Yes Virginia, They Will Call You a Crazy, Lying Bitch If You Win a Presidential Primary

[McCamy Taylor]

The only thing worse than living in these misogynist United States of America is having to listen to people with a political agenda tell you that you are a crazy, deluded woman is you think that you detect misogyny. Why is this so infuriating? In part, because accusations of hysteria/insanity have been leveled at women for hundreds of years in this country in an attempt to suppress their voices. In the 19th century, women could be locked up in mental institutions indefinitely by their male relatives for the crime of not acting ladylike.

Hillary Clinton is not the only woman who has ever faced am onslaught of sexist attacks, but right now she is Everywoman. An analysis of the attacks against her provides an excellent forum for a study of the language of sexism. Many of the example and sources I will use are drawn from my most recent journal Democratic Idols, The Mother and Child Reunion a document with a much less critical tone.

Why Does America Keep Women Oppressed ?

Why does America do any of the evil shit it does? Money. As Max Weber wrote, in the US the pursuit of money has become an all important endeavor, an end in itself. In Europe, at the time he was writing, money was seen as God’s affirmation that one was elect, and therefore the capitalist was expected to follow some sort of rules of fair play when he attempted to acquire more capital or money. However, in the United States, fair play and rules ceased to matter and the only thing that was important was acquiring the gold/oil/land/power. This was almost a century ago. By now, Europe has probably begun to catch up with us.

Women have been oppressed ever since the beginning of our so called democracy, as Alexis de Tocqueville describes.

http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/a_perspective_from_the_past.htm

"America is the one country where the most consistent care has been taken to trace clearly distinct spheres for the two sexes and where both are required to walk at an equal pace but along paths that are never the same. You do not see American women directing concerns outside the range of the family, or handling business dealings, or entering politics. Neither do you see any women forced to face the rough work of plowing fields, nor any of those heavy tasks which demand the exertion of physical strength. No family is so poor that it forms the exception to this rule." …
"If the American woman is not allowed to escape the tranquil sphere of her domestic duties, neither is she forced to leave it."…
"Consequently, American women who display a quite manly intelligence and energy generally maintain very delicate features and always remain feminine in their ways even though they sometimes show they have the hearts and minds of men."…
"Nor have Americans ever imagined that the result of democratic principle would be to overturn a husband’s authority or to introduce any ambiguity about who is in charge in the family." …

This is, of course, bullshit. Or merde as de Tocqueville himself would have put it, if he had bothered to see how nonwhite noncitizen women lived. Minority women and immigrant women worked as hard as their men. What was described in Democracy in America was a myth which C. J. Cash discusses more fully in The Mind of the South , one which was used to keep Blacks (slaves but especially freed) and immigrants oppressed. Rape laws (which de Tocqueville goes on to discuss and praise) designed to protect White women were especially draconian in the US. The imagined threat of violence against the sacred virtue of White women has been successfully used in this country for almost two hundred years to keep members of the working class oppressed. Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Italians, Irish---all have been accused of being after White women. (Bet you did not know that when they first arrived on this shore the Irish and Italians were not considered White ) The dominant White elite used this myth as justification to break up any attempt by workers to agitate for better wages or living conditions. Violence, even mild violence in the form of civil unrest like strikes was declared a prelude to rape of the White woman.

White women, of course, did not benefit from this extra protection. They did not even own their own wages (if they made money through writing or sewing or painting for instance) nor could they own property or vote. Their husbands could toss them into a mental asylum if they were tired of them. As for the prohibition against White women working---that was tossed aside as soon as we hit the industrial age and a new myth took its place. Since women did not really need to work---their husbands supported them, they were just doing it to make a little extra money or to have some hobby---it was alright for industry to pay them half as much as men for their necessarily inferior work. This has guaranteed the capitalists a cheap source of labor for the last one hundred years.

These are the economic forces which keep women oppressed in this country. The business community absolutely does not want to see women’s salaries approach those of men. It does not want to lose the ability to oppress Blacks, Latinos or any other low paid workers by claiming that they pose a threat to frail, weak, “sacred” White women. And so, it punishes women who step out of line mercilessly.
I hope all the people who say that it is more important that we elect an African-American than a woman are getting this. When you resort to sexism in order to elect a Black man (and yes, there are plenty of people out there who are doing just that, whether or not they will admit it), you are playing by The Man’s rules. I have been recommending Angela Davis’s Women, Race and Class this whole primary season, but I sort of doubt that many people have picked it up. We are all in this together. The oppression of women and the oppression of minorities and immigrants are all part of the same economic scheme to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few people.

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/unite_and_conquer/5613/
Here is another slant on the same concept by someone who is more upbeat than I am today. The article is called Unite and Conquer by Ellen Snortland, and she discusses much of the same material Davis does---the combined abolition and women’s suffrage movement, the attempts by the dominant elite to divide and conquer those who live in oppression, the tendency of the oppressed to fight among themselves rather than to unite and fight the real enemy.

II. Why the Attacks on Hillary are Sexist in Nature

I am going to summarize a bunch of stuff I put together for a much longer journal I put up last night.

Hillary as the Great Whore You know how Catholics vote for Hillary? Irish-Catholics? Latinos? To them, she is a reminder of the Virgin of Guadalupe or the Virgin Mother, a modern day representative of an Aztec goddess or Isis depending upon which continent your ancestors hail from. Catholics do not ask favors directly from God. More often they get Mary to intercede on their behalf. Having a female president is as natural as breathing. When the north Europeans split from Rome one of their biggest beefs was The Great Whore ---all the goddess worshiping that was going on in the south. You see, the ancient marauding tribes worshiped supreme male deities, while the sedentary people in the fertile crescent worshiped female deities. The Catholics are---well, catholic. Secular Protestants get real antsy when they see Mary being venerated. Randi Rhodes may be a progressive, but her Cotton Mather roots are showing when she calls Hillary a “whore”. DU seems to like this one a lot. Guess there is a lot of Puritanism that runs through this board that no one really understands, because if they did they would stop it at once. You see, the implication is that no woman can actually do anything. She can only sleep her way to the top. Mary did not do anything. She just conceived a child through her ear and spit Jesus out from between her legs, the Puritans will say. What is the big deal with that? It is a great way to argue against community property laws and independence for women.

Hillary as Medusa This is about her stare. She is Medusa one of the legendary goddesses turned demonesses who can turn men to stone with her gaze. I have seen DU use this one a lot. Women are supposed to keep their gaze averted or to smile coyly or to flirt. They are never supposed to confront men. This is shocking. It drives men crazy. It is like cheating. No wonder they all call her a cheater.

Hillary is a Cackling Witch Women who defy the norm were accused of witchcraft and burned or hanged for hundreds of years in Europe and America. In popular mythology, like C.S. Lewis and Oz and Disney witches are still the ultimate evil. Also a favorite at DU. The implication is that she does not speak spontaneously, even when she is telling a joke or laughing (showing human emotion). Instead, she is being crafty and calculating, weaving a spell. Obama’s speeches are quite calculated---finely written and delivered. He knows just what effect he is striving for. He is almost a word magician. But no one questions his sincerity or the goodness of his motives. He is a benevolent word wizard. If he does say something wrong it is an honest mistake. If Hillary says something wrong, it is calculated. She planned it last year.

Hillary as Sybil A few days after Hillary called for Democratic unity, the Obama camp put out flyers which mischaracterized her insurance plans. Hillary went on TV to complain about the ads. The MSM decided to call her “Sybil” as in MPD. As mentioned above, women have been called insane and locked up in institutions for centuries, ever since they stopped burning them as witches, for speaking out
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270010

Hillary’s (fake) tears Since some people will not be as familiar with this myth, here is a link about how women have been said to use tears to get their way for centuries. There was even a Star Trek episode about it. DU loves to talk about how Hillary’s tears are fake (presumably because she is a robot and has no emotions)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/fow/fow26.htm

The propensity for a woman to shed tears on the slightest emotion has long been the subject of frequent comment in proverbial literature, and, according to Ricard, "Women never weep more bitterly than when they weep with spite."

In fact, women have a lot to complain about. They make less money for the same work. They often have sole responsibility for raising children, so they are more likely to live in poverty. They suffer the brunt of violence and rape. They are less likely to be taken seriously in academics and in other professional pursuits. However, when they attempt to voice their honest emotions, they are accused of lying to get their way. This is exactly like Reagan’s infamous “Welfare Queen” myth in which he tried to make America hate poor Black people by claiming “They have it great. Don’t listen to them.”

Hillary as castrating bitch
The mother goddess always ended up with a castrated old consort and a new, younger male partner in the old myths. It is enough to make men cringe in fear. Just look at the Hillary nut cracker. Fear mongering like this should be an obvious tip off that there is sexism at work. This is divide and conquer. Make working class men afraid and angry when their wives make more money than they do, even when the women still make less than a White man for the same job.

Hillary’s cleavage The press talked about it endlessly. For almost half an hour one day on MSNBC. As in Hillary is trying to seduce us. Oooo. Shades of Eve in the garden.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=eve+deception+english+literature&source=web&ots=03zRmLSCWo&sig=CtjJ_rhS9EYma2IPlswZs7vXoeE&hl=en#PPA252,M1
Have you seen then discussing Obama’s package? Obama girl is at it all the time, trying to sexualize the Obama campaign, but this is just more Madison avenue hype and no one pays any attention to it when it revolves around a man. That is because male sexuality is considered normal, admirable even. The press did talk about W.’s crotch in admiring terms. Though no one will admit it, Bill Clinton has a huge fan base, because of his famed virility. He is like King Henry VIII, a bad boy with the ladies that everyone loves. Same with JFK and Marilyn Monroe. Only women have to be virgins even when they are mothers.

Hillary as Mommy Dearest or Medea Whether it is Schuster claiming that Hillary is “pimping out” her own daughter or Matthews claiming that Obama is a child and Hillary is his mother who is going to SIDs him, the press loves to portray her as an unnatural mother. DU does, too, with its snarky comments about her raising Chelsea wrong and putting her in harm’s way in Bosnia. This is an important sexist comment, since the only good excuse a woman can have for being president is to be first Mom . A female president has to do it out of selfish altruistic “I don’t want to but no one is available so I guess I will have to, because all these poor Americans need someone to take care of them” resignation. She has to want to bake the biggest batch of cookies ever.
If Hillary is portrayed as a bad mother, then she flunks the female presidential test. That is why it is so important for those who hate her to attack her daughter and her relationship with her daughter. Every time Hillary and Chelsea do stuff together and look happy and close, it makes Hillary look more like a great mother. So, Chelsea must be attacked too.

Hillary can tell no truth I saved the best for last. I will bet that you did not know that women have been condemned as liars for a very, very long time in this culture. Sure, Gore and Edwards were called liars. They were also called gay or less than manly. Honesty is one of the manly virtues. Women and gays are believed to dissemble, because they are weak and this is the only way that they can steal power from honest, manly men who earn it the old fashioned way, with their blood, sweat and tears. Bill Clinton is a liar never really stuck with Democrats, because he was Big Dog. If he lied, it had to be about unimportant things, like blow jobs, in order to spare his wife’s feelings. (Remember, Dear Abby always said to lie about your affairs). About the stuff that mattered, the country’s safety he would tell the truth.

Here are some links about the modern myth that women always lie:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03022008/news/regionalnews/miss_leading_100063.htm
http://www.despardes.com/lifestyle/dec03/women-natural-born-liars-dec4.htm
http://digg.com/people/Are_Women_Better_Liars_than_Men

Anyway, here is an exercise for progressives who wish to show solidarity with the struggle of the working class to liberate itself from the oppression of the owner/elite of this country. Since all the –isms e.g. sexism, racism etc. are tools used by our corporate masters to keep wages low and workers oppressed, how about trying to frame political discussions without resorting to the use of
1. Hillary’s phony tears
2. Hillary cackles like a witch
3. Hillary uses sex like Eve
4. Hillary can tell no truth (generic—it is fine to say that in one instance she is lying but you can not claim that every single thing she has ever said is an untruth)
5. Hillary is a bad mother like Medea
6. Chelsea is a bad daughter
7. Hillary cuts off men’s balls
8. Hillary’s stare can turn men to stone like Medusa
9. Hillary is crazy like Sybil
10. Hillary is the Great Whore

Imagine how you would feel if some one started saying things like Obama is figuratively raping Hillary (“putting that bitch in her place, yeah!”). That is the flip side of what you are doing.

Unfortunately,I am a realist. All I have really accomplished with this journal is tell the Hillary haters exactly how to frame their Hillary bashing so that it fits neatly into the pigeonholes of sexist myth. However, I hope that I have provided a short hand so that the handful of people who attempt to point out distortion can easily identify and name them.

[Va Lefty]

1. Yes Virginia, there are some who will tell you your primary didn't matter

:evilgrin:

[suziedemocrat]

67. Were you in Florida or Michigan? I'm sorry your voice was lost.

[LisaM]

2. Thank you for your research.

I have made a study of the Salem witchcraft trials. While there are a good many theories abounding on its root causes (I personally like to layer them onto each other to get the full picture) a lot of it was fostered by economic resentment towards older women who owned property (not all of it, but much of it). It's fascinating because in Puritan America, women were subject to rule in their own households (it was part of the complex legal system), but widows or women who otherwise had financial security or property were exempt to some degree. Accusing them as witches was one way to get them to forfeit their property.

[orleans]

5. i thought it was hallucinations due to something in the wheat. n/t

[LisaM]

7. Ergot of rye? That has pretty much been debunked.

However, witchcraft "outbreaks" themselves are part of a larger pattern. I've chosen to study that particular incident, but there are many more (the Salem ones ran a little later than European models).

[orleans]

40. debunked? debunked? after we just saw a documentary on it

a year or two ago?? damn! i thought we were really on to something.

[Coexist]

3. actually, Obama won Virginia...

[orleans]

4. some people are assholes, some are pigs. some just like obama more. n/t

[tekisui]

6. knr.

Hillary has gone where no woman has gone before. She has exposed a lot of ugly sexism in America that has been ignored for decades. I respect those who support Hillary, especially for the challenge to the patriarchy status quo.

I believe that Hillary has made advances that will result in a female President within the next few elections.

[OzarkDem]

8. Great post!

K&R and bookmarked. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[LisaM]

10. It is a great post. How do you bookmark a post?

I want to re-read it later.

[woolldog]

18. you really don't know how to bookmark a post?

[LisaM]

21. No, I don't. Perhaps you do but you don't want to tell me?

LOLOL. I'm sure it's easy but I've never done it.

[woolldog]

24. I use Firefox

Right click. And when the menu pops up click "Bookmark this page."

edit: add link to firefox http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/

[City Lights]

30. Click the "Bookmark this thread" link on the left-hand side of the screen.

It appears just above the "Home >> Discuss >> General Discussion: Primaries" section of the screen.

:-)

[Yael]

9. Yes, Virginia, you lost.

Time to suck it up and face adversity as an adult.

You have mastered many things, and we are proud of you for that! N

Now you need to master losing with dignity.

The world awaits.

[guyanakoolaid]

11. I can't wait until after PA

and Hillary drops out and you Hillary supporters can finally quit with calling all Obama supporters "sexist". It's getting boring, especially since it's so removed from the reality of why Clinton has really lost: Her repeated lies, her membership in the DLC, and her support for war with Iraq.

[Clintonista2]

108. You obamas said that about New Hampshire. You said it about Nevada. You said it about super tuesday

You said it about Ohio and Texas. Haven't you morons learned yet?

[rodeodance]

151. Moving the goal post again I see. te he

[DevonRex]

12. Oh Good Lord. Give the sexism thing a rest.

If she had voted against the IWR she might have won. She didn't. She's losing. Pretty simple. And as a woman, a veteran of the military and federal law enforcement, I'm ashamed of a woman who whines about the "big boys" all the time. Buck up. Do a better job. THEN you'll get the things you want out of life.

Hillary had what she wanted in the palm of her hand. THEN she fucked it up by voting to authorize the Iraq fiasco. She did it to herself. Nobody else is to blame.

[ProSense]

13. Hillary is not losing because of sexism. She

is just losing.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. Just completely ignore reality

again (or is it still)?

[AllentownJake]

28. Maybe

If she would have found a smart woman chief strategist...she wouldn't be in the mess she's in.

Penn is why you are losing.

[comradebillyboy]

14. No Obama supporters at DU have ever used or will ever use

those tactics to attack the heartless fiend who won't roll over and die for him.

[AX10]

15. K & R!

Sadly, many around here have resorted to these kinds of things.

[AllentownJake]

16. Get a Helmet

This is politics...nasty things get said. Trust me we could come up with a list of things said about Obama in the MSM and it would be just as bad. We could sit here and parse and discuss how potrayals of him are of the classic black man in the Minstrel shows.
What the hell purpose does this serve?

[Schema Thing]

17. Yes Virginia, there is a santa clause, and it reads as follows:

You shall retain the gift of support from a small but worshipful group of apologetics even if you act as a crazy, lying, bitch.

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Some people just cannot get their heads out of

the dark ages. And that is why sexism still exists. Pretend it is not there.

[AllentownJake]

26. WTF

Stop being a victim.

[DevonRex]

29. I agree with you completely.

But some people LIKE to be victims, martyrs, whatever. That's their identity and they wouldn't know how to operate without it.

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Some statistics before you accuse women of crying wolf

Domestic violence

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/172837.txt

The NVAW survey found that women are significantly
more likely to be assaulted by an intimate partner
than men are. Twenty-five percent of surveyed
women, compared with 8 percent of surveyed men,
said they were raped and/or physically assaulted
by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner,
or date at some time in their life; 1.5 percent of
all surveyed women compared with 0.9 percent of
all surveyed men said they were raped and/or
physically assaulted by such a partner in the
previous 12 months. Based on U.S. Census estimates
of the number of women and men in the country,
these findings equate to approximately 1.5 million
women and 834,700 men who are raped and/or
physically assaulted by an intimate partner
annually in the United States (see exhibit 7).

It is important to note that differences between
women's and men's rates of physical assault by an
intimate partner become greater as the seriousness
of the assault increases. For example, women were
two to three times more likely than men to report
that an intimate partner threw something that
could hurt or pushed, grabbed, or shoved them.
However, they were 7 to 14 times more likely to
report that an intimate partner beat them up,
choked or tried to drown them, threatened them
with a gun, or actually used a gun on them (see
exhibit 8).

Rape statistics

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.

9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.

Wages

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/comparable.html

Consider that women's wages today are still only about 66 percent of men's wages. Studies show that factors such as seniority, reduced hours for child care, and maternity leave cannot account for the significant wage gap between men and women. Much of this gap, it appears, is due to large differences between wages paid for traditionally "men's jobs" and those paid for "women's jobs." Comparable worth has been promoted by feminists and advocates of women's rights as the most significant new tool in the struggle to bring women's economic positions up to the level of men's.

Poverty
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PovertyintheUnitedStates.html

The incidence of poverty also is higher among households headed by women. Although the poverty rate among these households declined from 49.4 percent in 1959 to 37.2 percent in 1990, they remain far more likely to be poor than other types of households. This higher incidence of poverty, together with the rising share of households headed by women, has led to what researchers call the "feminization of poverty," with an increasing fraction of the poor in female-headed households. Between 1959 and 1990 this fraction rose from 17.8 percent to 37.5 percent.

[AllentownJake]

35. I agree there are problems

Has Bill assualted Hillary? How are her wages? I don't want to know about the rape issue...that is very personal to me I had a girlfriend raped.

Hillary is not a victim.

What does the plight of women have to do with Hillary.

Barack Obama has two girls...do you think he will not fight for women?

[McCamy Taylor]

60. That is a very naive picture you have painted there. Obama grew up in a White family

but he sure as hell felt the effects of the racism that infests this society like leprosy. Hillary may have grown up in the most supportive house around, but she experienced sexism everywhere she went---and is still experiencing it now.

And even if you are a straight White man and lucky enough to have no physical disabilities, you suffer when this nation has rampant sexism and racism and hatred based upon sexuality and disability and ethnic and religious differences, because whenever one group is belittled, another group is taught "Be glad you are not a member of that inferior group. If you were, you would have to hate yourself." And so the member of the dominant group starts to feel afraid. What if that inferior woman shows him up? Won't that mean that he isn't really a man? Better slap the bitch around. And what if the Mexicans next door have a better car than he has? Doesn't that mean that they have better jobs than he does? And the Lord rewards his chosen ones. But how can Mexicans be chosen. They must cheat and steal for it. Better steal from them to make up for it. Better make them pay.

Hatred leads to self hatred and leads to violence all through the working class.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. You also have to point out the myths where you see them. My other

journal that few will read because it is long starts from Rolande Barthes Mythologies in which he discusses modern myths (including propaganda though he does not use that word since he would consider it to loaded with myth itself).

Society is in desperate need of people to act as mythologists as Barthes defines the word, people who deconstruct the symbols which are used to rob us of history and replace it with convenient (usually for someone else) fictions. Like the notion that a White woman is going to be beaten up by a Black man. This is utter bullshit. Like all women, she is going to be beaten by her spouse or partner, who will most likely be a member of the same race and socioeconomic class as her. In other words, the White woman will be beaten by a White man.

[planetc]

76. The only thing I can think of to add to your excellent post is...

The transformation of Hillary Rodham Clinton from good Senator, loyal wife, advocate for children and 9/11 victims and lots of good causes, her total transformation at the magic moment: when she ran for president. It was okay with Democrats before her presidential campaign that she was an attorney, an accomplished professional woman, wife and mother and universal health care advocate who had her own office in the west wing, but at the moment when she dared to contest a serious male candidate for the presidency, abra cadabra, presto chango! She's a witch. As long as she stayed in her place, she was okay, but when she stepped into a real race for the presidency, she suddenly has to be killed symbolically. It is not enough to say that you don't agree with her policies or approach, she has to be discovered (suddenly) to be a horror. Vile! (That's the opinion of the (female) receptionist in our office.) The obvious heat, and anger, and defensiveness of many Obama supporters gives the game away, I think. It's not enough that Sen. Obama win the nomination, his opponent has to be destroyed too.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

84. What an excellent post!

:toast:

[susankh4]

93. I noticed this as well

and thought I must be crazy.....

Noone can morph that quickly. Can they?

In America... yes they can!

[1monster]

Didn't you just prove the OP's point? Sigh.

:eyes:

[Schema Thing]

157. Absolutely not. Grow some reading comprehension.

[1monster]

174. My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. Perhaps you forgot the

:sarcasm: emoticon? Or maybe your writing skills need some work? Because I could swear you called her supporters apologiest for her acting like "a crazy lying bitch."

For the record, I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter; nor do I support Obama. On my list, they came, if not on scraping the bottom with fingernails, significantly below the middle of the heap.

Still, the sexist nonsense does not excape my view. And it angers me.

I'm wondering how Obama and Clinton supporters are going to react if there is an Obama/Clinton (or vice versa) ticket. For those of us thinking with our heads instead of our passions, it makes a lot of sense.

Off topic, one another thing that bothers and worries me is that NO politician, absolutely NO politician, can live up to the belief and hope that I see poured into Obama.

Seeing how quickly people on DU and other places have villified Clinton, I don't hold out much hope for Obama, whose record is far more conservative than most at DU, when he makes decisions and policies that don't agree with those who are all but deifying him now.

[question everything]

19. Wow! This is great!

I have tried to post several times about the way DUers and other progressive use the "B" and the "W" and the "C" words, and find them quiet acceptable, but, of course, never the "N" word for Obama. And many DUers tried to say that they are not the same.

Even tried to compare Randi to Tina Fey. The difference is that Tina Fey said "I am a bitch" (and proud of it) while Randi, of course, did not point to herself saying: "I am a whore."

Thank you. I think that I will kick this as long as Hillary is in the race.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. awesome piece

Best thing I have seen on DU in a long time.

[PoliticalAmazon]

23. They will call her a crazy, lying bitch no matter what she does, because SHE IS ONE. n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

39. Would we tolerate this kind of talk about Obama?

You prove the OP's point.

[question everything]

52. You forgot the "fucking whore" (eom)

[rodeodance]

152. and BHO is a lying elitist

[Straight Shooter]

31. Thank you, McCamy.

Only a few responses posted, but the proof underlying your asssertions has already quickly been made. It's a bandwagon effect of those who think they are stronger, (or at least belonging to the stronger tribe), piling onto the one whom they perceive as weaker and therefore deserving of the pile-on.

DU is a mirror of the "real world," where people post what they actually think. Some posts, like yours, are well worth the time. Thank you.

[susankh4]

94. They do prove themselves again and again, don't they?

The Obama supporters on this board, I mean. The ones who spew continual misogyny in order to elevate their own candidate.

It isn't going to serve Mr. Obama well to disaffect such a large segment of the Dem votership. Don't they get that?

[Buzz Clik]

32. Nice list. I don't espouse any of it. Yes, amazingly, I still oppose her.

Go figure.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. That is fine. Socialists think both Dems are FOS and they are neither racists nor sexist.

They just recognize that the Democratic Party makes a lot of concessions for big business in this country in order to get a seat at the table. It is a sacrifice every Democrat has to make. Pragmatism trumps ideology in order to accomplish some goals. You just hope that at the end of the day you are FDR or LBJ (Great Society not Viet Nam).

[grantcart]

34. A Realist? Are you really that dellusional?

quote
Unfortunately,I am a realist. All I have really accomplished with this journal is tell the Hillary haters exactly how to frame their Hillary bashing so that it fits neatly into the pigeonholes of sexist myth. However, I hope that I have provided a short hand so that the handful of people who attempt to point out distortion can easily identify and name them. unquote


No you are a pompous self absorbed narcissitic psuedo intellectual with a penchant for formalistic conspiratorial explanations why your candidate who has had more advantages going into a primary campaign has not been able to secure the victory that everyone thought that she had virtually sewn up 6 months ago. The fundamental fact that you never address is why in three months of campaigning has Hillary Rodham Clinton been unable to go up more that 3 points in the campaign. If America is so sexist and misogynistic as you complain then why did she start the campaign so far ahead?

She has run a terrible ineffectual campaign and has been stunningly unprepared for the presidential campaign she has wanted to engage her entire life. For the last 3 months she has been running in place.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. This is wrong on several levels.

No you are a pompous self absorbed narcissitic psuedo intellectual with a penchant for formalistic conspiratorial explanations why your candidate who has had more advantages going into a primary campaign has not been able to secure the victory that everyone thought that she had virtually sewn up 6 months ago. The fundamental fact that you never address is why in three months of campaigning has Hillary Rodham Clinton been unable to go up more that 3 points in the campaign. If America is so sexist and misogynistic as you complain then why did she start the campaign so far ahead?

She has run a terrible ineffectual campaign and has been stunningly unprepared for the presidential campaign she has wanted to engage her entire life. For the last 3 months she has been running in place.

First, when name calling, try to use some imagination. Creativity is better than a thesaurus. "pompous self absorbed narcissitic psuedo intellectual" would sound better if you were not tossing out six syllable words yourself and better still if "pompous", "self absorbed" and "narcissistic" did not all mean basically the same thing. I am not sure what an intellectual is, so I am not sure what a pseudo intellectual is. I write what I write. You read what you read. Apparently you read that Hillary Clinton is my candidate, even though my journal is a defense of women and a criticism of sexism. I do not equate Barack Obama the candidate with sexism or sexist attacks, and therefore this journal is not a criticism of Obama the man. I have stated elsewhere that I will not endorse a candidate until one is nominated. Your post is troubling in you seem to suggest that removing sexist attacks from the table in some way weakens the Obama campaign, and that the only reason anyone would want to promote equality of the sexes is to hurt the Obama campaign, i.e to remove an advantage that could improve his chances. I am sure that the Senator would disagree with you strongly on this.

As for your thesis, I don't really have to comment since it has nothing to do with mine, but I will. Your argument is all rhetoric. What you describe as "running in place" can also be called "holding her own." Obama's graph is classic example of the "plateau". He had a steady rise and then he seemed to peak in mid February. Now, the two of them are jockeying for the lead. If you read my other journals, you know that I believe that the MSM under the direction of the RNC is interfering in our primary to keep them neck and neck, because Rove plans to recreate Chicago 1968. That is one reason I am not selecting a candidate. The only way to solve this mess is to go for the Unity ticket. Each candidate has the fierce support of half of the base. Combine the two, and they will be unstoppable.

The RNC moles here at DU have the mission of creating so much anger between the two camps that the two candidates will be unable to join forces in Denver. So, we see phony Obama supporters posting outrageous sexist attacks on Hillary which lure real Obama supporters into joining in. We see phony Hillary supporters getting much too hysterical in order to fan the hostilities.And most important of all, anytime anyone suggests that there is no need to resort to unDemocratic tactics, people come in to denounce those posts as the worst of all for their candidate.

[grantcart]

55. It is not rhetorical. You always start with a pre established formula and then pick facts

to reinforce it. You seem to be impressed by voluminous citations as a substitute to reality. Your self description as a 'realist' is the least accurate self description since Glenn Beck proclaimed himself "a thinker".

Yes I am well aware of your half baked conspiratorial theories. You believe the populace to be under the control of a coordinated designed strategy of control from MSM forces that are directed by some comic book figure in an underground lair. You also think that you are a realist. Neither has anything to do with what is happening in the real world. The reality is that the information systems of the country have never been more decentralized so that even self proclaimed 'pseudo intellectuals' can publish and put it out for like minded readers to lap it up.

The reality is the media is in full conflict with itself. Newspapers are losing revenue and leadership. The three main networks are losing viewership every year and their market revenues are falling. They are not in control of anything and are in survival mode. For being such powerful controlling forces most of them are having difficulty maintaing profitability.


There is not going to be a unity ticket for half a dozen reasons but not the least of which is that the Clintons are not going to give up the $ 35 million that they have collected for a GE fund that they would then have to use for the general election. She has done everything possible to sabotage an invitation to the ticket so she can walk away and convert that money to her PAC.


There are many erstwhile Clinton supporters who are still argue the merits of their candidates nomination. Some do it while acknowledging that she is almost certainly not going to be the candidate and others have an almost religious devotion that a miracle will do so. I respect both of these folks for their commitment and passion.

Masking your agenda in tedious pedantic lectures on the misogynistic nature of the media is not worthy of the same kind of respect.

The irreducible fact that you cannot face, because you are not interested in truth or reality, is that Hillary Clinton entered this campaign with a largess se of advantages that are staggering to catalog. Advantages in branding, name recognition, 20 years of FOB connections, prestige of the White House, connections with dozens of states organizations, hundreds of city organizations, $ 30 million in revenue head start, a built in cadre of nationally famous surrogate cadres including a popular former president.


Despite all of these advantages she has been unable to grow her number five percent in three months. During that same time Obama has moved from 38% to a 51% or an increase of 30% from his base of support. Your silliness can best be boiled down to


quote
he seemed to peak in mid February
unquote

Given that he currently has the highest percentage he has ever had how do you call that a 'peak'






Here are some simple straight forward statements that you in all of your thousands of citations and mangled verbosity cannot face:

1) Despite entering the campaign with substantial advantages Hillary Clinton has not been able to advance her positive numbers beyond the MOE in three months.

2) Regardless of how effective Senator Obama has been at least half of this campaign has been about the rejection of Hillary Clinton as the prospective leader of the Democratic Party.

3) Senator Obama's lead in the nominating process continues to grow. He has won more delegates in Jan. Feb. March, so that by the end of each month his delegate lead is larger than what is was at the beginning of the month. Even if Hillary manages to salvage a win in Pennsylvania her delegate win will be no more than 10 pledged delegates and that will be less than what Obama will have gained in realignment of pledged delegates, endorsements of super delegates and add on delegates.

4) Senator Obama is going to arrive in Denver with a substantial delegate lead of perhaps 150 delegates or more.

5) August 24th Senator Obama has a 95% likelihood of being the nominee of the party.

6) Those that are committed to Senator Obama are not going to be deterred in pressing their advantage. His depth of support which is reflected in among other things the number of donors and the sums he raises, is an indicator that having won the most delegates, the most popular vote, the most primaries, the most caucuses, the most donors, the most money raised, the most non appointed Super Delegates, the most governor endorsements, the most senatorial endorsements, having won all of these we are not walking away.

7) The Clintons have actively sabotaged the possibility of a unified ticket and no major party figure advocates it or predicts it and several including Speaker Pelosi have stated categorically that it is not possible.

8) The media is becoming more decentralized not less. Traditional media conglomerates make less profit not more. There is no objective indicator that suggests that they are in control. Simple examples like Drudge show that now more than any other time in the last 200 years it is easier to by pass the media and get information to the people.


Until you have faced these clearly well established realities please do not call yourself a realist you are free however to return to your fantasies of those big bad media moguls that are pulling the strings on how every one thinks or acts.

As long as you were spinning your ridiculous media conspiracies you will get a pass but when you self proclaim yourself as a 'realist' when you avoid basic reality and when you seek to undermine and discredit Obama's victory by arguing that Hillary has been cheated by misogynistic conspiracies then you will be called on it.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. My basic question to you is why does taking sexist language off the table threaten Obama.

You have not answered that, even though you have posted a very long reply. From this, it appears that you are evading the question but trying to disguise the fact that you are evading the question.

The corporate media ceased to rely upon ratings and advertising for revenue years ago. NBC is kept afloat by GE which it is serves as a propaganda organ. CNN is a mouthpiece for the interests of AOL-Time-Warner. ABC does the bidding of Disney and the Mouse and its various holdings. CBS exists to keep Viacom from having to divest any of its media holdings. The FCC controls the fate of media empires through its ability to authorize or disallow mergers and acquisitions. If you do not understand these basic facts, then you do not understand how the press works. When FOX was introduced, they paid cable companies to sign up subscribers for the channel, that was how interested they were in getting their propaganda out. If FOX runs a questionable story about Hillary's cleavage, it always the so called reputable TV news to jump in and do their own stories on the grounds that they have to be competitive. However, they are really shilling for whomever their corporate bosses tell them will allow them to make the mergers that will benefit their parent companies. Think of it as lobbying with disinformation and free advertising time instead of dollars.

Go back and read my journals if you are really interested in the topic. I have many links and have written extensively on the politics and economics that control what gets written and broadcast by the press in the US.

Anyone who does not recognize that this is what the press does in the U.S. nowadays either does not watch the news or works for the industry and is lying to cover up for it.

I am not going to discuss the two campaigns until you tell me why you feel that Obama's chances are threatened by a journal that discusses the political and economic motivators for sexism and which recommends that Democrats cease using sexist stereotyping in their campaign rhetoric.

I await your reply.

[DWilliamsamh]

96. Simple answer: It doesn't

[grantcart]

117. Reply

1) Your Media Conspiracy is a joke.
I don't waste my time with your ridiculous media conspiracy theories. If they were so powerful why are so many media millionaires sitting in jail and why are so media companies losing their markets. From newspapers to traditional television networks they are in a free fall trying desperately to survive. The power that you ascribe to them is far from the reality of the economics of the era but it has the jingoistic sound of the radical '60s. The reality is that the internet is transforming the information age and many of the traditional media corporations are being swept away. Even more recent giants like AOL are already atrophied.

2)Your so called basic question "why does taking sexist language off the table threaten Obama" has nothing to do with your OP.

Here are the hysterical headlines of your OP and their talking points;


Yes Virginia, They Will Call You a Crazy, Lying Bitch If You Win a Presidential Primary

Why Does America Keep Women Oppressed ?

Why the Attacks on Hillary are Sexist in Nature.


Your basic point is that Hillary is losing the election because the media is unfair and the country is sexist. She happens to be a woman but the reason that she is losing is because she tried to manufacture an image and ran an incompetent campaign. If she threw away Penn and all of those idiots and would have done what John McCain did and show up with alone and faced down the crowds and the septics at one town hall meeting after another then people would have seen who smart she really is and they would have warmed to her and she would have been the nominee and Obama would have been the VP. But they tried to discredit his success and paint him as only winning in SC because the AA vote saved him and they tried to discredit the caucuses because they weren't organized for them and they tried to create an outrage about FL and MI even though the rule was designed and voted on by her surrogates and helped create a near national primary that was to her benefit.

The reality is that when it came to the campaign that she had waited her whole life to run she was unprepared, took too much for granted, overlooked the details, and listened to all the praise and blocked out all the criticism. Hubris goes before the fall.

And now the apologists, and you are one of her best, try to undermine one of the great historical victories in the history of the United States. Obama has vanquished one of the strongest fields of democratic presidential challengers in history. He is going on to reshape the General Election in the same way that he did in Chicago. He is putting together a massive voter registration plan that is going to add millions of voters to the democratic rolls this summer that is going to change the dynamics for years ahead.


3) I have tried to be positive with those I disagree with. When I read your original post it was at the end of a long day and I wish I had more restraint. However your pompous style has reached new heights. Not only are you quoting Tocqueville, Weber and Cash we have to get to the end of the OP to find out what this is really about - you.

"Unfortunately,I am a realist. All I have really accomplished with this journal is tell the Hillary haters exactly how to frame their Hillary bashing so that it fits neatly into the pigeonholes of sexist myth. However, I hope that I have provided a short hand so that the handful of people who attempt to point out distortion can easily identify and name them."


Now you are quoting and referencing yourself and you are also offering yourself as a critique of guess what? yourself.


You are not a realist. Your comments about the media is a mish mash of trivialities that misses the basic nature of how the information era is being transformed. Your comments about Hillary suffering from a prolonged sustained campaign of sexism misses the realities that she started as the candidate with huge advantages and she squandered them. Your posts take the air of a peer review journal. If you really think that you are a realist try and get them published and you will learn a whole new reality.

I now leave you in your world of evil controlling media moguls who have worked in an elaborate concentrated effort to steal the nomination away from Hillary Rodham Clinton because they have a deep and abiding hatred of women and enjoy 'raping Hillary . . . and putting the bitch in her place'. One of the most powerful woman in the history of the US is in the place she is because that was the place she made. I will not however be returning to your delusional world to kick this sick thread anymore.

[McCamy Taylor]

120. Maybe you should not write when you are tired.

1) I am glad you brought up prosecutions. The Bush administration prosecuted the executives of one particular phone company, Qwest, because they refused to go along with warrantless wiretapping and then they had the nerve to attempt to make a higher bid for a property, MCI that Verizon, which did wiretap, wanted to buy. It is in my journal. The Bush administration has a history of using the DOJ for political purposes like these. Individual reporters will go to jail from time to time so that the administration can threaten the press in its efforts to silence whistle blowers. If the whistle blowers know that they will get named, they are less likely to speak out about the crimes committed by the Bush administration. However, reporters who work for the administration, like Bob Novak, can commit treason and no one cares.

2) My basic point can not be that Hillary is losing the election because of sexism, because I have never conceded that either candidate is winning or losing. We are midway through the nomination process, and Obama holds a delegate lead that is about 5% of the total delegates assigned, if I do the math in my head. (If anyone has a calculator, please correct me if I am wrong). We still have primaries to do and we still have super delegates to assign. I have been a Democrat for a long time, and I know what super delegates are for. They exist just in case someone says or does something really atrocious between now and the convention. The current system was created after 1972, so that we would never have another McGovern. The GOP desperately wants us to have another McGovern this time. That is the only chance their own roadkill of a candidate has of winning.

Note that the press is right up on the front lines declaring that the concept of super delegates being used to help pick the most electable candidates is somehow illegitimate. This from people like the guys at MSNBC, Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews who repeatedly told Republicans to hold their noses and get behind John McCain so that they would not have their own Chicago '68 or their own McGovern. The press thought that having party elders tell Republicans whom to vote for was kosher but not Democrats. When there is a difference between what members of the press are telling Republicans and Democrats, beware. This is all in my journals, btw. I document several different nights of election coverage at MSNBC.

Neither candidate is winning. I could do a journal to demonstrate the way that the press has created the myth of the Obama win. Maybe I will. It would be an interesting exercise.

3) Do you have a personal problem with Cash, Weber, de Tocqueville? I can see how the first two might be unsettling to people on the political right wing, but this is Democratic Underground. I have written a journal recommending The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and if I haven't recommended The Mind of the South I do so now. Those two, plus Angela Davis's Women Race and Class and Leonardo Boff's St. Francis A Model for Human Liberation are some of the best written, truest books about real human history that you will ever read. And anything by Roland Barthes is worth reading.

4) Who writes the things we read? Another human being. Unless you live in China and it is written by a committee. Or maybe by the RNC if it is political propaganda or by an ad agency if it is commercial propaganda. There is always someone there, holding the pen or typing at the keyboard. The author may attempt to hide himself behind multiple layers of objectivity, but these are all fictions. As Larry McMurtry observed, something has to keep an author interested in his work. There is some content or character or theme that resonates for the human being who is doing the writing, otherwise he loses interest and moves on to something else.

You are correct in one respect. It is difficult for anyone to critique themselves. When I write "I am a realist" I do not mean "I consider myself a practitioner of the style known as realism" because I do not believe that realism exists. It is a fiction. My realist is something on the scale of optimism and pessimism, more towards the pessimism side in this matter but not all the way there, because I know that people have the power to change. In most matters, I am an optimist, so it is painful to admit that I think women will continue to be oppressed even after I am dead. However, I think back to several social critics of my youth (I can not remember their names now) who predicted that we would have Black presidents long before we would have female presidents because sexism was so firmly rooted in our country's traditions and I think Damn, they were right!

There is one way in which your charge is misguided. Everything that is written is opinion. There are no facts. All is relative. The closest thing to truth is autobiography, because when an author says "I feel...." or "I believe...." at least a part of that person really does feel or believe or wants t give the impression of feeling or believing. Perhaps I could have been more accurate if I had written

"As I look back at this journal, it has occurred to me that I have just constructed a template for the Freeper moles to use so that they can more effectively slime Hillary in ways that will resonate with regular Democratic Underground posters. Using these common sexist myths to frame their charges, they can construct threads will ring true to Obama posters who will not necessarily recognize that they are responding to age old sexist stereotypes when they feel that little thrill of recognition. I could delete this journal in order to avoid giving aid to the enemy of truthful, fair discourse, however, it is probably more important to give a name to these sexist myths so that people who want to see them more clearly can put a name to them and identify them more easily."

That was what was going through my mind. I could have written all of that. Maybe it would have been more accurate to write that.

However, to exclude the first person pronoun simply because it is the first person pronoun---that is a lie and it turns nonfiction (which is already a kind of fiction) into an even greater lie.

5) There is no "evil" in my world except that some acts are "evil", number one being labeling other people as evil or unnecessary. My world is not so little, either. Here are some of the people who inhabit the same universe that I do. As you can imagine, I was tickled pink when I found this, because I was getting tired of people calling me a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Now, you can call Noam Chomsky a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Go ahead if it makes you feel good. We have freedom of expression in America.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

Manufacturing Consent
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.
In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in command of resources, and its effect both on access to a private media system and on its behavior and performance.
A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public. The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.
The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. Within the limits of the filter constraints they often are objective; the constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. In assessing the newsworthiness of the U.S. government's urgent claims of a shipment of MIGs to Nicaragua on November 5, I984, the media do not stop to ponder the bias that is inherent in the priority assigned to government-supplied raw material, or the possibility that the government might be manipulating the news, imposing its own agenda, and deliberately diverting attention from other material. It requires a macro, alongside a micro- (story-by-story), view of media operations, to see the pattern of manipulation and systematic bias.

[McCamy Taylor]

122. Why is removing sexist language from the campaign an attack on Obama?

I still would like an answer to this question.

[DWilliamsamh]

135. And I answer you once again: It doesn't.

[McCamy Taylor]

142. I want grantcart to answer.

[susankh4]

163. I am as puzzled by this as you are, my friend.

And have recently been attacked quite brutally by someone I love over it.

I am just totally bewildered about where these folks are coming from???

[DURHAM D]

37. Great post - your usual good work.

Some of the posts upthread are truly sad. Just glad I don't know any of those kind of people in my real life.

[budedis]

41. what the fuck is this shit

Apologies to George Carlin for using his subject line. But I think he would approve of my comments.

So do you really think that people who don't like Hillary Clinton, or more appropriately, don't think she's the best person for the job are misogynist? Undoubtedly there are many and some of them are women. And some racists don't like Obama. And some probably do. And some African-Americans don't like Obama. Any many do. And they all have their biases and prejudices and their well thought out reasoning based on somewhat limited information. Furthermore all of the people that I've known who hate Hillary Clinton are absolutely, definitely without any doubt not misogynist. They have other irrational reasons. After all how can any rational person hate someone they don't personally know. You may hate actions they have taken or statements they have made.

But what the fuck makes you so smart that you think know what anyone else thinks or why they think it? I've never read or heard a single person say any of the things on your list about Hillary Clinton. I could not care less about her tits or Barack's package or Bill's balls or Chelsea's crotch. Chelsea's answer to the question about Monica was almost right. She should have said, "None of your F-ing business A-hole!" I do believe that Hillary's tears were genuine.

Hillary Clinton is an impressive and brilliant person. She has awesome intellectual abilities and tenacity and ... She is fantastic candidate for President. So were Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, both formerly at the top of my list. Because of what I know about their accomplishments and the IDEAS I heard from their own mouths! I recently went to see Michelle Obama speak and she was awesome. I had tears on my cheeks listening to her talk about the plight of "regular" folks. And Barack Obama is my current favorite. And like the vast majority of people I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just happen to have carefully thought about it and read about it and listend to their debates and speeches and read literature on their web sites and concluded that he would be the better President, today. I might change my mind tomorrow.

But I can't imagine ever thinking that McCain would be worth a rat's ass.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. Congrats on never watching the news or reading DU. I have a four part

journal called "The Press v. Hillary" in which I described just the media smears against Senator Clinton that have been made since January 2007. I have a three part journal for the smears against Obama. You should read both of them to catch up with what the media whores have been doing just so you will be prepared for this fall. "The Press v. Hillary Part III: Leaping Lesbians" in which I discuss right wing smears against Hillary is particularly astounding.

[budedis]

79. the vitriol "news"

I accept your congratulations on not watching the so-called "news". Especially "FUX NOISE" and all the other talking-heads trying to tell us what to think. I do read DU and Daily Kos and 20+ other online civic and issue oriented web sites, and the Wash Post, NY Times and my local newspaper. I write letters to the editor; sometimes they are published. Most recently pointing out that all of the US military deaths in Iraq, every single one, was "in vain". When Bush says he wants to make sure they didn't die "in vain" what he really means is that he wants to vindicate his policy, part of which is to never change his mind or admit mistakes. They did die in vain; not for their own vanity but for the vainglory of Bush, Cheney, Rummy-cake, fart-blossom and the rest of the neocon crew.

TV news became completely irrelevant during the 2000 campaign so I turned it off for good and gave the TV to Goodwill a few weeks later. I would much rather spend my limited time finding my own news, registering voters, working at the polls, going to see what Michelle Obama has to say, reading everything I can find by Bill Moyers, ...

The swift-boating style of political discourse is productive. It is a shrewd campaign tactic to get the other side to spend their time, energy and money defending themselves against ad hominem attacks. This isn't rocket science and Rove certainly didn't invent it, but he uses it well and has taught others how to do it. (He even has opponents doing it to each other.) It doesn't matter how big the lie is (and bigger is always better in America), tell it often and say it loudly. Politics of fear is disgusting, but sadly it works too often. They're called "ditto-heads" for a good reason and they will go to the polls and vote the way Rush told them too. Progressive voices are easily drowned out by this crap.

Unfortunately posts concerning misogyny are irrelevant. Whether you are right or not, you're preaching to the choir. One or two jokes told by Jay Leno or David Letterman on Nov 3rd about Hillary's ankles will have more impact on voters than everything Noam Chomsky has ever written.

Obama's "bitterness" comment is on target. And Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are right and have told us why a large number of Americas are bitter.

[McCamy Taylor]

121. Read "Media Matters" I don't watch FOX either. Media Matters sums up the RW so you know what they

are up to. It is always a good idea to stay informed. Otherwise how will you know if they are plotting a fascist coup?

[budedis]

150. Media Matters

They have been plotting a fascist coup for years. That's why Cheney told Rumsfeld to "get it right this time." Perhaps they have succeeded this time. I'm sure you're familiar with Naomi Klein's book and Lawrence Britt's 14 defining characteristics of fascism; summary available on t-shirts from the Syracuse Cultural Workers. Someone that I've never met has commented on mine every time I've worn it.

I have occasionally taken a look at Media Matters and will add it to my list of regulars. Thank you for the tip.

And support Al Franken for Senate. If all DUer's send him a couple of bucks another idiot could be out (Coleman) and a progressive would be in.

[suziedemocrat]

69. Obviously you can dislike Hillary and not be sexist, but a lot of the attacks on her do seem sexist.

I remember the cleavage remarks on Hardball. I remember the other stuff.

[pollo poco]

134. Thanks for this post

I don't understand why we can't discuss the sexism without discussing who's winning.
Even if Hillary wins, the sexism is rampant.
Whenever the subject comes up, people go off on tirades about how Clinton is losing because she is a bad candidate.
That may be true, but the sexism is rampant.

It doesn't matter who's winning.
The sexism is rampant.
The OP wants to talk about sexism. Not about who's winning.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

130. Somehow, I think Carlin would project far, far beyond your ability in capturing and describing

MT's logical fallacies, of which there are damn few.

However, none of us constructs the perfect argument and I don't doubt that MT would be more than happy to debate those perceived lapses of logical progression with someone of Mr. Carlin's vision and personal understanding.

Your post captures but the wisp of Carlin's philosophical leanings. Yet you claim his philosophy as yours. :shrug:

On second thought, wisp might too be strong a simile. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[budedis]

167. Arrogance and ignorance are a bad combination.

You know nothing of my abilities beyond the few hundred words that I posted. Don't try to put ideas into my mind or words into my mouth or into my posts. How do you conclude that the post was about Carlin's philosophical leanings? That I "claim his philosophy"? I was commenting on one aspect of MT's statements concerning misogyny. Clearly you missed it (ignorant) or chose to ignore it (arrogant).

I might say from your post that you are without a doubt a wisp of an intellect. But that would be a sweeping conclusion based upon a superficial and very brief encounter. That was the point of my post. Whenever you imply that you know the real intent and motivation for the actions and words of others you are always WRONG.

The subject line of this post is a good example (and is exactly why I chose those words). You are clearly of inferior intellectual abilities yet very sure of yourself nonetheless. Furthermore it is obvious that you haven't a clue as to what Carlin is really getting at when he makes a comment like "what the fuck is this shit". I don't really believe this but it is easy to draw such a conclusion about you based only on the words in your post.

Disagree with the ideas expressed by the words as you understand them. Tell us about MT's damn few logical fallacies or supply links to more supporting information or that you don't share my admiration for Clintons, Obamas, Edwardses and Kuciniches.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

168. I make zero claims to sharing the intellectual and existential views of George Carlin. I wouldn't

dare. Thus, when I make posts, I don't reference him as my intellectual equal and/or as someone who has his stellar ability debate the equations and patterns of pure logic. As I said, I would no more suggest that I was his equivalent in this arena than suggest that I'd invented the theory of the quark.

However, you brought him up as your muse, if you will, in refuting MT's arguments and even an intellectual lightweight such as me can recognize the difference between Carlin's brilliant vivisection of illogical statements and your response to MT's post.

My apologies if you thought you'd achieved his level of rapier wit wrapped around deep irony and cynicism. I stand by my statement, however much you believe that you offered a rebuttal which was worthy of sharing that rarefied level of smarts.

You've shown a talent for insults, though! :hi:

[budedis]

169. apology

Please. I make no claim that I've achieved or even tried to Carlin's level of insight and witty exposition. Nor was he the inspiration for my post. And my insults to you are false and I apologize for them. I don't believe you are an intellectual lightweight or that MT is naive. How could I? I've never met or had extensive discussions with either of you?

My point is that everyone should be very careful when stating what someone else "believes."
When a stranger tells me what or why I think or believe something it is truly an insult (that's my personal view) and a denial of my independent mind. And it hinders productive discussion. Perhaps my parents tried to shape my views of the world too tighly in ways that I didn't always agree with. Hence my sensitivity to this topic.

Argue for your points based on what you have reasoned and against the claims of others; not their motives or personalities.

It occurs to me that blogging is somewhat like driving on the freeway. The impersonal nature of the communication (if you consider negotiating lane changes in heavy traffic as a form of communication) can result in much unpleasantness. The nuances of a face-to-face encounter aren't quite captured by the emoticons. But I'll add one anyway. :)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

170. How gracious of you. Although unnecessary, apology accepted nonetheless.

I have enjoyed exchanging posts with you, in spite of, or maybe because of, the adversarial tone, since it's evident that you put thought into your words, something which is missing often, here. And, I hardly absolve myself of doing it, I'm as guilty as the next poster in that regard.

Anyone who references Mr. Carlin, in my view, has a good understanding of the saying, "Life is jest and all things show it, I used to think this, now I know it."

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

42. She won't win the nomination ... Her only shot is a Superdelegate coup d'etat.

Not.Gonna.Happen. Don't believe me? She's at, what?, -1 delegate since SuperTuesday? Barack has won 56-69% (varying accounts) since then. His delegate count is insurmountable. For crissakes do the math! We're waiting.

* foot tapping *

[McCamy Taylor]

61. Fighting a lost cause is traditionally a male trait in this country. Women are stereotyped as pliant

So, I am not really sure why the topic has turned to the odds on who will win the nomination, unless your point is that Hillary is being an unnatural woman in not submitting herself to Obama. But that would be sexist, and the whole point of this thread is to avoid using sexist arguments.

For instance, when discussing the need for solidarity "to put an end to the bickering" those who just naturally assume that this is women's work are falling prey to yet another stereotype. Hillary was not made from anyone's rib. She has as much right to ambition as Obama, and it is no more unattractive on her than it is on him.

To put things in context (KO said tonight that context is always important), in the 60s and 70s, women in the civil rights movement were expected to perform sexual favors for their brothers, in order to affirm their brothers' manhood. Women who attempted to say "no" were ridiculed, harassed and denounced for their lack of solidarity. They were not supporting their brothers' efforts to assert their power. Never mind that the women were being asked to subjugate themselves so that the men would seem more powerful by comparison. There are a lot of women who still remember those days and who resent being treated as party dolls by men who believed that they were the only ones capable of leading the real revolution. Obama is old enough that he should be aware of that history, since he is the same age as me.

[jgraz]

98. You should check out the vitriol that was poured on Jerry Brown when he refused to drop out.

[TheDonkey]

43. Too much crap to comment on. Hillary's CLEVAGE. You bring it up w.o any documentation

much like your other accusations. NEXT.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. You could have done this google yourself. Hillary's cleavage, a MSM atrocity.

There are almost half a million hits for Hillary's cleavage on Google. My 16 year old son, sitting at the other computer has just declared this "bullshit news" in the tradition of the Onion and asked why it merits half a million hits. What can I tell him? They have been fondled by Bill.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708010003

From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET on July 30, MSNBC devoted a total of 23 minutes and 42 seconds to segments discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "cleavage." MSNBC broadcast separate segments on this topic during the hours of 9 a.m., 10 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 2 p.m., and 3 p.m. ET, skipping only the noon and 4 p.m. hours. During the same period, CNN devoted 3 minutes and 54 seconds to coverage of Clinton's cleavage, while Fox News devoted none.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707290003

On the July 29 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood declared his intent to "defend" Robin Givhan's July 20 Washington Post Style section article which referred to the "cleavage on display" during Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's July 18 speech on the Senate floor. Harwood then asserted: "When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil." As Media Matters for America has documented media figures frequently portray Clinton as "calculating" or overly ambitious, while rarely offering actual examples or support.

In the article, Givhan called Clinton's appearance "unnerving" and wrote: "It was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!" Since the column, Post employees such as columnists Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank have distanced themselves from Givhan's remarks, as Media Matters noted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-smith/tightrope-discovered-in-h_b_58700.html

Huffington Post covered it

DU covered it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1474925

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3407873

Come on, ask me for some other examples of other stuff. I didn't want the main post to be too long for aesthetic reasons, but you know that more inflammatory material I post, the angrier the Hillary supporters are going to become...

Is that your intention?

[Hugabear]

44. So pointing out when Hillary isn't telling the truth is sexist?

What a load of shit.

[McCamy Taylor]

58. Saying that she is a deliberate liar based upon a few mistakes is, esp, when Obama has done the same

That is why I said that it is fair to call a lie a lie. But you have to develop a pattern of felonious lies---like those that Bush and Cheney have made which are clearly illegal---before you can say that someone is pathological. When you call some a liar, you say that every word that comes out of their mouth is untrue. That is the way that society represents women. Note that the posters at DU do not content themselves with saying "That is not true." They post "Hillary is a liar!" or "Liar, liar pants on fire."

More google:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3234662&mesg_id=3234738

"17. Just more proof that Hillary is a liar

If her lips are moving she is lying." by keep-it-real

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5235007

Here is a poll which asks if Hillary is a willful liar and we can see exactly who replies in the affirmative at DU

I hear that Kos is worse so I plugged in Daily Kos and here was the first hit. Yes, indeed Kos is worse.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/6/2323/35631/217/491004

A poster who claims that Hillary planted the moony story last year. That is pretty profoundly disturbed. Even Obama did not fall for that one.

[Missouri Blue]

156. Calling her a liar is not anything sexist.

Bill was called a liar, remember? It wasn't sexist then, it isn't now. The Clintons bring the baggage right back with them, people are sensitized to her lying due to her husband, and that includes a lot of Democrats, who at the time, wished they had someone better than Bill to vote for.

[ProSense]

45. Yes Virginia,

Hillary is 60.

[madisongrace]

46. Thank-you. n/t

[emilyg]

47. k/r

[Armstead]

48. I think she's just an unpleasant person....Gender aside

Her annoying qualities would be just as annoying if she were a male.

[roseBudd]

119. Hillary is losing because the majority of voters prefer Obama, whether it's unfair charisma...

he has it, she doesn't, doesn't matter. Life is not fair. Ask Miss America.

[pnwmom]

49. And the most irritating thing of all

is when people dismiss all of this as just a way of promoting HRC's campaign.

I'm not in either candidate's camp, but I've been appalled and disgusted by the blatant sexist and misogynistic attacks on HRC, both in DU and in the MSM. I haven't seen anything comparable against Obama -- DUers wouldn't dream of being blatantly racist, and the MSM rarely crosses that line, either.

Someone said today that Obama can't open his mouth without the media dissecting it and getting him into trouble. Well, that's politics. But HRC can't open her mouth without the MSM joking about her "cackle" or the thickness of her ankles. That's sexism.

[susankh4]

160. I stand with you on this!

And I find Mr. Obama's supporters to be his worst asset. They are always happy to ridicule and dismiss..... as if that will make everyone like them and their candidate?

[zulchzulu]

50. You forgot the obvious...and it's true: Hillary is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR

It doesn't matter what genitals are on the body...if someone is a PROVEN and REPETITIVE LIAR, their gender is as important as how many lumps of sugar are in their tea.

[question everything]

53. And Obama just "misspeaks"

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5465037

1. his continual reference to his "Christian" faith, which is actually "black liberation theology"; 2. his lies and omissions about his connection to his racist and anti-American "mentor and spiritual adviser"; 3. his lie that the Kennedy family provided the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father; 4. his current false ad in Pennsylvania in which he lies about taking contributions from the oil companies; 5. his alleged continual opposition to the Iraq war; 6. his denial regarding playing the race card (for which he was busted by Tim Russert); 7. his denial that any meeting took place between his chief economic adviser and the Canadian official about NAFTA; 8. his changing testimony about his relationship with and monetary support from Rezko; 9. his lie about a pharmaceutical lobbyist's involvement in his campaign; 10. his statement that his parents met at the Selma march (when he was actually born 4 year before that); 11. his claim in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white, when both Life and Ebony say there was no such article.

[Texas Hill Country]

81. HAHA, exactly

[a la izquierda]

116. Since when is black liberation theology...

not christian? Explain, if you'd be so kind. Martin Luther King Jr was a "black" liberation theologian. Was he not a Christian? And, let me stress that I'm not trying to be a snarky bitch here, do you really know what l.t. is? Suggesting that Obama's references to his "christian" faith, which is, as you suggest really black liberation theology---and that this is a lie is pretty darn inaccurate.

Rev. Wright's comments certainly are extremely controversial. Blaming victims of 9/11 for decades of truly disastrous US policy is pointless, disgusting and wrongheaded--but, have we not all blasted US policy on DU?

And Canadian officials have said both campaigns told them that their NAFTA comments were not as serious as they'd been made out to be. So that's sort of a moot point.

[nonoxy9]

51. You forgot: Hillary as CORPORATE SHILL!!!!

I wonder how long this would go on if Barack's supporters just kept saying "you like Hillary because you don't trust BLACK people"?!
Oooh! Oooh! Don't forget: Hillary as whiny loser!!:puke:

[polmaven]

123. And, of course...

Hillary is "shrill".

[jgraz]

54. Except Hillary hasn't won a presidential primary

She's lost. Badly. And the fact that people are pissed at her has far less to do with her gender than it does with the fact that she's apparently too stupid and desperate to notice that she's lost and go the fuck away.

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Hillary was the FIRST WOMAN to ever win a pres primary---in New Hampshire.

On a Democratic ticket. And what did the press do? Did they celebrate the event? Did they say "You have come a long way baby"? No. As soon as it became clear that she had won, the press began to claim that she had cheated.

A woman candidate for president won a major primary and no one even commented upon the historic significance of the fact except for NOW

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-08.html

Hillary Clinton Makes History
First Woman to Win New Hampshire Primary

Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy

Tonight Senator Hillary Clinton defied the media pundit machine and made history as the first woman to win the New Hampshire Democratic primary for U.S. president.

[jgraz]

97. Actually, most of the press was falling over themselves trying to find superlatives

The MSNBC crew was almost jumping out of their skins, including Tweety, trying to top each other in describing what a fantastic, incredible, unprecedented win we've just witnessed. Timmeh Russert called it something like the greatest political comeback in history.

Only Rachel Maddow pointed out that this was a state that she had been expected to win handily and she barely squeaked out a victory.

This was the theme all over the media. I defy you to find any quote from any mainstream journalist that even implies that Hillary Clinton somehow cheated in New Hampshire.

[McCamy Taylor]

125. Matthews said New Hampshire voters were racists. Here is your link.

Recall that the polls got New Hampshire wrong and the press was irate about it. They refused to believe that they could have gotten it wrong.


http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/chris_matthews_racist_paleface_voters_in_new_hampshire_are_what_did_obama_i/

MSNBC host Chris Matthews didn’t just uncork his line on Primary Night about how New Hampshire Democrats would have displayed their racism to pollsters if they heard an “Archie Bunker voice” on the other end of the line. He repeated it on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” show on MSNBC. He was upset at anyone who thought the pollsters and pundits were wrong about the Obama victory, when white voters lied to pollsters: “Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue.”

Matthews declared he thought this was over in 2006: “I thought white voters had stopped being what they want to be. And you know what it tells me? People aren’t proud of who they are.” Host Joe Scarborough, asking Matthews to address the alleged bigotry in New England, drew out Matthews, the former top aide to Boston-area Rep. Tip O’Neill, to denounce the whole Boston area: “There’s different kinds of prejudice, as you know, in the north than there is in the south, but it exists. It may not be ‘I think I’m better than you,’ but it might be ‘I don’t want to live next door to you.’”

So, far from celebrating Hillary's win, Tweety was thinking up reasons why her people had stolen the race. He also conjectured that the exit polls and pre-election polls were correct, but that the vote had been hacked.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

"What accounts for Hillary's victory in New Hampshire?" Tweety.

MATTHEWS: So what accounts for Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire? What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?

More on the widespread rumors that Hillary "stole" New Hampshire

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_widespread_fraud.htm

Clear Evidence Of Widespread Vote Fraud In New Hampshire
Paul and Obama cheated out of 3rd and 1st by voting machines, hand count fraud

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Democratic Underground went wild when Robert Koehler swore that this article would be in the big newspapers the next day.

http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col429.htm

First of all, before we get too enthusiastic about feminist solidarity or wax knowingly about New Hampshire Democrats’ traditional soft-heartedness toward the Clinton family, let’s ponder yet again the possibility of tainted results, which is such an unfun prospect most of the media can’t bear to remember that all the problems we’ve had with electronic voting machines — and Diebold machines in particular, which dominate New Hampshire polling places — remain unsolved.

Did the Hillary campaign really defy the pollsters? She had been trailing Barack Obama by 13 percentage points, 42 to 29, in a recent Zogby poll, as election watchdog Brad Friedman pointed out. And the weekend’s “rapturous packed rallies for Mr. Obama,” as the New York Times put it, “suggested Mrs. Clinton was in dire shape.”

So when she emerged from the Tuesday primary with an 8,000-vote and 3-percentage-point victory over Obama, perhaps — considering the notorious unreliability, not to mention hackability, of Diebold machines — the media might have hoisted a few red flags in the coverage, rather than immediately chalk the results up to Clinton’s tears and voter unpredictability. (Oh, if only more reporters considered red flags patriotic.)

It was an all night Hillary dun hacked the New Hampshire primary that scheming bitch! fest.

I think I was the only person who did not believe Koehler's claim that this article---which lacked proof--was going to appear in the next day's Tribune papers. Why on earth would Sam Zell let his papers trash talk the e-vote machines that the GOP is counting on to help them steal this fall's election? It was much more likely that Koehler was just trash talking Hillary. I was so convinced that this story was going nowhere that while people at DU were predicting the demise of the Hillary campaign, I wrote this:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/120

Chicago 1968: Dems, Don’t Let Yourself Be Herded Into a Circular Firing Squad

I have been writing some variation of this for about six months. And look where we are. Sniping at each other. Pathetic. The companion journal that I wrote to the one you are reading now, Democratic Idols: The Mother and Child Reunion with its can't we all get along message got about 1/4 the attention this one did even though it contained the exact same material (plus some glowing material about Obama and Edwards).

[polmaven]

124. You are apparently confusing

the "nomination" with a "primary".

Oh, and, no one has yet won the "nomination".

[Undercurrent]

59. Hillary Clinton is not "Everywoman".

I disagree with a basic premise of your otherwise well written post.

Hillary Clinton is not me. She doesn't stand for me.

I am a 60 year old woman, who lives alone, and is a self employed silversmith. Hillary Clinton represents the kind of political corruption that has permeated our government for far to long. She doesn't represent me.

[intaglio]

64. Fascinating and elegant analysis

The stereotyping of strong ruling women has been going on for centuries and only the very greatest an take control of the mythologising and use it for their own benefit.

In England the Empress Matilda used the archetype of "woman the avenger" (Nike in Greek mythology). Queen Elizabeth used the image of the holy virgin (the Virgin Queen) and the eldritch "Fairie Queen"; I suspect she was not above playing the weak vacillating woman when required (the execution of the Queen of Scots). Margaret Thatcher used what appeared to be a more modern theme in being "The Iron Lady" except the mythology of the Triune (the 3-fold Goddess) has always included the Deathbringer, the Goddess of Battle, whose flesh could not be cut by weapons.

[funflower]

65. Sexism lives, but Hillary still lied about the Tuzla thang. I wish I could support her,

but, after that, no way. She's let us all down.

Maybe the next female presidential candidate won't make up bizarre stories for no apparent reason.

P.S.: I think Chelsea is a GREAT daughter and a huge credit to her parents.

[susankh4]

66. Fabulous assessment!

Speak your truth, my friend!

Stand tall!!

[Danger Mouse]

68. And racism has been a factor in attacks on Obama.

It cuts both ways.
Stop trying to pretend that Hillary is losing because of sexism.
Did you know that a large percentage of white voters in Ohio chose Clinton because of 'race'?
What does that tell you?

[McCamy Taylor]

126. How do you "know" that? Be careful, because correlation is not causality.

I have seen most of the polls and I know that the ones that the news media tossed out on election night in order to fan the fires of discord within the Democratic Party as part of the divide and conquer strategy that the corporate class is always using against the working class (they do it as naturally as you or I breathe) asked the question of Whites "Did you consider race?" or something along those lines.

Since this is America, I can tell you that the people who answered "no" were lying. Everyone thinks about race. It is one of the demographic parameters along which we divide ourselves. Gender, age, race. Religion hardly counts anymore (it used to). Just those three are enough to pigeonhole most of us.

A person can think think about "race" but not make a decision based upon race. That is why I said that correlation is not causality. If boys and girls go on a camping trip and the boys sleep outside and get poison ivy and all get rashes, and when they go home the school nurse sees them, she can not conclude "Only boys get rashes". She must investigate further to discover that those who slept outdoors got rashes.

What you observe in the surveys could in fact be that people who vote for Hillary belong to a culture in which truth and honesty are valued more highly than politically correct speech and therefore if they are asked "Did you think about race?" they will answer the question truthfully, whereas Obama supporters may come from a culture where politically correct speech is valued more highly than frankness. Europeans in countries like the Netherlands, for instance, place a higher value on avoiding speech that might offend than they do on being forthright and honest in one's opinions. On the other hand, the classic American frontier model is of a person, male or female who speaks his or her own mind without fear of what others will say---Gary Cooper from "High Noon." Therefore in the US freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended while in parts of Europe the right not be offended trumps free speech.

[nonoxy9]

153. What a load of CRAP!!! "Obama supporters may come from a culture...

where politically correct speech is valued more highly than frankness." Or "truth and honesty".:puke:
Speaking "frankly", that kind of twisted logic would make Goebbels proud! By your thinking, only whites and women can "honestly" support Hillary. Blacks and men support Obama. Except for white men, and of course black women, and only if they are dishonest.
In other words, NOBODY is supporting Obama because they like him, trust him, and agree with his policies!
Again, a load of CRAP!!!

[susankh4]

164. Thanks so much for this analysis!

Only a few have dared to come forth with such startling clarity.

[Maxdee55]

70. Am I Dreaming? A Pro Hillary Post On D.U.

I honestly had to look twice, could it be a post defending Hillary Clinton is on Democratic Underground, strange days indeed. I have been a Democrat for over 30 years and I have never seen a party turn on someone so fast and so intensely as Democrats have turned against the Clinton's. What is truly irritating is that those who once staunchly defended the Clinton's now use the same tactics against them that the right wing has used for 16 years.

Why is it acceptable for the Obama supporter to ask Chelsea about Monica Lewinsky? Randi Rhodes from Air America radio who once couldn't say enough nice things about Hillary Clinton now goes onstage and calls her and Geraldine Ferraro "fu-kin whores". When it came out that Obama's passport files were investigated, the media was all over the story, of course the Obama camp made sure to insinuate Hillary was behind it. But when it came to pass that Clinton and McCain were also investigated the story died. The theme of this campaign has become simple, anything Clinton says is an unfair dirty trick against Obama, born of lies, and based on gutter politics, on the other hand Obama is saintly, everything he says is true, and his selfless intentions are only to do good and rid the world of evil.

The Obama supporter has made it clear to all, if you do not support Obama you are "racist and stupid". And yet the only racism I see in this campaign is that 95% of black-America is voting for Obama. Whatever the reasoning Obama has been treated with kid gloves by the media, while Clinton has been crucified. Above all the eye opening experience in this campaign has been the hypocrisy of the left, for if you didn't know it you would think Hillary were running against a Republican

[LiberalLovinLug]

111. WTF are you talking about?

"The Obama supporter has made it clear to all, if you do not support Obama you are "racist and stupid".

This is the juvenile garbage that is ripping the Democratic party asunder. I don't know of one Obama supporter that feels that way about supporters of other nominees let alone made it "clear to all". That is some defensive concoction boiling over inside your head to shut out any negative news about your particular choice.

We are, or should be, DEMOCRAT supporters first and foremost. Is there racism, and sexism? Of course!

What is shameful is OPs like this lump the worst of the worst in the GOP machine, and the real misogynists, and a long and sordid past of putting down women, together in with Democrats who are not clinging on to the sides of Hillary's sinking boat.

This Obama supporter will GLADLY still vote for Hillary over McBush any day. But Hillary had a huge advantage coming in and was leading in the polls even though (gasp) she's a woman!... she blew it with her campaign or lack thereof.

Hillary has to deal with ingrained sexism in society, Obama has to deal with ingrained racism in society, and McCain has to deal with ingrained age-ism in society. Deal with it.

[McCamy Taylor]

129. This post strikes me as divide and conquer.

Therefore, I would recommend ignoring it.

[pecwae]

71. Outstanding post & research.

K&R

[indimuse]

72. Fantastic post!

Thank you for your work. Bookmarked. Look forward to more. :)

[indimuse]

73. K&

R!!!!!!

[mirrera]

74. But Virginia only if you do crazy things, are mean spirited, and lie for no reason.

Because even if you are a woman, equality means you will get called on it. I won't be checking back so save the flames.

[dailykoff]

75. This is embarrassing.

And not in any way that can be construed as complimentary to the OP.

[DawgHouse]

77. Thank you for a fine post.

[Girlieman]

78. With so much free time on your hands

you must be doing very well in the Bush economy. Not surprising you like Hilary. I would add to my comments, but I've got to get to work to put food on my family.

Have a nice election.

[McCamy Taylor]

132. Or I could be unemployed or disabled or incarcerated and then you would feel bad.

The world is a complicated place.

[Unbowed]

80. Equality means being able to own up to what you do and say regardless of your gender.

If you are use underhanded tactics, you will be called unethical.

If you lie, you will be called a liar.

And if you win the Primary, you will be called the nominee.

I only see two out of these three that Hillary Clinton is in the running for and it has nothing to do with her gender.

[McCamy Taylor]

133. The 2000 election proves all those points wrong in a spectacular way.

Rove used underhanded tactics like they were going out of style against McCain.

Bush lied time and again and as Margaret Carlson admitted, the press did not even bother to fact check him. It was no "fun".

Gore won the election, but the SCOTUS called Bush the president.

And these were both White males.

There has never been equality in the United States. I am just asking that we attempt to avoid overtly sexist rhetoric.

[Unbowed]

175. I didn't mean to imply the existence of equality, just the criteria for it.

If you lie, for example, you deserve the title of "liar" no matter what your gender, race, age, occupation or religious affiliation. If you lie and you happen to be a woman, you can't cry sexism when people call you a liar. If you don't want to be called a liar, tell the truth.

And plenty of us have called Rove and Bush liars, repeatedly. It just hasn't done much good because the bastards still hold all the cards.

[AnnieBW]

82. If Hillary is the "Great Mother Goddess"

Why are most of the Pagans that I know voting for Obama? I mean, we WORSHIP the Goddess in all of her aspects. We're feminists - even the men. I'm going to a Pagan event tonight, and I'll ask them if they believe that Hillary is a representative of the Goddess.

Seriously, I think that you're reading too much into this. Yes, a lot of the attacks on her are sexist, just like a lot of the attacks on Obama are racist. But, at some point, you have to sit back and evaluate the candidates by the issues, not by race or gender or likability.

[McCamy Taylor]

131. The Catholics are voting for Hillary. Virgin of Guadalupe and Holy Mother

are the goddesses of the New World. I write about this is the journal that I wrote just before this one "Democratic Idols: The Mother and Child Reunion", California, Texas, New England, Ohio Pennsylvania---all big Catholic states and regions. Catholics speak to Mary to intercede for them with God. Protestants consider Mary the Great Whore. Latinos can dig Hillary because for them Guadalupe was an Aztec Goddess who managed to infiltrate the conquerors' Church. Mexicans marched under her banner when they kicked the Spanish out. She is more important than Jesus or God to many of them.

Plus, there are some cultures, Irish, Native American esp. that have strong matriarchy traditions. Hillary does extremely well in those groups. And those groups take great offense at sexist attacks. They believe that Hillary, the Mother, will understand and help them in a way that a distant male figure can not, just as Mother Mary intercedes for them in a way that the distant all powerful God does not.

There are a lot of Catholics in the Democratic Party and they are voting for Hillary by a pretty good margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/nyregion/09about.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/27/capturing-the-catholic-vote/

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS19/803270333/1321/NEWS

Note that the MSM does not "get" Catholics. They think that Catholics only vote on abortion and that they do what the Pope tells them. This is bullshit. Or maybe those are Republican Catholics. I do not know any of those. I only know Democratic Catholics. Catholics openly mock the Pope--among each other. I am not Catholic myself but my extended family is and I went to a Catholic school during the 8th grade. I learned that these 13 year olds only gave lip service to what the priest told them and they had their own views on abortion, sex, birth control---and this was in 1972 in Atlanta. What is much more important for Catholics, especially Democratic Catholics and what separates them from Protestants is the lack of the Calvinist belief that worldly success is proof of God's favor. To a Catholic, if you make money, you are obligated to share it. The only excuse for wealth is to do good works with it. Catholics feel called upon to help those in need. They are going to look for the candidate whom they believe who will sacrifice him or herself to help others. They do not care if their candidate looks like a winner ( a Puritan ethic that Obama excels at) since they know that saints and martyrs often appear humble, bedraggled, wretched. The more Hillary is attacked by the news media, the more they will support her. Especially the Irish Catholics.

So, when the MSM attacks Hillary, it cements her base. People like Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan know this. They are Irish Catholics. They know exactly what effect they are having on the Democratic primary when they mock Hillary. Keith Olbermann does not. I suspect that he is getting bum advice from one of the two listed above. KO is making a martyr of Hillary so that her core
supporters---women and Catholics will be strengthened in their resolve.

And if you combine women and Catholics you have damn big Democratic pool to draw votes from.

[susankh4]

161. Maybe because you don't know many of us?

[AnnieBW]

176. Been in the community for 20 years

Of course, I don't know every Pagan in the US. I don't think anyone does - except for the folks at Witchvox. But most of my compatriots here in the DC/Balto area were for Obama.

[DesEtoiles]

83. if the shoe fits...

[Missouri Blue]

85. Accusations of hysteria/insanity are and were unfortunately, sometimes true.

It's ironic to me that you write about sexism, when to me, the most obvious example is the aggravating way Clinton is always called "Hillary." Even on her website! I mean, nobody refers to her husband just as "Bill." We don't refer to the other candidates on a first name basis. The argument that we have to distinguish her from her husband doesn't wash: we don't worry about that when we refer to Bush; people never seem to confuse him with his father.

Maybe people would be more balanced about her if they didn't immediately think they were so familiar?

More later.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

87. Yep, we hysterical women can make your life purty danged tough, eh?

And, those of us with insanity can be awfully annoying, wouldn't you say?

Welcome to DU.

[Missouri Blue]

154. Hillary Clinton is sane, but McCamy Taylor's essay was not.

If it was meant to uncover "the conspiracy" against females and connect it with Clinton's plight, and to blame Obama supporters for being part of it, then it has failed. No matter how it's re-iterated, males don't see that conspiracy, and almost unanimously, they don't see themselves acting in concert with it, neither by motivation nor by action, I assure you.

I know, who cares? Except that maybe 95 percent of women don't see it that way either. I don't think reiteration will help the argument gain credibility even within her own gender.

That's not to say there hasn't been incessant sexism leveled at Clinton, definitely it has been. I have been shocked to read the names conservatives will call her, in blogs and on discussion boards, where I've locked horns with them. They've called her a whore, a witch, a bitch, a bull-dyke, a harpy and a cunt, and worse. (I don't consider calling her a liar to be sexist. They say that about Bill, too.) But really, you can't give what they say any more meaning than a black eye. The men (and sometimes women) don't care about reality or truth to any of those terms. They are insults, and meant to hurt, raise blood pressure, distract, and soil without any regard for truth or accuracy. If we give them an absurd amount of thought finding all these connections, the insults have done collateral damage. We take our eyes off the ball if we over think and over-analyze them. It's better just to return insults, as low as it feels.

Now, the boundaries of opinions are not neat, it's obvious that many Democrats have serious misgivings about Clinton. I'm new here, so I'm not deeply read in what Obama supporters have said, but I presume it has been caustic, and unfortunately, sexist insults are some of the most effective.

IMO, there is no formalized male conspiracy to oppress women, but I've seen on the Internet that in disputes between a man and a woman, it's uncanny how the men will close ranks against a woman. Even if it's none of their business, even if they don't quite know what's going on, and the men who don't go along or who defend her are treated as some kind of traitors. I've been there, done that. It definitely doesn't go any further than immediate dominance, but it cumulatively does its damage, to women and society. Women must be familiar with it and learn to repress themselves, meanwhile men don't notice anything strange about their behavior, so you definitely won't get anywhere arguing about some kind of social-economic conspiracy.

Further, I don't say that other forms of sexism aren't present in this country. Just hearing questions like: "Is the US ready for a woman president?" Look at how many countries have had women presidents, prime ministers and such! We're about last in the world, and we're still asking that question? Many other countries have done it. That ground has been broken already, and we missed the opportunity to be significant. In other words, we'd be doing nothing that the world needs. The Presidential glass ceiling has been broken in places like the Philippines and Pakistan. So, the fact is, no ground will be broken by Clinton.

I hate to point out that the roles for women in both of those countries don't seem much better than prior. I'll bet women aren't at equal pay in either place. It's remarkable how little things really changed for women. I question if a woman in power will help other women, just like a man in power doesn't necessarily help other men.

That's why I advise against seeing Clinton as the great-hope-for-women candidate. The fact that we ask if we're ready is sad, but don't make the mistake that Clinton is better for POTUS because she is a woman, therefore "groundbreaking" and beneficial for women. It makes about as much sense as saying that Nixon was a better choice as POTUS because he was a Quaker.

For the record, I think insane males are much more damaging than insane females; male insanity is measured sometimes not by annoyance, but by body-counts. It doesn't help to back a sane candidate with insanity.

[McCamy Taylor]

137. We called W. "W." to distinguish him from Bush Sr. for years. Say "Clinton" some think "Bill"

So, this argument does not make a lot of sense. If Hillary was president, then I think eventually Clinton would start meaning her the way that Bush started referring to W. and not Sr. But it was into the second term before it really stuck.

[Missouri Blue]

155. "Dubya" is a term of contempt.

Almost like he didn't deserve a first name.

More to the point: since she's the one running for office and Bill's position would be informal, it makes more sense to call her "Clinton" and to call him "Bill." Calling her by her first name just doesn't sit right. People never called Jimmy Carter just "Jimmy." We never called John F. Kennedy "John" and don't do it now.

I wouldn't mind if it were used just informally, but even her own website refers to her that way.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

86. K & R, MT!

When I last read De Tocqueville about 10 years ago, although I appreciated some of his spot on observations about the government, I remember being a bit puzzled by some of his other remarks about the social structures.

Now I see that this could have been because of his words regarding women in American society. How I missed it then, I don't know. Maybe I just wasn't as keyed into the language and attitudes as I am now.

Great research, great writing, as usual!

:kick:

[DWilliamsamh]

88. I rec'd this post and I agree with all the sexist symbols you note BUT...

Although there are a multitude of people who will not vote for HRC because she's a woman, I don't agree with your implication that the majority of those like myself who have decided not to support her candidacy, are perpetrators or unknowing victims of sexism.

The reasons that are cited in the VAST majority of posts here and on other left of center locales have nothing to do with her sex.

Here are a few:

1) Her vote in the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq: which she admits she made without reading the relevant NIE, and for which she refused to even come close to admitting was a mistake until her fortunes where so low that she was desperate to win even a few votes with the admission.

2) Her campaign's whispered appeal to racism, after she fell behind, that disregards the FACT that the only way to win states is to win the votes (caucus or primary) of those who are not African Americans as blacks don't make up enough of the population in the majority of the 30 states that Obama won, to have been the "margin of victory." And its consequent ignorance of the FACT that there are plenty of folks who would not vote for him, while they vote for her, because he is black.

3) Her tacit endorsement of John McCain - if SHE wasn't the nominee - as being more qualified to be CiC.

4) Her constant invocation of her husband's accomplishments as proof of her experience, and distancing herself from his failures as his own. The reality is while she has two more years in the senate, Obama has more experience as an elected official and more experience as an advocate for the common man that Senator Clinton.

5) Her out right lie about her experience in Bosnia upon arrival. It was a lie - not a misstatement.

6) The lastest on the hit parade: "how do you answer that question?" about the relationship between her top political adviser, her husband and a trade deal with Columbia that she is against. How? Please, how about this: "Regardless of Mr. Penn or my husbands feelings or financial interests, I don't support it and will vote against it in the Senate." It's that simple.

I could go on but I think these are sufficient and serious reasons to have a serious problem with the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. None of them have anything to do with her gender.

Please note: I have very positive reasons for supporting Mr. Obama but I am addressing the OP here.

[McCamy Taylor]

138. Individual Obama supporters are not sexist. People within the MSM and some online

posters use sexist rhetoric to attack Hillary Clinton. I am just trying to show how they use sexist arguments to give their lies the "ring of truth."

Here is an analogy. Say you are J. Edgar Edgar Hoover and you are mad at Dr. King for stealing your Nobel Peace Prize. How you do smear him? You try to find hints that he is having an affair, since you figure you can easily convince the public of the racist smear "all Black men are hypersexual".

People can have legitimate reasons for not liking a candidate and they can include "I just don't like that candidate". But it is best to be honest about. For instance, if someone were to say "I do not like Obama because his wife is always at his side as if she does not trust him to be alone with all those women who flock around him" that would be total racist bullshit and everyone would know it and jump all over it.

They should have done the same thing when people said "Hillary only cries to get votes." Actors can tell you how difficult it is to cry convincingly in public, on cue. If Hillary could do that, she would also come off as a much more likable person, because she would be able to fake it.

[susankh4]

162. You are spot on McCamy!

Don't ever stop telling our truth!

[DWilliamsamh]

173. Except that ...

People HERE and places like this (I.E. "the Democratic base") DID jump all over that as sexist language.

So unless you are saying that the majority of the Democratic base is sexist (knowingly or unknowingly) and that this sexism outweighs what is certainly some racism, you central point that it is sexism that is the explanation for Hillary's aggregate loss in the nomination process so far, your point is incorrect. The Press doesn't have super powers to hypnotize the voters in general and the population that is the Democratic voter in general is NOT nearly as sexist as you imply.

Furthermore I think that your point about the Democratic base being sexist in general is just objectively false. Implying such a thing is NOT productive in the least.

[MethuenProgressive]

89. You neglect when Obama Himself brought up Tonya Harding.

Shameful.

[OzarkDem]

90. Did he really begin that stupid meme?

Oh fer chrissakes.

Obama apparently has the emotional maturity of a teenager and the heart and brain of a right wing Republican.

[Occam Bandage]

91. No. He once said that he would run a positive campaign, and

would not kneecap his opponents like Tonya Harding. He never linked Harding and Clinton.

[rodeodance]

103. YES he did--it was posted here on DU--do a search

[Occam Bandage]

104. And like I said, those remarks were in reference to himself. He never linked Clinton to Harding.

[MethuenProgressive]

95. Yes. And if you follow the DUbama's "logic" that BC mentioning JJ was "racist"...

Then BO's mention of Tonya was "sexist".

[Occam Bandage]

106. Except he didn't mention Harding in reference to Clinton, did he, MP?

[Major Hogwash]

127. Bubba started making racist comments before South Carolina.

Right after Hillary lost Iowa, Bubba said "Obama is a fairy tale", and "Obama is no Martin Luther King".

Even though Obama never said he was Martin Luther King.
But, one thing is for sure - Obama wasn't the man who got caught getting blowjobs in the White House, and then lied about it for 9 straight months!!
Bubba was 49 years old when he took advantage of a 23 year-old intern.
That is an abuse of power!

[McCamy Taylor]

141. How can people criticize Hillary on the truth and keep repeating the same media lies?

Clinton said that Obama's narrative about his stance on the Iraq War was a fairy tale which he had constructed to make himself seem to have been a more consistent dove than he actually was. In fact, Obama have his anti-war speech but then it disappeared and by the time he entered Congress, you would not have known that his policy was any different from Clintons---until he decided to run for president and he decided to make "I was against the war when she was for it" the centerpiece of his campaign.

Clinton accused Obama of rewriting history. That is what he called a fairy tale. Google it yourself at Media Matters.

Bill never said anything about Dr. King. Hillary compared Obama (by inference) to JFK and herself to LBJ and said that JFK didn't get the civil rights legislation that Dr. King wanted passed but that LBJ did. Yes, she was making a comparison. She was saying that experience---hers and LBJ's---is sometimes more effective than speeches----Obama's and JFK's. It was extemporaneous, but her meaning was still clear. The trouble was that someone rushed an edited version of it onto YouTube and claimed that she made a racist comparison of LBJ to MLK Jr. Someone who wanted to introduce race baiting into the race. And Hillary would not have wanted to do that because it would only hurt her. That leaves the RNC and Obama supporters. I am going to say the RNC because I do not think that Obama would do something like that and I know that the RNC has been trying to stir up trouble. The NYT then published the edited remarks three times even though Media Matters kept demanding that they retract the story and print what she really said. I have posted this story so many times here at DU that I can not believe that anyone here has not heard the real version. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama because he got mad that Hillary said LBJ was better than JFK. When people spread that same lie again it convinces me that the RNC is out there disseminating disinformation.

This is in Media Matters, too. Google is at your command.

Re: lying about sex, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a scientific survey done among college students and found that over 50% did not believe that oral sex was "sexual relations". For the majority, only sex that could lead to pregnancy counted as "sexual relations". Anything else was just fooling around.

Now, please explain why Obama said he never did a "favor" for Rezko but months later a letter was discovered in which he urged that Rezko's company be awarded a lucrative government contract? Obama says that was not a "favor" for Rezko, it was a "favor" for the clients with whom Rezko would eventually work. Keep in mind that Obama had been called upon to defend Rezko associated enterprises on charges of failing to provide heating in the winter and ask yourself what kind of "favor" he thought he was doing for those clients.

[Major Hogwash]

159. Oh, you are wrong, Bubba did say that about Obama and Martin Luther King.

I don't give a shit if you can google it or not - I saw that slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging Southern trash asshole say it for myself live on teevee!

So, these aren't "media lies" - I saw and heard Bubba get racist - in January!!

[Major Hogwash]

166. ". . . over 50% did not believe that oral sex was "sexual relations". . . "

Do you really believe that if I asked Bubba if I could put my cock in Chelsea's mouth, he would not consider that "sexual relations".

You're whacked!

[roseBudd]

172. "50% did not believe that oral sex was "sexual relations" really? That justifies the lie Bill told?

Bill did not get head one time from someone he barely knew. He bought Monica the same book of poems he gave to Hillary.

I think he o0nly got head, for the same selfish reasons rock stars only get head from groupies. Selfish. He didn't do anything to please Monica unless you count the cigar. Ew. And yuck.

[Occam Bandage]

92. "Unfortunately,I am a realist."

Perhaps the least-true thing anyone has said today.

[Summer93]

99. Well done

Sexism is written in, still. When I went to the Social Security office to inquire about retirement benefits. They told me I would get more money as the widow. My husband died in 1975. I worked full time since that time and thought my earnings would establish the amount - wrong. Even though my husband died so many years ago my benefits are now based on his numbers and therefore I get more then if based upon my earnings.

[DemsUnited]

100. Believe that most dems liked & respected Sen. Clinton (even if

they were supporting Barack) until the week before the March 4th primaries when she:

1) said that McCain would be a better commander in chief than a fellow democrat.
2) said she was going to throw the kitchen sink at Obama and to hell with scorched earth.

As someone who is fed-up and furious with Rove tactics and 527 swiftboaters, watching what is arguably the "first family" of the democratic party use the same tactics is disillusioning and appalling.

Which is why this middle-aged white woman is reluctantly coming to the conclusion that I can't vote for Hillary Clinton even if she does knee-cap her way to the nomination.

[ExtraGriz]

101. Great analysis McCamy

thank you for the time and effort you put into this...K&R

[NOLALady]

102. Yes Virginia,

If you are a crazy lying woman, you will be called a crazy lying woman whether or not you are President.

[kwenu]

105. I know I left a bucket of water around here somewhere.

[CakeGrrl]

107. Put away the broad brush

Why do some of the HRC supporters keep trying to force the issue of misogyny/sexism into the discussion where often none exists?

Does that mean that I don't believe sexism and misogyny exist? Of course not, but they aren't the source of all that has gone wrong with the Clinton campaign by a longshot. HRC and her campaign managers are botching this all on their own.

When HRC stops lying, I'll stop calling her out on being a liar.

When HRC or her campaign stops committing acts of ineptitude and disingenuousness, I'll stop calling her and the campaign out on doing that.

I can't do anything about the inconvienient coincidence that a lying, dirty-tricks campaigner also happens to be a woman.

[Branjor]

109. K & R

Fantastic, well researched, insightful post.

[Tellurian]

110. Some of the most misogynist and vicious comments on DU come from females

Think about the 'sickness' rattling around in those confused self-loathing cerebellums unable to discern misogyny from the definition of someone playing the gender victim card.

Good work McCamy! Thanks for posting!

[smiley_glad_hands]

112. How about Hilliary the sore loser. eom

[McCamy Taylor]

145. Yeah, that worked for the RNC in Florida in 2000, Sore-Loserman

[Political Heretic]

113. I'm with you on almost everything but the lying one. But none of this is why she is losing.

But you lost me at lying. You make a pretty big straw man there when you say no one can claim every single thing she has ever said is a lie. Great, because you know what, no one is doing that.

Hillary is a liar. That statement correctly identifies that she has been caught in ridiculous lies more than once. It does not assume the human impossibility that everything she has ever said is a lie.

There's nothing sexist about making a truthful, fact based statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5461610

These two statements are true:
1. Hillary has experienced sexism
2. Hillary is not losing because she has experienced sexism

Still, I'm giving you a kick and recommend for thoughtfully continuing this important discussion.

[Yurovsky]

114. Complete & utter bullshit...

There are millions of women that girls should look up to and try to emulate. Typically, they are women who overcame great odds and did things ON THEIR OWN. My mom, a single mom who raised 9 kids, was one. She didn't ride on anybody's coattails to get ahead in life.

Hillary, OTOH, is the ultimate coattail rider. If you think that makes her a role model, well, you and I have very different notions of what makes a strong woman.

Perhaps if HRC had risen through her own efforts and intellect, she might have won the nomination. Sadly for her, and her supporters, she found out that WJC's coattails weren't quite long enough or strong enough to provide a free ride into the Oval Office.

[McCamy Taylor]

144. Why, in a marriage, is the woman's contribution discounted? Bill and Hillary ran

as a team in 1992. For all we know, Hillary helped to shape Bill into the leader he became.

[Nedsdag]

148. Oh, they ran as a team all right!

Ask Al Gore.

[Kjaereste]

115. I'm a feminist for Obama...

Not because I have anything against Hillary, but because I sincerely believe Obama is more electable and that his temperament and demeanor are more likely to result in meaningful bipartisan cooperation which will result in legislation which will help average Americans. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of being labeled a misogynist for exercising my right to have an opinion. Should we call you a racist for being for Hillary as opposed to Obama?

This sort of mud-slinging gets us nowhere.

[susankh4]

165. There is no mudslinging here.

Only analysis.

If you *are* a feminist.... you clearly haven't studied the feminist scholars.

[The Doctor.]

118. Oi. The CLAIMS of misogyny FAR outweigh the actuality.

Many times I've ask Hillary's supporters to come up with examples of this 'rampant misogyny', and been shown not even a handful of examples. In one thread of 150 replies, they managed to turn up one good example, and two weak examples. On a discussion board with many thousands of posts per day, no rational person can call that 'rampant'.

Add to that the likelyhood that most of worst offenders are trolls, and this misogyny is practically non-existant on DU.

This is a far more decent place than people are making it out.

[pollo poco]

139. Not a Hillary Supporter

Still find the misogyny rampant. Read the post. You will find your handful of examples there.
Dr. Eldritch- you may find this place more decent than people make it out because the slap isn't to your own face.

This is another one of those posts that obscures the issue.

One can find Ms. Clinton to be an absolutely unsatisfactory candidate (as I do) and still be appalled by the sexism.

Ms. Clinton can lose because of any number of factors. People should not vote for her.

I am still appalled by the sexism.

[The Doctor.]

140. Talk is cheap. Let's see some examples of the sexism you claim is so rampant.

Show us the quote.

[The Doctor.]

146. Anytime....

[sueragingroz]

128. a big K & R

the best way to promote your own interests has absolutely nothing to do with tearing down someone else's.

[Vinca]

136. I'm confused. Just last week Hillary was giving a speech talking

about how long it took her to get ready in the morning as compared to her male counterparts. Is that reverse sexism? She often speaks of her womanhood. Shouldn't that be forbidden if we're all supposed to close our eyes and pretend this is a gender neutral affair? Also curious how the squawks of gender bias seem to go away as soon as Hillary thinks she's got Obama on something. Then she morphs into "strong woman" and doesn't need a squad of defenders. On a side note, where the heck did you come up with "women and gays are believed to dissemble?" What an odd statement.

[Catherina]

143. Hillary is Everywoman? Such bullshit. I never voted for war

or to enslave Iraqi women into prostitution and Chinese girls into slave labor.

Hillary ain't everywoman. She ain't even every White woman. And yes, she does cackle.

[debbierlus]

147. How about she is a corporatist shill whom has engaged in disgusting campaign tactics

Don't expect people to buy this crap....You are dead right when you say she has been attacked for all the wrong reasons.

However, the people who I see attacking her on these boards are doing so for all the RIGHT reasons.

The real disgusting thing here is that the hypocrisy stands in allowing much more room for MEN to get away with it (by it, I mean smearing, lying, betraying the party for your own ambition, allying with corrupt sources, sitting on FOX news with KARL ROVE and smushing up to him)...

However, I don't want EITHER sex to get away with it. I don't want any politician to get away with it.

Hillary is destroying herself through her blind lust for something she can't have and won't get. Enough to scorch the earth (quite literally, if she aids in the Republican defeat of Obama and he drops nuclear bunker busters on Iran).

I voted for her and I would recant it, if given a second chance. This woman is power blind.

[Arkana]

149. Oh Christ, not this shit again.

[Skip Intro]

158. I can't rec it, but I'll kick it.

Great OP.

[The River]

171. Why Are You So Bitter?

nt