This post seems very over-stated to me. Granted, sexism is alive in well in the US and has shown itself in this election. And, yes, the media continues to be less than we'd like in a democracy. Even so, I don't see evidence that gender/sexism is in any way decisive against Hillary's campaign. There are PLENTY of reasons people do not like the Clintons that have nothing to do with gender. Deny it if you'd like, but it is true. Honestly, this reads like sour grapes as Hillary has stumbled here in the last 24 hours. If she regains her footing, we'll hear less of these sorts of arguments, I am sure.
Posted by at January 27, 2008 01:24 PMNoname, I don't deny many people have negative feelings about the Clintons, I'm fully aware of that.
It's fine if you disagree with my sexism argument, I was merely trying to state a case, and honestly, it's a case I've been meaning to make for many weeks now. I was inspired by Jessica Reaves' piece this morning, I thought she expressed it very well and in a way I couldn't.
No sour grapes, I wasn't really expecting Hillary to win South Carolina, though I do wish it had been closer, of course. I was more bummed out about Kuchinich dropping out on Friday than I was about yesterday's results, actually.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 01:36 PMThis reminds me a lot of Gloria Steinem's New York Times op-ed on the eve of the New Hampshire primary where she opined that "women are never frontrunners" when Clinton had been a frontrunner from the middle of 2007 on with the exception of the four or five days between Iowa and her op-ed. Steinem spent most of her piece writing that being a woman is tougher than being a black man.
Sorry. It all depends. I can think of a lot of black men I know who have it a hell of a lot worse than Hillary Clinton. And there are a lot of women who have it worse than Obama.
Maybe here in my part of California having a woman as a representative in government isn't the novelty it apparently is in other parts of the country. We've got two women senators, the Bay Area has women in the House, and I'm looking forward to my next representative being Jackie Speier.
None of these women ever had to "find their hearts" publicly. I don't know if any of them cried in public, but no one made an issue about it. Dickheads with rude signs in the back of campaign crowds weren't pointed out. No hand-wringing about sexual politics. They stated their positions, showed their records, and were elected.
I don't doubt that there is sexism in media coverage. Who cares? There's racism too. And worst, there's classism. The media is controlled by the rich and supports those who serve the rich. That's why they talk about nonsubstantive diversions instead of actually comparing the candidates.
These kinds of articles (the one above) seem to pop up after primary defeats by Clinton, perhaps as excuses for her losses. Instead of Clinton supporters asking us to feel her pain, or even a Clinton telling us he or she feels our pain, how about recognizing our pain and telling us what you're going to do about it?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 27, 2008 01:47 PMBy the way, for Mr. Dinelli to verily weep "It's clear from an understanding of history, culture, and an incredibly irresponsible media, that she faces an uphill climb" is laughable. Mrs. Clinton is the wife of an ex-President, has the benefit of a big political machine behind her, is a Senator, and was given a nice head-start in the race for the nomination by all those super-delegates she started out with.
Hey, Jeff, I had to retire because of my disability and I'm living on a lousy little pension, but come a little closer and I'll wipe the tears from your eyes. Sheeesh!!!
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 27, 2008 01:53 PMBob, first of all, I agree and wish we all, media especially, could concentrate more on issues than race or gender. Totally agree.
But more importantly, Man, the "uphill climb" I referred to was meant to describe her difficulty overcoming her gender in this campaign. I would never claim that ANY Senator, and especially Mrs. Clinton, lives a rough life because she's a woman. I'm sorry you took that the wrong way. For real.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 02:03 PMobama has had a big day..thanks to the black vote..which to me is starting to read like the oj trial..i believe hillary will be the nominee in the end
Posted by dennis at January 27, 2008 02:15 PMjeff dinelli
thanks for your post.
while it probably says more about my media habits than it does the quality of the media coverage of the demo primary,
yours is one of the few comments i have seen focusing on the matter of electing a woman as president of the u.s.
there have been, of course, lots of low-level office sexism in media coverage of clinton, and the usual demented screams from maureen dowd and the gang at the nytimes about her marriage and her political past,
but little comment about that fact that this would be our first woman presidential candidate and our first woman president.
not since walter mondale included geraldine ferraro as his vice-presidential candidate has a woman had a place in american presidential politics.
my personal bias is that this country would benefit enormously if a woman were president, among many other reasons due to the sex-based differences in solving social problems and the encouragement and recruitment into politics of other women.
and, as it happens, clinton is an exceptionally bright and politically well-educated person. although, as the g.w. bush candidacy of 2000 taught us, this is not a matter of great interest to the media.
for the record my demographics are:
white, male, 60+, middle-class, college educated, married, southern.
this country needs a change alright,
many changes in fact, in the way it conducts it public business.
a great start on making these change would be a more balanced representation of the sexes in our political problem-solving.
Posted by orionATL at January 27, 2008 03:08 PM
or a 122-year-old man who wants to fight a hundred-year war in the Middle East. Reaves continues
Ok, I laughed out loud at that line, but still, sexism is wrong, but ageism is ok? McOld and all? Yes, Clinton's been picked on for her clothes and her voice, etc, but Romney's been called a Ken doll and picked on for his GQ looks, Edwards has been picked on for his perfect $400 haircut, Kucinich has been picked on for being short and Fred has been picked on for looking half-dead. I think there is subtle sexism, but I don't think it's rampant. Women are called bitches. Men are called bastards. There is a different vocabulary, but I'm not entirely sure it's any worse.
Posted by CG at January 27, 2008 03:12 PMit's abundantly evident that this same country is not necessarily ready to support the candidacy of a strong woman looking to lead from the Oval Office.
What is abundantly clear is that, for too many Clinton supporters, resistance to her candidacy can only be resistance to women generally.
There are very specific things that Clinton has done and not done that make me reluctant to support her. Iraq is the big one, but there are others.
Posted by James E. Powell at January 27, 2008 03:19 PMGiven the unprecedented nature of who this particular woman is, I don't think you're going to be able to prove your thesis with Hillary Clinton, with ex-prez & putative first-spouse Bill in tow.
There's another pretty big "variable" involved, shall we say.
Let's see what happens when, say, Barbara Boxer runs for president.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 03:22 PM"...a strong woman...."
I will grant you that: it takes tremendous strength to be humiliated in public (by her husband) over and over again....yet still maintain a visceral craving for political power.
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2008 03:32 PMOrion, I agree with you.
CG, you're right, I was mean to the old man. Um..well..nah, I don't take it back.
James, if the media and netroots even the playing field and resist climbing on Obama's Magic Carpet Ride, then we can discuss issues and differences between these two people. I really hope we get there quickly, though. Fat Tuesday isn't far away.
Euzoius, I feel ya, Hillary ain't just any woman. For the life of me, though, I don't understand why people absolutely HATE this particular woman with every fiber of their being. I mean, what has she done to deserve all this?
By the way, did anyone actually turn the page on my Entertainment Tonight-type post Friday night and see the part about Mitt having answers somehow given to him by a mysterious whispering entity? I've seen nothing about this, yet when you watch/listen to the tape, it's clearly audible.
Oh well. HBO's "The Wire" is on tonight. I'm gonna be alright, don't worry.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 03:38 PM
Why is Barack Obama getting away with plagiarism and the media not highlighting it. The Democrats lost elections by Gore and Kerry. I am sure Barack Obama will lose in NOvember and it will serve the dems right for endorsing an inexperience candidate.
Hillary Clinton and Bill will bring the presidency back and with no thanks from the entrenched politicians. I think this is a tough test that she needs to go through so she can face the republicans head on.
So true. Just look at Greenwald today, and how he ridiculously calls Bill C. the "Chris Matthews of South Carolina". If Bill had said anything near equivalent to the kind of blatantly sexist statements Matthews and company have been making toward Hillary and women in general (see Media Matters for the rundown), it would be over for him.
There has been a hugely different standard around what can be said regarding sex and race in this campaign. I'm completely disgusted with the double standard, not just in the mainstream media but in progressive blogs I used to visit on the Internet.
Posted by girl at January 27, 2008 03:55 PMAnon, what's the skinny on the plagarism issue?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 03:56 PMRage On, Girl!
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 03:58 PMHillary's constituents in NY clearly don't hate her--she's very popular. And she was well accepted as a Dem senator by the nation, as far as I can tell.
The right-wing/MSM Clinton hysteria had abated.
She had a good thing goin'.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 03:58 PMeuzoius, so what happened to the good vibe?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 04:02 PMShe tried to take the local good vibe national---bad move.
With all the mud barely settled at the bottom of our political pond, it didn't take anything to stir it all up again. Sometimes it's best to let the past remain the past.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 04:15 PMBy the way, did anyone actually turn the page on my Entertainment Tonight-type post Friday night and see the part about Mitt having answers somehow given to him by a mysterious whispering entity?
OK, that's weird. I doubt it was a live mic in the audience because the "raised taxes" was too fast. I also doubt it was one of the other candidates. Very strange.
Posted by CG at January 27, 2008 04:17 PMCG, that's what I'm sayin'. We were never told what the bulge was in Bush's back during the debate in 04. Now no one wants to talk about this Mitt thing. I demand answers!
See, when I write a gossip column, you ignore it at your own risk.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 04:24 PMJeff Dinelli,
For the record, I am not on any magic carpet ride. I am an Edwards guy who wishes Al Gore were the uncontested Democratic candidate. I am not enamored of either Clinton or Obama. I am just trying to make the point that there are more reasons to resist or oppose Clinton than Chris Matthews's disease.
Posted by at January 27, 2008 04:32 PM"For the record, I am not on any magic carpet ride. I am an Edwards guy who wishes Al Gore were the uncontested Democratic candidate...."
I am anonymous....or, more likely, I am so bats**t crazy I cannot remember my name....
Posted by Bagley at January 27, 2008 05:02 PMI agree with everything. Shirley Chisholm, a black woman who ran for the WH, said that she had faced more prejudice as a woman than as an African-American. But I think HRC will be able to overcome the problems facing her candidacy. Although I understood her motivation to be a "moderate" (she and Obama would not have a prayer of a chance as a liberals), I wanted someone who was not afraid of being labeled a liberal. I got my candidate in Edwards, and look where he is. After Edwards, the question is: Who is the most qualified? Is the woman who worked in the Children Defend Fund and worked with Congress behind the scenes to bring us the SCHIP when she failed to give all Americans a health care system or is the man who worked on some organization to register African-Americans in IL? I think it's a no brainer, as my old boss used to say.
Posted by Prabhata at January 27, 2008 05:06 PMNoname, of course you can disagree with her issues, that's obvious. I'm just hoping we can get to the issues, you know?
Prabhata, I hope you're right.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 05:13 PMAnon wrote: "Hillary Clinton and Bill will bring the presidency back and with no thanks from the entrenched politicians."
You wouldn't be talking about the entrenched politicians who gave her all those super-delegates, are you?
I agree with one of the posters above. Let's measure the sexism when someone like Barbara Boxer runs. If only she ran!
Hillary Clinton is carrying plenty of baggage that has nothing to do with being a woman, plus she's carrying her husband's baggage, the DLC's baggage, etc.
For anyone to make Hillary Clinton the icon for all oppressed women is really embarrassing to witness. And while it might play at gatherings of Clinton fans, no one outside of the bunker is buying it.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 27, 2008 05:22 PMI go on the paranoid theory that the Republicans control the narrative (or it just happens that no one criticized Bush for 6 1/2 years and Gore was a liar). I think that they want to run against Obama and that is why they are giving him such good press. If he gets the nomination it will spin on a dime to "Southern Strategy Part Deux - The commie community agitator african muslim wants to rape your sister." Of course I could be jaded by 30 years of this crap.
Posted by marc sobel at January 27, 2008 05:43 PMSorry, I also meant to say that they will attack Hillary with whatever they can. You didn't hear this misogyny when Mrs. Dole, Mrs. Snowe, or Mrs. Hutchinson were running. You don't hear it applied to that nice Secretary of State lesbian.
It's easy and they will use it but they will use whatever they can.
Posted by marc sobel at January 27, 2008 05:47 PMJeff I am a 63 yr old female that wishes to thank you for understanding what it is like to be a woman rising in a man's world...It is horrid and poor Hillary is attacked relentlessly...I am hoping that the women of this nation will rise up and get even...as in NH....I think the Hillary hatred started when the Clintons managed to beat the GOP more than once in major elections...that was unforgiveable...I also wonder if Karl Rove didnt sprinkle little "young republicans" thru out the netroots to destroy them....posing as democrats....Hopefully we will win out and all this will be pretty evident fairly soon...
As a person that voted for Jesse Jackson, I resented all of those people saying the mere mention of his name was racism...Poor Bill cannot mention anything at this point..I also have heard that he was responding to a question of "what do you think about a black man winning SC instead of a woman".....wish we had a tape of that....
anyway keep up the good blogs...
Bob, we're gonna have to agree to disagree, Man. I hear what you're saying, I hear the "too much baggage" argument all the time. I wasn't real happy when the Clintons pulled the party to the center, either, with the DLC. This post wasn't meant to make Hillary out to be some patron saint, but rather to point out that it's harder to run as a woman than it is as a black man. She's being run through the ringer, while Obama skates. That's just my opinion, along with Jessica Reaves.
Marc, you're totally correct on the GOP slime machine, it's comin', and it'll be a hard rain, regardless of who we nominate. It's good you know that, everyone should. Don't forget his middle name's Hussein and he has very little experience, especially compared to John McCain. We know what they'll throw at us, and that's a good thing. That way we'll be prepared to fight back.
Athyrio, thank you for the kind words, although I'd credit the fantastic Jessica Reaves and someone I was unaware of before this morning, Laura Hodes, for the theme here. I'd been thinking of how to frame this argument for weeks, maybe even longer, I mentioned it to Steve a long time ago, it seems. One thing's for sure, the Clintons are fighters, they've been through all of this stuff. Bill seems to know what questions are coming out of reporter's mouths before they finish their sentences. He knows the game. And Hillary's smarter than he is. You're right about trolls being out and about on the blogs, of course, a lot of these commenters could tell you better stories than I could, but I've identified a couple using clever aliases. The funny thing is, one is an undercover Hillary backer. The other is indeed a Young Republican turned Romney campaign worker. Hey, and I voted for Jesse, too, in '88, and I was proud as hell to do it. I was sort of suprised when he endorsed Obama as early as he did. I wasn't aware of any previous relationship between the two, while Jesse goes way back with the Clintons, despite some disagreements.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 07:46 PM
If we all agree that MSM has been horrific on HRC and light on Obama (the welsley speech,the piling (gender card) on ad versus Oprah's speech in SC or Michele Obama saying Black people will wake up(no mention of race card)), then that says it all about who has a harder time a black man or a woman. It's not about Hillary, it's about our country's comfort level with bashing women and the fear of seeming racist. As bill clinton said, you through that charge around and you're guilty, end of story. That Bob Herbert in the NY Times could say that Bill Clinton mentioning Andrew Young as a reference was unfortunate because he made one stupid comment about BC having more black women than Barak, erasing all his years as a civil rights leader is ludicrous. Meanwhile, Chris Mathews says that men supporting HRC have to be castrate and that she's only where she is because her husband messed aroung (lame apology by the way)is outrageous. It's okay to diminish a woman and her accomplishments.
I am amazed by the endorsements of people like Ted Kennedy, have they lost their minds. This country needs help and we need someone with experience. Obama, as the MSM will say, does not do well in debates, why? Because he hasn't memorized a speech or doesn't have teleprompters. It's not black or gender, it's who is ready and that her experience can be so easily dismissed. I'm just thankful that there is one more debate before Tuesday.
I know I'm rambling a bit, but I also am curious about Clyburne's statement that Bill Clinton was speaking code to AAs when talking about Obama's youth, so if it was AA code to be understood only by them as racist, it would follow he was trying to allienate the AA vote...so that doesn't add up but the media have been saying it all day. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by nycvoter at January 27, 2008 08:16 PMI am a 56 year old woman who's worked for women's rights my whole adult life, and HRC is the antithesis of what it takes real women to get ahead.
She moved to NY just prior to her Senate run as Bill was exiting the Presidency. She has served well, but has no other elected office experience.
Would any man get elected with a resume like that?
Did she get elected on her own or her husband's name? I suspect some of both. But the point remains, she has not had to work her way up the way most women do in today's world. She positioned herself well to advance quickly, and good for her, but she in no way resembles what real women go through.
The whole basis for women's equity is, well, equity. We don't want favors, and we don't want to be held back simply on our gender. We want to get where we are because we earned it, and we don't want to be blocked when we've earned it simply because of our gender.
Before making sweeping statements like yours, perhaps you should examine other women's political careers for comparison. I'd be interested to see if you still hold your initial sentiment and why.
Thank you for listening.
Posted by G Davis at January 27, 2008 08:29 PMpretty soon, we will all be called racist because we support HRC....it is getting stupid...but I feel like there are a whole lot of pissed off women (POW) out there that are just dying to pull that lever....Our day will come and like in NH, they better look out!!! I would bet more than a few republican women will cross that aisle to vote for her too...I really dont think she would have gotten this far without being a former first lady....a woman without connections is doomed for running for higher office I think.....but that can and will change...hopefully this year!!!
Posted by athyrio at January 27, 2008 08:31 PMJeff Dinelli, I love you for this post. No one talks about it. It's creepy. I appreciated Jessica's piece this morning but I disliked her quickness to call the curtain on Hillary. Hillary has won three states(yes, I included MI). She's in it to win it.
Posted by Masslib at January 27, 2008 09:11 PMThanks Jeff. The hurdles she is facing because of gender are being recognized, even by those who don't follow politics. I've had people who could care less about politics and never even vote comment to me on it, amazed at how bad it is.
Posted by WMCB at January 27, 2008 09:48 PMathyrio, I hope you don't feel I was calling you anything. I don't understand the animus.
There are many women that will vote for the Clintons simply because HRC is a woman. There are many that will resent her rise because of coattails.
That's just the way it is. I imagine the same conversation is going on amongst the blacks.
Do you remember Geraldine Ferraro? Elizabeth Dole that was prompted to run?
HRC is not the first woman to run, nor is she the first credible woman to run. Obama is not the first black to run, but to most the nation he is the first credible one...most discount the Jackson/Sharp wing as *too black*.
As a woman, I would advise my daughter to remove all gender and sex and look at the issues. I would tell her if she felt one candidate stood out to her, she should go with them regardless.
If push comes to shove and she likes all their policy stances, then I would tell her to go with who she wants to spend the next four years with in her living room. To go with her heart.
No one is credibly charging that the Clintons are the devil incarnate. If they don't like them, don't like their behavior, fine...that's their choice.
Why make them out to be bad ass prejudiced fools? Is that helpful to the conversation?
Posted by G Davis at January 27, 2008 09:52 PMNycvoter, I'll have to look that Bill thing up, I've not heard of it.
Masslib, I love you too! But don't misread Jessica. She's a veteran covering these campaigns, I doubt she's given up, though I'll ask her next chance I get. I can't remember who she's rooting for, but I think it's Hillary. Now that I posted big chunks of her piece here she probably won't remind me. Where did you see it this morning, are you in the Chicago area?
WMCB, I hope you're right, though this nation is rarely known for its media analysis. I mean, when Keith Olbermann turns on a candidate, you know you're on your own and will not get a fair shake. Though someone pointed out today Craig Crawford, one of Olbermann's frequent guests, is speaking out on this media unfairness.
I have to go to bed. Did anyone see "The Wire" tonight? It's my favorite show and wow did it freak me out tonight! Hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about.
G Davis, ah, no. Hillary is by far the first credible female candidate with a shot at the WH.
Posted by Masslib at January 27, 2008 10:25 PMUm, yeah, I'd agree, Masslib.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 27, 2008 10:36 PMHope somebody reads this in the am-I am a terrible night owl!!
I have never seen the cable news shows so biased in my life (esp. MSNBC and CNN-Fox was actually better the past few nights)
We must counter this---boycotting sponsors will take too long. Flooding them with e-mails is alway good, but EVERYONE -please do the following:
6 minute rule---if you have a tv channel on for 6 minutes, that station gets the rating. To be on the safe side, don't watch any (most are horrible) for over 5 minutes. This will only work if everyone does it----please pass the word!!!!!!!!!!!! and I am a pow
Posted by mary C. at January 27, 2008 11:20 PMoh I love the Clintons and have worked on their behalf for many elections...I am very proud of Hillary as she has been thru so much...I realize that she isnt the first presidential female candidate, but she is the first one with a serious chance of winning...that thrills me...I know the Clintons arent saints...I get that...but they are good people and I believe in them...they also have what it takes to beat the GOP machine...the trashing of them has been horrendous...
Posted by athyrio at January 27, 2008 11:26 PMObama is not the first black to run, but to most the nation he is the first credible one...most discount the Jackson/Sharp wing as *too black*.
Uh...Jackson won 5 primaries/caucuses and 21% of the popular vote in the 1984 primaries and did even better in 1988. I was college-age and perhaps impressionable back then but he sure seemed credible.
And thanks for the post, Jeff. I don't know why calling sexism by its name is so unwelcome in the "liberal" blogosphere but it does seem that way at times. Pat Schroeder (who also ran in that 1988 primary...she wasn't deemed viable...she did cry) wrote a book about her experiences in Congress (24 Years of House Work...) that is still worth a read today. "The more things change" and all that.
Posted by Christina at January 27, 2008 11:31 PMExcellent article. Reprint it whereever you can. And absolutely don't start apologizing for it. You are right on the money. Women have a hard time acknowledging this problem...perhaps because they don't want to be seen as victims...But this is important stuff...and needs to be read by as many people, esp.women, as possible. Great job. We need more discussion of this.
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:00 AMOn the MITT WHISPERS (by the way, same Bush advisers...so I'm sure you are correct...this is fraud...)
What about contacting the McCain campaign and lay it out for them?
Just imagine how great it would have been had Kerry said to Bush the second time...what is that on your back...I want it investigated for cheating..The media couldn't have avoided it.
Try mentioning it on Greenwald's blog...send an email to bob Somerby at dailyhowler.com and try all the other progressive blogs. We need to determine if Mitt is a cheater. CHEATING is the operative word. I never understood why the Bush thing wasn't pursued...the wimpy Kerry couldn't do anything bold.
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:08 AMWe need new rules at debates where candidates are frisked. We must start promoting it. I heard the whispering too. And the fact that no one is commenting is the key....a conspiracy to keep it quiet.
How about contacting a Florida newspaper that had endorsed McCain or gives him good coverage...? That's it....Call the Florida papers.It's a close race. We have the proof...they can ask the question...
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:13 AMWhere can I hear the cheating again? I want to send it to some people.
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:14 AMThe sad thing is that black women are very loyal to their race...but white women are not loyal to their gender. It's impressive that all blacks came out in equal proportion for Obama....but white women split their vote. I'm disappointed in women who don;t recognize the benefit of sticking together.
Posted by lily15 at January 28, 2008 02:18 AMLily, see my post from Friday, the gossip column, 2nd page. I think it was called Really Important Friday Stuff or something like that. There's a link to the Mitt whisper.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at January 28, 2008 06:18 AMAll American men were Constitutionally granted the right to vote in 1870.
American women were Constitutionally granted the right to vote 50 years later in 1920 (19th Amendment).
Says it all.
50 years later.
"There's no sense really in going through her horrible time as First Lady here. We all remember Rush Limbaugh accusing her of murdering Vince Foster, ...etc."
It ain't just Hillary. Even a (then-)13-year-old Chelsea was so threatening to Rusty Gasbag that he trashed her as "the White House dog".
Man, does he (and others) have "issues"....
Posted by bartcopfan at January 28, 2008 11:04 AM