But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We’ll never know how much of the backlash is because she’s a woman or because she’s this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction.Maybe Dowd should check out this video:
I'd say that the Olbermann stuff quoted is more character assassination than sexism but it comes in the context of a constant barrage of sniggering, little boy sex jokes and references to young Hollywood actresses as "hos" on Countdown. (Not to mention Keith yucking it up with a guest over the "monster" comment implying that it isn't a problem if she really is one.)
(h/t to Shakesville)
.
23 comments:
Whatever happened to getting some cajones or huevos or whatever you said?
I wouldn't choose to make most of those comments -- a few I probably would -- but never have I seen a campaign put more energy into defensive outrage and demanding apologies, then go in to insist they are TOUGH and can WITHSTAND ATTACKS.
Sometimes, Hillary can remind people of a scolding schoolmarm or what have you. So what? Al Gore had the same problem.
1) The video is not from the campaign. The video was made by some women who were sick of the BS.
2) My "Grow some cajones people, or better yet get some huevos" comment was made in response to someone saying that it was "unbecoming" of me to criticize Obama about the same thing that someone had just criticized Hillary. Please note the difference is that the topic we were discussing was an actual ISSUE (lobbyists).
3) If you have no problem with the MSM taking purely sexist jabs at Clinton, may I assume you have no problem with the MSM taking purely racist jabs at Obama?
("Looking like everyone's first wife standing outside of probate court" Funny, I don't have a first wife. Neither do half the viewers but I guess we were made honorary men for the day..)
Well, we have three 24-hour news networks pushing out content nonstop, and just in the rest of America, sometimes you'll hear some racist and sexist things.
Sure some of those statements picked out were sexist. I'm pretty sure a few of those were lifted out of the context of discussions *about* sexism itself, which wouldn't be fair. But it has anice beat and you can dance to it, so viola.
It is the Keith Olbermann soundbites TOTALLY give the game away. Even legitimate, above-board criticism of Clinton must somehow be generated by bullies motivated by sexism. "If you want to vote for Hillary, it must be because the media tricked you. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
I'm not saying there's no sexism out there. I'm just saying that is not Clinton's major problem in this election. If it truly is, maybe she should give a Major Speech About Gender In America and we would all benefit from a deeper, more mature understanding of the issues involved.
Egad, sorry for all the obvious typos in the last comment. For example I meant to write "If you DON'T want to vote for Clinton..."
Calling up "David Dukes" and "filth" out of Ferraro's comments and laying it at Hillary's feet in a "Special Comment" were WAY over the top. Olbermann basically starts every show now slamming Hillary the way he used to slam the Bush Administration. Try to find similar criticism of the monster remark or over anything Wright said on Countdown. You won't. And, again, it comes in the context of Olbermann's delight in calling women hos and all his sniggering little sex jokes.
Moreover, there's no Obama counterpart to the Hillary nutcracker or the C.U.N.T. 527 group and if there were, the MSM would be all over it. Olbermann would certainly be all over it.
I don't watch Olbermann regularly. I love his Special Comments on YouTube. Did you think Keith was a sniggering sexist before he turned on Hillary? I don't know.
The "monster" comment was nothing. It would have been a non-issue if it wasn't one Democrat attacking another, and supposedly we're all playing nice. I did a post on it:
http://pghcomet.blogspot.com/2008/03/samantha-power-monster-lady.html
There is no counterpart that I know of to the 527 and the nutcracker thing. There may be severe ugliness against Obama out there that we don't know about. I doubt the really loony-tunes bottom-feeder stuff is having an impact or getting out there much, except maybe as used to generate a backlash.
Oh yeah, the whole Muslim / madrassah angle is out there and is borderline, at best. I can't tell you how heartened I am that it's not having any discernable impact.
Did you think Keith was a sniggering sexist before he turned on Hillary?
Actually, yes I did. For a long time he was the only voice out there giving real criticism of Bush so I tried to look past it.
I disagree that the "Muslim / madrassah" is having no effect. I know that people are reading that email or hearing about it and they are believing it. When I call Dems to fundraise (DNC, DCCC, DSCC) I hear it all the time -- especially among older voters. It's frightening! (And, yes, I try to set them straight.) Also, that email made the rounds of an office where one of my sisters works and people were swallowing it whole simply because the email claimed that it was all verified by snopes.com (which of course, it isn't -- it's debunked there).
Wow, I didn't know about "the e-mail". I know about the photo circulated on Drudge, and his middle name and the implications. I'm not sure I want to ask to *see* the e-mail if it's okay.
Change of topic: This election is less about race and gender than it is about Age. This is about the children of the Baby Boomers having inherited their parents' aspirations and idealism, along with the cautionary notes. And it about increasing numbers of Boomers themselves recognizing that, and returning to those days.
It sets up a huge contrast with McCain. Not sure where Hillary fits into the picture.
I heard Senator Clinton and Governor Rendell commend Fox News for their excellent coverage. I was shocked by this since Fox News has indeed been repeatedly sexist. Glen Beck, as well, has been extremely sexist, but I need to ask why is that crazy nut on the air anyway?
Keith Olberman (sp?) was not sexist in his special comment. What he said reflected a great deal of what I believed about Senator Clinton's non-response to Rep. Geraldine Ferraro's nonsense (and her repeating it over and over and over again just to make certain nobody missed it). I am a woman, so unless you are going to accuse me of being sexist, I assume I am entitled to my opinion.
Finally, none of this is Senator Obama's fault. Senator Obama, in his speech in Philadelphia, specifically called out the media for using Rep. Ferraro's comments as a diversion from the real issues. Unfortunately, many women heard his criticism of the media coverage as an attack -- some, apparently, cannot hear him no matter what he says.
None of this is not the reason Senator Obama has outperformed, outfundraised and outorganized Senator Clinton. This is not a male/female gap. It is an entirely different way of thinking politically. Senator Clinton has run her campaign from the top down. Senator Obama ran his campaign from the bottom up.
--Kim
Wah wah wah, Olbermann's being mean to Hillary wah wah wah. Hillary lies about the sniper attacks in Bosnia Olbermann calls her on it. wah wah he's picking on her she's allowed to lie. Hillary says she's against NAFTA, but it turns out she was helping pushing it through. She's being picked on again. She should be allowed to lie. wah wah. She sits with Scaife the devil himself for an interview after Scaife, spending millions of his own money to dig up dirt on the Clinton's. To me this shows no morals at all. wah wah wah. Quit saying bad stuff about Hillary even though it's the truth wah wah wah. You have the Bush backers no matter how he screws the country up they still back him. Then you got the Clinton backers they can lie your ears off but they still back them. Pitiful. Hillary the pro choice Republican
Kim,
NON FOX on the video:
MSNBC: Hosts: Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough and worst of all Chris Matthews (see here for more on Matthews' sexism).
Guest: Mike Barnicle
CNN Jack Cafferty
CNN Headline News Glenn Beck
As far as Olbermann goes, again his constant criticism of Hillary comes in the context of his constant slagging of female starlets who he's called "hos" more than once (he seems to have a real problem that they have [gasp] sex). The worst example of this was this:
Keith Olbermann stays classy by reporting that Paris Hilton has "had worse things happen to her face" than being punched. And you know exactly what he means. Also note the lovely "A Slut and Battery" graphic. For shame.
Video here.
Cause hitting a woman is FUNNY if she's a SLUT!
Then there's his calling colleague Rita Cosby “dumber than a suitcase of rocks,” and smashing an Ann Coulter doll to pieces on air to the point where it was disturbing even to me who can't stand Coulter.
And, of course him joking that calling Hillary a "monster" isn't really a problem if she really is one.
Now, in that context let's see how Keith Olbermann handled two different controversies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3v7ON5XdA
Notice any differences in tone?
But actually I guess that I should celebrate the fact that sexism no longer exists and if it did, it has no effect on anything. Hooray!
Anonymous 10:48,
If you noticed the vast amount of video clips/images were not calling Hillary out on any issue. They were just sexist jabs. But apparently it's OK for progressives to ignore sexism as long as it's against Hillary. Sorry I guess that I didn't get that memo.
As far as her meeting with Scaife, if Obama had done this it would be proof that he can bring people together and work with Republicans and you'd be singing Kumbaya.
As far as lies go:
Somehow though, a resulting "honesty" issue is only Hillary's problem. Barack Obama can misremember the circumstances of his birth. He can misstate the role Kennedy played in his family's journey to America. He can keep revising upward how much money his campaign accepted from Tony Rezko. He can blame his old Illinois Senate campaign staff for incorrectly stating his positions regarding issues on a questionnaire he turned in during one of his Chicago political races, until evidence emerged in Obama's own handwriting showing Obama worked on those answers himself. Obama can take credit in speeches for passing nuclear related legislation that didn't actually pass the Senate. Obama campaigned saying his campaign had nothing to do with lobbyists until it came out that a lobbyist was a key part of his own campaign in a state he was hotly contesting (NH), at which point Obama simply said that he meant Federal, not State, lobbyists only. Bottom line; all candidates "lie" and virtually all message board posters do too. To update the old cliché: "Lies happen".
I'll quote an Obama supporter on an Obama blog now:
I don't disagree generally... )
...about Hillary's credibility issue.However, I strongly recommend everyone read Digby on this very topic.
First they came for the Gore because of the Internet Inventing, and I did nothing.
Then they came for the Kerry because he shot a Vietnamese kid in the back in 'Nam, and I did nothing.
Then they came for Hillary because of this fuzzy health care story, and I did nothing.
And when they came for Obama because he's Muslim/traitor/elitist/daintybowler, I didn't have a principled leg to stand on when I howled at the media's stenography.
We need to be very, very careful here.
by Penman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM PDT[ Parent | Reply to This ]
Not a comment on sexist , but interesting from Fastcheck: (read the breakdown on the site)
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?
We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:
It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.
It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.
It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.
It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.
Maria-- I am a bit appalled that you would put forth a defense of Paris Hilton in context of an argument for Senator Clinton. Paris Hilton's actions richly deserve ridicule. Senator Clinton should not be mentioned in the same argument. Mr. Olberman (sp?) ridicules men (Michael Jackson and Larry Craig come to mind) equally with ridiculing Ms Hilton and other absurd so-called "celebrities". Surely you are not suggesting that Ms Hilton's failure to appear in Court and her claim that now she would do good on Larry King (which she hasn't done) are not grist for ridicule simply because she happens to be female. I strongly reject such paternalism.
Second, a great deal of anger was created when Chris Matthews suggested that Senator Clinton was where she is because of the scandals of the 1990's and her marriage to a former President. Although I disagree with this and it was poorly phrased, it is a legitimate critique which required a well-reasoned refutation. Crying "foul" does not constitute any response; and, hence, this critique remains intact. This argument exists, not b/c Senator Clinton is female, but solely because Senator Clinton is married to a former President who was impeached against the will of the majority of the general public. Mr. Matthews has indeed made sexist comments, but the over-reaction to a legitimate (though poorly phrased) critique makes holding him accountable for the subsequent garbage more difficult.
Joe Scarborough is a Republican mouthpiece advancing a Republican agenda. I already dealt with nut-man Glen Beck. Tucker Carlson is his own unique speciman, but although he has been critical, it is usually without sexist remarks.
As for the media's "sexism" hurting Senator Clinton, this is false. The media believed Senator Clinton would be the Democratic nominee right up until the #'s from the Iowa caucuses arrived. The allegedly anti-Senator Clinton media also continues to advance Senator Clinton's candidacy by falsely maintaining that this contest is at all close.
In fact, Senator Obama holds an almost insurmountable lead. Senator Obama leads in contests won (30-16); he leads in big states (9-6); he leads in small states (20-7); even if you include FL & MI, he leads by 118 in pledged delegates; he leads in so-called blue states (12-7); he leads in so-called red states (16-9); and, he leads in caucus states (14-1). He continues to lead in the popular vote even if you include FL & MI by 212,000+ votes and his name was not on the ballot in MI. A do-over in MI would only increase this popular vote lead since he now has "0" votes from MI.
http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-vs-obama-stats.html
The media has conveniently forgotten what we all used to know-- Georgia, Virginia and Missouri are BIG states! The media has conveniently forgotten the parameter for a big state used before this election is 70+ delegates. The media has also failed to notify many that victory in Texas is at best split, and probably actually now belongs to Senator Obama (by 5 delegates).
Senator Clinton cannot overtake Senator Obama's lead unless she wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina by 65% of the vote and wins all other contests by 64%.
Senator Clinton has won one state by such a margin -- Arkansas. Have you heard this from the so-called anti-Senator Clinton media? No.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
So, if you want 3/4 of the superdelegates to take this away from the actual voters and hand the nomination to Senator Clinton, please get them to do this soon. If the superdelegates do this, it will divide the Democratic party and it will take much more than 2 months to put the party back together again.
If we wait until the convention for the superdelegates to determine that the majority of voters in this Country must be ignored, we can be certain that we will have 4 more years of the last 7+ and quite frankly I am uncertain if I can bear another 4 years. How about you?
Now, we come to the real question--Why are some Democrats unable, or unwilling to appreciate the truly amazing accomplishments of Senator Obama in this campaign season? Why do we hear that the extraordinary involvement of young people is bad, that the energy is "cult-like," and that the motivation is "delusional" from some Democrats? Objectively, one would think all Democrats would be ecstatic that so many have so much energy for a Democratic victory.
Whatever its causes, I know this dismissal of an amazing Democratic phenomenom is not based on racism. AND I know (having been in the volunteer trenches) that Senator Obama's success has nothing to do with sexism.
All that I ask is that we all think and if we do, a Democrat will be in the Oval Office on January 9, 2009. I would like that Democrat to be Senator Obama.
If you cannot abide Senator Obama, please get the superdelegates to act soon. Otherwise, try and decipher why it is that so many are so energetic, motivated and hopeful about his Presidency -- I can assure you it is not delusion, cult affiliation or sexism that drives this phenomena.
I also assure you that the media has in no way explained, or augmented this phenomena by endlessly looping 3 out of context statements from a 30+ ministry of a man who is not seeking any office, referring to bad bowling performances or talking about "tingles" in their legs.
--Kim
I just wrote a long reply to a specific post aimed at me, but then I saw something else that I could not let pass.
If Senator Obama had met with Richard Mellon Scaiffe as Senator Clinton did I would be appalled.
Richard Mellon Scaiffe attempted to destroy Senator Clinton and her entire family. Richard Mellon Scaiffe almost succeeded in a coup d'etat against all of us, you know, us simple American people. My discovery of Richard Mellon Scaiffe's various horrific intrigues (which include an audio-tape a Republican friend gave me in which Mr. Scaiffe's operatives accuse the Clintons of unbelievable horrors-- without the slightest scintilla of proof and rather akin to claiming the world is flat-- led me to leave the Republican party and become an independent. Senator Obama brought me once and for all into the Democratic party fold.
If you can find a way to forgive Richard Mellon Scaiffe, I have to wonder if you are even remotely aware of what he did to the Clintons and what he tried to do to our Country.
I can find absolutely no reason why Senator Clinton would sit in the same room with him unless it was to present him with a lawsuit for slander, defamation and obstruction of justice.
--Kim
Obama or Hilliary have a snow balls chance in hell of ever doing any of the things causing us to swoon. My new bumper sticker will read: VOTE REPUBLICAN - LET THEM CLEAN UP THEIR OWN SHIT!" We can't undo this mess in four, even eght years. Thank the Bush Empire.
Kim,
" I am a bit appalled that you would put forth a defense of Paris Hilton in context of an argument for Senator Clinton. Paris Hilton's actions richly deserve ridicule. Senator Clinton should not be mentioned in the same argument. Mr. Olberman (sp?) ridicules men (Michael Jackson and Larry Craig come to mind) equally with ridiculing Ms Hilton and other absurd so-called "celebrities". Surely you are not suggesting that Ms Hilton's failure to appear in Court and her claim that now she would do good on Larry King (which she hasn't done) are not grist for ridicule simply because she happens to be female. I strongly reject such paternalism."
I strongly object to thinking that it's OK to laugh at a woman who said she was punched in the face and calling her a SLUT on top of it. There's plenty of reasons to ridicule Paris, but I'm APPALLED that you would defend this bit of "humor."
And, yes, when Olbermann is not slagging women, he likes to slag men who may have had sex with other men. Not exactly a plus.
As for the rest of your comments: I'm so sorry that you that you think we have too much democracy and that Hillary must step aside and deny 10 more states their votes.
"If you cannot abide Senator Obama..."
Never said that. To the contrary, I have said that I will support the nominee. And, anyone who knows me knows that that means volunteer for them, not just vote for them.
Actually, I was willing to play it right down the middle on this blog -- that is until all the Obama supporters started coming here and crapping all over Hillary. Of course, I'm "unseemly" if I dare criticize Obama.
As you seem to be unable to understand, one needn't be an Obama supporter to dump all over Sen. Clinton. She gives people (like me, for example) plenty of reasons to dump with no help from anyone else.
Please explain why why it is wrong to point out obvious sexism directed aginst Clinton or any other women.
Anyone?
Please explain why why it is wrong to point out obvious sexism directed aginst Clinton or any other women.
Answered here.
Maria has said: Actually, I was willing to play it right down the middle on this blog -- that is until all the Obama supporters started coming here and crapping all over Hillary. Of course, I'm "unseemly" if I dare criticize Obama.
I feel a lot of "ganging up" on HRC support is happening, not just here. Obama people are very defensive and mean in their counter-arguments. I don't like Obam because I don't think he can think "originally" Just like in todays Pgh. Post article on Hillary - they report her condemning Obama for his "wait and see" attitude on the Olympic boycott. That's what he always does. In the debates, his answers came directly from Hillary's first go at the question. He couldn't even take a stand against a crazy old preacher for the sake of his own family. 20 years he had to put up with the old hater because he needed his political support. I say He is an opportunist with a private agenda (pushed by his wife) to become the most signifacant black family in America.
Thank you for taking the time to create a blog post on the video "Mad as Hell/Bitch".
The video was created by two grassroots supporters who met online, IndyRobin and GeekLove08. It took 4 weeks to create the video as we were collaborating via e-mail and we had a lot of material to work with. Both of us are fairly new to YouTube-- I started to create videos in February and this was IndyRobin's first video.
We believe that the message of misogyny, as well as the character assassination of Hillary Clinton, by the media is an important one. We are "mad as hell" that television has become what Edward R. Murrow had warned about in 1958 when he said "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."
Thanks to people like you, the video has gone "viral" spreading through the internet, and perhaps inspiring people to speak out against the media.
If you and/or your readers have the opportunity, we would appreciate it very much if you could go to the original video post on YouTube and RATE the video, post a COMMENT on the video, and FAVORITE the video. These actions will help the video earn YouTube "honors" which may help further promote the video online. (You can get to the YouTube site for the video by double clicking the video on your blog.)
Thanks again for your post.
GeekLove08
P.S. The video is NOT an anti-Obama video, but rather a video against the media bias. No matter who one supports, this type of character assassination and sexism by the media should not be tolerated. However, for those who do support Hillary Clinton, a donation to her campaign, for those who can afford it, would be great. There is a donation link on YouTube. The donation link appears when you click "More info" that appears next to the video information "Added: April 06, 2008". I will also try to post a link here too -- Click to Donate. Thanks.
Post a Comment