As I said in the comment threads of my previous posts, I would appreciate it if readers and commenters keep the discussion civil and issue-based. No name calling and silly personal attacks please!
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 07:16 AMIt's not much of a jump to make the conclusion that the pervasive sexism during the primary and general campaigns was directed or at least encouraged by the Obama campaign itself.
If Obama ran a sexist campaign is it unreasonable to conclude he is a sexist?
Posted by myiq2xu at June 5, 2009 08:17 AMMyiq2xu,
In the absence of direct evidence that the Obama campaign "encouraged" or "directed" the use of sexist attacks, I would not assume this was the case. I have not seen any compelling evidence for this theory.
Let me also pre-emptively address another possible line or argument. Even if one wants to argue that Obama, occasionally said something that could be construed as sexist, it is a giant leap from that to assume that he is a sexist by nature or that he encouraged sexism. Sometimes people who are upset say stupid things that they regret later.
A final point. Michelle Obama is a fairly independent woman and I seriously doubt she would have stayed in her marriage if she thought her husband was sexist or encouraged sexism.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 08:25 AMTo me, Obama's words were conspicuous by their absence--something along the lines of "Show respect to women." Eriposte, do you credit Howard Dean for after the fact saying, My goodness, there was sexism?
Everybody knew what was going on at the time. And Michelle Obama benefited from the sexism; why would she object?
Posted by gmanedit at June 5, 2009 10:49 AMThis really is waste of time discussion about bloggers and blogging. Let us talk about current issues such as President's speech to the Muslim world. Do you think US policy towards Israel is changing? Is Obama more sympathatic to Palestanian cause? Do we see some hope of finally solving the problem that is going on for over 60 years?
Posted by suresh at June 5, 2009 12:55 PMI don't think its a large leap to jump to the conclusion that someone is a sexist when they utilize sexism. Particularly, when you couple that evidence with the company he keeps( Jon Favreau fondling a cardboard Clinton's breasts or Larry Summers with his assertion that women are inferior in regards to the field of mathematics). I also see it as evident that he sees females in more traditional roles(disclosure: I am presently a SAHM)when he makes comments that reproductive choices should be made with the council of husbands or pastors or speaks out in Islam as if the most difficult decision facing Muslim women is the hajib.
Posted by cwaltz at June 5, 2009 01:19 PMThis really is waste of time discussion about bloggers and blogging.
All right. Don't waste your time reading it then.
Let us talk about current issues such as President's speech to the Muslim world. Do you think US policy towards Israel is changing? Is Obama more sympathatic to Palestanian cause? Do we see some hope of finally solving the problem that is going on for over 60 years?
There are plenty of other blogs about that subject where you can discuss that topic to your heart's content. However, this blog post is about Boelert's new book. Let's stick to the topic, mmmkay?
Posted by Blue Jean at June 5, 2009 02:32 PMIs it "unreasonable to conclude" that someone who writes an inane blog comment is not intellectual?
Posted by capalistpig at June 5, 2009 03:23 PMBlue Jean;
I think (from the number of participants here) you are not getting the hint that not many folks want to participate in this discussion of past campaign practices of Obama and Hillary. The issues I raised are the type of issues that normally discussed on this blog. I am just wondering how come there is no discussion of a historic speech of the president. We may be on a threshold of a completely new policy in the middle east. Is it not important to discuss?
Posted by suresh at June 5, 2009 03:36 PMGmanedit,
I am not arguing there wasn't any sexism during the campaign - quite the contrary. But just because someone benefited from it doesn't mean that person is culpable. You would be fair to criticize the Obamas for not speaking out against it during the campaign, but it would not be fair to accuse them of directing or encouraging it.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 05:09 PMSuresh,
I will probably write a bit about Obama's speech tomorrow, but I had to finish posting this first. It's hard to do a lot of stuff all at the same time.
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 05:11 PMIt also isn't unreasonable to assume that someone who uses their comment to slam someone elses question as inane while ignoring the actual argument it addresses in its entirety isn't exactly portraying themselves as a bastion of intellectuality either.
With all due respect your post is a shining example of exactly how the progressive community chose to portray themselves during the primary. Instead of addressing the premise of an argument they chose to engage in the charecter assasination of people who had the temerity to ask questions. Over and over it was intimated and continues to this day that we "hated" Obama because we were racists or stupid or both. It didn't matter that the actual reason we were asking questions was because we felt it was in the best interest of the country (and the party) to have a discussion on where we wanted the country to go and which candidate was best suited to get there.
While the progressive community is scratching their heads asking why Obama isn't doing what they wish, the rest of us are scratching ours wondering why the Hades you couldn't have seen this coming. The signs were all there. Reagan wasn't a Democrat. Harry and Louise ads were utilized by the GOP the last time there was an attempt at universal health care. Saying Social Security is in "crisis" is out of the GOP playbook. These were all things that many of us asked valid questions about and in response were shouted down as "racist" or "uneducated" or "bitter."
I understand why many of you think this may be unimportant. That being said, time doesn't exist in a vaccumn. What people did during the primary are now part and parcel of how we perceive you today. In many, if not most cases, there is not going to be any great homecoming. We won't be coming back into the Democratic fold. Many of us have embraced autonomy. For example, the main reason I am participating in this conversation is determine whether or not I can put away my feelings of antipathy towards the behaviors exhibited and works towards goals like a single payer system. Can I work with people who would chose to call me a "Republican r@tf*cker" because I strategically saw things differently then they did? Do I want to? (I'm not overly invested in the Obama administration. My expectations are and continue to be low. I do, however have 4 beautiful children who I strive to set an example for and who will one day inherit the mess that is being made. I want to say I tried to give them a better place to live.)
Suresh,
think (from the number of participants here) you are not getting the hint that not many folks want to participate in this discussion of past campaign practices of Obama and Hillary. The issues I raised are the type of issues that normally discussed on this blog. I am just wondering how come there is no discussion of a historic speech of the president. We may be on a threshold of a completely new policy in the middle east. Is it not important to discuss?
And I don't think you get the point that you're a guest here in this house here, just like I am. When you're a guest, you have three options;
1) Talk about what the host wants to talk about.
2) Keep silent and listen.
3) Go somewhere else to find the discussion you want.
Yeah, I know this topic bores you, but there are other people here who would like to discuss it, or listen to the discussion. Just because they are quiet doesn't mean they're nonexistent.
When you start your own blog, you can talk about anything you want to. But to break
to say "Your topic bores me, so now everybody has to talk about what interests me" is...shall we say...less than polite.
"Sometimes people say stupid things they regret later?"
For example, perhaps intimating that a person's(who just so happens to be female)experience in diplomacy was limited to "tea parties with ambassadors."
With all due respect if someone makes it a habit to say stupid, regrettable things then it probably isn't in our interest to have them representing us.
I feel the Office of the Presidency should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe Schmoe. It's my position that he had a responsibility to speak out when his supporters were gleefully calling her a "psycho stalker girlfriend" for continuing in a process that she had every right to pursue(and not laughing like it was all some sort of joke). A President(and a President elect) has a responsibility to raise the discourse yet he said nothing while his supporters savaged Clinton and then later on Palin. Even McCain took the time to chide a supporter who accused Obama of being a muslim extremist. Say what you will but one of the candidates wanted to win on the merits of his argument(and yes I had fundamental disagreements with McCain/Palin on policy)and the other seemed quite content to win by charecter assasination(ie Clintons were racist. Her foreign policy experience was limited to tea parties.) I feel how you play a game says just as much about you as whether you win or lose.
As for Michelle Obama she engaged in sexist behavior as well IMO. I will never forget when she made the statement "If you can't even take care of your own house, then you have no business in being in the WH." It was disgusting watching a woman blame another woman for a man's indiscretions. Furthermore, Hillary's personal relationship with Bill had little to no bearing on how she would have lead the country imo . That moment was the equivalent of the disgusting people who have remarked that if placing a woman on the bench we'd have to be mindful of stuff like her menstrual cycle(and yes I am aware there are people on the right who have made those kind of disgusting remarks regarding Sotomayer).
Posted by cwaltz at June 5, 2009 07:21 PMcwaltz at June 5, 2009 05:19 PM:
Thank you. You speak for many.
eriposte - you put so much into researching and recording Hillary's record during the primaries. Your entire series is in my bookmarks. I am grateful for that and your series now on Boehlert's book. It was a painful and ugly time and many of us will never get over it. Our eyes were opened, and as cwaltz says "We won't be coming back into the Democratic fold."
Thank you.
Posted by jen at June 5, 2009 07:29 PMThank you, cwaltz and jen. Indeed, we won't be coming back, and have moved, instead, to Independent. And we laugh out loud when the Democratic Party asks for money.
MSNBC has become MUCH worse than Fox News ever was in its sycophantic adoration of gooey things instead of issues.
A true lifetime Democrat should be appalled.
The greatest irony now, is that the Obama administration pays absolutely no attention whatsoever to the Markos and Sullivan and Olbermann types.
In his interview with Brian Williams, he pretty much said as much.
Called them all WWF Wrestling, and said he didn't learn very much by watching them.
The left is going to hold his feet to the fire?
Fat chance.
What a silly little man Markos has become, puffed up by his own self-importance, completely unaware that the powers-that-be in the White House consider him and his. to be the equivalent of WWF Wrestling.
And Digby? Hiding in her own fear, allowing the Obama bullies to call her most supportive female readers "stupid c*nts," with nary a deletion or a blocking, so Digby could preserve her invitation to Markos's Yearly Kos.
Everybody has their OWN Village, eriposte, even while they're trashing anyone else's.
Ugh. What we became. UGH.
I need to remind those who saw no evidence of s*xism in the Obama campaign itself of the picture of Jon Favreau -- Obama campaign's #1 speechwriter -- f*ndling a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton. There was obviously a culture of sexism in the Obama campaign that allowed Favreau to think that behavior was completely acceptable -- and funny.
If we don't talk about the v*le d*sgusting things that the A-list bloggers did on behalf of the Obama campaign -- and the Obama campaign itself did -- then it will ensure that those v*le d*sgusting things will happen again...and I can say without a doubt that those Obama supporters who remained unscathed by it this time, will someday be p*ed off recipients of it, just as the Clinton supporters were....it's only a matter of time.
So Markos calls what he did passion? I call it h*te speak. But Markos has shown his true colors. It's amazing that thinking Democrats still support his site.
Posted by T at June 6, 2009 08:38 AMMore examples of sexism from the Obama campaign.
Posted by I Like Pistachios! at June 6, 2009 08:48 AMI think the excuse that just because Michelle seems independent, therefore, Barack can’t be sexist or she would’ve left him already is a very weak argument.
There are plenty of sexist men who appear (at least in public) to be devoted fathers and committed husbands. There are men who see women as Madonna/Whores with their wives as respectable enough while they buy prostitutes or even go so far as raping (and killing) other women. Just because someone is devoted in their family life doesn’t make them an overall good person.
Secondly, Michelle and Barack’s marriage wasn’t always so stable. We’ve now learned that Michelle believed Barack to be selfish because he placed his ambitions and climbing the political world more important than their marriage and family.
Now that Michelle is a superstar and first lady, I highly doubt that she has much to complain about publicly now (and who can blame her). Any problems she and Barack might have will now be covered up with photo ops. She has allowed their handlers and PR people to give her a makeover into a woman who is smart and educated but knows her place in society and has given up her career to be a politician’s wife and stay-at-home mother.
So everything isn’t always what it appears to be. Michelle, like a dutiful wife, joined her husband in bringing down Hillary Clinton using sexism so that her husband could win and she could be first lady. I don’t place a ton of blame on Michelle because she was just helping her husband. But that does not clear Obama of any wrongdoing.
Posted by DisenfranchisedVoter at June 6, 2009 09:09 AMI really feel the need to post this here as I did on the myiq2xu's response on The Confluence because I've run for office and I had a right wing republican as an opponent whose campaign excelled at personal destruction.
I published this on my blog on 6/22 and especially since the Tiller murder and my run in as a candidate with right to lifers (oxymoron) I've thought a lot about it again.
I was a candidate for the Nebraska Unicameral when Bill Clinton ran the first time for president. I had the money and the means to make the other person's life miserable and I had the folks that would do it too. I always pulled them back in. My opponent let them run amok and the entire experience was personally destructive to me and to my family and friends.
My point? The Candidate is ALWAYS responsible for the tone of their campaign. PERIOD. Here's what I wrote on 6/22/08 when the Obama campaign and it's mission of hate was in full swing. I started blogging on my own after getting PTS flashbacks from being on other so-called A list blogs.
http://dakiniland.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/you-dont-fool-me-candidates-are-responsible-for-the-tone-of-their-campaigns/
Posted by Dakinikat at June 6, 2009 09:18 AMMy biggest problem with this section of the book is that Boehlert did not make an effort to trace what led up to the rift/war/what-have-you between the Clinton and Obama camps online. He begins with Alegre's walkout at the Daily Kos and works forward. That was in March, and the war began in earnest in January. I personally identify the beginning as the racism charges during the week leading up to South Carolina, although the seeds were sown earlier.
Boehlert also never looks into the question of astroturfing. In fact, he explicitly exculpates the Obama campaign of any involvement in the fight, although he doesn't provide any support for this. There's not even a denial from the campaign. He never addresses the swarming that occured at DK whenever Obama was criticized. Moulitsas himself wasn't immune to it--he got hit when he called Obama out for attacking Al Gore and John Kerry as "divisive candidates."
The abuse of the comment-rating and diary-recommendation systems is never addressed, either. Obama campaign spam like the conversion diaries littered the recommended-diary list at DK, and people like riverdaughter/goldberry were being banned through the comment ratings. If I remember correctly, Moulitsas himself told riverdaughter that he didn't agree with her banning. However, he felt reinstating her privileges before the nomination was decided was inviting trouble, so he let it stand. The Obama supporters were ridiculously aggressive, but Boehlert never delves into the subject, much less its causes. I don't know, perhaps he was too preoccupied with Media Matters' campaign against Chris Matthews at the time to notice. That's all the book focuses on in the January-February period.
This all points back to my view that the book was a rush job, with little-or-no research or comprehensive reporting done. If the info doesn't come from his interviews with the bloggers he profiled, you're not likely to find it in the book.
Posted by Pol C at June 6, 2009 10:14 AM"You would be fair to criticize the Obamas for not speaking out against [the sexism] during the campaign, but it would not be fair to accuse them of directing or encouraging it."
Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 05:09 PM
Really? Because I'm sure they have people to do that for them. See no evil! Hear no evil! Speak no evil! Keep chugging on that Kool Aid, pal.
Posted by Anonymous at June 6, 2009 08:39 PMI hope the bitterness of the 2008 primary season can be put to rest. Eriposte is right to have reminded us that there was only a little daylight between Obama and Clinton on issues, as they ran in the primaries. The hope for political transformation appears to have been crushed for progressives thus far. In the election we had to either accept life in the frying pan of predictable, conservative democrats, or let the nation topple into the proto-fascist fire of right-wing republicanism.
The country was being pushed toward a precipice in 2008. But every time the recriminations of the primaries war are warmed up, we can hear the claim that one camp was clearly more offensive than the other one. Lefty bloggers who squared off against Clinton were also attacked perniciously and in a personal way; and bloggers down in the trenches, who in the fight against the Bush/Cheney horror show, had proven their mettle, their courage, intelligence, and conscience on countless occasions, were vilified and dismissed as non-entities, who were never, indeed, on our side.
Those who claim fair mindedness, superiority in researching facts, who imply that only their faction held the high ground, are presuming to write the history of that tumultuous debate.
There was a hell of a lot of invective spilled out on these threads. I'm not especially proud of that dust-up, on behalf of anyone. But as a democrat, as a progressive, I don't find it unthinkable that the Left could oppose either Clinton or Obama. I think we know how these things work by now. Hillary was at times alarmingly hawkish during the campaign; and her appeal to just plain (white) folks was not exactly a high water mark for her. Barack became our president and for a moment on election night, and for weeks afterward, progressives could believe that the nation had, to some degree, been transformed.
If too much hope was lavished on Obama, it did not signify that the hopeful were cultists. On the other hand, I don't see how the former enthusiasm can be maintained for an administration that still embraces secrecy, and wants to expand a war which has no coherent mission, and seems generally comfortable with the national security excesses of the prior administration.
Posted by Copeland at June 7, 2009 12:35 AM