touch that the heap on Obama and been a little more critical of Obama like they are with Clinton things might be different than they are now? Maybe they wouldn’t. Obama may still have been the one to beat. But at least then everyone could be sure there was fair treatment. Everyone is not sure of that now.
In addition to being fairly incomprehensibly written, this diary is insulting. Were Edwards supporters both racist AND sexist, or what?
<
p>Hillary has had high unfavorables with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans long before this race began.
that Hillary faces in the media notwithstanding, she hasn’t run a particularly good campaign.
<
p>And your litany of examples reads like a rorschach test of your own projections rather than anything to do with Hillary.
<
p>Cokie Roberts in particular is not someone that you should cite. Ironically, she’s one of the most politically connected Washington insiders on teevee, and she’s one of the very Villagers that undercut the Clinton’s. Digby happened to revisit ‘Cokie’s Law’ yesterday.
<
p>I once watched Roberts sputtering indignantly that anyone would dare question the veracity of the Warren Commission Report, because Her Father (former House Majority Leader Hale Boggs) served on that Commission, and therefore it’s accuracy was unassailable. She should have been canned 15 years ago, and probably would have been if she weren’t so well connected.
<
p>IMHO Hillary may lose based on her record and the campaign that she’s run. Sexism & Clinton rejection (denouncement?) in the media have worked against her, but that’s not why I didn’t vote for her.
….that it is a bit more difficult to figure out which way to go when you are shot at from all sides. Also as the Ohio Flyers from the Obama campaign has revealed his campaign isn’t above politics as usual negative misinformation tactics. But I believe this angst about her originally stems from Hillary’s refusal to just do Rose Garden fluff events (shudder)when she was First lady and actually take on some substantive things like universal heath care. Yes it didn’t work out but I haven’t seen the boys club get this right in the 14 years since.
<
p>As to Cokie we just disagree on that one. But Digby’s?? Wow what an authoritative source. Kinda like if I quoted some conversation down at the local Pub three beers into happy hour to justify my position on something.
what you’re saying here, so I’ll defer.
<
p>We agree to disagree on Cokie Roberts.
<
p>As for Digby, she’s one of the sharpest political writers on the web, and IMHO has probably forgotten more about politics & media than Cokie Roberts will figure out in a lifetime.
<
p>…is what I was referring to when I said…
<
p>
<
p>….and as far as this goes…
<
p>
<
p>Given the national polls are split within the margin of error (below 50%) for any GOP/Dem match up isn’t her comment (Digby’s) just spin rather than real assessment?
<
p>But we have agreed to disagree.
Richardson, Biden, Dodd, et al. Why didn’t the sexism of the media allow for their success while “the woman” was beaten down? It’s Hillary that is the problem, not women.