hello Turkana,
I agree that Senator Clinton has faced a lot of sexism in her Presidential Campaign. My position has always been that I will vote for the eventual democratic nominee however i am an Obama supporter. My first choice was neither Clinton nor Obama though. I think the media has given Senator Clinton a tough time however after the Wright controversy, I don't think Obama has got favorable treatment. That being said, I wish Clinton really and truly fired Mark Penn back in January and strategized appropriately to compete in post Feb 5th states.
Few harbor an intense dislike for women. Many harbor an intense dislike for an arrogant, dishonest opportunist.
Posted by onar at April 10, 2008 05:07 PMthank you for proving my point, onar.
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 05:27 PMI posit that many misogynists are in denial.
Posted by Sharon at April 10, 2008 05:44 PMEr, I mean sexists.
Posted by Sharon at April 10, 2008 05:45 PMsharon...
or both.
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 05:46 PMI hope that Joan Walsh is saying that the Clinton campaign put the video together and that the second half is one of their ads. I have good reason to believe that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with the video. How do I know that? I spoke to Peter Daou about it yesterday. He asked me if I knew who did it. I told him I thought it originated on Taylor Marsh's blog by a couple of her regulars calling themselves ShutTheFreudUp. So, no, it didn't come from the Clinton camp but, DAMN, it is a great viral video.
Posted by riverdaughter at April 10, 2008 05:53 PMEr, that us " I hope Joan Walsh is NOT saying that this is a Clinton ad."
It's not.
" I hope Joan Walsh is NOT saying that this is a Clinton ad."
Is there a question, or an insinuation? Who cares? It's concise and ultimately uplifting. If nothing else, I admire Hillary for keeping going. I know I wouldn't have lasted a day of what's been thrown at her for years.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 10, 2008 06:07 PMwalsh didn't insinuate that the clinton campaign made the video, she just wanted to alert people that while the first part is objective, the second part is advocacy.
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 06:23 PMAs much as I agree with Walsh, I have to stress that sexism is just the tip of the iceberg. the Obama campaign has brought us, hate, race baiting, with the "creative class" came racial attitude towards blue collar workers that support Hillary, astonishing arrogance from a campaign with no history of accomplishment and failure in all big states, fascistic-like behavior behavior of the supporters, right wing attitudes and policies, etc.
The GOP hoodlums seem to be in a very good company.
Posted by Koshembos at April 10, 2008 07:17 PMwalsh was talking specifically about institutional sexism- not campaign tactics. whatever the campaigns have or haven't done, she's talking about the media, and society as a whole.
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 07:19 PMAll I can say is thank you to Joan Walsh and to all of you for not caving in to the pressure of the deniers.
Posted by at April 10, 2008 08:04 PMThanks for the blog. I have said it consistently and I will continue to say that the level of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton has been shameful. I expected this behavior from the MSM, however, I am saddened by the level of misogyny in the "progressive" blogosphere. When I see "progressives" trying to justify calling a woman a "f-n whore" or themselves talking about HRC as 'hysterical' 'bitchy' etc., I am reminded that we are not as 'progressive' as we think. As per usual, the most vitriol comes from fellow women. We have a tendency, like rabbits, to eat our own. Thousands of years of misogyny has apparently taught us too well.
Posted by kacey at April 10, 2008 08:14 PM
Turkana has a closed mind and can't face the truth about Hillary who has nothing but contempt for citizens of this country like the rest of the disgusting, fascist candidates "working for change."
He asked me if I knew who did it.
(in hushed soto tones) Psssss....MARK PENN...
Posted by phidipides at April 10, 2008 08:21 PMMakes me wonder if Elton supported PM Thatcher?
Posted by peter at April 10, 2008 08:24 PMtom towles,
and thank you for also proving my point. cds is so lovely to behold.
Posted by Turkana at April 10, 2008 09:11 PMturkana, i admire your determination in trying to praise and criticize both campaigns equally--it shows where your heart lies, and i think you're a good person (and democrat!) for it. but i have to take exception to "Both campaigns have been fighting dirty." i've seen way too much in the past several months to let that go unchallenged; it's just not true. as naive as this may sound, i think it's one thing to fight hard, and quite another thing to fight dirty--and i don't think the two campaigns are anywhere close to even on that score. i'll leave it at that.
Posted by kangeroo at April 10, 2008 09:16 PMI don't care about the gender of the candidate. I don't care about the race of the candidate. I care about the competence of the candidate. Based on that, my choice among the three candidates was pretty easy. That is because I don't let it get cluttered by irrelevancies. (P.S. Unfounded accusations and personal insults are signs that the candidate has nothing else to offer.)
Posted by jwrjr at April 10, 2008 09:17 PMNot much has changed in over the last 130 years when Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for president.
"Eventually, though, her funds ran out. She remarked of her own campaign, "The press suddenly divided between the other two great parties, refused all notice of the new reformatory movement; a series of pecuniary disasters stripped us, for the time being, of the means of continuing our weekly publication, and forced us into a desperate struggle for mere existence. . . . The inauguration of the new party, and my nomination, seemed to fall dead upon the country; and . . . a new batch of slanders and injurious innuendoes permeated the community in respect to my condition and character."
Instead of debating Victoria on the issues, her opponents attacked her personally. They called her everything from a witch to a prostitute. "
http://www.victoria-woodhull.com/whoisvw.htm
There was a cartoon about her as Mrs. Satan.
http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=February&Date=17
Posted by bernarda at April 11, 2008 12:15 AMThere would be a lot less pushback on the ;Hillary has faced Sexism' meme if it didn't sound like the 'people who don't support Clinton are sexist' we all heard repeatedly from GFR before Iowa, and if it weren't for people trying to make an issue of Obama once using the word 'periodically'.
Hillary has faced a lot of sexism in this campaign. Most of it was from the media. When the Clinton campaign and its satellites started making arguments that Obama is a sexist affirmative action candidate, and that Clinton was so progressive only sexists could refuse to support her, she caused a lot of defensiveness in people she had no reason to alienate.
Posted by soullite at April 11, 2008 07:24 AMOne argument I've heard consistently from Hillary supporters is that if Obama can't take the heat of the primary, what will happen when the Republican hate machine starts attacking him? Seems to me the same argument applies here; yes, I am sorry that the media displays bias against women (Hillary included), but isn't the fact that she and her supporters so consistently whine about it a pretty good indication that gender is a vulnerability of hers that the Republicans will, no doubt, effectively exploit? And isn't this race really about something more significant than uh, Hillary's feelings, like who can beat McCain in November?
Posted by balthus at April 11, 2008 08:07 AMToo bad Joan is still posting at dk. I think most of the people capable of following a coherent argument bailed on that place a long time ago.
Posted by kwill at April 11, 2008 10:46 AMKoshembos: "The GOP hoodlums seem to be in a very good company."
Koshembos = troll
Posted by Gay Veteran at April 11, 2008 10:50 AMkangeroo: "turkana, i admire your determination in trying to praise and criticize both campaigns equally"
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Posted by at April 11, 2008 10:52 AMThanks Turkana for posting this.
I am voting for Hillary Clinton in the PA primary, because she is the most qualified, and best equipped to handle a Ship of State that has run into three icebergs, is sinking, while Bush/Cheney had added the additional challenge of setting fire to the entire engine room and back part of the ship.
She's the only one that can stop the fire, stop the sinking, get enough people to help repair the vessel, and then get it pointed in the right direction, and has enough political capital and collateral to have the rest of the world help get it moving in the right direction, and if it needs to get to a port to get proper repairs, she's the one to make sure that will happen also.
McOld will make sure things remain as they are. And the Ship of State will sink below.
Obama will give speeches indicating he will do something as things remain as they are. And the Ship of State will sink below.
These are grave times. The electorate has to wake up, and do its homework. These grave times demand it. Not an infotainment reaction. Not an infotainment ("American Idol" style) type of voting. Unlike American Idol, the votes the electorate casts do have meaning, and the consequences are real--both good, and bad.
I wish we weren't in our situation we are now in.
A mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. A mess domestically. A mess on the economic front. A mess in our relations with the rest of the world. A lack of vision. But not a lack of funny money being pumped into the system by Bernanke.
An Uninformed Electorate Voting == Totalitarianism
Posted by Troubled American at April 11, 2008 02:04 PM