Race Doesn’t Trump Gender But Self-Righteousness Trumps Reason
by Latoya Peterson
I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter.
I support Barack Obama for many reasons.
I do not think Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ, but I do not believe that she would be as good of a president as Barack Obama. My reasons for this are policy, international response, and how the campaigns were run.
It does not have anything to do with Hillary Clinton’s gender.
However, I am noticing a very troubling trend emerging – that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are not making a strong enough case for her to be President. If I go on a pro-Clinton blog, half of their posts are bashing Obama. Now, I am not saying that Obama devotees are any different. Like I said, there are a lot of folks that got pruned from my blogroll since they seem dedicated to defending sexist or racist statements in the name of a fucking presidential campaign.
The campaigns are important.
But we survived eight years of Bush. Clearly, we’re gonna be alright.
Clinton is subject to attacks based in her gender. This is an indisputable fact.
Obama is subject to attacks based on his race. This is an indisputable fact.
Both things are pervasive, yes.
So if things are so pervasive, it shouldn’t be hard to come up with some examples now should it?
I do not support Hillary Clinton.
When the election started, I was fine with either candidate. At this point in the race, if Hillary gets the nod, I am going to seriously research if it is better to throw support behind a third party candidate or start a write in campaign.
But even still, I was able to find FIVE examples MINIUM OF EFFORT.
Roll tape:
Cara from the Curvature mentioned Obama’s sexism before with a link. So I went back to her blog.
She points to Obama participating in a SNL sketch that is construed as sexist. While he does not participate directly in Hillary-bashing, he is still a part of the sketch. She is luke warm on this one.
Also via Cara:
The Politico – Obama asks why Hillary, the front runner, wants to play the victim?
The second option is the one that Barack Obama went with when he said the following while campaigning in Wisconsin:
This is, I understand Senator Clinton periodically when she is feeling down launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.
And that’s exactly what’s happened — all over the place, when anyone has objected to this statement as a sexist dogwhistle, they’ve been accused of overreacting. Of trivializing *real* sexism. Of seeing things that aren’t really there. Of stretching. Of ignoring context. Of simply being in the tank for Clinton (pay no attention to that double standard behind the curtain! The fact that some of the most vehement denials of sexism are coming from Obama supporters is mere coincidence!).
In other words, of being the exact same sort of overemotional and inconsequential person that Obama’s dogwhistle made Clinton out to be. Of being someone whose opinions and perceptions don’t matter, because everyone knows how women are.
And here’s what I remember:
*”The claws come out” comment mentioned at a speech or a rally.
*Obama staffer calls Hillary a monster.
Five examples and I DON’T LIKE HILLARY THE CANDIDATE. And you’re seriously telling me that no one can find concrete examples and string them together in a way that makes sense? Seriously? If I was Hillary Clinton, I would be fucking embarrassed. You support me but can only attack the other candidate? And you can’t provide examples when someone was being sexist toward Hillary?
Contrast this with the Clinton Attacks Obama wiki:
Guide
The Incident Tracker Page
Resources
Guide
The Incidents
#1 Barack Obama May Have Been a Drug Dealer!
#2 Actually, LBJ Did it
#3 I can’t make her… black?
#4 Imaginary Hip Black Friend
#5 Mandela
#6 Shuck and Jive
#7 BET Founder Bob Johnson Attacks
#8 Three Volunteers Resign for Spreading MADRASSA EMAIL
#9 Bob Kerrey and his Dog Whistle
#10 Beautiful Symbol
#11 Fairy Tale & Kid
#12 False Hopes
#13 Bill Clinton’s Charlie Rose Interview
#14 I just don’t want to see us fall backwards
#15 Andrew Young Says Bill is every bit as black as Obama
#16 Clinton Team Quietly Raise Obama’s Cocaine Use
#17 Geraldine Ferraro Blames Obama for Race Talk
#18 Charlie Rangel Blames Obama for Race Talk
#19 Rangel: Obama put drug use in book to sell books
#20 The Spadework Comment on The Today Show
#21 The “Spadework” Comment in JULY 2007
#21 Playing on the Obama-will-be-assassinated fears
#22 Hillary Shufflin’ about Bob Johnson
#23- Black and Brown Instigation
#24- Lawd, the Black Man will DOOM..DOOM the entire ticket
#25-State Senator Robert Ford on Obama’s Iowa Victory
#26- Obama’s got 99 Problems
#27- Vetting Obama
#28 Earl Ofari Hutchinson Says Obama Should Apologize To Hillary
#29 Attempted Disenfranchisement of Nevada Caucus-Goers
#30 Obama Unwilling to take a stand on choice
#31 I’m in an interracial relationship
#32- Bill Clinton says people in South Carolina will vote for Obama only because he’s black
#33- “Obama is a Good House Negro.”
#34- Bill Clinton: Hillary-McCain would be “most civilized” election in American History
#35 Bill Clinton: S.C.? No problem, Obama = Jesse Jackson
#36 Bill Clinton: “Not one single solitary citizen has asked me about this”
#37 Star Jones Says That Bill Clinton Is Just Defending His Woman
#38 Obama echoes “message of blunt racial division”
#39 “Hate Springs Eternal” — and it’s Obama’s supporters’ fault
#40 -Clinton Camp Spreads ‘ Obama has a CULT’ Memo
#41 – Obama is BLACK and White folk won’t vote for him
#42 – Barack Obama and his Magic Technicolor Dream-Wand
#43- Obama is a Scary Muslim Once Again
#44 – Obama is Jesse Jackson Once Again
#45-Geraldine Ferraro: Obama is LUCKY to be Black
#46-Bill Clinton: what happened in SC is a “myth and a mugging”
#47 ‘Not that I know of’!
Forty-fucking-seven. I don’t agree with everything that’s on J & J’s list. But they HAVE ONE! And I don’t agree with the interpretation of all five examples listed for Hillary. But those can be argued.
Whether or not you agree with the assessments, a case can be made. Jack and Jill has a table to discuss the incident, provide evidence, provide context, and discuss counterarguments.
And you can’t do that?
It is not enough to say “oh, it happens daily.”
It is not enough to say “It’s everywhere.”
If it is as you say, provide some facts!
If I were to talk about how Asian Americans are targeted in America, and I just say “it happens daily,” who the fuck is going to take me seriously? No one. Now, if I point them to this blog, or Jenn’s blog, or Angry Asian’s Man’s blog and they can see these conversations, and see the problems with the model minority myth, and see the instances of delivery men being killed on the job and kids being beaten up on school buses after having anti-asian slurs hurled at them, then I have a case.
It is not “perpetuating” anything to ask for some clearly stated facts or examples.
It’s what you do if you are a supporter.
I support Barack Obama and I can point to (1) his policy, (2) racist attacks in the media and from Clinton surrogates, and (3) the way he manages his campaign as reasons why I support him. I’m a supporter. I’ve done my research. This is not difficult for me.
Can you truly call yourself a supporter if you can’t represent for your candidate?
ETA: That’s what I get for typing while pissed. Fixed the title, some links. I also want to mention that there are HRC supporters who make their case well, like Zuzu from Feministe. She’s not perfect, but she makes a good case. Same deal with lowercase tasha here in our comments. And, on a related topic, if certain HRC supporters are angry about sexism aimed toward Hillary, where’s their impassioned defense of Michelle?
(Photo credit: The Washington Post site.)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Feminist Punk! wrote:
Please, God, PLEASE GOD, let Obama win the Democrat ticket.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Good job Latoya, but what do I know, I’m a sexist Man of Color who never gets called on it
/Snark
Posted 06 May 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
“And you’re seriously telling me that no one can find concrete examples and string them together in a way that makes sense?”
I’m not telling you that:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-sexism-watch.html
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=858
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004041541&zsection_id=2003956730&slug=hillaryslurs29&date=20071129
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=c28a43517e4da9b6&ex=1200114000&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/po/2008/04/22/
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:07 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Octogalore –
And this was all I was asking for. Less baseless assumptions, more links. Like I said in the piece, not hard.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:09 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
I would really like to see some people step up to defend Michelle Obama. She’s getting hammered the same way that HRC was back in ‘92, and it’s awful to see how little’s changed.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
I think it’s fair to ask about why not defend Michelle Obama from sexist attacks. But I don’t see what the Hitchens article is a good example. I’m no big Hitchens fan, but the article doesn’t appear to me to be making any gender-related statements about Michelle, but instead to be attempting to link her views in her thesis about Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton to the Wright situation. That may be problematic for other reasons, but it doesn’t strike me as sexist.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Octogalore – See I read that whole piece as “uppity black woman is the good black man’s downfall since she won’t toe the fucking line” but we’re coming from different spots on this one…
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:15 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
Octagolore
Not many of these admittedly egregious sexist acts have come directly from the Obama Campaign or there actual surrogates, so forgive me for not biting on the pump fake
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-sexism-watch.html
There are many more, and that list has been updated and added to:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty-four.html
I’ve got a long list, myself, that only begins with the great “crying” incident, but I don’t have a blog. And more significantly, I’ve found that no one wants to listen to it, or cares, or believes that its sexism.
This one was particularly memorable though, and worth relinking to:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/21/oh-for-the-love-of-god/
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:26 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:
Slush, the object of the exercise is to find statements from Obama and his camp that are sexist. General media being sexist is a given.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:46 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
Latoya — no argument that Hitchens is sexist. Isn’t he the one who argued that women aren’t funny? (I think he may have excepted Jewish and Lesbian women). I’m just not sure this article is the best example of that, since he’s also made disparaging remarks that we’d be getting Bill along with Hill. I’m familiar with the uppity-woman thing as well as the uppity-WOC thing, certainly — but IMO we can find better examples.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
The purpose of this exercise is to find statements and actions by Obama or his surrogates, or are the MSM now part of the Obama Cabal in the eyes of Saint Hillary’s fans?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶
baltogeek wrote:
The only good thing I can say about this infighting amongst the feminist movement is that it’s giving women like me who previously felt guilty about not being more involved in the movement a long good look at the bigotry some of the folks involved.
Where I felt guilt before now I feel relieved that I didn’t waste my time and money on such nonsense.
Maybe this whole thing has been a painful thing to experience because we are seeing the death of a part of the movement that was corrupt anyway.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:33 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Lloyd Webber:If you’re only going to count statements made by Obama/people claiming to speak for his campaign, then are you not accepting of Latoya’s anti-Obama list? Those examples come from all over the place. Which is fine, I think it’s relevant anyway that he has more supporters in the newsmedia. I’m going to quote myself here from the previous thread:
“It’s not fair to hold her responsible for her supporters(and she did distance herself from Ferraro and even Bill) if one is not willing to tie Obama to things said by his supporters.
Sexist remarks about Clinton have come right out of Obama’s mouth. He’s said the race wouldn’t be over until she dropped out. He said he doesn’t know which Clinton he’s running against(Does he wonder if he or his wife is running for office?) He said of Clinton “Criticizing her unites the party” He took the kitchen sink metaphor and twisted it, described her as an hysterical woman throwing dishes, china, the buffet, while he dodges. He played the Jay Z song 99 problems (and a bitch ain’t one) at a campaign rally. Obama has never apologized for the overt sexism that comes from his supporters or himself. When he contents himself to remain the beneficiary of male privilege, when the men in my life encourage me to see each sting as about “THAT woman, not all women” I have to call bullshit. And it doesn’t take away at all from calling out the racism in this campaign to acknowledge that sexism exists and Hillary Clinton has been the victim of it.”
Some people called me out for the Jay-Z thing, which apparantly was a rumor. I accept that But I believe the rest still stand. These are only the things I remembered off the top of my head but I plan to post something more rigorous later if I have time(direct quotes, links)
Posted 06 May 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Marge –
Sexist remarks about Clinton have come right out of Obama’s mouth.
Okay, let’s run these through the paces.
He’s said the race wouldn’t be over until she dropped out.
Challenge. Please provide a timetable on this statement, because from where I sit, he’s right. If he said this early on, I can see the implication. But my hunch is he said this after the delegate math and his winning streak.
He said he doesn’t know which Clinton he’s running against(Does he wonder if he or his wife is running for office?)
Challenge. That would be a sexist statment if Bill was sitting quitely in the background, but he’s not. He has made direct attacks on Obama (see Wiki) which would logically prompt that comment.
He said of Clinton “Criticizing her unites the party”
Source please, but that one stands.
He took the kitchen sink metaphor and twisted it, described her as an hysterical woman throwing dishes, china, the buffet, while he dodges.
Source please – withholding challenge/standing until I get the actual quote.
He played the Jay Z song 99 problems (and a bitch ain’t one) at a campaign rally.
Challenge, that’s a rumor.
Obama has never apologized for the overt sexism that comes from his supporters or himself.
And Clinton’s never apologized for the racism. Obama fired Samantha Power, what has Clinton done?
Sexism exists, but my hunch is if we compare the two lists from J & J and Shakesville side to side, more of HRCs attacks came from the media and more of Obama’s attacks came from Clinton surrogates.
Also, a note on lanuguage.
Language is nuanced and tricky to actually categorize as having a hostile intent. There are some definite sexist attacks made, but I feel like some are a stretch.
Some words that seem fine on their face but have roots in racist connotations are “articulate” and “inscrutable.” So in terms of language, all I am seeing in terms of sexism was the “claws out” reference. Let me know if I am missing something.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:
Most of the jack and jill stuff comes *directly* from hillary and her supporters, not the media.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
I’ll accept this one thing. When Obama made the claws remark, I cringed, but other than that he has been extremely restrained. Certainly a lot more restrained than I would have been in the face of such an onslaught (The worst been “He’s not a muslim…as far as I know)
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:10 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
Well, the most recent and obvious (and bizarre) use of gender in this race comes from the Clinton camp’s repeated reference to Hillary as having testicles. if Hillary “gave [Obama] one of her cojones, they’d both have two; ” said carville.
i suppose this ties into the 3am ad (which in turn tied into the obama as a secret maddrassa attending muslim meme pushed by the clinton camp) and constitutes an attempt to emasculate obama as not ready to be commander in chief.
as a political junkie you almost have to admire clintons dexterity, simultaneously benefiting from her gender (NH tear-up) while appropriating stereotypes associated with the other gender. She really does have balls.
interestingly, bucking racial stereotypes, obama has been somewhat desexualized, as opposed to bubba and mccain. i think hillary knows this and sees it as a potential weakness.
its probably too late though, she needed to define him as an effeminate che Guevara sympathizing radical before he rattled off 12 straight victories.
obama needs to tact to the right after he gets the nomination, maybe admire reagans anti-communism and throw an emotional bone to the libertarians and moderate republicans just dying for an excuse to vote for him.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
All-American Girl wrote:
Thank you, Marge Twain for that.
I think the call to find overt acts of Obama’s sexism is specious at best. Why? Because one of the things that makes sexism (and racism and most other -isms for that matter) so hard to eradicate is its insidious nature. Like: So Obama “only” asks if he’s running against Bill, right? I mean, that’s not sexist really, huh? Because he doesn’t even mention Hillary, so how can it be sexist? And on and on.
Obama is inoffensive at best; I’m still voting for Clinton.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:14 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
All – American Girl –
Again, we are all well aware of how insidious things are.
We are also aware of how things can be construed as being an -ism when they aren’t.
No one here is arguing that Hillary hasn’t been subject to sexist attacks – but we are arguing where those attacks came from and asking for evidence, which was provided.
As to the “is he running against Hill or Bill” comment, see my notes above.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Tina Fey’s ‘Bitch is the new black’ speech on SNL. Clinton LOVED that statement and lots of people started repeating it. I was already annoyed by Fey’s heterosexism in Mean Girls but ‘bitch is the new black’ really blew my mind, as does the whole blackface thing they’ve got going on with Obama over there.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:25 pm ¶
baltogeek wrote:
jvansteppes, you didn’t get the memo.
It’s not blackface it’s “honeyface” and therefore that makes it non-racist.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶
Keren wrote:
Shakesville has a list of 90 sexist attacks on Clinton so far. They may not all have come from the Obama camp, but neither does the list above all above come from the Clinton camp, and how many from the mouth of Hilary herself?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:40 pm ¶
Redstar wrote:
Clinton supporter defending Michelle Obama:
http://www.grahamad.com/blog/2008/02/19/why-ill-never-be-president/#more-808
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Redstar wrote:
Here’s another brief one:
http://www.grahamad.com/blog/2008/02/20/the-msm-sets-its-sights-on-another-strong-woman/
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Nicely done, Redstar. I was sorry to see your blog go…
Posted 06 May 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
Cara wrote:
Yeah, I think that a large majority of the sexist attacks on Clinton are coming from Obama supporters, the media, and some John McCain supporters, of course, as well. The media has been really misogynistic, as others have provided links for. Obama has participated in sexism — the shit from the Politico article still pisses me off — but I do think that it’s a lot less than Clinton has participated in racism, and the sexism from the Obama camp is a hell of a lot more subtle than the racism from Clinton’s. I actually think that I’ve written more about racism than sexism during this election cycle . . . though honestly, I find the whole campaign to be exhausting at this point and haven’t written much about it in some time.
Of course, I’ve made it clear that I’m an Obama supporter. But I’m also a feminist writer. I write about racism on a fairly regular basis, but I write about sexism/misogyny daily. I’m honestly a lot better at picking up prejudice against women than I am at picking up prejudice against black men. And directly from the two campaigns, I’m seeing a hell of a lot more racism. (And there is a good number of feminists, though really only a small minority, who have gotten pissed off at me and others for expressing that.)
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:05 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
Sorry there’s nothing to see here. TRUST me on this: if Obama said something sexist about Hillary I’d be the first to condemn him for it. I am still mad at him for not defending Michelle against the Bill O’Reilly lynching comment. There is nothing – what an individual person says or a blogger is on that person, not the candidate. Now let’s talk about the voter suppression by the Women Voter group run by Clinton supports and ex-employees, the admission by McCain that fighting in Iraq was for oil [big surprise there], the latest Carville emasculation/hypersexuality meme and the thousand of people who’ve perished in Myanmar. You know…real ISSUES. Anyone that does not want to admit Clinton’s nefarious behavior by her AND her direct supports/surrogates/campaign staff condones it and all the Obama is sexist so it’s ok and doesn’t count needs to accept the reason for their support has to do with something OTHER than policy issues.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
MNC wrote:
Latoya,
I agree with you 100% I’d like to add to your concrete list of reasons why this voter will not vote Hillary(even if she is the nominee. ):
1.She’s lovingly embraced the very folks she claims created a “vast right wing conspiracy” to destroy her husbands presidential term. To make it worse-she did so to lock up the white racist voting block that would never vote Obama anyway nor for any candidate that wasn’t white.
2. She’s proven to have the morals of a squirrel with a damned soul by consistently lying about NAFTA, Bosnia, and anything else that may hurt her chances to win. She has no ethics and no morals-we’ve already had enough of lying presidents dragging the country down for the last few years.
3. She’s happily padded her resume and continues to run on her husband’s presidential record as long as it aids her in her quest for victory, but when it becomes problematic or when people point out that fact, we become sexists and haters of the most legendary kind.
4. Google her relationship with Monsanto foods and big Agribusiness and tell me again about how she fights for the little man.
5. She tried to blame Bush for a plant in Indiana her husband shut down-google Magnequench and then do me a favor and file this under #2.
I have more but it makes my head hurt because of how many people are falling for this crap AGAIN.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 4:33 pm ¶
juju wrote:
I support neither candidate.
In my limited attention to this election, I have seen sexism coming from the Obama camp, and racism coming from the Clinton camp. For those who don’t see this, I wonder if support for your respective candidate clouds your vision.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:13 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
The sheer list speaks for itself. Obama’s said one or two fucked up things, but the volume of racist dogwhistles from the Clinton campaign is there for everyone to see. Obama isn’t responsible for the sexism against Hillary in the media.
Furthermore, his comment about him not knowing who he’s running against isn’t sexist. Bill was a vocal presence on the trail, the campaigns’ most vocal attack dog. He was part of Hillary blurring their records together.
Calling Obama’s remark “sexist” is basically saying she can run on Bill’s platform and we all have to pretend she’s equally responsible for everything he did as president, except for NAFTA or any other 1990s position she’s trying to distance herself from.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:25 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
When this race first started I didn’t know who to support. And honestly, I was hoping for a good competition for votes. Like Tami, I’ve become jaded by the slime from every angle but more so from the Clinton campaign. I know enough that someone who is willing to racialize this election process is more than willing to racialize issues that affect people of color and in particular black folks. For that reason I cannot in good conscience support Clinton.
This is not to say I’m going to vote for Obama or that I see him as some Messiah of race relations. No. I know based on the fact that he is black, he will never be able to be progressive about issues as I would like and he has still to speak in-depth about the issues that matter to me.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:49 pm ¶
flabbyabby wrote:
To baltogeek well done you put that so much better than I could have as for you Marge how about the HISTORY of white males attacking black people in this country while white females not only stood by approvingly but often JOINED IN as well. Where was the feminazi heiarchy to criticize their white sisters for that behavior?!! And no matter how YOU try to spin it the fact of the matter still remains that whatever ’sexism’ argument is trumped by the fact that you are STILL A WHITE FEMALE IN AMERICA!! And that fact alone affords you privileges and opportunities and countless other dignities that don’t come so easily to the people or experiences you keep trying to compare yourself to. And if THAT’S TRULY the case then why is it when black male athletes are caught drinking and driving the media as well as the public want to throw them UNDER the jail but let that be some Hollywood harlot I mean starlet doing the same thing or some white supermodel we’re all supposed to feel ’sorry’ for them or ‘pray for them’ because they have a ‘disease’ and therefore can’t be held responsible WTF?!! And how many black or Hispanic or Arab women have used the ‘post-partum’ defense or would have so-called ‘feminist’ groups RUSHING to defend them. Or have black male athletes who have been falsely accused by a white female of rape would have THEIR prosecutor put on trial and have the public outcry that they were ‘railroaded’. I don’t deny that white females also don’t suffer ’second-class citizen’ status but YOU ALL also have white privilege and from what I’ve seen you do everything humanly possible to balance them out. So what exactly are you complaining for?!!
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:52 pm ¶
flabbyabby wrote:
I meant to say ‘don’t suffer’
Posted 06 May 2008 at 6:55 pm ¶
*M* wrote:
Im am so tired of all this fighting, the democrats dont win and accomplish anything beacuse we are not organized like the republicans. It really does not matter at this point, just flip a coin, they are both going to end up on the ticket anyway because it would be a horrible, tragic, unforgivable mistake to alienate half of the democratic party. I don’t care anymore who wins, I just want a democratic president. I would have been happy with the tiny man with the hot wife.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 7:14 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Sewere–can I join your fan club, friend?:-D Seriously though, co-sign.
@ flabbyabby–I feel your sentiment about white women needing to examine their complicity in the attacks on people of color. I’m absolutely not down with calling feminists “feminazis.” I’m not cool with co-opting the Right’s slurs. What next? Abortionist are “baby-killers”? LGBTIQ folks are “sodomites?” Jeez, friend…
Posted 06 May 2008 at 7:59 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Here’s a good way to parse out the effect of prejudices on the election. Conduct a survey on the number of people who do not want to see a black person or a woman as president. Whichever category has the highest will finally answer the question on the Oppression Olympics. Agreed?
Oh any other social science researchers out there willing to chime in?
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:01 pm ¶
mr guy wrote:
I’ve been reading a bunch of forums and blogs with hill and O supporters over the last few months,and I’m really surprised with all the infighting and accusations thrown at each other between the anti-racist and feminist activists.But it kind of seems more like partisan politics between the two democrats.Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there is no sexism or racism there.But the whole situation feels odd.You would think it was a republican vs democrat battle going on.I figured people would be happy in a historical situation like this.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:13 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
I wasn’t too committed either way, finally (Super Tuesday) got off the fence and pulled the lever for Obama. I have been appalled at the infighting and highly resentful when HRC or her campaign said something like “better McCain than Obama”. She’s run a nastier campaign, and while that might get her the nomination, I am seriously concerned that she has turned off potential voters. Obama has kept my provisional respect, HRC now is merely the lesser of two evils when compared with McCain. Neither Democrat is The Second Coming.
I am thoroughly sick of the negativism coming from blog-land, both ways. STFU and look ahead to support the Democratic candidate, because no matter what, a D. is (at least minimally) more accountable than an R. And I just don’t want McCain to have his hands near the Nuclear Option – I’d rather deal with sexism and racism between putative allies, than thoughts of Armageddon.
Hitchens is a lush. A sot. A mean drunk.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:22 pm ¶
mr guy wrote:
P.S.
I also think all of this arguing between hill and o supporters, as well as feminist and anti-racist activist will be moot by next year.McCain will probably win no matter what.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 8:44 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
well, its all over now baby blue states. obama’s got the nom. clinton needed 2 wins to change the game.
she fought hard. she fought ugly. it was racist and xenephobic and the clinton legacy will never be the same.
but obama has survived. its good to have october surprises dropped in march. he’s vetted and what does not kill you makes you stronger. hillary did him a favor.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 9:02 pm ¶
EH wrote:
Eh the entire thing is getting tired. A year ago I didn’t really care and I wasn’t even going to vote but the Clinton campaign started to turn me off with their behavior.
It wasn’t just the race baiting Billary and her surrogates were engaging in, but putting McCain on a pedestal to make Obama look bad was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. Bosnia, NAFTA, etc. Did she ever even denounce and reject that Ferraro after she made her remarks about Obama being the Affirmative Action candidate or did she basically just ignore it?
I also didn’t like how she talked about experience/ready on day one yet when it came to her ‘experience’ she’d pick and choose what ‘past experience’ she’d claim as her own and which she would deny if it was politically inconvenient.
And the most recent thing that’s really irritated me is how she’s basically trying to make the argument to Superdelegates (not publicly) that they should choose her because racist working class whites won’t vote for Obama. I’m not sure if it’s been discussed or not but I haven’t seen or heard of Obama surrogates trying to convince the superdelegates to nominate him since she has basically no African-American support at this point (ok well like 15%).
Not that I think the Obama campaign has a halo around it’s head but I think it was obvious to a lot of people starting back in March whose campaign was slinging more mud.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 9:25 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Thanks for bringing the “Bitch is the new Black” problem back into the conversation, even if for just a little bit. It was hugely problematic and what was worse, they got away with it! But we have to talk about Rev. Wright till the chickens come home to roost, and no one says anything about Tina “Entertainment Weekly Cover Girl” Fey. And I like Tina Fey! But that crossed a line for me that is painfully racist and NO ONE talked about it. NO ONE! Not even here, where I expected it to have it’s own post. But I digress.
I think that fewer people have come out as openly, blatantly sexist in an effort to support Obama than people who have come out as openly, blatantly racist in support of HRC. And when people close to him cross the line, Obama fires them.
And, this campaign has been racialized and even though HRC supporters clim that it wasn’t her/her campaigns doing, her campaign has certainly pushed the issue, if not horrible fanned the flames of polarizing the democratic voters based on race.
I was a HRC supporter for a long time, by the way.
Posted 06 May 2008 at 10:43 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
It’s funny how this thread has evolved considering the “oppression olympics” discussion further below…
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:07 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
well, i guess there will be no gas tax holiday soon. damn, better keep the Koenigsegg in the garage.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 1:26 am ¶
Colin wrote:
I worry that this post has started, as Slush alluded to, an Oppression Olympics flame war.
Even if one feels they are being accurate and factually correct, it seems posts within this topic that answer the underlying question of the post (”Can you truly call yourself a supporter if you can’t represent for your candidate?”) only further an angry flame war. That’s bad news bears, my friends.
The only reason I would want to join in the conversation is my DEEP frustration with a great many of those who call themselves Clinton supporters. The frustration stems from many of these supporters being part of the select few unable to discern any racist content within the Clinton campaign without being able to call Senator Obama a disgusting, two-faced dog who hates women, especially strong women. It makes me a bit embittered, to be sure, but it’s a far cry from saying racism or sexism is worse right now.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 2:08 am ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Slush:
“It’s funny how this thread has evolved considering the “oppression olympics” discussion further below…”
I couldn’t agree more. I actually like and also see problems with both candidates and have had moments of going back and forth. I would never be one of those people too bitter to stay home on election day.
I think there was a little invitation for partisanship in the body of the post. Basically a challenge for Clinton supporters to put up or shut up. Our objective here was to provide concrete examples of sexism in the campaign which is what I tried to do with my quick post above. Then I left my computer for some hours, come back and it’s an all-out slugfest.
People have turned this thread into a contest of who hates Clinton the most and words have been put into her mouth and ideas into her head. If I wanted this I’d go watch The Daily Show where Jon Stewart has forgotten McCain is even in the race and just compared Hillary to George Bush.
@Flabbyabby: This is the second time someone who disagrees with me here has attempted to poison the well by discrediting me as a white person. I’m actually just as white as you are sane.
@Latoya:
“He said he doesn’t know which Clinton he’s running against(Does he wonder if he or his wife is running for office?)
Challenge. That would be a sexist statment if Bill was sitting quitely in the background, but he’s not. He has made direct attacks on Obama (see Wiki) which would logically prompt that comment. ”
Okay, this is sexist because male politicians with strong vocal wives do not face this confusion about who is running, ever. His statement also echoed what the boys club in the media keep saying about the Clintons: that Bill would be running the show, that her time in the white house doesn’t count unless she takes responsibility for each and every one of her husband’s policy decisions, even the ones she has spoken out against, that they’re Billary. Women being viewed as an extension of their husbands with men being seen as fully independent adults is a well documented sexist paradigm.
Barack Obama seems to respect his wife’s political abilities in a way that actually reminds me of the Clintons in ‘92. Michelle busts her ass campaigning and giving great speeches. I think she’s a better speaker than her husband, for all the compliments he gets for being articulate. I watch a lot of C-Span and as far as I saw, Michelle was campaigning as much as Bill was in Feb. or Mar. when Obama made that remark. Although if you watched one of the news channels all the attention was on Bill since he was flying off the handle and being baldly racist and doing his wife no favors. I said on another thread that I think he’s subconsciously sabotaging her. He obviously can’t share the spotlight.
Thank you for your many responses to my earlier post, which was written in haste. I wanted to come back when I was able and back it all up but reading the comments since then really depress me to the point of not wanting to. I don’t wan’t to prove any point about which ism is worse or which candidate is worse, which many posters here are doing. I fail to see how pointing out sexism from Obama and surrogates equals blindness to Clinton’s faults or blindness to racism from her surrogates.
Go read Shakesville, people, if exploring this issue is something you actually care about. octogalore and Slush posted lots of pertinent links in the #3 an #9 comments.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 2:47 am ¶
mr guy wrote:
Hey michelle, what did Tina Fey do exactly?I haven’t been keeping up.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 3:15 am ¶
sfsinger wrote:
Despite the results this evening Hillary Clinton is not conceding. I am tired because I wanted a clean effort by both candidates and their supporters. I was just looking at this website that has audio of a super delegate discussing how they’re planning on a back door brokered deal to give Hillary the nomination and how Obama and the youngsters can wait until after they’ve died to run things. This goes beyond self-righteousness and into dictator-land.
http://www.jasmynnecannick.com
Posted 07 May 2008 at 4:24 am ¶
Jaye wrote:
I don’t think these postings have been about whether sexism or racism is worst, no one is arguing about that. It’s about the specific way these two campaigns have been run. No one denies that there has been sexism and racism from the media, that is obvious to anyone who’s awake. What is being discussed is whether racist or sexist behavior is coming out of either Clinton or Obama’s camp, and that speaks directly to the character and moral center of the person running.
Based on the evidence, it seems that Clinton and the people around her have deliberately exhibited an on-going pattern of race-baiting in order to win. Many people find that kind of behavior deplorable, and believe that is reflective of the person Clinton is and the kind of president she would be. On the other hand, Obama’s side has not exhibited a deliberate and continuous pattern of using sexism in order to win. The media may exhibit sexist behavior, but he is not responsible for that, he can only be responsible for his own behavior. That speaks to his character, and when his campaign has struggled, he has shown an unwillingness to degrade an entire gender simply to win the nomination, whereas Clinton has seemed to be very willing to play on people’s racial fears and prejudices when her campaign has faced tough times. The specific character and morality of the nominee, based on their willingness or unwillingness to profit from racism or sexism, is what is being discussed, not whether racism or sexism is worse.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 6:31 am ¶
kd wrote:
With all due respect I could come with a list of my own. This list contains stuff that I don’t even understand. And why are you holding stuff that Clinton either didn’t say or condemned against her. Secondly things like the LBJ comment were so obviously taken out of context. It’s so obvious what she meant. Just like when BO said “bitter” everyone was like we know what he meant. THat’s what kills me, Obama says or does something-we understand, Clinton does(or someone that’s not even part of her campaingn)-she’s the devil.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 8:08 am ¶
Persia wrote:
Okay, this is sexist because male politicians with strong vocal wives do not face this confusion about who is running, ever.
Marge, I have to disagree, because I have never seen a politician with a strong vocal wife running citing his wife’s record as part of his success. When Bill is on the campaign trail promising voters that electing Hillary will bring back the peace and prosperity of his presidency, than I think that’s a legitimate line of attack.
Redstar, those were great posts. Thanks for the link.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 8:28 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Jaye – Cosign.
KD – I hope you would come with a list of your own. That was the whole point of the post, based on the earlier conversation we had where I was asking for citations and receving none.
As I mentioned in the original post, I don’t agree with everything on the J & J list. But they put it on paper, tracked it and provided analysis of the statements.
We have also been very clear to mention “camps” – its not just about what the candidates say, it’s also what they allow to be said. Which is why I cited Obama & Samantha Power along with Clinton and Clinton/Ferraro/Johnson.
Marge – Yes, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Again, if Bill was just campaigning, or basically in the background, or even threw out one or two zingers like Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama have, there would be a case for that being a sexist statement.
But Bill Clinton overshadowed Hillary’s campaign at one point and made multiple attacks on Obama – attacks that would logically prompt him to make that statement.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 8:58 am ¶
Slush wrote:
In Bayesian statistics, a person’s initial starting point or assumption is taken into account as a number between 0 and 1. Then each piece of data is added to that and brings the person’s understanding of reality either closer to 1 or closer to 0 (obviously the question is defined as a binary analysis). This is kind of a neat mathematical way to talk about the learning process; each new piece of information adjusts our sense of truth to encompass our greater knowledge.
The interesting thing about this is that if your starting point (called your “prior”) really close to 1 or 0, it takes a revolution to bring you to question that, or put yourself in any kind of objective position where you’ll give real consideration to evidence that goes against you. There’s too much investment in that belief, such that any evidence to the contrary is discarded or tweaked to fit the initial strong assumption.
This is why people might not believe in dinosaurs, for example, because they have so much invested in not believing, and their starting position is so strongly against it, that no matter how much evidence of dinosaurs exist, it just wont be accepted as good proof.
This is how people in this country seem to approach Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It’s insane.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 9:21 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
For those of you who wanted to know what Tina Fey’s sketch on SNL was, this link might help,
http://jezebel.com/360093/tina-fey-on-snl-bitch-is-the-new-black
Okay, that said, I just don’t see how this is oppresion olympics, but more about two campaigns viewed through the lens of race and gender.
I can see the point Marge brings up in her post regarding Obama’s “Who am I running against?” comment. I have to go with LP on this one, but I do see your point.
And KD, I agree with you. I understood what HRC meant when she was talking about LBJ and MLK. I knew she was trying to make a point about her own strong suit, policy. It was a smart move that was executed a bit poorly. Just like Obama’s bitter comment was taken out of context by the MSM. So, KD, your post was fair, IMHO.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 11:17 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
Oh and lastly,
Given that Bill Clinton has accepted his whole “First Black President” moniker with a bit of pride, I think that it is interesting that HRC was so aghast with Jeremiah Wright. I felt that her comments were incredibly disingenuous. I am sure that she has accepted the support of many a clergyman just like Jeremiah Wright, and I am sure that either she or her husband has sat through many a fiery speech about race relations in the United States. And, after watching the whole sermon, I was even more convinced that HRC simply saw a weak spot and decided to exploit it for all it was worth. I am sure she saw the whole speech and decided that she was going to play the part of the aloof but shocked candidate, based on the sound bites and nothing more. But that is politics, I get it.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 11:24 am ¶
Redstar wrote:
Thanks Latoya and Persia!
As a Clinton supporter, I’m not feeling too great today given last night’s outcome, but in some way some relief that an end may be in sight. The Obamas are a very modern couple in their egalitarian relationship and Michelle is going to need our ardent support given that the mudslinging against Obama as the likely nominee is certainly going to include going after his strong, outspoken wife.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 12:08 pm ¶
Radfem wrote:
Her “experience” as first lady is brought out when it helps her and disregarded when people talk about welfare reform, NAFTA, bombing Iraq, etc. Then it doesn’t count. So I wonder sometimes if it’s her or her husband who will run the country. Her “tough on crime” bill proposed looks a lot like his in the 1990s.
I’m not for either as I don’t think the Democratic Party is much different than the Republicans. Why else would the Clintons uphold McCain? But some of her supporters have so tied in support for her with feminism (though she doesn’t seem that much a feminist ) that there’s no separation.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 6:08 pm ¶
Meg wrote:
@Slush (and yes sorry off-topic): congrats for the least-confusing explanation of Bayesian statistics i’ve ever read.
Posted 08 May 2008 at 6:53 am ¶
Donna wrote:
All you have to do is run through the lists and you’ll see the majority of the J&J ones are Clinton and her campaign, but I went through a bunch at Shakesville and almost all of them have nothing to do with Obama and his campaign. How can you hold him accountable for things that Chris Matthews says? Or for disgusting products like the nutcracker or the bullseye portrait of Clinton that a guy pees on? Or that Ron Paul nut making robo calls in S. Carolina? Or an Axe body spray ad? This is a sampling of the sexism and misogyny that Clinton has had to put up with and…IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA! He is not running a sexist campaign, he is not undermining her based on her gender.
What is really ridiculous is that she is running as an extention of her husband and taking credit for his accomplishments. But if we notice that, it’s sexist.
Check this out Latoya, because this is the Clinton campaign in a nutshell. She’s losing every other demographic so she needs the white racist vote and is campaigning hard for it.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/318011
Posted 08 May 2008 at 11:52 am ¶
meownette wrote:
I realize I’m a little late to the game here, but I have an example of sexism from the Obama camp that I’m slightly surprised has not been mentioned above. In the debate held in January, Obama pulled out Clinton’s chair for her, which I thought was surprisingly condescending. Now, in real, daily life, I’m not about to yell at a man who opens a door for me, or at my boyfriend if he pulls out the chair for me at a restaurant. But at a nationally televised debate in the presidential election? I don’t know. It seemed exaggeratedly courteous, and more than a little sexist. And I’m an Obama supporter. Of course, I don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of debate protocol, and it’s entirely possible that that’s a standard formality that debaters extend to each other. But taken on its own, maybe sexist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/debate-ends-with-a-revers_n_84384.html
Posted 08 May 2008 at 7:26 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:
meownette…
i forgot about that incident. I was watching the debate, and when he pulled out her chair, alarm bells went off in my head…but my mom was watching too, and she said, “Wow, he is such a gentleman, isn’t he?” So I kind of felt like that could be interpreted in different ways. In a race for the most powerful position in the world, it felt like he undercut her authority and power with that one subtle move…did he mean it that way? I don’t know…and I have been an Obama supporter since the beginning. But yeah, I didn’t like that he did that at all.
But still, the difference between them is PATTERN, is there a pattern of this kind of behavior. If there isn’t an on-going pattern, I am willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt, if it’s one or two times…I can say, they made a mistake, they didn’t realize what they were doing. But when the incidents start going into the double digits…those aren’t mistakes, it’s deliberate and they know exactly what they are doing.
Posted 08 May 2008 at 10:35 pm ¶