But respectfully, I think that assuming that the weight of GOP scrutiny will be too much for Obama is intellectually dishonest. He knows, as well as his well seasoned advisers - that during a general election, the racist vitriol will be at an all time high. Remember the nastiness they hurled at Harold Ford? That will seem like a rubdown in a shiatsu compared with what Obama will face. Racist push polls. "He'll sleep with your white daughters" rhetoric. I'm sure that a turbulent road to the white house is a path a black man considers as soon as the possibility of running for president crosses his mind.
I also reject the sentiment that Obama's "you're likeable enough" quip exposed some underlying misogyny - but then again, it's kind of hard to cry foul when you think about Hillary's camp and "Kindergate", Barack being "Muslim", "Cocaine", etc. There is enough nastiness to go around.
Posted by HumanityCritic at January 6, 2008 10:55 AMEriposte--
I'm happy to see you back. Hillary was so sensational yesterday that the relative silence from our esteemed media is not only surprising but disingenuous... in addition to falsely characterizing her performance in negative frames. The audience sounded receptive but the media is working overtime to "Gore" her. I love the way she is fighting back though. She needs all the help she can get from those few clear thinkers that still exist around these parts.
My interest is in the obviously sexist liberal bloggers. My contempt for them intensifies every day of this campaign. The Josh Marshalls, who also participated in the rape of Gore, who lose no opportunity to join the media pile on...revealing the animus you describe.
These contemptuous men (and some self hating woman)ignore the actual lies uttered by John Edwards (his claims of "passing" the Patients Bill of Rights Bill). It took Hillary to expose this fraud by pointing out the reality.(He was unsuccessful with this bill not successful)It took Hillary to puncture the false picture of Obama's goody two shoes narrative.(Obama's campaign manager is a registered lobbyist and Obama's yes vote on the Energy Bill for oil company givaways, his dubious accomplishment on ethics reform with regard to sitting down for a meal to standing up for one)
How interesting it is that these beacons of liberal orthodoxy are uninterested in truth, honesty or fair play, let alone a progressive agenda. They follow like the stupid and corrupt sheep that they are the narrative they've been assigned, which is to attack any Clinton or Gore who has a chance to win.
I'd love a post from you outlining all of these liberal bloggers who exhibit these destructive and misogynistic behaviors. They need to be identified and called out for their crimes. Because if they are willing to trade their credibility away, what other lie will they dump on us later? These aren't liberals...they are liars...perhaps they are moles...but we should find out. Credibility is everything. And when these so called journalists leave out significant information and make harmful characterizations not born out by fact, they have no right to their perch of respectability.
Posted by lily15 at January 6, 2008 11:22 AMSorry, eriposte, I thought far too much significance was assigned to an obviously tired Obama's comment last night when the chattering class made much of it.
I viewed it, at the time, as relatively graceless response to a cutesy play to audience appeal by Hillary, but not of great malignity. It doesn't take a large proportion of Little Green Footballers to get onto a website and pollute it thoroughly. Charging an entire generation of such ignorant misogyny is far beyond where I'll go.
I have my difficulties with the Clinton camp and some doubts about the Obama movement, but please let's stick to objective facts. You don't want to sound like Lily, do you?
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 6, 2008 11:31 AMActually I thought the quip was kind of funny. What Obama may have been responding to is not so much Hillary but more the long winded idiotic question from Scott Spradling. It may have been an attempt to move this conversation down the road.
Agronsky wasn't availiable?
HumanityCritic,
First of all, if you read my post I make it very clear that I don't consider Obama a sexist or misogynist. It would have been easy for me to paint him that way, since Obama supporters have painted Clinton negatively for what her supporters may have said or done - but I don't play that game. What I do say, and there is more than one piece of evidence I cite in the post for this, is that he is feedling the right-wing meme about Hillary not being likable or being polarizing, in a manner that helps his own campaign. That's a fact, not speculation.
Second, Obama has used Hillary's alleged "polarizing" nature to question her electability in the GE. All I'm doing is showing how Hillary was tarred by the right-wing to make her appear "polarizing" or "not likable" and pointing out the simple fact that once in the GE Obama would be subject to stuff that is worse. If he is allowed to question Hillary's electability by citing her polarizing nature, I am very much entitled to question his. I never said he cannot win - he might win, but the barrier to winning is much higher in his case, based on my judgment. I plan to write more about this later this week, so stay tuned.
Posted by eriposte at January 6, 2008 11:47 AMDeminNJ,
I wish people would actually read my post before assuming what it is that I charged "an entire generation" with. Do you see the portion where I say:
Of course, many of today's young people are neither sexist nor misogynist, but they have little knowledge of what the Republicans and the mainstream media really did to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s and beyond - the false image they created of her using complete fabrications about her or her positions, an image that is sometimes perpetuated by alleged "progressives".
I am obviously not charging "an entire generation" with misogyny or sexism.
Second, I was watching the debate real time and I know exactly what I perceived and felt when Obama said what he did in the way he did. So, maybe we should agree to disagree on what his response signifies.
Third, there is nothing I said in my post that is not based on an objective analysis combined with my knowledge of how the right-wing machine works. Please tell me what specifically I said that is outside the bounds of reason.
Posted by eriposte at January 6, 2008 11:53 AMlily 15 is absolutely correct.
I have not been reading the blogs very long but did have respect for some and trusted their reporting. Josh Marshall is one, but not the only one, who has lost my confidence. TPM headlines about the Clintons often read more like those on HuffPost where the content does not support the misleading, often sensational, headline.
It's disappointing that these aggressive progressives are guilty of the sins they accuse the traditional media of. I often don't know which media the report is coming from. Years from now they will still be chuckling about their unfair reporting on Senator Clinton which cost her the presidency while lamenting the sad presidential performance of Obama or the repooplican they helped elect.
Those of us who looked forward to the end of the Bush era may find ourselves in the grip of more of the same or worse. The theft of the Gore presidency by the media and the Supreme Court will be as harmful for our country as the media's venomous treatment of Senator Clinton, which I find as cruel as it is vindictive.
Two of the male Democratic presidential candidates last night showed themselves to be petty and unworthy of any office. Politics does not excuse their behavior although that's the common excuse. What do their wives think of them? If they think at all about it, I would venture to say not much.
I am grateful for the few blogs and bloggers who see things as they are.
Posted by Sally at January 6, 2008 11:56 AMSome may think, the question is kind of silly or idiotic, But I think, that is very important for Clinton folks. If she has to win, she has to change that likeablity factor in her favor. Polls after Polls says people belive her experience, her policy on health care, her leadership abilities, her iraq approach better than Obama or Edwards, but still she failed to win in Iowa and polls after polls now show she is either tied or behind in NH. The only thing people think is she is not likeable enough. This shows people vote emotionally than with their brain, so Likeablity is an important aspect and I don't think that is an idiotic question. But granted, it is difficult to change peoples mind easily. But hey she got to do it if she has to win.
Posted by BKK at January 6, 2008 11:57 AMI am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton but I do, often, find myself defending her for exactly these reasons. America is a very fucked up country.
The ideas and language that fuel and support that kind of behavior permeate our culture. What we see being done to Hillary Clinton is not a response to her, personally, but to the idea of her. She is the scapegoat for the culture's anxiety about women in power.
She isn't a target because of anything she did or did not do, she is a target because the right-wing and the corporate press/media made it clear that no matter how outrageous or ridiculous, no one would ever be penalized for attacking Hillary Clinton.
I will say it again, America is a fucked up country.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 6, 2008 11:57 AMJames E. Powell is right about the state of our country and I am old enough to now give up on it and let my ancestors take it from here.
To correct my earlier post, I should have said "regressive" progressives. A sad bunch they are.
Posted by Sally at January 6, 2008 12:04 PMThis post is a refreshing breath of fresh air, and I'm more inclined than ever to vote for Hillary Clinton in our February 5 primary because of the Obamania I've seen and read in aftermath of Iowa.
To be sure, I'd fully support Obama if he earns the nomination and there are legitimate critiques to be made of Hillary Clinton. But so far, it seems to me that A) Obama is coasting on an image of being a radical reformer who can end all the ills of the last 8 years with his magical oratory wand and B) the dominant criticisms of Hillary Clinton are driven by a distinctly misogynistic reasoning.
I still think that when you strip away the spin and look at their words and records, Clinton still comes out on top as the person who has what it takes to effectively fight the Republican opposition and push through the necessary policies and laws to establish universal care and restore America's legal standing.
Posted by heg03 at January 6, 2008 12:14 PMthe remarks by both..said a lot about them both..in both tone and demeanor..all i can say is ..fuck you barack
Posted by dennis at January 6, 2008 12:26 PMI would like to add one thing to all this.
Hillary Clinton would have a large reserve of goodwill and loyalty in the Democratic base if she had opposed the war or, at least, emphatically turned against it some time ago.
She made the calculation that she didn't need it, or that she needed the image of a war supporter more. I do not believe for one minute that a person of her intelligence and experience thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
This is similar to what happened to John Kerry. He thought his equivocation would serve him, but it was his undoing.
If politicians are poisoned by their support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I think it's great.
But I do not expect anyone in the corporate press/media, the Democratic "leadership," or anyone associated with the Clinton campaign to acknowledge this fact.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 6, 2008 12:28 PMRupert Murdoch is backing Hillary. I don't think there could be anything more revealing. If one can't see the writing on the wall then they deserve more of the same.
America needs to move past the era of Bush/Clinton corporate/privatist/oligopolist rule; period.
America needs a new beginning; period.
America needs to heal; period.
America needs Barack Obama!!!!!!!
This is a very high stakes political campaign by serious rivals very ambitious for high office.
If statements like "you're likeable enough, Hillary" are seen as some wild, beyond the pale, derisive affront, then your view of what's unacceptable hurly burly in American politics needs to be, um, somewhat revised, I'd say.
It's not reasonable to expect her Dem opponents to be championing and bending over backwards to redeem Hillary from the years of RW smears that she is not "likeable"---that's part of her political baggage, unfortunately, fair or unfair. SHE has the burden of proving her charisma and likeability, it's no one else's job.
Posted by euzoius at January 6, 2008 12:40 PMEuzoius,
I'm not just talking about the words....I'm talking about *how* he said it. That's why I provided a link to the video.
Second, my whole point is that Obama does not feel he needs to correct the historical record and smears against Hillary but rather just advance it further - which makes it quite justifiable for others to show how he will get trashed in the same way (since he has tacitly endorsed it) and may not be able to survive that trashing.
Posted by eriposte at January 6, 2008 01:04 PMI watched the clip, not the debate. I didn't see anything to suggest Hillary was hurt by Obama nor that Obama intended to hurt. What I saw was two lawyers trying to yuk it up and look human while they were really trying to think up something effective to say later, after the levity died down.
I read other reactions to this on other blogs. Hillary got points for making a funny. So did Obama. This is the only place I see it raised to he level of strategic strike.
Posted by gtash at January 6, 2008 01:14 PMSo, you noticed that Obama is an asshole?
He's Bush-league.
I thought Hillary did very well last night on substance, but she was tired and didn't appear at her best. Neither did Obama. Edwards seemed most on his game.
Obama is actually a weak debater. Several times last night he simply let attacks by Hillary go answered.
For instance, the question of his change of position on the Patriot Act and the war funding is quite important, but he had nothing to say about it.
Nor could he defend himself for having a lobbyist as his campaign chair in NH.
Even though he looked good, I thought Edwards came across the worst last night.
The obvious, phony posturing with Obama "We're the change guys" did nothing for me; even more significantly, his core pitch---that we need a leader who takes fights personally---not only rang false for me, I disagree with him strongly.
A judicious leader does NOT win by making the fights personal.
Hmmm. Your cherrypicking of vulgar facebook comments reminds me of the cherrypicking of Dailykos by Bill O'Reilly.
But the dumbest part of your post is this:
"It's worth researching further but given that internet-savvy, Facebook-using youth are Sen. Obama's strongest support group, I can see why, even though he is not sexist or misogynist himself, he hasn't made and didn't make any real effort whatsoever to correct the decades-old, fraudulent right-wing framing on Sen. Clinton's allegedly polarizing nature and alleged lack of likability."
Politics ain't beanbag. If Obama is winning votes because voters see him as more likable, he's definitely not going to go out of his way to try to change that.
Posted by Democrats Against Hillary at January 6, 2008 01:33 PMI didn't see the clip in real time or in the complete context but I think I get the point that you are worried about Obama feeding into the rightwing/media created stereotypes just because he even made a response and therefore fed into it. But more importantly, if Obama wins, they will just create another subtle narrative to use against him too....(I think Glenn Greenwald wrote a post about the rightwing concerns and potential creation of a new narrative about an Obama candidacy yesterday).
Personally, it did not really bother me. I thought it was his attempt at humor using a sarcastic and deadpan response and it was meant to be a dig at the whole stoopid meme (and dumb question) the media is creating surrounding the damn "likeability" factor of a candidate. They are once again trying to make it one of those very important issues right now that the very serious Villagers think should help decide the fate of our elections and that voters are too stupid to judge for on their own (as if you might need help on this). And yes the last candidate with a positive likeability quotient as deemed by those serious conventional wisdom creators was the "just wanna have a beer" and everyone's favorite fun lovin fratboy George Bush Jr..... and well, we all know just how well the significance of him having that important cough *asset* cough (as deemed by the Villager's at the time) has turned out for the country. Especially now when we have Mr. 28% popularity because of his damn policies....but many the Kewl kids still adore him.
Well the problem with sarcasm and attempts at humor is that sometimes many people just interpret it differently and even though I got the impression from the clip that Obama was just being sarcastic/deadpan with his response..especially since Hillary was clearly poking fun here too,...some people might not agree with my interpretation of it. And Obama should have removed any doubts of what he said and followed it up by saying that the whole "likeability" factor while important(especially since you like me, you really really like me...channeling Sally Fields), certainly is not an issue that the the presidential candidates should be discussing during these debates and certainly not something we should be using as an important factor in basing our votes on for president.
All I can say is that I hope Obama and his managers/supporters aren't so naive as to think the rightwing noise machinery and their friends who dominate the media won't hesitate to do to you what they are doing to Hillary. Boyscout motto..be prepared...the knives are sharpening. (remember how Howard Dean was deemed crazy/unhinged yet no one could tell anyone why people used to say that about him...it was because the rnc-media created that myth/narrative).
Good luck to all the candidates fighting this kind of idiocy brought forth from the rightwing noise machine.
Done with my ramble.
Posted by emal at January 6, 2008 01:34 PMLast summer I wasn't really paying much attention to what was being said about the candidates. Then I started reading all of the hateful comments on Huffington Post, TPM and other so called liberal and progressive blogs. It woke me up and it sent me into Hillary's camp.
Obama is arrogant and I don't believe his handlers and advisors believe that he is going to go under the knife if and when he wins the nomination. He is so cocky and sure of himself he couldn't possibly think anyone could have anything negative to say about him. After all, he has Bob Novak in his corner as well as Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, and a whole crowd of republican operatives. If Hillary Clinton had one of those individuals saying anything positive about her the cries of "Bush Lite" would flood the airways and blogs. But because it is the "bring us together" guy, it's okay to have Republicans on his side.
Which is another aspect of this contest: why is it okay for Obama to have all of this Republican support. The Republicans have been the enemy of Democrats since 1972 and George McGovern (supported by none other than this then idealistic young woman) The Clintons did not create all the anger, hate and lies of the past 40 years. And for those of us old enough to remember - it did not start in 1992. It existed long before then. Ask Walter Mondale, Edwin Muskie, Jimmy Carter, Michale Dukakis.
There's this sense floating around that Barak Obama because he is...whatever he is can somehow make everyone "get along." And what does that mean. For him, it means selling Democratic principles down the river. He has disdain for those of us who have waged and lived through the culture wars created by the Republicans for four decades. We have lived through stolen elections and lies and smear campaigns - Willie Horton, Swiftboating and how about Harold Ford? Does Obama think he will be treated differently?
Go for it Obama. You deserve what you get and I will be one that will not cry for your demise.
Any woman in power scares the livin' daylights out of most men, many women. Hillary Clinton will pay the price.
Posted by CLK at January 6, 2008 02:47 PMEriposte--
Your incisive brilliance is always invigorating...and I look forward to your words every day...But we need a plan...a push back to neuter these lying, disingenuous big bloggers who tell us they elevate truth over mis and disinformation as it apples to Bush...but bury it when it applies to Democrats, more particularly big Dems with fight in them..like a woman named Clinton. This double standard must be exposed. People must be named and the evidence identified. All of our principles are at stakes. All of the values that progressives hold dear are at stake. Because when intellectual honesty goes by the wayside, we will have nothing.
I must say, I understand only too well why our former Democratic leaders have been neutered wimps...Tom Daschle, Harry Reid....It is obviously what the party prefers. They clearly don't go for fighters, do they? When Dodd started fighting, Reid shut him down. Maybe there is a message in that. And maybe all these liberal elites will be getting just what they deserve.
The fact that Obama voted for an Energy Bill that gave big breaks to oil companies and Hillary voted against it is important. But no one is discussing it. It gives the lie to Obama's change narrative. It gives the lie to Edwards' credibility because he never mentions it either. Nor does the media. It's some secret to keep from the little people. Don't make things too complicated. He's the change candidate. Now I see why snake oil salesman do so well.
But you, Eriposte, have what it takes...to take them on. Please do so.
Posted by lily15 at January 6, 2008 04:29 PMlily, for some reason I've got to question whether you are prepared to unite behind whomever the ultimate nominee might be...
And Reid has failed to "shut down" Dodd so far....
Posted by euzoius at January 6, 2008 05:16 PMThe "you're likable enough, Hillary" comment was awful. Honestly, he sounded just like my condescending older brother who used to slug me once in a while if he was in an especially bad mood (I flashed right back to that as soon as he said it!). Another woman in the room where I was watching it said, "what an asshole" to his nasty little comment, so it wasn't just me.
This whole specticle is hard to watch (Chris Matthews, for ex.). Obviously she's going to lose (I'll vote for her on Feb. 5 anyway). The worse part is reliving the misogyny that I've experienced in my own life through what is happening to her. You can feel it in your gut. If you're not Stepford Cindy McCain, zombie Laura Bush, or some sweet little gal that know your place, your fucked.
She was great last night. But it doesn't matter. They hate her and they hate women like her. Like me.
And you know what? Obama is full of shit, and I hope Chris Matthew's dick falls off.
Okay, it's a juvenile comment (sorry eriposte, i love your posts). But I've just had it with bullshit.
Eriposte, look at the debate video again. Just after Hillary's wonderful words on what a huge change our first woman president would represent, Obama made a football comment. If that is not a male dog whistle, I don't know what is.
Incidentally, that moving statement of Hillary's got the loudest and most sustained applause of the night. Why are we not seeing that clip all over the media? I know why.
Posted by WMCB at January 6, 2008 06:13 PMIt didn't sound to me like it was cynical or debasing. It sounded more like he was trying to bring some humor to the situation.
And you're blaming Obama for propagating the image of Hillary Clinton as polarizing and hinting that Obama supporters have started their own ad hominem attack on Clinton. Do you really think that Obama supporters are the only ones doing these attacks? Do you really think they are the largest group of people carrying out these attacks? I think you would be mistaken. I have never seen these comments spoken about in the Moyers transcript on any Obama supporter page, website, or blog.
And as for Obama allowing the portrayal of Clinton as a divider, well, that's just politics. There isn't a candidate out there that is going to go out and defend another candidate's image. There hasn't been any out right mud slinging as far as I've seen from the Democratic camp at all. The republicans are the ones nailing each other. I think you should lighten up on Obama and look at the situation realistically.
What happened to the astute political commentary? Look, fine, endorse Hillary, but don't take leave of common sense. Politics is a big girls' and big boys' game (no sexism or racism implied -- just using an old phrase and applying it to both candidates in question). The ridiculous and meaningless outrage over jockeying during debates and trying to connect that to some bad things said by who knows who on Facebook is silly. Here's the ugly truth: Hillary to apparently a lot of Americans in Iowa, New Hampshire and a lot of other places isn't as likable as Obama. Instead of whining about it so much, why don't you tell us what it means to the race and how you expect your candidate to overcome it? Or better yet, why don't you tell us what it means to the race at hand? Personally, I think it implies bad things for your gal Hillary.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 6, 2008 06:33 PMOr it could imply bad things for progressives. The big media and the liberal blogosphere has appled a double standard to vetting our nominees. Obama has gotten a free ride...a pass. If this continues and Obama is nominated, we will enter the race with one hand tied behind our backs. Liberals have not been fighters. They are not fighters in the Congress. Why do you imagine Obama will suddenly become a fighter? Oh, I know...because Republicans will no longer want power? They won't obstruct like they're doing now? And we also won't have any idea what type of fighter he will be in the general. A lot of unknowns. And too many Democrats seem content to keep it that way in service of their faith.
The logical response to this is despair.
Posted by lily15 at January 6, 2008 07:01 PMYes, eriposte, we know you like Hilary.
Posted by Luce Imaginary at January 6, 2008 07:02 PMHill and Bill are as corrupt as GWB et al. Open your eyes, there is plenty of evidence in the public domain that they cannot be trusted.
Some names to google... Marc Rich, Peter Paul, Leonard Dunn, Richard Mays, John Huang.
Stop listening to the same old campaign rhetorical bullsh*t from this power hungery woman. She has little integrity and less character.
After Bushco., we deserve much better than another Clinton.
Posted by brisa at January 6, 2008 07:12 PMAlso, in one of your responses, you said, "I wish people would actually read my post before assuming what it is that I charged 'an entire generation' with. Do you see the portion where I say:
Of course, many of today's young people are neither sexist nor misogynist, but they have little knowledge of what the Republicans and the mainstream media really did to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s and beyond - the false image they created of her using complete fabrications about her or her positions, an image that is sometimes perpetuated by alleged 'progressives'.
I am obviously not charging 'an entire generation' with misogyny or sexism. "
No, you aren't charging an entire generation with misogyny or sexism. You are, however, charging us with ignorance. It's the same reason Hillary doesn't have our support. She doesn't address the younger generation for the same reason you think we were too young to see the games of Republicans. You and her have severely underestimated young voters and have paid with Iowa, and probably New Hampshire.
Posted by Katie at January 6, 2008 07:27 PMKatie,
I am ignorant of many things that happened when I was in school and would never be hubristic about my ignorance if someone pointed it out to me.
If your ego is more important than becoming informed, then the country is the one that is going to lose. You and all the youth should feel free to support Obama but I'm going to make clear what many young people are not aware of - not because they don't want to know, but simply because they have not been made aware of these things - information, that as responsible citizens and voters, they would benefit from knowing.
I happen to agree with the saying that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by eriposte at January 6, 2008 08:28 PMHere is my thoughts. The people who support Hillary Clinton know why they support her and know that after fifteen years of unrelenting attacks by the right wing press it will take going to the mat for her to win in a general election and we are ready to do that. No one expects the media to be fair, we know we have to win in spite of them.
On the other hand, the people who support Barack Obama really know nothing about the man and how he will stand up, if he even will, to the right wing smear machine. If Obama faulters when the press turns on him, and who is to say what he will do, are they going to fight for him when he won't fight for himself? Who knows?
What it comes down to is that Hillary, and her supported are good as gold when it comes to fighting the conservatives and the media. But Obama and the level of sacrifice he and his family and his supporters are willing to give is a big unknown right now.
No, you aren't charging an entire generation with misogyny or sexism. You are, however, charging us with ignorance. It's the same reason Hillary doesn't have our support. She doesn't address the younger generation for the same reason you think we were too young to see the games of Republicans. You and her have severely underestimated young voters and have paid with Iowa, and probably New Hampshire.
Posted by Katie at January 6, 2008 07:27 PM
Okay, what should we be addressing you about, and how?
No, you aren't charging an entire generation with misogyny or sexism. You are, however, charging us with ignorance. It's the same reason Hillary doesn't have our support. She doesn't address the younger generation for the same reason you think we were too young to see the games of Republicans. You and her have severely underestimated young voters and have paid with Iowa, and probably New Hampshire.
Posted by Katie at January 6, 2008 07:27 PM
Okay, what should Hillary have addressed you about, and how?
In their analysis after the debate, George Steph and Diane Sawyer criticized Obama's reply to Senator Clinton's likeability, and neither are in Clinton's camp.
Posted by Sally at January 7, 2008 05:15 AMAnd you're blaming Obama for propagating the image of Hillary Clinton as polarizing and hinting that Obama supporters have started their own ad hominem attack on Clinton. Do you really think that Obama supporters are the only ones doing these attacks? Do you really think they are the largest group of people carrying out these attacks?
I expect Democrats not to propagate sexist bullshit, yeah.
I certainly don't think Obama supporters are WORSE than republicans, but if and when they are misogynistic, I find it more offense b/c we are supposed to be able to count on each other to combat bigotry. If Hillary propagated some racist shite, the liberal blogosphere would absolutely explode. And rightly so.
I'm really sick of women getting sold out by our so-called Brothers in Arms.
Posted by lima beans at January 7, 2008 07:37 AMI've really struggled with this post for the last day since Eriposte put it up.
I think it summarizes in whole her (his?) strengths and weaknesses; the detailed analysis, in-depth consideration coupled with mind walloping conclusions that sometimes are a jumping off point for completely mistaken assumptions.
"His response yesterday reminded me of certain types of men I have encountered in my life, but let me leave it at that." But then the writer spend the rest of the article taking excellent commentary on the misogynist nature of the opposition to Sen. Clinton, comparing it unfairly to Obama's support (while saying that Obama isn't sexist himself), and blames Obama for not defending his fellow candidate in a closely contested campaign.
Despite your claims otherwise, Eriposte, aren't you setting the bar too high and making sure Obama can't measure up by making him responsibile for conditions and opinions he himself does not hold or defend?? In the end, your root insinuation is that you're claiming that Obama is sexist without a goddamn hook to hang it on, or at least profiting off of misogyny with conscious knowledge of the hatred and willing to accept the ignorance of his supporters in order to get elected. This is the kind of garbage that Sen. Clinton's detractors do on a regular basis.
This has got to be one of the slimiest gotcha pieces I've ever read, in or out of mainstream journalism.
"His response yesterday reminded me of certain types of men I have encountered in my life, but let me leave it at that."
I'd hate to be man in your life.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 7, 2008 07:49 AMAnd you have just proven your own arrogance, sir or madam. Do you think we don't read? Do you think we didn't have parents that guided us when we were younger? Do you think we don't ask questions of the previous generations, of our teachers, of our leaders?
I shall now go find a blog that is more interested in the generation that will be the future of this country someday. Thank you.
Ken: On the other hand, the people who support Barack Obama really know nothing about the man and how he will stand up, if he even will, to the right wing smear machine.
That is also one of my biggest fears. Who did Obama defeat in his Senate contest? Alan Keyes!
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 7, 2008 10:31 AMThe youth vote is part of the mix. Their perspective is as valid as any other demographic.
Andrew Sullivan states that Obama's race shields him from attack. Referring to madrassas, etc.:
"But the smarter ones know it will not be easy to do this without being exposed in due course as a poisonous force in our culture and politics. Targeting a minority candidate in this sleazy way is not something a future majority party will want to do."
They can paint white Democrats as bin Laden-lovers, but Sullivan says they can't get away with that on a black candidate.
Sullivan is making believe -- as eriposte points out, the electorate is amazingly forgetful. But even in the short term, sleazy targetting of Clinton on gender never hurt Repubs. I don't think Repubs will be clumsy about race-framing. There's a very ugly art to that sort of thing.
My father told me about the day his mother dressed up to go vote for the first time, right after suffrage. Before that day, she was disenfranchised by gender, but not by race. Blacks had the right to vote before women did.
What's interesting is that women are not a minority, yet have been disempowered and oppressed. 'Women' have never been invaded, conquered by military force, or colonized. It's not so much a group-against-group thing. Sexism is more of a domestic, one-on-one thing. Perhaps that's why women tolerate overt sexist attacks on women candidates more than than black voters tolerate overt racist attacks on black candidates.
Women are also to be blamed for not standing up with Hillary. If the Dems go down to defeat, they will bear the full brunt of this loss along with the liberal blogosphere and the liberal writers. I am ashamed of the way women have gone for rock star, instead of rock solid. As for Katie, clearly, she has not been exposed to the concept of critical thinking. This is a goal of Republicans, of course, to degrade the school system so that dummies are turned out. But critical thinking is also absent from supposedly educated progressive and liberal opinion makers.
So when the progressives have abandoned critical thinking, they have abandoned their strongest ally...their protector from hubris and arrogance. I am saddened at this spectacle...particularly the way an accomplished, principled woman is being treated by progressives. And having experienced first hand the hypocrisy of so called progressives, especially where sexism is concerned, I am not surprised. But I warn again, this will have dire consequences.
By the way, there is a new CNN report on Obama's relatives. His grandmother and uncle live in Kenya in a primitive village. Someone should post it. Where are Obama's family values? Why is his family in a dangerous country when he could have brought them to the U.S. He could have even highlighted his position on immigration at the same time. Or is he ashamed of them? Shouldn't we know that now?
Eriposte is one of the very few top minds who sees this entire process clearly. But how sad that there are so few. Shocking really. And your quote about history, Eripose, is so apt.
Posted by lily15 at January 7, 2008 02:28 PMIdiosynchronic,
You've always been a commenter to my posts over the years. Let me try and respond to your criticisms.
First of all, I did not say in my post that Obama has a *responsibility* to correct the hatred and misogyny against Sen. Clinton. What I said was that it is to his advantage not to do so - and I understand now, *why* it is to his advantage. That is merely a statement that he is a politician who is successfully exploiting a dynamic that he did not create - and sometimes exploting that dynamic further in non-sexist terms by referring to Sen. Clinton's polarizing nature. These inferences are definitely not out of the bounds of reason - and I see nothing to be appalled about this inference because this is what politicians do. I'm sorry you took away such a negative view of this post, but from where I stand - and I've observed and studied politics a great deal over the years - this is a very reasonable inference.
You are completely wrong in asserting that I am imputing a sexist bent to Sen. Obama. I am merely imputing the bent of a politician to Sen. Obama.
As for his comment in the video, I am not the only one who took away a very negative inference about Sen. Obama's response. Many others I know did - and as one of the other commenters pointed out, so did a couple of the news anchors (one male and one female) who were viewing it real time.
Posted by eriposte at January 7, 2008 07:54 PMI didn't mind Obama's "likeable enough"; it might have been ... just about anything, not necessarily anything bad.
However I'm furious with his framing of Hillary's 'tearing up' as 'campaign grind'. He said he didn't see what happened and isn't going to comment -- but he still frames it as lack of stamina for campaigning! This is basically what Edwards said, just more subtle.
In fact Hillary was sad about what the country may be in for with another GOP administration, and the chance it is missing for a Dem admin. When a man shows emotion about an issue, that's great, that's 'passion'. But when a woman shows emotion it can't be about an issue or the country's welfare. It's just personal weakness, it's because the 'grind' got to her, poor little thing. And so the substantive part of what she said wasn't even quoted!
If he hadn't seen it, the decent thing would be not to comment UNTIL he saw it, and heard what she actually said. Not frame it as not worth seeing or listening to, just 'campaign grind.'
Posted by 1950democrat at January 8, 2008 12:21 AM