MyDD :: The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innocence.

The Year Progressives Lost Much of their Innocence.

by canadian gal, Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:04:01 PM EST

Since sexism seems to be the topic du jour this weekend, I thought I would add a short little diary to add to the conversation. While I am happy more people are talking about sexism, I have been yelling from the rafters about this for months now without getting much attention. In any case....

Between the rationalizations, denials or accusations of delegitimizing BO as the nominee when discussing sexism, it honestly makes me question some people's progressive ideals. How does anyone know how sexism affected the outcome? We don't. We can only reflect on its meaning in the framing of progressive thinking - no?

As Paul Krugman writes,

The 2008 campaign has been a very disillusioning experience for a lot of people. You can make a very good case that Barack Obama was the right person for the Democrats to nominate, and Hillary Clinton the wrong choice. But the way we got there was terrible. The raw sexism, in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives -- see above -- was part of it. So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar -- by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

This whole story shouldn't affect peoples' votes in the general election: there are huge substantive issues at stake, and a wide difference between the candidates on those issues. So this is no time for a protest vote. But 2008 was definitely the year in which the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence.

The race is over. Isn't it time to reflect on this honestly?

Tags: sexism, bias, clinton, progressives, innocence (all tags)

Permalink :: 234 Comments :: Post a Comment

Sexism did affect Hillary Clinton's campaign (2.00 / 2)

but it wasn't why she lost.

by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST

Did you not read the diary (2.00 / 4)

Whether sexism played a role in the loss can neither be proved nor disproved. Just because you say it is not proof. Just because NBC or some men in academia say it or not is not proof.

But that's not the issue. Sexism IS AN ISSUE for women. It's worthy of discussion.

When representation is pathetic when it comes to women, it is hard to say there is not an issue.

by Jjc2008 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As there's Asian racism? (none / 0)

Think your last sentence is too simplistic. The same can then be said about Asian representation, but culturally, most of my generation was pushed to go to medicine and law (and not politics).

Lower representation than population percentage doesn't necessarily mean there's discrimination.

by Regenman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its obvious that the power structure hates her.. (none / 0)

It may have something to do with the fact that she is a woman. I have never thought of it that way (I have always thought that it was because she cared about poor people) but actually, I think, yes, this could be sexism.. women are not as inclined to 'smaile as they kill' as John Lennon said.. so they are perhaps excluded from the halls of power for that reason.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its obvious that the power structure hates her.. (none / 0)

The power structure loved her before they hated her.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No they didn't (2.00 / 2)

Hillary has always been dissed - from the get go. Think of how she was treated as First Lady. Reporters and pundits alike went after her with knives drawn. She began as Hillary Rodham - but that wasn't acceptable. So she added Clinton - and they bashed her all the more for it. Frankly - I never liked her personally - not until the latter part of this campaign. I felt for her, from a purely feminine point of view - but I never warmed to the woman. And I was angry over her war vote (still am) - but the increasing misogyny and gender bashing made me take a second look. I began really listening - researching her role as Senator and her presidential position papers. I liked what I saw.

But like or not - my outrage over how she's been treated still stands. And the same people who dissed Hillary are now going after Michelle Obama - in the exact same way. Why? Because they got away with it. It was allowed (and in some cases cheered on) by those media types you say loved Hillary so much. Now they are targeting Michelle Obama - adding an extra leavening of race just to make it worse. Will you stand against gender bias when it's directed against her? When you do - will you give a thought to Hillary and what she went through? Or will you tell yourself it was warranted because, well, Hillary deserved it?

by The Fat Lady Sings on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes they did. (none / 0)

Hillary was treated much more roughly as First Lady than she was in this campaign. I guess it would be more accurate to say, "First they hated her, then they loved her, then they were ambivalent."

There is a real double standard being applied here. Hillary Clinton had it EASY in this campaign. She didn't have to face a tenth of what Obama did, yet the perception is that she had it much worse. Why?

Could it be because she's a white woman and he's a black man? There are some similarities between the prejudice suffered by white women and black men--both groups are respected less by the larger culture. But there are also some differences--white women are the most protected group in our culture while black men are the least protected group. Another difference is that women are a majority of voters while African Americans are a minority.

We live in a culture that is more worried about 'violence against women' in spite of the fact that men are more often the victims of violence. Why? It's because although women are respected less they are protected more. Violence against women is seen as a worse crime in exactly the same way the very minor abuse Hillary Clinton recieved during this primary season is seen as worse than the far worse treatment Obama got.

Magic negro?
Secretely a muslim?
Is he black enough?
Did he go to a madrassas?
Is he secretely a black millitant? (Wright, Ayers)

All of those were stories covered in the main stream media, and in the case of the Wright story they obsessed about it for almost two months. Hillary didn't have to face anything remotely comparable to any of those.

When asking for specifics of this "misogyny" that some Clinton supporters see, all I've gotten are silly things. A joke nutcracker sold in some giftshop somewhere counts for zero points--in fact it gets a -5 for thinking that it was meaningful. The nutcracker, like most of the BS claims of misogyny, was something that no-one would even have heard of if it weren't for the Clinton camp holding it up, waving it around and using it as an argument about how victimized she was.

You yourself used the word "misogyny." I challenge you to, first look up the word "misogyny" to be sure you even know what it means, then give me ONE example of misogyny directed against Hillary Clinton by the main stream media. (I'll give you a hint--you can't do it.) Now I'm not talking about some redstate blog or fringe website, I'm talking about the MSM.

There WAS some sexism (NOT misogyny) directed against Hillary Clinton during this campaign, but it was mild compared to the racism Obama was subjected to, including by the Clinton campaign itself.

I'll repeat--I challenge you to come up with ONE instance of misogyny directed against HC in THIS (not Bill's) campaign.

Just one.

by Mystylplx on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please (2.00 / 1)

Watch this video in Canada Gals diary:

Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!

Though from the tone of your comment - it wouldn't matter WHAT anyone said about Clinton. You'd continue your selective blindness. And don't bother posting reams of why Hillary's the devil and misogyny's not misogyny and how I don't know anything because I'm not you (who obviously knows everything there is). In other words - please take your hate somewhere else.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:31:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

I can't watch the video because I only log on from work and the work computer doesn't have speakers--or I guess I could watch the video but couldn't hear what was being said. Still, I notice you are unable to come up with a single example of misogyny, and instead stoop to name-calling. Good job!

Talk about "selective blindness!" Hillary is not the devil and misogyny IS misogny--there just wasn't any in this campaign... at least none that was important or significant.

As I said above, there WAS some sexism in the medias coverage, but not half so much as the racism Obama had to face. Not even a quarter as much. Not even a tenth.

by Mystylplx on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, (none / 0)

and I read diary you linked to, with the video in it, but there's no misogyny there either.

Hillary had it easy and I'm sick of the whining. Criticizing her for showing too much cleavage on the Senate floor was "misogyny" right?

Wrong. She's a freakin US Senator for Gods sake; she's supposed to dress appropriately to the dignity of her office. If a male Senator showed up on the Senate floor showing that much of his chest, cleavage or not, you can damn well bet it would get talked about. They talked about Kerry's wardrobe in 2004 more than they did Hillary's in 2008. It was then I first heard the term "metrosexual."

Other than that all you've got are a few quips by media pundits, and that doesn't begin to compare to the media spending two months trying to convince white Americans that Obama was secretely a black millitant who hates America during the Rev. Wright obsession.

by Mystylplx on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh (2.00 / 3)

is that ALL some of you can say?

Get the point... SEXISM DID hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. NO it is not why she lost, but it IS a piece of it.

It also HURT women in general.

Get it?

geeez.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ugh (none / 0)

I think the sexism was probably more harmful as the misogynary rhetoric. However, it was a sort of feedback loop. Just as Larry Johnson has marginalized whatever he had to say on other topics by his racist ranting against Obama, the complaining about sexism where it didn't exist (using the word periodically to describe something done from time to time) to pointing the sexism accusation at the wrong person (Obama is sexist because someone who isn't Obama said something sexist) it became easier to dismiss.

What I found was that too many people cried wolf, and eventually the shrillness of the 'sexism!' argument became self-defeating.

by Geiiga on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

tips for honesty and progressives? (2.00 / 10)

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST

I think people are wrongly conflating (2.00 / 2)

some of the statements here. When people hear discussion about sexism affecting Clinton's campaign by prominent Clinton supporters like you, they seem to think you're saying it's why she lost.

That is NOT the case. You're talking about how it affected the campaign. I think the lack of a caveat here is what's leading the wrong perceptions of the discussion of sexism in the primary campaign.

by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good point. (2.00 / 1)

im not saying that's why she lost - but im also not saying that it didnt play a part. when people say that it wasnt a factor - i think they are deluding themselves.

simply - why does winning or losing even need to be a part of the conversation?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know you're not saying it's why she lost (none / 0)

but the lack of that mention in your post does make people infer the reason for Hillary's loss being due to sexism. It's why people jump to conclusions whenever they read diaries that rightly discuss the role that sexism played in this primary season.

by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but the fact that i have to preface... (2.00 / 2)

an open call for honesty in discussing sexism is a problem - no?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but the fact that i have to preface... (2.00 / 1)

Yes, but it's more of a reflection of the problem on this site, IMO, which concerns the diarists (not you) who do use this as a wedge issue to foster resentment at a time when we need to start attacking McCain instead of Obama or each other.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but the fact that i have to preface... (2.00 / 1)

nope. the only wedge and resentment comes from Obama primary supporters who have refused to admit the role that sexism played.

and you (Obama primary supporters) continue to downplay it with making statements like "women of child-bearing years voted more for Obama" - splitting up the women in a horrific category.

newsflash for those who still don't get it: many women in their 20's & 30's CAN'T have children. And many women in their 40's and early 50's CAN have children and do.

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nice parenthetical (2.00 / 2)

it was me (an Obama primary supporter) who called out Firewall (an Obama primary supporter) for that comment, and we managed to have a decent discussion about it without universalizing each other's opinion.

As for your "newsflash," I'm not sure I've ever asked someone this before, but are you a woman? Did you not read the exchange that I had with Firewall? Do you really think that the thing that people need to "get" is that if you're dividing women between capable of bearing children and not capable of bearing children, that age is not the exclusive indicator? (never mind that it probably is the most reliable). I thought I was pretty clear that the thing to "get" is there is no good reason to be dividing women by fecundity in a political discussion.

I think your manner of jumping on Firewall on this issue is part of the reason we've been having a difficult time discussing this.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nice parenthetical (none / 0)

yes, I am a woman. And yes, I read your exchange with Firewall. However, I am very familiar with Firewall and he/she has used these types of arguments before.

so, whereas you may have been convinced that it was a sincere exchange, I have my doubts.

I didn't name names - and Firewall opened him/herself up to the comments I posted. I wasn't jumping over anyone, other than to point out that Firewall is still pointing the age divide argument.

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nice parenthetical (2.00 / 2)

See below. The only times I point out the age divide is in refuting arguments that women as a whole went to Clinton. Mobar was correct in that I could have found a better way to express that in our previous discussion.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Firewall sincerely (2.00 / 2)

didn't get what was wrong with the statement. And I sincerely tried to explain what was. It seems to me that's how we get to better understand each other. Not by conflating one poster's comment into "you (obama primary supporters)" so that all criticism is defensively dismissed as nonsense.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Firewall sincerely (2.00 / 2)

Thank you, Mobar. And yes, I do now see the hazards of what I said in the prior diary, and will find a better way of expressing my arguments in the future.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but the fact that i have to preface... (2.00 / 1)

I agree lets move on. Sexism and Racism have played a role. Let's do something about it and elect Senator Obama.

by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't help but laugh at the single minded zeal (none / 0)

with which some folk change the subject to Obama each and every time.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that so surprising? (none / 0)

He's the nominee.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

frankly.... (none / 0)

while if its true - i dont buy this as an excuse. BO won. why can we not have an honest discussion about sexism in the primary with our progressive ideals?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because that is a subject... (none / 0)

... for after November.

Until then, it sounds like an attempt to delegitimize the Democratic nominee.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that is a subject... (2.00 / 2)

oh, so we have to put it on hold so we won't hurt your feelings.

get a grip. Talking about this NOW and getting it out in the open would actually HELP Obama, not hurt him.

People who took great issue with the sexist tone of this primary season don't want to be told to wait in a corner because it is unfashionable for the moment

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever he did.. (none / 0)

He did to himself..

Trying to suppress discussion about it only calls attention to the fact that it happened...and continues to happen..

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that is a subject... (none / 0)

People who took great issue with the sexist tone of this primary season don't want to be told to wait in a corner because it is unfashionable for the moment.

See? You just proved the point.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that is a subject... (none / 0)

what point? You may an absurd comment about Obama's legitimacy and I stated that is BS.

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because that is a subject... (none / 0)

The point that this isn't just about talking about sexism--it's about rehashing the primary.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand your desire to delay (2.00 / 2)

the conversation, but do you really think that after November people are going to have this sudden desire to have an honest conversation about sexism in the democratic party? I think this is a conversation that we ordinary democrats should have whenever we feel like it. I'm not suggesting that the campaign machinery turn its attention this way. And I do think the discussion would be more productive if democrats gave non-Clinton examples of their frustration with the party. (It's not like there's no reason for women to be frustrated outside of Clinton not being the nominee, and we can't go back and change things for Clinton but we can change how we respond in the future). But it's pretty natural that people would start with Clinton examples and move outward. I just wish people wouldn't assume that conversations about sexism are a stealth effort to undermine Obama. We're all on the same team here, and I imagine these conversations might come in handy preparing us for crap that's going to be thrown at Michelle.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think The Dems might lose.. (none / 0)

But perhaps they want to lose this time around..

The economy is in pretty bad shape...

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: frankly.... (none / 0)

What are your solutions? What have we resolved.
Obama hasn't won yet? You act as if it's over and now it's time to look back.

by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You might have it backwards (2.00 / 2)

Since there seems to be a faction of female supporters unwilling to vote for Obama, one could also say, that surrogates intentionally portraying Hillary as a victim of sexism was part of the reason she had such a strong showing among some female voters.

The same way that some blacks took offense (fairly or not) to some of the surrogates suggestions that came across as racist code by the Clinton campaign, and went heavily for Obama.

So it could be said that playing UP the role of sexism in the campaign was actually to Hillary's benefit.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might have it backwards (2.00 / 2)

the problem with THAT analysis is that no one in the media talked about sexism like they did racism during the primary.

it mainly happened after the primary was over. A few people TRIED to bring it up on MSM, but it was shoved in a corner.

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its not just women who dont like Obama.. (none / 0)

in case you hadn't noticed..

he's trying to trivialize the needs of a great many of us.

He's trying to act like he's our friend, but he's running for the executive position.

As our 'boss' he is apparently the kind of boss who talks big, but in the final analysis, tries to substitute talk for compensation.

He looks like the kind that one eventually realizes, takes and takes and doesn't give.

Bosses like that are bad news. They will suck you dry.

Its not all about him, you know, its about US.

The USA.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not just women who dont like Obama.. (2.00 / 2)

If every new post on this thread is you and your drivel, I'm going to be irritated.

Fuck. By clicking on your post, I have lost the "new" tag.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: good point. (2.00 / 2)

I know that McCain feels Senator Clinton was treated unfairly due to sexism and media bias.
He believes it's a good time for Democrats to look at this issue.Now that the race is over.

by Politicalslave on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think people are wrongly conflating (none / 0)

Many MYDD members have/do site sexism as a contributing factor to her loss.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd tip (2.00 / 1)

but i can't for a while, same goes with a rec.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd tip (none / 0)

Ah, yes. I noticed Jerome was back.

by username on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It has nothing to do with Jerome (2.00 / 1)

it is a personal thing.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what ? (none / 0)

you have lost your rec/rate ability ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I haven't lost it (none / 0)

I am taking a strong moral stand not to use it.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It has nothing to do with Jerome (none / 0)

Do you mean you inflicted a ban on yourself for penance?

by french imp on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

as hiding certain people (rankles) was a joy of mine here so I am taking away that joy for a while.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just can't agree (2.00 / 2)

Obama's record shattering accomplishment of 1.5 + million donors alone is a milestone for progressives. It shows that the days of the large donors, the millionaires and the billionaries having complete and single access to politics is over or on it's way out.

Progressives didn't lose innocence not really if anything we just got a little distracted between 2 of the strongest candidates we've seen in a long time runnign at the same time.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes - those are great achievements for progressive (2.00 / 1)

however that does not change the fact that at least half or more of the democratic party feel that sexism was a prevalent and destructive force during the primary.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

okay (2.00 / 1)

here's the thing though I seriously doubt half the democratic party feels that sexism was a prevelant and destructive force in the primiary.

Mostly because the entire party didn't vote (unless you have evidence to the opposite at no point did turnout reach 100%)

And further I suspect at worst maybe 25% of all voters really feel that sexism was that bad.

Most people I think would recognize that frankly racism was far worse (early secert service protection, threats, offices being vandialized, volunteers being threatened, volunteers being insulted, people refusing to vote for you cause of your skin).

The truth is that the 'victimized' Clinton is needed because otherwise what is there to contest? We had a race and one lost one won and over all it was pretty fair; maybe it wasn't fair in terms of ideals but it was pretty fair in terms of both campaigns having to deal with sexism or racism.

But by all means prove me wrong, show me how sexism was both prevalent and destructive.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

see - i can make shit up too! (2.00 / 1)

actually only 43% voted in the primary and of that percentage 100 percentage feel there was sexism. but seriously - none of what oyu posted is anything other than your opinion.

as to your points about sexism - most HRC supporters feel that it was a factor - and even some BO supporters do too. so there goes your theory?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you can't act maturally just tell me and I'll (none / 0)

just leave you alone.

I have better things to do then put up with ad homeniems.

You made a claim, it's not my fault that it had more holes in then swiss cheese.

And enough of the games, if you are seriously wanting to discuss this then stop with the shadow boxing and qualify your position if you can't or won't I'm going to have to regaurd you as a troll.

You came up with a silly number made a bunch of implications then start this 'oh it's not me' BS.

Frankly I had more respect for you then to play these childish games.

I expect you to qualify your position in your next comment so we can have a thoughtful mature dicussion or don't bother answering me

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed. (2.00 / 1)

You came up with a silly number made a bunch of implications then start this 'oh it's not me' BS.

i was doing exactly what you were in your previous comment. just throwing random numbers out. in any case - i want a serious discussion, but you cant ask to be taken seriously when you just make numbers up about who thinks what is sexist.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I made it very clear (none / 0)

that my number was not a hard number (go look you'll see I prephrase that number with 'I think')

But seriously so I'm wrong even though I was calling you on it?

Okay I guess I can buy that but you've still failed to clearly concisely and precisely state your position here and until you do I'm not going to play word games with you.

You may think it makes you clever I just think it wastes time and impeedes a true discussion.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I made it very clear (2.00 / 1)

when more than half the people in the room say something - chances are there is something to it. and sorry - in my experience here almost all HRC supporters (half of the voters) plus some BO supporters feel sexism was at work here - particularly in the media.

The truth is that the 'victimized' Clinton is needed because otherwise what is there to contest?

ive got news for you - the primary is OVER - there is nothing to contest except unacceptable behaviour. if you want unity and the advancement of progressive ideals - how about standing behind them?

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I encourage you to read my comments (1.00 / 1)

I have made it very clear several times that I won't tolerate sexism, peroid end of discussion.

But neither will I tolerate a witch hunt either.

And you've offered no proof for your 'half' it's all hearsay and on your word.

But really I'm done with you, I've offered you not one not two but three chances to make your position and case clear and you've not been able to do it.

Instead you want to play smoke and mirrors and frankly I'm not interested.

It actually makes me sad because while I've not often agreed with you I at least had respect for you and now I can only conclude you're a troll that doesn't really want any of the things you claim because I gave you repeated chances and you wasted them

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i honestly have no idea what you're talking about (2.00 / 2)

given me 3 chances at what? and i believe this is the first time ive ever been called a troll - well done!

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i honestly have no idea what you're talking ab (2.00 / 3)

CG, I guess we have a new rule here on mydd - the 3 strikes and you're out rule

hey, congrats on your troll tag!! I've been called that a few times here as well :)

by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because I really don't know when to stop (none / 0)

I asked you several comments ago (to prevent misunderstandings and to facilate the discussion) to clear and completely outline your case and your point, both what it is and what is wasn't.

You failed to do that.

I can only conclude you're not interested in an honest discussion and instead what to play games.

Do you understand now?

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that was directed to CG (none / 0)

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

okay. (2.00 / 2)

what exactly about this diary or position do you not understand? that its my belief that true progressives do not deny or ignore sexism for political advantage? or that krugman states that it was ugly?

i am interested in discussing this HONESTLY - but if you peruse the comments in this thread - not many share this opinion.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hhhmmmm (none / 0)

Perhaps, it would be better to first try and start this again.

You are claiming that there was 'prevelent and destructive sexism in the election' which is a heavily charged assertation.

Yet where is the proof? That sexism occured in the media and by some bloggers and even people is not in contention here, but that's not 'prevelent adn destructive sexism'. In fact to reach such a level you'd have to have Clinton offices being vandalized, the Clintons being told that this isn't 'man work' or to 'get back in teh kitchen' and not just once or twice but persistently.

You are claiming further it seems that 50% of the democratic party agrees with you, a number frankly you have no support for and I think a number you made up.

Where's you're proof?

Further who exactly are you accusing of sexism?

Because I've seen a number of people imply alot but then when called on them they run away from that, so please be clear. You may think it silly but it saves misundertandings.

That's what I'm talking about

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hhhmmmm (2.00 / 1)

im not sure i follow you - you've given examples of things that you would call destructive. i dont agree.

let be clear, the MEDIA has been sexist and biased although some would argue that they are both the same. but the media is a pivotal part of the political process whereby they disseminate messages to the electorate many of whom are apathetic and do not bother challenging or questioning what is being reported.

as to proof all ive got for you is a new Rasmussen poll, 68% of voters believe that the media is biased. when they do a poll about sexism i will get back to you. ;)

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

okay (none / 0)

well then we're just going to disagree then

but let me know when you have that poll, but tell then I'd ask you to back off that claim.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean (none / 0)

the poll she has linked in the comment you just responded to? You mean that poll?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that poll (none / 0)

is not what evidence of what she claimed.

It supports the statement that 'a large majority feels the media is biased'

Not that 'there was a prevelant and destructive amount of sexism in the primairy'

Can you see the difference there?

And the latter was the claim made not the former. At least by CG

If she or you or frankly anyone else expects me to believe there is a majority of people that think there was a prevelant and destructive amount of sexism (or even racism) then I want proof. I'm not just going to take someone's word that they really speak for more people then them selves

<shrug>

What can I say, I'm a scienctist and as a scientist I'm not just going to take a statement on faith

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to point out... (none / 0)

...that Krugmans bias in this is very clear--he hates Barack Obama and has leveled any and every idiotic charge against him that he can make up. That's not to say that things haven't been ugly, but using Krugman as an authority figure to back it up doesn't hold a lot of weight in this case.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

eh... (none / 0)

Read back through the thread. You started the baseless claims by saying that half of democratic voters think sexism played a role.

The whole exchange was kind of funny actually, since neither of you knew what the other was talking about.

by Mystylplx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

drache: (2.00 / 2)

you need to look at a poster's history before breaking out the toll label.

Canadian Gal has done a phenomenal job covering the media. For instance she found the Women's Media Center Video on Sexism and has posted it here.

For your labelling of Canadian Gal as a troll I am must resort to a montage to describe your actions as a picture is worth 1k words:

You logic in breaking out that was like this logic of the guy driving the car.

You handled your self as well as the guy in this picture

You demonstrated a level of thinking below the kid on the tryke.

Even Bob Barker weighs in on your judgment

Your repeated opportunity claim is like the device shown here.

Or like the the cat...

or like the driver of the car,

Or the tank...

or the snowboarder (are you beginning to get the picture)

I must conclude that you had something to do with this train to come to a logical conclusion like you did.

Bisses,

Student Guy

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: drache: (none / 0)

You know, having to scroll through a bunch of fail pictures is actually more irritating than reading the rest of this very irritating discussion.

I think the numerous fail pictures is really best reserved for diaries that fail. Comments that fail should only get a single fail picture. Otherwise, the fail pictures are more harmful to the diary than the stupid comments.

by letterc on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:54:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you know there are better ways (none / 0)

less annonying ways of making your point

I mean seriously, after posting all those pictures telling me I fail; why should I listen to you?

Many people by now would be irratated and upset.

I'm sorry you don't like the way I think

I'm sorry you didn't like the questions I was asking.

I had probelms with the dairy and CG (at the times) wasn't answering them and wasn't even bothering to answer my questions.

Now at that point what should I conclude? I mean I'd tried to be reasonable, I'd tried giving as many oppurtunities as I could while drawing CG's attention to the probelm I was having with her responses.

And what happened? She accused me of what she was doing.

Now frankly there is one thing I do regret, I do regret that I didn't make it clear that I was calling her comments right at that point trollish not the entirity of her work. Because let's face it every one has it in them to act in a trollish manner and most do from time to time.

Perhaps you don't agree with me, and well that's fine by me because I really don't care if you do or you don't.

Hell I don't care if you continue to spam fail pics, because I don't know you and I don't really care what your opnion of me is.

I will be who I am and you like everyone else will either like me for being me or you won't. That's out of my hands but I'm not going to retard myself for strangers.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:30:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I swear (2.00 / 2)

you can't read.

This was in response to you calling canadiangirl a troll.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

my reading skills are fine (none / 0)

are yours?

Because seriously I was only saying that because it seemed me and her were going only in circles because she wouldn't answer my questions.

Since she has it should be obvious that my previous criticism is no longer valid.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I spent more time in real life (2.00 / 2)

discussing the sexism Clinton faced than I did here, in part because here I usually saw someone making the necessary point before I'd had a chance to. Also, the conversations about sexism did become too candidate specific so at times it was too frustrating to even stick my head up and join the conversation. But regardless of my past failures to stand up and be counted, I do agree with you that we should have a conversation about unacceptable behavior.

So, as an Obama primary voter, and a person who'd love to have dinner with Hillary Clinton but is frankly relieved she isn't the nominee, I think it is important that we discuss sexism in the media. They're coming after Michelle. They're coming after Barack. And if there's one thing everyone should be able to agree that Clinton's career has given us, it's a fine sample of media folks and republicans freaking out about a strong woman.

We should speak out when we see these patterns repeating. And we should be able to point out the similarity to prior attacks on Clinton without being automatically accused of being a covert holdout for Hillary still fighting the primary battle. Sexism in the media didn't end when Hillary lost, and that battle (against sexism) is ongoing.

From a tactical perspective, I think it's easier to have a non-Hillary conversation on this site at this time. But as far as my personal awareness is concerned, I think it's foolish to ignore our most recent evidence of sexism in the media because... why? because some people don't have enough faith in their fellow dems to give them a fair hearing? I can see that throwing a wrench in a conversation here, but I also think we need to move forward to a place where that's not the case.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I made it very clear (none / 0)

If we are basing all our evidence off anecdotes, I have to say that no one that I have met (both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters) has mentioned sexism. There was sexism in this campaign, but I do believe that only the most extreme (like us here) either noticed it or are talking about it.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm (2.00 / 2)

was there sexism, definitely. I've acknowledged this since I wrote a diary that debated who was more worthy of epic fail status John McCain or Chris Matthews (I thought it was Johnny Mac by a small margin)

Did it play a role in the outcome of the election, possibly. There are those who voted against her on strictly gender reasons. Would these voters have voted for her if she was male or got a fair treatment by the media. There is not enough information to tell.

However her gender was an asset as well looking at the the exit polls as there was usually a contigent of voters who voted for her based on gender, would these voters have voted for her if she was male or if she got fair treatment by the media, again a lack of information.

I do know that she became a far better candidate in April and May than she was pre March.

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 1)

I think that's an oft-overlooked part of the discussion. She certainly welcomed a portrayal of herself as a candidate for women, which undoubtedly gained her votes among older women.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 3)

No younger women voted for Hillary?

John McCain is a liar. Erratic, poor judgment.

by Jeter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 1)

Some did. But the majority of them went for Obama. Just as some older women voted for Obama, but the majority went for Clinton.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

im pretty sure that is inaccurate. (2.00 / 3)

proof please.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: im pretty sure that is inaccurate. (2.00 / 3)

Proof that the majority of younger women went for Obama?

It's in the CNN exit polls. Pick a state that went to either candidate by <5% (ie, no blowouts). In such cases, the majority of women under 65 usually voted for Obama, while the complement went to Clinton. Young women voted the way young men did, in that the majority of the younger vote went to Obama.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's Missouri. (2.00 / 4)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#MODEM

Women 18-44 went decisively for Obama. Women 60 and over went decisively for Clinton. They tied women 45-59.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (2.00 / 2)

For someone who constantly posts here and are supposedly interested in politics, did you totally miss all the articles (in various media) outlining the bitterness between 1st and 2nd generation feminists?

by Regenman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nah. (none / 0)

i want proof which was not provided. firewall provided a link to one contest that reflected this premise. and the comment was that contests within 5% showed this. sorry - CONCRETE EVIDENCE.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nah. (none / 0)

As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1812050,00.html

Good article...

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for proving my point. (none / 0)

Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women's votes.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (2.00 / 1)

You asked for proof of more younger women voting for Obama and more older women voting for Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary...all I did was provide you the proof that you didn't think existed.

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (none / 0)

the commenter said the MAJORITY of younger women went for BO. that is inaccurate as your article states...

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (2.00 / 1)

That's exactly what the article states, CG.

As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women.

And that's what I stated about four hours ago upthread.

I respect your opinions with regard to the need to have a discussion on sexism, but it becomes difficult to have any discussion if you aren't willing to concede basic facts about the primaries. You don't see Obama supporters claiming the majority of votes from older women went to Obama, because it just isn't true.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (2.00 / 2)

he didnt provide proof - but i went and looked it up to prove YOUR point - and it appears you were right.

while young women supported Obama by 53-45 percent

usually when questioned for proof its not the burden of the questioner to provide it.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (none / 0)

It's also not the responsibility of the questioner to just deny that proof when it's given. I have no idea what the point of denying that was.

by ProgressiveDL on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for proving my point. (2.00 / 1)

Whatever...your discourse is certainly diminishing,,,

I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?

by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

optimist vs. pessimist frame (none / 0)

is dangerous. Particularly since Sullivan seems to argue that the optimists are right. It's not a worthless article, but like a lot of Amy Sullivan's work it relies on overstated assumptions.

by Mobar on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said, but... (none / 0)

I disagree that she became a better candidate in April and May. I think she presented herself better, that her campaign improved, but she was the same candidate as always.

Maybe I'm just parsing too much. ;-)

by Swedie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 1)

I think I meant that she began to present the candidate that the Hillary fans believed she was.

Based on her candidacy pre March I wasn't very impressed, and wouldn't have donated to her.

But because of her strong showing and finding how to present herself to maximum effect she showed that she is a great politician and one who I want to have a large future in the democratic party, so I donated to her

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sexism is an issue in politics (2.00 / 2)

Do the math.
Over 50% of the citizenry is female. Less than 20% of elected officials at a national level is female.
Who controls most of the wealth in this country? Who holds the overwhelming majority of CEO positions?
The Supreme Court is NOT 50% female.
Even in a profession where women are dominant, education, the highest paying positions (Superintendents, High level administration....are male). Up until the 90s male PE teachers had a much better chance of becoming a principal than women whose career had been in the classroom, where understanding curriculum was most important.

Did Hillary lose because of sexism. It is unprovable one way or another. Was sexism an issue? Of course. Was racism? Of course (but not from the Clinton camp....)
And in my view, ageism, something that hurts women more than men was an issue also.

by Jjc2008 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Umm I admited there was sexism (2.00 / 1)

and that the media failed with regards to that, I am boycotting Leno because of it for instance because he went too far (he portrayed Hillary as a white trash, large breasted women seeking attention as a joke).

Was this in reply to me?

Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!

by Student Guy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't use a strawman (2.00 / 4)

I can do the math that nearly 90% of all truck drivers are male. Does that mean there's sexism in the trucking industry or reflect that from a social viewpoint, women aren't interested in professions that require a large dose of isolation?

70% (I think) of this current crop of pediatricians are women. Does that mean the pediatric field is sexist against men? Or does it mean that women like treating children more than men like treating children. Wow, there's actually some difference in how men and women think and that actually does influence their choice of careers.

Simplistic arguments like yours don't contribute to the discussion. Drop it.

by Regenman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are the one who is simplistic (1.66 / 3)

and ignorant.

When I was a teen girl, I couldn't get a job pumping gas. WHY? Because girls did not work at gas stations cause we were told we couldn't understand how cars worked. Back then I did not know one woman who had driven even a small truck. Few of my mother's generation drove cars. Women as truck drivers? I am only 61 and I didn't know women COULD be truck drivers. Hell, I didn't know they could be doctors, or lawyers or astronauts or scientists. In the 1950's when I grew up, women's choices were limited, our education was limited.
And now you honestly think women aren't truck drivers be