-
Website
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-record.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Indeed.
This is a really awful, painful moment; not because Obama is the candidate, but because of the way people have behaved towards Clinton. And all women.
Thanks, Liss.
(... but to be honest, the teaspoon is looking more and more like a handy tool to jab people in the fooking eye.)
V O.O P *clink*
*sniff*
I had hoped that women would be taken seriously in my lifetime. It doesn't appear that will happen. To the younger generation, I charge you with the duty to make sure it will happen.
*refills glass of rum*
I'm still fighting and trying to get to the status of being an ally.
And while I am not even up to teaspoon level i'm working to get there.
And if it hadn't been for this post and the sexism and racism watches I'd still be in the dark and in the drawer next to the thing that supposedly turns radishes into lovely flowers but is never used because , well lets face it radishes are radishes.
I'm tired of hearing male radio hosts on supposedly liberal stations saying "they understand".
Because you know what? My first step was realizing I'll never understand because none of this crap is going to be thrown at a 46 year old white male.
I'll do my best to learn to change the way I view things.
And hopefully be able to raise that teaspoon soon.
I understand it can be heavy at times.
I can't convey the way I feel about this with any accuracy right now. I just don't really know what to say.
Anyhow, his comments towards Clinton are actually quite respectful, all about how she hasn't gotten her props when her props are due.
McCain is still yuck-on-a-stick, though.
Like I've said before, he's smart enough to know that a lot of her supporters (among whom are a number of Republicans and Independents who crossed over to vote for her) are pissed off about the misogyny directed at her, and he's doing what he's doing to pick up votes.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats figure that out and take the hint.
Loving. This. Especially on a bad day, a great turn of phrase is a treasure. Thanks.
I'm totally aware he's full of shit. It was just surprising to hear something remotely Clinton-positive emerging from my TV, and then frustrating to hear it come from such a total douche.
Way back a couple of years ago, Clinton's name was being floated for the presidency and I said, "Oh, hell no!" I had lived through the venom of the Clinton years in the Whitehouse and I knew all the vermin would come out of the woodwork, would rise from from the dead to defeat her.
So when this election season started, I was an Edwards supporter, because he was talking about class and the economy and those are very important issues to me. I sort of ignored what was going on with both Obama and Clinton, until some time after the California primary.
I read Obama's speech on race with great respect. I understood why he had to distance himself from Wright, although the accusations were specious. And I saw him trying to balance the demands of the different audiences that he was trying to speak to. I have to respect him for trying to walk a real tightrope in front of a crowd that's just waiting for him to slip.
But Clinton's fight has won more than my respect, it's gotten my admiration. Because each and every day, on every media outlet there have been men and women jeering at her, mocking her looks, her voice, her family, her clothes, whatever trivial thing comes to mind for them and she has kept put there, talking with voters, talking about the issues, and slugging away.
And I fucking love it.
I don't love her policies. She's way too centrist for me. But I love the fight. I love the fight in the face of endless misogyny from people you would have thought were allies. I love her commitment to a party that she's worked for all her adult life. And I love the conviction and the fire.
So I am sad, not because she was my first choice. But because she made such a grand fight and has been treated so poorly.
Right now, I feel like my dad when a next door neighbor cut down Dad's prized black walnut tree. It was the tallest tree in the neighborhood, and quite beautiful, but the neighbor wanted the wood and so he cut it down. When Dad called in the city, the city checked the deed and found out that the black walnut tree was really on our property. The neighbor offered to buy Dad a black walnut sapling to make up for it,
"You can have another walnut tree in the same place." he said. "Give it another 30 years, and it could grow just as tall."
Dad just looked at him and said "But not in my lifetime."
Yeah, we'll have a woman nominee eventually. But not in my mom's lifetime. Not in her generation. Probably not for another 20 or 30 years, and probably not in my lifetime either.
I got my teaspoon in the mail over the weekend (yay teaspoon!) and I'll be putting it to work. First up - stirring the tears in my beer.
I couldn't agree with you more. I am an Obama supporter, and I caucused for him in my state primary, but the disgraceful displays of misogyny over the last few months and particularly the last few weeks have been so hurtful and saddening to me. Thank you for expressing what so many of us have been feeling.
*Teaspoon salute*
I do, too. And I also love her. Yeah, I said it. I love Hillary Clinton. She inspired me. And as depressing as it's been to watch people gloat over kicking the shit out of her every chance they got, I am damn proud of her.
I've been disappointed and frustrated by Clinton over the course of this primary season, but I've been appalled at the way she's been treated. Your comment sums up a lot for me, and makes me think as well.
And yes, Liss, THANK YOU. Again.
Until Obama does something to piss them off. Then she'll have deserved it, and they can all crawl back into their slimy little caves of bigotry.
As I've been recently discovering my feminism, following the campaign has unfortunately taught me a lot about sexism in the media and politics, and how disheartening it all can be. And this blog has been just one of many that has been so informative for me and inspired me to start blogging myself.
I really hope that this campaign can move forward while respecting the historic feats of both Clinton and Obama, honoring both of their accomplishments. I hope we can now celebrate Obama's victory, and then Clinton's victory of being such a viable candidate, despite not achieving the nomination.
Amen, CE.
And thank you for this post, Liss. This is exactly what I needed to hear tonight.
Over the past few months, I've read comments from other people who are in my situation. I didn't realize at the beginning of this race how much ugly misogyny I'd absorbed regarding Hillary Clinton. I heard the word "entitled" after Iowa and laughed and agreed, because she totally was, wasn't she? And I never stopped to examine where that perception had come from or what deep sexist roots it had.
And then I started hearing the crap. The furor about her "tears". The "iron my shirt" shit. And I felt myself drawn to Hillary out of an angry contrariness and a deepening uncomfortableness with the quasi-religious fervor I found in parts of the Obama camp. I started seeking out (those few) articles that were written in support of her. And I found out that I really liked her devotion to fixing this stupid health care mess. And more than that, I really liked her. She was nothing like the cold, vicious, overly-ambitious bitch she'd been made out to be for decades. I grew to admire like hell her intelligence and strength and humor and geeky political mind. For the first time in my entire life I was inspired enough by a candidate to actually donate to her campaign, to caucus for her, and to be a delegate at the state level.
And this has been one of the few safe spaces I could visit. Thank you to everyone here.
Someday is now.</>
from an MSNBC article. All men created equal. Classy, msnbc.
I really thought that if any woman would get a fair shot (in the context of politics, which is rarely fair but..) it would be Hillary Clinton. I thought we were at the very least at the point where she would have as fair a shot as Obama. It's been very disillusioning to see that even those on the left, people in her own party, couldn't let that happen. I knew there would be misogyny even from the left, but I thought that the left was made-up of more reasonable people, even those not very aware of sexism, who wouldn't stand for unfairness, even if they didn't like her (and I didn't at first either).
I'm really trying to find my equillibrium after this rollercoaster ride but part of me wants to completely tune-out because I'm just so crushed and so tired. I really am grateful for Shakesville and the work you do, though and I know I won't go back to being so blissfully(?) unaware. You've given me some breathing room, so thank you so much for that. I'll keep the many things I've learned here in my pocket, next to my teaspoon, as I find my way through this and beyond. But damn if I don't wish things had gone differently and damn if I'm not wishing I had some land somewhere/nowhere to run away to.
She's actually a really good person. It's astonishing to see the "Hillary Clinton" in the media, because that's not. her. I don't know who that person is, besides a convenient target for every ugly thing this culture has ever thought about women.
I'm right there with you. I'm just - exhausted. And really fucking depressed.
I really don't know.
FWIW, I promise to BRING IT with some seriously hilarious McCain-hatin' now that the general's going to begin in earnest. :-)
Promise.
It'll need to be really funny to bring me out of this hole. You're probably the only one who can do it at this point.
Not thrilled with how she's run her campaign, necessarily. Didn't vote for her because I didn't agree with her policy positions.
But I am filled with love and respect for her strength and commitment.
except that it's not over, is it? It's never over
And I log on to one of my favorite community sites, where one of my favorite people I know here on the intertubes posts, "Obama is the boss of you, b1tch. Get used to it. He calls the shots."
It's never over
However, I'm so sick of being excluded, taken for granted, and relegated to second-class-citizen status, that I'm beginning to wonder why we couldn't have a Women's Party.
As we know, women make up a majority of the U.S. population, and the current two-party system has resulted in a ludicrous under-representation of women in leadership roles. Women's voices are either unheard or ignored, or women are told to shut up and get back into our proper place. I wonder if we could actually do something about taking some the power due us as the majority in this so-called democracy.
Because I have more in common, politically, with Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich and, yes, Barack Obama than I do with Kay Bailey Hutchison or Libby Dole or Michelle Bachmann or many, many others.
Don't you?
The Raging Teaspoons are coming. I'm telling ya.
"Mondo Fucko -- the sequel!"
Don't you?
There are existing women's parties in many other countries; if you do some research on them, you'll find that they're generally feminist in nature. (Why else do women organize? To perpetuate the status quo for women? Nonsensical.)
Thanks, Liss.
Clinton, on the other hand, has a clear popular vote lead, a lead in the electoral college and she's finishing the primary season with a bang, not a whimper. Don't buy the hype: she will be president. Nothing changed on 5/20 when Obama wanted to declare victory without the numbers, and nothing changed tonight either.
She will be president, and after tomorrow's revelation, you'll understand why. Now we move into phase two.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/clinton-camp...
YAY!
I'm not even bothering to pay attention to what's going on in the news tonight.
I've opened a bottle of chianti and letting some of the anger cry out.
Thanks for writing this post and doing what you do, making this blog a place of sanity, respect and truth, Melissa - and all the regular commenters, too.
Don't ever start thinking it's not worth it. The world needs you.
On your mark, get set ......
Thanks Liss, beautiful post .... teaspoons, you spoon enough and they will make waves....!!!
Let's keep this one thread, of all threads, on topic and allow people to discuss their experiences free of the usual stuff.
They'll be wasting their breath on this one.
I've lived through a lifetime of being the intelligent woman stepped over for the pretty men.....I thought now it would be different. Not in my lifetime....I can't think about tomorrow....or November. I can only think about how tonight brought back all the pain.
thank you again....and thank god (or whoever) for this site.....
(1) Do you have a succinct way of explaining to people why words like "shrill" are sexist, and don't have a male equivalent? I always end up with the temptation of saying "It just IS, don't you have any social experience at all?"
(2) The same applies for for slurs like "bitch": is anyone good at explaining why that's qualitatively different from, say, "prick"?
I know it is but have trouble articulating it concisely.
Me too.
And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a "despite it all." They don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.
But isn't this wonder theirs, too?
I guess I'm struggling with how to respond to this. I think one of the heartbreaking things about having two historic "firsts" fighting each other was that both of them couldn't win, and if each is accepted as a surrogate for their respective groups/movements, it artificially positions those groups/movements against each other. As someone who has been a lifelong feminist, and who makes her living studying and teaching and talking about feminism, I am also sad that women don't have the progress of a first mainstream woman candidate to point to. But I would like to believe that part of feminism is recognizing that the "steps forward" of other marginalized groups bring us progress, too. I'm a white woman, but I am still joyful that one huge barrier has been broken, even if it isn't for the group that affects me personally. And I would like to think that Clinton supporters could also feel that way, even as they are sad that their candidate lost and angry and sad (as I am) at the huge amount of misogyny that has been displayed during this primary.
I think in a sense Obama’s success will make it easier for women to get elected president. He’s going to “soften up” the perceptions of that job. It won’t be the province of macho a-holes anymore.
You know what would have made it easier to elect a woman president? ELECTING ONE.
Seriously, I wasn't all that upset this evening (I did my grieving a long time ago), but now I'm just pissed. Don't you dare say that to me (or any of us). Don't you fucking dare try and spin this around into some bassackward victory for women.
Yes. Hence "including many of these women." And "many" only because I didn't want to be accused of failing to acknowledge that some of the women feeling hurt tonight nonetheless also participated in racist attacks.
And beyond that, I'm not going to discuss this further, because I quite honestly don't believe that my post precluded anything you suggest. Focusing for one goddamned post exclusively on women feeling bad about something they have every right to feel bad about does not mean I don't recognize or care they have something to feel good about, too.
And I really think that my opinion on that ought to be well clear by now.
1) Ask them if they can think of a male equivalent. When they try something like "gruff" or somesuch, explain why the two are different (one is manly and lovable and a sign of strength and the other hurts your ears and makes you want to run away). Plus, "shrill" has a connotation of "lacking substance"--you're shrill when you scream, when you nag, not when you make a strong argument or ask a good question. ("You" being general in this case.)
2) "Prick" refers to male genitalia, which have a long positive history as symbols of strength, fertility, etc. "Bitch" refers to a domesticated animal that has no purpose beyond, quite literally, a panting toy. You keep a bitch on a leash. Women are called bitches when they get uppity to remind them of their restrictions; men are called bitches for being subservient (i.e. feminine) or contrarian in a way seen as unsubstantive, difficult, and (as a male friend of mine once let slip) not under control--again, "feminine." Men are "dicks," however, when they are overly assertive, superior, and inconsiderate of others around them, and women are "dicks" when they act the same way--"masculine."
Don't ask me about "asshole," though. There I got nothing.
Obama was ten times more gracious towards Hillary Clinton than she was towards him in their respective speeches tonight. Some jackass in New Hampshire and Chris Matthews and 102 other annoyances doesn't change that one iota. She could have started to bring the party together, for real, but she chose to offer a few token words and then move back into the same tired and now officially defeated spin we've been hearing for months now. She made that choice. Is that a choice that feminists want to stand proudly by? On a night when McCain gave a pathetic, universally derided speech, she could have laid a solid punch on him and set up Omaba for a knockout blow -- like a VP candidate might. No, she's demanding the VP spot, and Melissa is writing about the etiquette of demanding to an audience of sycophants.
Unimpressed.
Here's what you didn't hear from Obama tonight: words about the struggle of women. Words about the struggle of gays. Words about the struggle of African-Americans. I'm sure some people wanted to hear some conciliation to identity politics, but that's just not authentic Obama. Please don't ask him to kiss up to you when he mentions the historic nature of Hillary's campaign more than his own.
That's right, the Democratic party is going to nominate a black man to be President. If Hillary Clinton helps him, he will surely win. Do you want to be part of that?
"sometimes will gang up on those who chose not to hear"
Noted with appreciation.
I have no doubt that if Obama had lost, his supporters would be decrying the racial element to the campaign. I would like to think that at least some of his supporters would also be lamenting the mistakes of the candidate and missed opportunities of the campaign. The sexism unearthed in the competition is sickening, but it isn't why Clinton lost. If there are really millions of people who do not understand this and Hillary is unwilling to concede and explain it to them in some form or another, the women's movement will be set back a generation. (By McCain's nominees to the Court... and some residual bitterness as well.)
I glad and relieved she lost for many reasons; none of which were because of her plumbing. The *only* political donation I have made so far is for Cindy Sheehan (whom I love dearly). She is not even in my district. She is everything Hillary is not. Yet even if she does not defeat Nancy Pelosi for the Congressional seat, she is still a winner and I am proud to support her. I hope you all feel the same way regarding your donations and support of Sen. Clinton.
"I was against being for Clinton before I was for being against her." ~ LanceThruster
Really. Like coming here and being an asshole is going to gain support for Senator Obama.
Don't read the comments if you just ate, though --- they're way beyond crowing, gloating, braying, or any reasonable response (I swear you'd think you had stumbled onto Lil' Green Foosballs or something like it), and are a perfect example of what you've been saying here.
I'm so fucking disgusted right now, I don't even want to vote next in the generals, and I haven't missed an election in over thirty-five years.
But I'll be damned if I allow four years of another Republican in the People's House.
Shit.
This post was not written about Obama. It was also written well before his speech tonight, even if it had been.
Which it wasn't.
C-ya.
Wrong. Toodles!
That said, I think a little perspective is necessary here, all around. Women did not loose tonight. Hillary Clinton did. Yes there was some misogynist assholery thrown around in this campaign (almost none of it though, from the actual Obama campaign), and yes too many male progressives need to get some lessons in feminism. That said, "Iron my shirt" and Chris Matthew's hangups didn't lose this thing for Clinton. Lots of things were important here--Obama's serious strengths as a candidate, Clinton's strategic errors, etc, but there is one thing that undid a candidacy that seemed inevitable:
She voted for the war.
I like and respect Hillary Clinton, and on domestic policy I think she is in some ways stronger than Obama (health care especially). But she faced one of the biggest political tests of our time and she, along with Kerry, Edwards, and a whole lot of other Dems, failed. She voted to authorize the carnage in Iraq and I decided that I would never support a Democrat who voted for the war in the primary, not when there were war opponents to choose from. I know that the war vote is the reason I didn't vote for her, and it's the reason an upstart like Obama was able to get traction to begin with. A great many of us just couldn't get behind Clinton for that reason, and I thinkl it's a very good one.
As for folks talking about not supporting the nominee in November. I respect your anger and disappointment, but I have zero respect for that as a course of action. Abetting the rise of an anti-choice, anti wage equality right winger who has promised to let Sam Brownback pick his Supreme Court nominees is not feminist. Hillary Clinton was sometimes treated shabbily this year, but she will still be Senator, a multimillionaire, and a powerful figure when all this is over. The women who will see their rights curtailed, will continue to go without health care, and continue to go up in flames in Iraq will not be so lucky.
This campaign is bigger than Hillary and Obama. We all need to remember that.
"Wrong. Toodles!"
----
I guess that's a term of endearment CE. My mistake.
Well, when in Rome....ummm..."go fuck yourself with something battery operated then."
How'd I do?
Yes, identity politics are terrible!
That's right, the Democratic party is going to nominate a black man to be President. If Hillary Clinton helps him, he will surely win. Do you want to be part of that?
Yes, we should vote for Obama for reasons of identity politics!
So. Fucking. Stupid.
I'll be honest; I've been leaning Obama for a while, but I was never fully on board with "the movement". Hell, I voted for Edwards at my local caucus even after he'd dropped out. I've reduced my participation in a lot of web sites, e.g., Daily Kos, because I didn't think they were willing to countenance legitimate criticism of Obama. The dismissal of the sexism directed at Clinton has been one of my greatest disappointments as well, and I would never begrudge anyone being angry about that.
Ah, the lecture. How refreshing. Just like a glass of coke left out overnight.
And totally not predictable!
It's so weird that they don't seem to get how utterly counterproductive it is, isn't it? But of course, there can't be a thread here - not a thread about sexism, not a thread about misogyny, not a thread about Hillary Clinton, not even a goddamn thread about grief and pain after it's mostly over - that can go without a couple of people dropping by to remind us how evil and grasping she is. It's appalling.
Must we have one of these in EVERY thread about Clinton? So. Fucking. Boring.
How idiotic. You think these (mostly white) Obama Fanboys would be as enthusiastic about an historic female POTUS as they are about the historic black POTUS?
Also, I love that white/male is not considered an identity. When candidates pander to that demographic, they're just being NORMAL!
"I Don't Feel No Ways Tired.” ~ Hillary Clinton
God, this is such a good point. I never thought of it this way. *headdesk*
How lucky for us that the Obama fanboys dropped by from John "I'm A Big Misogynist Douche" Aravosis to let us silly girlz know how to think, then.
What a bunch of sorry wankstains.
This isn't about either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama "winning" or "losing". The DNC and the party had EVERYTHING TO GAIN by supporting both candidates and just letting the primary/caucus process play out. The Democratic Party could and should have done more to control the messages coming through the MSM by denouncing sexism AND racism whenever they reared their ugly heads. For months and months, Hillary Clinton faced unprecedented pressure to drop out of the race for the sake of party unity.
Party unity? That horse left the barn ages ago!
Oh, sure, the Democratic Party tells me they want my vote. They even dangle Roe v. Wade in front of me, because, if I'm a REAL FEMINIST, I wouldn't want another neocon in the White House because that would surely destroy Roe v. Wade, so I should be a good girl and vote for Obama. Yet, the Democratic Party stood by while Hillary Clinton was dismantled, ripped apart in ways that make Swift Boating look like a trip to Marine World. She was criticized on everything from showing cleavage to showing emotion. She had misogynist epithets thrown at her and has been compared to a psycho ex-girlfriend, not just from rival supporters, but from the talking heads in the media (and not just that Neocon Haven, Fox News, but by those who claim to be progressives as well). As a woman who has put up with (and, shamefully, had simply accepted it for far too long) this kind of sexist horseshit since I was a little girl, I'm feeling especially alienated from the Democratic Party right now.
As for this: "I was against being for Clinton before I was for being against her." ~ LanceThruster Here's a Klondike Bar for you.
By the way, McCain called his wife the C-word. His second wife. He dumped the first one who stood by him while he was in Vietnam and recovering afterword. Dumped her for a younger, richer, better looking one who could finance his campaign and introduce him to influential people in a state he had never lived in. McCain would fill the Supreme Court with Allito and Scalia clones, and our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters will lose their reproductive freedoms. This guy is the worst thing that could happen to women the world over, not just the USA.
It's time to move on as fast as we can. Obama and Clinton are not different on about 98% of issues.
And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.
And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies.
The bad side of the 'anonymous' internets - we were all united by various things, but it sucks when people we thought we knew because we read what they wrote reveal parts of themselves that we don't like. Then we add to that misery by conflating that with people we don't like who say the same thing, and we lose respect for each other.
And yes, I'm as guilty as the next person.
Now I might have to cry, b/c that summed up, and so perfectly so, all the things I haven't let myself think about or process or talk about, as the primary campaign went on [for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that getting called overly-sensitive/feminazi/cunt so often can really make even anstrong, fierce woman doubt her own sanity].
So, once again, thank you, so, so much.
----
Thanks. Chocolate makes me break out but I appreciate the olive branch (unless that was just snark). You know (an oft used Hillary mannerism), I live in Los Angeles and always remembered the LA Rams fondly in that even when they lost, they generally played their hearts out and provided some exhilirating moments. I wish I could feel that way about Sen. Clinton but I don't. I guess your moment to gloat will be when McCain and the Rethuglicans steal yet another presidential election and the lapdog press will explain it away as disgruntled Hillary supporters and the predicted "reality" of Obama's unelectability. I'm sure there's no way to make you "gruntled" and I wouldn't even presume to try.
I most likely would have held my nose and voted for Hillary had she won the nomination fairly. I'm glad I don't have to although technically if she flipped enough delegates that would be "within the rules" so I guess she's truly not out of it yet.
"After all... tomorrow is another day. " ~ Scarlett O'Hara
"Would any man have to be gracious if he wasn't the nominee? Would that be expected?"
And the simple answer is an emphatic *yes.* Men are expected to display, if nothing else, good sportsmanship (bear in mind, politics is covered as a game). Male candidates who are not gracious in defeat and magnanimous in victory have traditionally been pilloried by the press (usually in overtly homophobic terms). (Which reminds me, what's Alan Keyes up to these days?) Things have changed somewhat since Nixon gave afterbirth to the DLC, but this is still the case. Just imagine the howling had Sen. Obama *not spent five minutes praising Sen. Clinton in *his speech!
We've all got work to do now.
blondie,
National Woman's Party (1913-1930)
Whig Party (1833–1856)
Greenback Party (1874–1884)
Liberty Party (1840–1848)
to name a few. Wikipedia is your friend.
Don't let the duopoly hoodwink you into believing that our country hasn't had a rich tradition of "kooky" parties that brought up important issues. It's definitely possible that third parties will play a greater role in American politics, but only if a substantial number of people who are currently supporting the duopoly *joylessly* and out of *fear*take some steps. Think positive and remember Rosie.
But I question the timing of your post.
No one is pushing her off the stage. The Obama campaign has bent over backwards to make it clear they are not calling for her to quit. Even tonight, not one single campaign surrogate has suggested that she concede. Is there perhaps some confusion as to why she didn't concede tonight? Yes. I'm certainly confused.
Tonight is Obama's night. Tonight is our night, as Democrats. We have a standard-bearer. We have a beacon. We have an amazing nominee who fiercely champions feminist causes because he values women and understands the profound impact that strong women can have on the world and passionately wants a bright future for his two daughters.
But it's his night. Why do Hillary supporters have to rain on that parade? He didn't cheat; he didn't win unfairly. He played by the rules THAT THEY BOTH AGREED TO in the beginning, and he won.
Please, Hillary supporters, imagine what it would be like if the scenario were switched, and your candidate had won, and all you heard was how terrible it was. There is no reason Obama shouldn't have a victory celebration unblemished. I can't help but feel like every time a milestone has been reached that the goalposts keep getting moved. It's really hurtful.
Please keep this in mind. I don't disagree with your outrage for the way Sen. Clinton has been treated, because it's been deplorable. But is there a way you could register that outrage without aiming it at Sen. Obama? Remember that we're all on the same team.....
Who said this? Was it someone public? Was it on the news? When? Are there tons of shots of all the miserable Clinton supporters on CNN? I don't know because I don't watch crap news, so maybe it's possible that all you're hearing is how horrible it is, but somehow I doubt it, and I think if you really wanted to you could avoid all those saying this. Also, that's not what Melissa's post was about. Not even remotely.
And let me say this again, for anyone who didn't get it yet: In coming here and turning this post into a "you shouldn't feel this way because...." YOU ARE NOT HELPING. You are doing the exact opposite. You are pushing me further and further away. If Incertus or Brooklynite, two very vocal Obama supporters on this blog were here, they would be telling you to STFU, too, so just be smart and do it.
Who fucking said that?
At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning -- even in the face of tough odds -- is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency -- an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
If Obama lost, would this be a huge long post about how black people who did not support Obama are traitors to their race because they let racism and hate decide this?
If he had lost, would this post be describing how horrible the media has been to Obama as a black man and how terribly racist this country is?
Look I agree. Sexism does nothing but hurt. It hurts men who feel women are their equals, as well as the women who want to be equal. It's horrible, it's monstrous, and the fact that it AND racism are still so prevalent in this country is sometimes sickening.
But to insist it's why she lost? Or at least a major part of why she lost? Your linked "Sexism Watch" #104 is especially humorous. Why? Because Obama himself renounced that pastors remarks. And yet, with Obama personally saying "Woah I don't agree with that at ALL and I refuse to be associated with that kind of speech," you still make him out to the bad guy.
Be graceful in defeat. Tell Obama supporters "Congrats, guys. We'll be next to you voting for Obama in November" and leave it at that.
You claim to have read all of the sexism watch and yet claim that you haven't seen people calling for Clinton drop out, stop running, give up for the sake of the party blah blah? Furthermore, 'our' night? 'We'? An 'amazing' candidate who champions feminist causes? Please. This may be your night, but it sure as hell isn't mine, or most of the people who've posted in this thread, or many other Clinton supporters'. The feminist causes comment is particularly blackly humorous given that one of my primary concerns with Obama is how much he fails to advance feminist causes.
Remember that we're all on the same team.....
No, we're not. Coming into a thread that should have been a safe space-one of the very few threads where people can be pro-Clinton and talk about the campaign and talk about tonight's events without being insulted with any of the many lovely names people throw at Clinton supporters-and complaining that you're being hurt because you chose to seek this space out and crap in it means we're automatically not on the same team.
Try being graceful in victory, dumbass. And if Obama wants my vote, he'd damned well start trying to earn it, instead of dismissing it.
I don't think Melissa is saying that. I think she's just trying to articulate how a lot of posters here feel...and unfortunately, there are some here who will be relentlessly negative about Obama winning. Like I said, it's hard to separate the asshats from the good people when they both say things that sound alike. Be happy! Don't let others harsh your vibe.
And so it begins. If Obama loses, it's Hillary's fault. Oh, I am so not looking forward to the post-election Hillary bashing that's yet to come.
-----
"You cannot control other people's actions, you can only control your reaction to their actions."
The Virtual Wine made me do it.
balls to that. balls. you have to do a little more than say "women should have some control over their bodies" if you want to claim the mantle of Fierce Champion. maybe obama will do that sometime between now and november. maybe you should wait til he does before calling him a fucking beacon of awesome hope.
Well, sadly, no. That's kind of the point of Liss' post.
Oh good, the troll is teaching me. Are you a buddhist?
Tonight I watched both the Clinton and the Obama speeches and cried during both of them. Despite Tucker Carlson's comments on MSNBC where he mocked how Obama can never follow through on the "hope" he has promised, I cried because I have witness the misogyny and the racism that has ran rampant throughout this campaign season (uttered on all sides of the political spectrum), I do have hope; not that Obama or anyone else can change everything about our country that I fin repugnant, but that somebody will potentially be in the White House who will change and can affect the horrible course our country has been on since G dub took office (how 'bout that for a run-on sentance?).
I truly hope that Obama can unite this party because I see a lot of people who are hurt, feel disenfranchised, and out right offended and ignored.
I salute my teaspoon to Melissa and the rest of the commentors on this site who have (and will continue) to keep it real this election season.
Well, sadly, no. That's kind of the point of Liss' post.
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." YMMV.
I experienced so much hurt at the hands of such Obama supporters, that there is no way I will ever rejoin the party. Period. The party and Obama are in denial if they think this has been an example of a post racist campaign.
It has been all about race. Supporters of Obama have used race to hammer supporters of Clinton since way back.
Tonight we have “esteemed” journalists such as Tom Brokaw saying the following: “It’s also a commentary, ah, it seems to me, both Chris and Keith on the extraordinary generational changes that we are going through in this country. It’s not just that young people were coming into this process this time. They see race in an entirely different way than those who are 45 and older. They are not nearly as affected, ah, when someone walks in to a room who may be a different color. They just don’t see it, and I think that part of the success for Barack Obama this time has been that younger people, especially, are much, much more color blind now than their elders are and that is a great tribute to this country.”
Excuse me. So, that is how you create generational warfare? Yep. That’s the ticket… set one generation against the other by calling the older generation racists.
This is not post racism, this is "fascism," using accusations of racism to make those who may support anyone else but Obama feel like they are racists. Really?
I suppose with respect to the DNC and Obama, ignorance of how accusations of racism have been used in this campaign to make voters feel guilty about supporting Clinton, is bliss.
I am no longer a Democrat. The candidates will have to convince me on their merits. I refuse to be part of a party that ignored what was going on in this campaign. I refuse to be called a racist because I am over 45 years of age. I refuse to be part of a party that tolerates that kind of language.
BTW, since when was Tom Brokaw an expert on generational racism. I guess he is a racist by his own standards, or maybe, because he made that declaration, that absolves him, and makes him clearly a non-racist. You figure it out…
So, my next project will be a kind of devotee to Emily’s List and NOW Pacs, and will be called Men4Women.org. After November, maybe it will be Sexism101.org. Take care, and best wishes. Mark
When the person hanging next to me is simultaneously kicking me while saying if I let go they're going to kill me, I will just go on and take my chances on my own.
Oh, fuck you very much, Brokaw. I'm significantly less than 45 years old, and when I walk into a room and it is predominantly white, I am goddamned well affected by the dynamics there, being, y'know, Korean and all. Oh, oops, you meant when white people see a non-white person walking into a room? Sorry to upset your ideas about what the norm is.
Thanks for the heartfelt post, and I hope that your pain eases as the time passes. As an Obama supporter, I will admit, there was a short time where I wished (but didn't say out loud) that she would quit the race. But upon quick reflection, I realized how important it was for me, as an African-American male to have gone to the voting booth and cast my vote for the first person or color that had a fair chance to be President. Once framed in my mind that way it became impossible for me to call for Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race, which would have deprived her supporters of the same opportunity. My only hope would that she campaign with an eye towards the bigger picture of placing a Democrat in the White House.
Now, it is a contentious argument as to whether she succeeded on that front, but irrespective of that, she should be commended for running a campaign that would have won in any other election cycle, but that's politics.
So, please accept this as a fig leaf to you and others that share your sentiments and know that if your concerns about Obama's experience, qualification, etc. are truly an issue, they can only be overcome with the participation of the entire Democratic Party and it's supporters. Once elected, (I pray because John McCain would be a nightmare) we need to hold him accountable for what we believe this country needs and he needs to be responsive. I'm pretty confident that Obama believes that as well and that is why I'm comfortable with my vote despite some of the concerns that have been raised.
Back in 1864, some guy wrote a telegram to Abraham Lincoln that said
WHITE MEN IS IN CLASS NUMBER ONE AND BLACK MEN IS IN CLASS NUMBER TWO AND MUST BE GOVERNED BY WHITE MEN FOREVER.
Secretary John Nicolay wrote him back.
As it is my business to assist him wherever I can, I will thank you to inform me, for his use, whether you are a white man or a black one, because in either case you cannot be regarded as an entirely impartial judge. It may be that you belong to a third or fourth class of yellow or red men, in which case the impartiality of your judgment would be more apparent.
Of course, Brokaw's judgment is...well, nonexistent, so there ya go.
I think there are many very valid reasons to support Obama, just as there are valid reasons to oppose him, and vice versa for Hillary. I think there are many, many good people on both sides.
I could have jumped for joy if Hillary was allowed to run fairly and still lost. I would have been elated if she had been treated as any other politician and allowed to run the way many men have run.
This thread is not about Obama, not really. This thread isn't the place to talk him up, sorry. This thread is definitely not the place to try to convince upset Hillary supporters that they need to buck-up and start "thinking". This thread is about the sadness we feel because of the misogyny, not because Hillary lost.
I think that those who don't get that must not see me as a real person. And it's sad that that's where we're at. If you're an Obama supporter dropping by this blog to "help" us see the light...just don't. Just stop. Just go somewhere else (like the rest of the blogosphere maybe) and celebrate. This is really, really, really not the time or place.
Quoted for truth.
Wow, this thread really went downhill, didn't it? We can't have ONE THREAD without all this nonsense.
In all seriousness, I think it's another division of how we're supposed to take losses. Men have been generally expected to show the stiff upper lip and be gracious in defeat, and in shows up in lots of (mostly) male-dominated sports. Think of the handshake at the end of a hockey match or soccer game. I frigging HATE losing, and the last thing in the world I want to do is shake the winner's hand at the end, but I'm expected to. Outside of the Mark type trolls, I think most of your Obama posters are reacting with just that logic and don't get that it doesn't apply to everyone the same way anymore.
---
No, atheist (troll). One of the things that strikes me here is the inability to be treated as equals (for good or ill). I had no idea this was some sort of sacred space where the women/Hillary supporters could lick their wounds and not be bothered by the (non-sensitive) men/Obama supporters regarding their foray into the world of patriarchal presidential politics that they insisted they're savvy enough to handle. When a woman does win the top spot, and I hope it's a Dem, it will be because she stood on the shoulders of a giant and trailblazer (HRC).
To hear some of you speak, you'd think others here made statements similar to the Al Campanis quote regarding blacks as baseball managers and said, "Women may not have some of the necessities to be president."
I see a blog as similar to a shopping district and windowshop and wander in to my heart's content.. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is standard but your "your kind is not welcome here" is rather ugly, doncha think?
Don't bother getting up, I can find my way out.
Ha! Funny.
That's all fine and well and good, except that I didn't go to their blogs. They came here. Or were directed here.
They sought this blog out, or were pointed to it, to come here and force me to give them the handshake they need? Fuck them. They didn't bother to read around and understand what was being said or felt. Adults do that. Trolls don't. They went off on what the post WASN'T, not what it was, despite Melissa specifically stating that this isn't about Hillary losing (or that she doesn't even support Hillary). They didn't bother to read the thread. I am not in the spotlight and even if I was I have not said anything that counts as being a sore loser. I am upset at the disrespect showed Clinton, not that she lost, and they can't get past their own sexism to understand the difference. Again, fuck them.
---
BTW, imagine if I was a McCain rabblerouser; it would be as if you'd been played like a fiddle.
And you come in here and pontificate and lecture and track your great muddy boots all over the place as if you own it, and then you have the gall to complain when us ladiez don't swoon into your manly arms as the Arbiters of Truth. How incredibly, fucking rude you are.
The only redeeming fact is that it seemed to emanate from the supporters, surrogates and media rather than the candidates themselves. Regardless, it did shake a good bit of the faith that I have in the American people as a whole. So I, too, understand how you feel.
I'll apologize if you believed that I was "talking up" Obama, when my goal was simply to provide a reference point as to which side I was coming from so that you know that your feelings were understood not just by people who share your voting preference. Looking at my post from a a different reference point I can see how that could be misinterpreted. Hopefully, however, this clarifies my intent, If that sentiment is not welcome from people like me then let me know and I'll cease offering it.
Speaking for myself, I appreciated your earlier comment. There's just an awful lot of noise in here right now.
Hopefully, however, this clarifies my intent,
It totally does, and I thank you for posting. I'm sorry if I came across as directing all my scolding at you specifically. I was more talking to any trolls who might be reading.
I think part of some of the responses was the instances of Obama bashing in the comments, and they feel compelled to defend 'their' candidate.
As for me? The only thing I worry about is letting Hillary decide how she wants to walk off the stage could be a bigger disaster than giving her the hook. I'm old enough to remember 1980, and how Kennedy treated Carter. There's no harm in her suspending her campaign and doing her work behind the scenes, and that's probably what she'll be able to do now that she doesn't have to travel to campaign. I'm just worried that she could do real damage to Obama's chances if she really wanted to. it's not disrespect on my end because of her sex, but because I desperately don't want McCain in the Oval Office, and I can't predict that Hillary will just let this go.
Please keep writing.
The vitriolic nature of this primary may make it seem like sexism and misogyny are overwhelming forces, but appreciate what Clinton has succeeded in doing. She has shown that women candidates can be taken seriously and judged on their merits. She has shown that America is ready, or at least very close to ready, to have a woman president. She was able to hold on to the end in a situation where most male candidates would have collapsed months ago. And of all the things that she was charged with, her strength and tenacity were never in doubt.
So when you are coming to terms with this, don't drown yourself in sorrow. There is a silver lining.
Honestly, I can see why some people who feel that Hillary is a villain would think she would sabotage Obama and the Dems, but at this point I don't think it's based on her actual actions.
I think NobodySpecial's talking about Mark (do a ctrl+f on the Virtual Pub thread), not you.
I think that's really unfair. Obama's victory speech was certainly gracious, and "kid gloves" doesn't even begin to describe the practically nonexistent level of pressure he's put on her to end her divisive campaign.
On the other hand, she couldn't even bring herself to admit that Obama had won. You want to talk about gracelessness, you'll find it in the actions and words of Hillary Clinton. She's had opportunity after opportunity to bow out long after her campaign had descended into mathematical irrelevance; instead she's chosen to level falsehood after falsehood ("I won the popular vote"; "South Dakota had the last say") and spend more time attacking Democrats than Republicans.
I'm sorry that your candidate lost. Largely, she lost by her own actions and the actions of campaign leaders like Mark Penn. And I'm sorry that she was the inevitable target of sexism. It happened to Nancy Pelosi, too, and it'll be even worse if and when she runs for President.
But it's time to move on. It's not like she died. She just lost a primary election, and she deserved to lose. It's time for you to take a look back in clarity and see a candidate with little to no election strategy after February; a candidate who spent far more time on the attack against Obama than against McCain; a candidate who purposefully appealed to a tradition of rural American racism; a candidate who voted to disenfranchise voters in two states before she realized she'd need those votes; a candidate who's been trying to change the rules twenty different ways throughout the primary. A candidate essentially unvetted by the media in any serious way. A candidate who enjoyed every institutional advantage, and still couldn't pull it off.
Above all a candidate who put her personal success above the collective interest. She lost an election. She's not dead. It's time for you to get over it.
It's not just the 'Hillary is a villain' thing. Kennedy is a hero of the left, and he did some real damage to Carter by fighting him at the convention. Like I said, I HATE losing, and I can't see any politician regardless of sex liking it either. I'd like to think she wouldn't do that, but she's done some things that made me wince and wonder. (The response to the 'Is Obama a Christian' thing, the 'McCain has been vetted, and so have I, Obama not so much' moment in particular.)
I didn't bother to read past that. I'm holding my breath waiting for someone to prove me wrong.
---
Wow! That's some testicular fortitude.
Last post (honest). My sincere (truly) apologies to Melissa McEwan who did try to warn me off with a heartfelt and polite "This is not the time. This is not the thread."
I responded in kind (to others) when I could have/should have just walked away.
G'night.
I really need to go to bed before I get any more pissed off and incoherent. Fuck this noise.
The whole "Obama isn't a Muslim as far as I know" thing has to be taken in context. I don't know how I would have handled it any differently if I had been asked the question 4 times. I really just don't know what she was supposed to say instead of what she said.
And I'm not saying politics-as-usual hasn't been ugly all around, including from Hillary's camp, but I'm just not worried about her trying to get McCain elected, especially since she has, for months, said she would work to get Obama elected and used conciliatory and "uniting" language tonight.
But again, this post wasn't about all the ways Hillary sucks.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wtf? That's a 'wtf' of complete bemusement.
I read this post and these comments with interest, because I am sad that the day when I can vote for a woman to be president has been deferred yet again to another time. An undefined future "tomorrow" when a woman's power and strength and leadership will not be questioned, will be embraced.
I went through this season impressed at the non-issue that Hillary Clinton's gender was, with the exception of the New Hampshire moment. I felt pretty satisfied with the media treatment.
I'm really shocked to see that so many don't feel this way, that they see misogyny. Maybe I didn't want to see it. I'm going to look harder, because you are reasonable people.
I don't know what to say. I've spent the last few months doing voter registration, etc, and it's brought me face to face with a public that is surprisingly candid about things with a stranger in a grocery store parking lot. I've had people express extremely ugly thoughts and prejudices. And I know that hearing them so many times has colored my view of the world, deepened my distrust of folks.
I can see the toll this has taken on us all. I'm so sorry for that. I wish I knew how we could all salvage something from this and get past the personalization. But I get that it is sort of personal. The only way I know to not make it personal is to make it about someone else. Which is my inartful way of saying that I really want to understand your profound sadness and anger, because I think that's the way I can stop making it about me personally and what I feel.
Truth.
On that note, I'm off to a midnight glass of water and to bed. Be good. (Or be good at it.)
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/...
You can find 1-103 linked from there, too.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/...
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/...
::spittake::
We have an amazing nominee who fiercely champions feminist causes because he values women
What the HELL kind of crack are you on?
Are the tactics you Obama supporters are using in this thread to try to turn Clinton voters a preview of the ones you plan on using in the general election? If so, then I'm glad I'm no longer have a Dem horse in the rest of the race, because, good Dagon in Hades, you people suck at persuasion beyond your fan base.
heh.
I decided that Brokaw was not nearly as classy as he thinks he is back when the current CA governor was running for office. Not only did Brokaw agree to do an in depth interview in his campaign trailer, with campaign posters all around (wtf? since when is that normal practice for quality/impartial journalism?) but when said candidate responded to a question by saying "I'll answer that after the election" he fucking let it go. WTF?
oh, wait topic?
Melissa, you rock, as always.
And Chet? try reading the fucking comments before shooting your mouth off. Especially those made by the author of the post in question.
and omfg Lance,
"Last post (honest). My sincere (truly) apologies to Melissa McEwan who did try to warn me off with a heartfelt and polite "This is not the time. This is not the thread.""
That was not a warning. I know this will come as a shock, but this is not about you. Melissa wasn't trying to warn you not to provoke the hysterical feminiazis in case we might attack (you - gasp!), she was telling you to fuck off as well. She was just using different words to do so.
I supported Sen. Obama in this primary. I'm still gobsmacked that, as a Latino, my party is going to nominate a minority as President. I can't quite put it into words.
That said -- I cannot even begin to imagine how it must have felt for my sister, or my mother (who raised me by herself while working two shifts as a pharmacist), or even my grandmother (who left school after the third grade to work on the farm and became a seamstress) to see a woman laying claim to the Presidential nomination.
I may profoundly disagree with some of the votes Sen. Clinton has cast in the Senate; I may sharply dissent from some of the things she has said on the trail. That's part of the political trail.
What I cannot do is diminish or deride her efforts to make this country better for all of us. Had she won the nomination, I would have been proud to see her accept here in Denver. Her campaign *is* a giant step forward for women.
I'm not going to say it's time to get over it. This isn't the place for it, and I'm sorry that others didn't feel that way. I guess what I want to do is congratulate all of you who worked so hard over the last sixteen months, and thank you for your hard work. That's the very least I can do.
Hopefully, I'll get to see a woman become President eight years from now. That would be change I could really believe in, and it would way past time for that to happen.
(Also, the Obama supporters coming in here and being bloody jerks? UR DOIN IT WRONG. And not just as Obama supporters, as human beings with an ounce of common human feeling and, geez, reading comprehension. And I say this as someone who voted for Obama myself.)
That's not what people are saying on this thread. We're saying that, whether the misogyny affected Clinton's campaign or not, it was still wrong. And when it did affect some people's votes--it is quite obvious that there are people whose sexism affects their politics--that is a sad and horrible thing. This is not the same thing 'crying sexism', ie claiming that any time something goes badly for Hillary Clinton, it's because of misogyny.
See, you other Obama supporters? THAT'S class. That's the kind of behaviour that builds unity and heals the wounds of misogyny that have been trucked in against women in this campaign. Not having an agenda in a post other than saying simply that you see our pain and you feel for us, not telling us to "get over it" or "time to move on" or any of that bullshit.
Thank you noboa, that was very well put and very much appreciated.
Kool Aid Salesmen- is behaving in a way that underscores everything that is wrong in a society built on divisive binaries and undermines the needs of a strong society. Your candidate reallllllllly doesn't need you trying to help him- ever,
:lol:
Yeah, God forbid she be allowed to determine how she makes her exit, like any other candidate before her. Oh, wait, she doesn't have a penis. That means that she's a child who has to have someone else make all her decisions for her.
Clinton lost because people love to fall for empty rhetoric like "hope!' "change!" etc., and love to believe whatever bad things are said about women. I won't hold my breath waiting for the next pres - be it Obama or McCain - to do anything worthy of my support. I would like it, howoever, if Obama is elected, for him to prove me completely wrong and make me eat my words.
but I won't be holding my breath for that either.
"Barack Obama has done what many just a year ago thought was impossible. He took on the most powerful family in Democratic politics and won"
:::RAGE:::
And the AP, characterizing the historic event of Hillary's win in New Hampshire: "That loss showed [Obama] that toppling the royal family of Democratic politics would not come easily"
Yeah, forget that Hillary was the first woman to win a state primary, it was all about her name.
That article compares Obama to fucking Icarus.
:::RAGE:::
Hillary Clinton has fought valiantly, in the true sense of the word.
I am so sad for myself, my daughters, and the rest of America right now. But I will try to use Hillary's example as inspiration to fight for a world where women will be treated as humans.
The question is, will he support you?
And LGTB issues are no strangers here. Read round the archives.
And my thanks to noboa and Nenya also for showing how it should be done.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
The question is, will he support you?
Precisely. Thank you, Betty.
I thought so to. That's a mistake I won't be making again. What I learned from this primary season: If you don't have a penis, you don't count.
You have GOT to be shitting me. Did you watch or read Obama's speech? There is now way (other than complete and total abject prostration before Your Queen) that he could have been MORE gracious.
Thanks for outing yourself as a troll up front, so none of us have to waste time on you.
But let's set that aside for a moment. Now that it is clear to most that Hillary will not be President, what do you think would be a fair/just/realistic outcome for her, moving forward? What's next for Hillary? What do you think she "deserves?" The VP slot? A cabinet position? Simply returning to the Senate?
How classy of you - NOT!
As I said on another thread yesterday, I was not surprised by the misogyny expressed, even by supposed progressives, because I think it is so ingrained in our culture (where white male is seen as the norm) that some -maybe even most- people aren't aware when they are saying something misogynistic or going along with misogyny. It's so pervasive and seen as so ordinary that people get irritated when a person notices it and points it out.
And it's acceptable to make misogynistic comments in a way that it is not acceptable to make racist comments - as casual jokes, as advertising campaigns, etc. So I don't think this is a problem that is going away, and maybe we should upgrade to tablespoons.
Nice to know that hating women is an actual addiction for these people.
So much so that they don't even see it. Of course, disappointed knew exactly what he was doing, being a useless douchebag bigot troll and all.
Tell me about it.
But I'm not calm. I'm angry. I'm angry that Clinton didn't run a better campaign. I'm angry that the MSM and the bloggers have chosen to use the language of misogyny against a person who has dedicated her life to the ideals of the Democratic party - and that it was allowed to continue. I'm desperately afraid that this language, always there beneath the surface, will be used more and more.
Most of all, I'm angry that the best person of the three running - the one who can best start to clean up the mess this country is in after 8 years of Bush misrule, the one whom I believe will make the hard and politically dangerous decisions required to do so, even if it costs her a second term - will not be running in November. And that the one who I will be voting for can take my vote for granted, so I have no leverage at all.
I hope so very much that Obama exceeds my expectations.
I started reading this blog a few weeks ago when I got tired of never seeing a good word said about Clinton. Thank you, Melissa, for providing a space where I don't feel marginalized.
But let's set that aside for a moment. Now that it is clear to most that Hillary will not be President, what do you think would be a fair/just/realistic outcome for her, moving forward? What's next for Hillary? What do you think she "deserves?" The VP slot? A cabinet position? Simply returning to the Senate?
I also think she "deserves" a place for people who are disgusted with the treatment of her, and of all women worldwide, a place to vent about it without having to open the container for every single disenfranchised group of people other than women.
You know, just once.
I don't know what the Obama campaign could have done to be more honorable toward its rival campaign. And I don't care if some asshole bloggers were assholes. That's what you're now supporting. Because that's the only way "the aggrived" can take revenge for all the insults to their candidate they need to "take personally."
White Women for McCain.
Vicarious joy was never more vicarous.
It would have been cool to have a woman president, and it will be cool when it happens, which I fully expect in my lifetime.
with this:
And it's acceptable to make misogynistic comments in a way that it is not acceptable to make racist comments - as casual jokes, as advertising campaigns, etc. So I don't think this is a problem that is going away
while the presumptive nominee is a black man, which is amazing, and represents huge leaps in overcoming some (but sadly, *only* some) of society's ingrained racism, how are we likely to see a female nominee in our lifetimes if we're so far away from overcoming the ingrained sexism?
I AM SPARTACUS.
And nikkos, you don't get to decide the direction of conversation. I'm so sick of people coming in here with this "Answer my questions!" attitude. Here of all threads.
Ah, yes. "I was just trying to engage!" The last refuge of the wankstain troll who's been called on it.
Go lightly, jackass.
It would have been cool to have a woman president, and it will be cool when it happens, which I fully expect in my lifetime.
with this:
And it's acceptable to make misogynistic comments in a way that it is not acceptable to make racist comments - as casual jokes, as advertising campaigns, etc. So I don't think this is a problem that is going away
while the presumptive nominee is a black man, which is amazing, and represents huge leaps in overcoming some (but sadly, *only* some) of society's ingrained racism, how are we likely to see a female nominee in our lifetimes if we're so far away from overcoming the ingrained sexism?
Because I don't think misogyny, regardless of how pervasive, precludes the option for a woman to achieve the highest elected office in the country. I think it can be overcome. I don't think Clinton failed because of misogyny - actually, I don't think Clinton failed at all, how many primaries did she win? How many votes did she get? - but due to a whole host of reasons (including strategic blunders such as not being prepared to continue after Super Tuesday, keeping people like Mark Penn on staff for far too long, etc.) Did misogyny contribute? Sure, but I don't think it was the deciding factor.
These guys, one-offs and others are really really really tiresome. I don't need more 12-year-olds in my life.
What do you think was the deciding factor, if not misogyny?
Opposing Hillary is not the same as opposing women. I want to make that distinction clear.
Look, I get where you all are coming from, but I just don't agree that misogyny cost Hillary the nomination, and as I said above I don't think there's much Obama could do to be more gracious.
I did not intend for my comments to be perceived as raining on your parade or disrespecting your moment of mourning. I fully understand the sadness some of you may feel today, after having poured your hearts into Hillary's campaign. I am not denying you that. I am merely saying that it is incorrect to blame the misogyny. I am quite sue there has been misogyny during this primary season, and some of it may have even come from Obama supporters. I will apologize to you all on their behalf- please know they do not represent the true feelings of Obama or the vast majority of his supporters.
I will not respond to the ever-so-gracious epithets that have been hurled my way. I guess I'm not the only "12 year old" in the house.
How generous
I am merely saying that it is incorrect to blame the misogyny.
Well, that settles that, then!
I am quite sue there has been misogyny during this primary season, and some of it may have even come from Obama supporters.
Gee, ya think?
Seriously, what part of "this is not the time or the place" do you NOT get?
Awww, does someone need a bottle and a nap, already?
Ladies, let's all focus on nikkos. He's clearly in desperate need to make this all about him. So maybe, if we all stare at him intently for a few moments, he'll feel satisfied and go away.
methinks you haven't read the thread, or maybe even the post. ok then...
*turns attention elsewhere*
Then, uh, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Good Lord.
You keep saying that, and you keep NOT GOING. Geez.
Hmm. Teletubbies must be on.
There's a right way and a wrong way, Zuzu, there's a way that promotes party unity and focuses attention on the GOP candidate, and then there's a way that divides the party against itself and wastes resources in a circular firing squad. Any other candidate before her would have dropped out in March, with some class and grace.
So, yeah. Clinton's been making the childish decision to keep running, to keep soliciting donations, to keep asking for ten-year-old's to sell their bicycles to fund the campaign of a multi-millionare. So she gets treated like a child. I don't see a problem, here. If she insists on putting self-interest over the collective good, the collective is going to start to push back.
She's not entitled to a campaign. She's not entitled to the nomination. And, quite frankly, her supporters aren't entitled to sit on their asses and have the Obama folks do all the work of unifying. God, you Hillary voters are self-indulgent! For Christ's sake, she lost in March. You've had two whole months to grieve! How much more time do you need before we can expect you to actually do some work to defeat Republicans in the fall? God!
She voted for the war.
Had she gotten that one right she would be the nominee right now.
Obama folks like you, who come here to rub salt into open wounds. If that's unifying, then you have an awfully funny way of showing it, pal.
Unifying is when Clinton supporters get over themselves and their entitlement, and say "Obama ran a good campaign, and he won. Now it's time to get behind him because McCain is a threat, albeit not much of one."
Unifying is not when Clinton spokespeople - as I hear them saying on the radio this morning - that Obama's win "doesn't count", because he doesn't have the pledged delegates to put him over the top, only pledged and supers. Unifying is not when Clinton's camp, yet again, attempts to change the rules to invalidate Obama's hard-earned wins.
I see absolutely no evidence that Clinton's supporters are interested in any efforts at "unification" short of actually handing Clinton a nomination she didn't earn. Real unification cannot occur so long as Melissa and others refuse to look at Hillary Clinton with objective vision. Your wounds are two months old. Sometimes a little salt is all that can keep an old wound from festering.
I'm going to guess that Nikkos is a fella, as am I. As somebody who has been having Clinton v. Obama debates with a best friend for about 3 months straight... Some of us boys, we just can't help ourselves... It's always the time and place for a debate...
Forgive Nikkos, he know not what he does.
*laughs her ass off at the idea of Betty being a troll*
Forgive Nikkos, he know not what he does.
Nope. Not an excuse. Debate is not a "boy" thing, and yes, "boys" can help themselves, if they bother. Take a look at the contributers and commenters here for examples.
Aww thanks, douchebag. That's what I needed today, the opinion of some random jackoff I couldn't possibly care less about.
"Unifying is when Clinton supporters get over themselves and their entitlement"
Translation: Unifying will happen when you all uppity bitches obey me! I'm going to make DAMN SURE Clinton supporters don't vote for Obama.
Actually that's shorter chet altogether: I'm going to make DAMN SURE Clinton supporters don't vote for Obama.
"Real unification cannot occur so long as Melissa and others refuse to look at Hillary Clinton with objective vision. Your wounds are two months old. Sometimes a little salt is all that can keep an old wound from festering.''
No, douchebag, real unification will happen IF Obama actually addresses the issues pissed off dems are having with him and IF his usless bigot supporters stop ruining it for him.
You know, it's funny. You write this like it's a response to me, but I can't see a single place in your post where you've grappled with my arguments or, indeed, done anything but call me names. Weird.
Re: "it's not the time" - When is the time, precisely? Since it's been two months since she lost. At precisely what time, Clinton supporters, are you going to be prepared to shrug off your self-indulgent pity party and actually hear why Hillary Clinton proved herself to be deeply unsuited to be President of the United States? I mean, if she couldn't run a campaign, how could she run a country? If she kept Mark Penn on her campaign staff, wouldn't he have been in her White House staff, too?
Mysogyny played a role. Largely, she was able to overcome it. I think she really put the press in their place about it. That's an accomplishment for which I give her considerable credit. She lost, though, because she ran a poor campaign, and because she has a record of failure and poor judgment, both as First Lady and as Senator.
It's funny because it makes no fucking sense. I could only be a feminist troll if I were on anti-feminist sites acting like chet is here. Since I'm not, but he called me one anyway, I have to assume he doesn't actually know what a troll is. Which is fun-ney!
This thread? You're doing it wrong. Get up to speed, would you?
You're right, I mis-spo...er.. wrote. It's more like some of us boys... men.... wev, just "don't get it." and it's hard to help yourself, when you don't see what's wrong with what your doing. As far as this being a trait that is more often seen in men, well, I'm pretty sure it is. But that's just based on personal experience, so we'll save that for another day.
So is the fact that he can't spell "misogyny," possibly an indication that he's never had to deal with it, has no idea what the hell he's talking about, and should stop trolling. I hope McCain's paying him well.
In truth, I'm among the "anyone but McCain" crowd, and would have happily voted for either Obama or Clinton, though I was also very sad during my state's primary, because as a woman and an activist having to choose between two historical candidates was gut-wrenching. I'm not in love with either.
But the way Clinton has been treated is beyond abysmal. If she were male, no one would have pressured her to concede before the primary, would have expected her to be gracious when no one was treating her with graciousness, and that is what makes my stomach turn.
Any comment that begins "Translation:" is, invariably, a trollish attempt to argue with a strawman. You didn't like what I said, and you have nothing to address the argument, so you're going to pretend like I said something else that's much easier to argue with.
And you wonder why I called you a troll, Betty?
I'm going to make DAMN SURE Clinton supporters don't vote for Obama.
Well, that's super feminist. Why, I'm sure McCain will be so grateful that he appoints two pro-choice justices and overturns DOMA, just out of the goodness of his heart. He certainly seems like the cuddly type, doesn't he?
You're such a troll, Betty, that you've just pledged to troll the general election.
IF Obama actually addresses the issues pissed off dems are having with him
Given the striking similarities between the policies of Clinton and Obama, the only issue you have with Barack Obama, Betty, is that he's not a white female named Hillary Clinton.
Translation; you're just a silly gurl! Why should I actually read what you wrote! Silly gurl! *scratches jock*
But did men suddenly all become too stupid to read? Because if they'd just scroll up TO THE GODDAMN POST NONE OF THE TROLLS EVER BOTHER TO READ, they'd understand that they're behaving like counterproductive assholes, and also like slimy, indecent human beings. Most men are not catastrophically dumb or unbelievably rude. There's no excuse for this. None.
Keep on unifying, asshole. Keep on, keep on. I feel the "unifying" seeping through my monitor.
If she were anyone but Hillary Clinton, nobody would have had to. Nobody had to get on Edward's case; he faced reality, did the math, and put the party's chances in November ahead of his personal gain.
It has nothing to do with Clinton being a woman, and everything to do with her putting her own power ahead of the collective interest.
What do you think was the deciding factor, if not misogyny?
Part of me is loath to say anything -- I mentioned upthread that this wasn't the place for cold, clinical disquisitions of the campaign. You asked, though, and your question deserves an answer. Here's mine, from my limited vantage point as a once-and-future field organizer.
I live in Colorado. Colorado was one of the Feb. 5 states, and it was a caucus. Caucuses, more than primaries, reward organization, from top to bottom.
Obama's campaign began organizing in Colorado in April of 2007. Clinton's campaign didn't set up until late November of that year. That gave Obama a seven month head start. In a Presidential campaign -- and this is my fourth -- that's political malpractice.
Two of my housemates (I live with 4 women) were diehard Clinton supporters, and work as organizers. They offered to help Hillary on more than one occasion. They weren't taken up on their offers until January -- by that time, Obama had set up multiple caucus trainings, and had even three door-to-door canvasses...in January...in Colorado.
Last night, I commiserated with them. To the degree that I'm angry, I'm angry not at Hillary -- she ran a hell of a campaign, and anyone who supports her should hold their heads up high -- but at many of her campaign staff, because they didn't run a campaign worthy of their supporters. I can blame that performance on a lot of things, but misogyny isn't one of them.
yes, JD, that's more like it.
And it's still not an excuse ;)
It's still unbelievable to me that these douchewads are showing up in this thread filling up an anti-feminist bingo card. Galling.
Is CE a woman? How would I know from two initials?
See what I mean about "Translation" posts, Betty? You can't even seem to troll in a comprehensible way.
Keep on unifying, asshole.
Sadly, some unification is not going to be possible. Clinton supporters who would rather turn our country over to another 4 or 8 years of Bush-ism than accept that their candidate lost fair and square simply can't be unified into the Democratic party.
You will not be missed.
ugh. Here we go again with the utterly clueless noob pretending he can read minds.
Let me explain the translation function to you. I'll use little words.
It's mocking, yes, but it's also designed to strip away all the lies and bullshit trolls love to use to obfuscate their real agenda. I simply stripped away all the slimy bullshit from your post and made clear what you're actually saying. We've been dealing with sexist trolls awhile now. You're not new or innovative.
"And you wonder why I called you a troll, Betty?"
Where did I say that, liar? I know you used it because you think you're clever. Also not new or innovative.
"Well, that's super feminist. Why, I'm sure McCain will be so grateful that he appoints two pro-choice justices and overturns DOMA, just out of the goodness of his heart. He certainly seems like the cuddly type, doesn't he?"
*gasp* you mean if I don't obey you, the dems will continue to do FUCK -ALL to protect my rights? Oh noess!11!!!!111!1!!!1
The "obey us or we'll take your rights away" thing doesn't work when you don't do a fucking thing to protect them in the first place. Fool.
"Given the striking similarities between the policies of Clinton and Obama, the only issue you have with Barack Obama, Betty, is that he's not a white female named Hillary Clinton."
Wow - can you read minds? You've been trolling here for a whopping half an hour and yet you know everything about me!. Wow. That's some serious douchebag powers you got there.
:lol: stop speaking for me, sexist, I can do just fine on my own.
"
Gawd, you're not even a good liar.
I know, I'm so privileged. My resentful vagina - which is also apparently racist (LOL) - you just can't reason with such an entitled bitch!
"It's still unbelievable to me that these douchewads are showing up in this thread filling up an anti-feminist bingo card. Galling."
I know, right? It's like what part of "you're proving our point for us" is so confusing?
Try TALKING LESS AND LURKING MOAR!
You will not be missed.
We'll see about that, I guess. Toodles!
Oh, no.
Being missed was my reason for living.
As an Obama supporter, I can definitively say that you're not helping. Personally, I don't believe that sexism was the primary reason Hilary lost (though it played a role), but I can understand why many of her supporters feel that way. If nothing else, it's human nature to be upset when your candidate loses a close, hard-fought race.
There's just no reason to rub salt in anybody's wounds right now
Child, the Obama folks better get used to working hard. You're planning to have your candidate win, right? To run this country? It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is and hit the ground running. So far all you have seen is the easy part and if all you can do is stand around and denigrate Clinton supporters, I'd say your winning strategy is already shot to hell. We aren't the problem and we aren't the enemy - and we sure as hell aren't your mother.
Do your own damn laundry.
Then why, exactly, should we support the party that doesn't care about us?
That was rhetorical, btw. No need to answer. In fact, please don't.
and for the Chet note, because the Chet from here deserves the defense!
Because otherwise YOU'LL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!!11!
Sorry, I know it was rhetorical. Couldn't resist, though: it's like following a goddamn script with these "people."
So why vote for anybody, Betty? What did Clinton do in two terms in the White House that was so great for feminism? What did she do in a campaign based entirely on her record of being married to power that was so great for feminism?
Need I remind you under whose administration DOMA was signed into law? Or do gay women not count as women? Clinton's campaign should have been your first clue that she was not prepared to do anything for anybody that wasn't advantageous to her and her personal political influence. Her record as Senator and First Lady should have been your second.
I know you're casting about for some plausible indicator of misogyny so you can ignore my posts; but since I've not leveled a single gender-based criticism, you can't. (Which is why you keep replying.) Clinton lost because she was, objectively, the worse candidate. She's showed poor judgment in a dozen different areas.
And all you can do is spit at me in response. If you had an argument for Clinton's candidacy, you'd have provided it by now. You're angry. I get that. Direct that anger at where it's deserved - Hillary Clinton and her campaign. She's the one who let you down.
Largely because dems do absolutely nothing to protect it. But, don't pay attention to that. Just vote the way you're told to vote, bitches because, remember, as much as we don't give a fuck about you, McCain is worse.
Bwah! Yeah, Betty, you always tell me how I'm not a woman. And stuff. Or something.
Hey, look! Over there! We have a Billary! I've gone through, like, four bingo cards with just one douchebag troll. It's almost impressive, assuming he isn't just a random comment generator.
Sebelius, anyone?
"Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard."
Q.E. Motherfucking. D.
So long as Clinton insists on running a campaign - which she is - there's every reason. If Clinton isn't going to listen to reason from outsiders, she needs to hear it from her supporters.
Even if I convince one person, one person who isn't even posting, it's worth it. And I have a hard time believing that I'm coming out the worse in these exchanges with Betty and CE. Have either of them responded substantively even once? It's the two of them who are proving my point - there's simply no reasoning with some people. There's literally no conceivable outcome, Peter, where these people will vote for Obama instead of McCain, out of spite.
Well, let 'em.
You're planning to have your candidate win, right? To run this country? It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is and hit the ground running.
We hit the ground running in April of 2007, months before the Clinton campaign. We've put four times as much money where our mouths are than the Clinton camp. It's a little rich to act like the Obama camp hasn't done enough. Our guy did win, you know.
"So why vote for anybody, Betty?"
It's my vote, douche. I'll do with it as I please. I know that upsets you, all these chicks thinking they have that right, but that's not my problem.
"What did Clinton do in two terms in the White House that was so great for feminism?"
When was Hillary Clinton president again?
"What did she do in a campaign based entirely on her record of being married to power that was so great for feminism?"
Thank you for outing yourself as a sexist, again, Chet. But it was unnecessary. We can smell the stench of woman-hater on you a mile away.
"Need I remind you under whose administration DOMA was signed into law? Or do gay women not count as women?"
See, this is why knowing you you're talking to would help you not make such a fucking moron of yourself. I'm bi. Spent years in a relationship with a woman. And NO WHERE did I say anything about approving of DOMA, you disingenious fuck.
"Clinton's campaign should have been your first clue that she was not prepared to do anything for anybody that wasn't advantageous to her and her personal political influence."
Yeah, because the sexist opinion of a sexist is totally one rely on.
"I know you're casting about for some plausible indicator of misogyny so you can ignore my posts;"
Translation: YOu're just looking for something to be offended about, silly girl. Nevermind that I'm a noob troll who knows fuckall abotu this blog. or you. or feminism.
"but since I've not leveled a single gender-based criticism, you can't. (Which is why you keep replying.) "
You're a really bad liar. You realize people can simply scroll up and see that you're lying, right?
"Clinton lost because she was, objectively, the worse candidate."
:lol: Yeah. I'm so sure you're "objective".
"She's showed poor judgment in a dozen different areas."
That, I agree with. Of course, so did Obama.
"And all you can do is spit at me in response."
Translation: I can dish it out, but I can't take it.
"If you had an argument for Clinton's candidacy, you'd have provided it by now."
And because I didn't on your command, I must never have done, right sexist?
" You're angry. I get that. "
That sexist bullshit doesn't even need translating.
"Direct that anger at where it's deserved - Hillary Clinton and her campaign. She's the one who let you down."
How about you stop telling me what to do, Mr. Privilege? How about you stop pretending to know me. How about you stop acting like a douchebag and actually post a single sensible, non-bigotted post? Let's see if you can.
That's it? A speech?
We've got a guy who can give speeches too, you know. That's sort of his thing, I don't know if you heard. (Oh, I know you must have heard, because according to Clinton - who's spent less time in elected office - that's all he can do.)
Sure there is! STFU!
CE: "Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard."
Q.E. Motherfucking. D.
Exactly!
And Chet, nice of you to conveniently forget Clinton's accomplishments as Senator, one of which was to fight the FDA over reproductive justice issues. While Obama wants us to talk to our pastors.
literally no conceivable outcome, Peter, where these people will vote for Obama instead of McCain, out of spite.
Go back and read the fucking thread discussing what Obama can do to win our vote. This is factually untrue for a majority of people here. And for those for whom it is true-ish, it is not about spite, asshole.
Then you and I must not be reading the same thread. They've handed you your ass.
Even if I convince one person, one person who isn't even posting, it's worth it.
Oh, you've convinced me of something. But it isn't what you think it is.
Spell it - correctly - with me now m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y.
And some serious denial.
Misogynist trolls certainly help make a stunningly sound case for their candidate, though. I, personally, particularly appreciate being lectured about my vote in a THREAD FOR FEMINISTS TO MOURN MISOGYNY. What a fucking douchehound.
"I'm sure there's no way to make you "gruntled""
Sure there is! STFU!
LOL. Works for me.
In all fairness, it can be hard to tell when you've got your head shoved really far up it. ;)
Everything else was name-calling, Betty.
When was Hillary Clinton president again?
Oh, my apologies. I thought she had used her 8 years as First Lady as an argument for experience.
Gosh, don't know where I could have gotten that idea.
And NO WHERE did I say anything about approving of DOMA, you disingenious fuck.
So, you wanted to vote for the woman who helped make it impossible for you to marry a woman?
Help that make sense to me. The approval is implicit in your support for Clinton. How can it not be?
You realize people can simply scroll up and see that you're lying, right?
I know that they can scroll up and see that you're lying. Nothing I've said about Hillary criticizes her for being a woman. Indeed, I've praised her for overcoming misogyny to the extent that she had. She's blazed a trail for every female candidate that will come after her, and I credit her for that. (Maybe you skipped over that part.)
But, objectively, she ran a failed campaign, and one that was damaging to the party's chances in the fall. And all you Clinton supporters who are going to vote McCain in the fall need to think a little harder about what will happen - to you - if he wins. How do you just ignore that out of spite? How can you think that McCain will be anything but Bush the third?
And because I didn't on your command, I must never have done, right sexist?
I'm sorry, Betty, but I'm not required to pour through your entire back catalog in order to respond to the comments you're making here. Just as you have no idea about my posting history. You don't link to a blog so I really can't know anything about you except for what you've written here.
I don't know, maybe you're the next fucking Cicero. But in this thread, you're a troll. Simple as that. You've not offered one substantive response to anybody in this thread.
How about you stop acting like a douchebag and actually post a single sensible, non-bigotted post?
I'm not going to come out in support of Clinton just to make you feel better, Betty.
Guess what? I've been reading and not posting, and the only thing you've convinced me of is that you're an asshole who just has to be right. You are coming out the worse. You look like a sore winner, someone who doesn't just win, but has to gloat and rub it in and then explain all the reasons why your opponent lost (because you/your team is just so much awesome!). It's not unity, it's not dialogue, it's not polite, it's not gracious, and it sure as hell isn't appropriate on this thread.
It's actually pretty damn irrelevant why Clinton did or did not prove herself unsuitable to be President. What is important is why Obama IS suitable. Trying to convince people of the former is moot right now. It's not even an argument to support Obama. It's just an argument to support Not-Clinton, and Obama is not the only Not-Clinton choice.
Also Dale Carnegie would not approve of your technique.
Carnegie's Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
* "Don't criticize, condemn or complain."
* "Give honest and sincere appreciation."
* "Arouse in the other person an eager want."
Your posts? Epic FAIL.
Well, bigots are nothing if not predictable.
With name-calling? You're right, we must be reading two different threads.
Peter H, thanks for your words. I think you are missing a couple of points that are worth mentioning: 1) sexism does not have to be the "primary" reason for Senator Clinton's loss for us to call it out; 2) One does not have to be a "supporter" of Clinton (in the sense of voting for her) in order to call out the misogyny against her. You may even agree with me on this, but it doesn't come across in the above quote.
from the original post:
And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought.
That's really the point here. And if one allows oneself to believe that this is about Clinton supporters being bitter that their candidate lost and letting that bitterness cause them to over-blame sexism, then one will miss a critical point, the point of the post.
(sorry about the high-falutin' "one", but I don't want Peter H. to feel singled out by "you" this and "you" that--that's not my purpose)
Clinton supporters are disappointed and pissed off right now, as supporters of candidates who lose close races always are. (That so many pro-Obama buttheads seem not to understand this is surprising --- what Democrat hasn't felt this way?) But what we're thinking in June and what we're thinking in November are often very different things. Often in November we don't even remember what we were thinking in June.
One sure way to make sure you'll remember what you were thinking at a particular moment, though, is to write it down. Even better is to explain it several times. Argue about it. Defend it.
Every time an Obama supporter insists that a Clinton supporter has to vote for Obama in the fall, he or she forces the Clinton supporter to articulate reasons why he or she is disinclined to. He or she has the opposite effect of the one he or she intends --- hardening the position he or she is trying to soften, and making a later change of heart less likely. It's a self-indulgent, self-defeating, juvenile tactic.
It's not just interpersonally obnoxious, though it is that. It's politically idiotic.
Don't be an idiot. If you can't speak without being an idiot, shut up.
Now we have trolls calling long-time commenters trolls. Personally, the Utterly Absurd Accusations phase is my favorite stage of relentless trolling.
*munches popcorn, laughs ass off*
We get it, Chet. You're a coward.
"I know that they can scroll up and see that you're lying."
Funny that no one seems to be buying your lies though, huh.
"Nothing I've said about Hillary criticizes her for being a woman."
Except, you did. As myself and others have pointed out. We get that you're clueless, but at least try to keep up, please.
" Indeed, I've praised her for overcoming misogyny to the extent that she had. "
While lobbing some more around. lovely.
"She's blazed a trail for every female candidate that will come after her, and I credit her for that. (Maybe you skipped over that part.)"
I do tend to skip over empty platitudes mixed in with lies, yes.
"But, objectively, she ran a failed campaign, and one that was damaging to the party's chances in the fall."
Once again, since you're still confused. You're not objective. You're a sexist. That categorically prevents you from being objective.
" And all you Clinton supporters who are going to vote McCain in the fall "
Okay, douche, who the fuck said this? Who? Lying again.
"need to think a little harder about what will happen - to you - if he wins."
The same thing that's happened under Bush when Dems did fuck-all to stop it. What's your point?
" How do you just ignore that out of spite?"
There's that irrational woman stereotype again. You really can't make a single post that isn't bigotted, huh.
"How can you think that McCain will be anything but Bush the third?"
Who the fuck said he would be? Lying again.
"I'm sorry, Betty, but I'm not required to pour through your entire back catalog in order to respond to the comments you're making here. "
Actually, douchebag, you are. Don't expect mommy to do your homework for you. It's beyond dishonest to barge in making all sorts of claims about me and then pretend it's not your job to back it up.
"Just as you have no idea about my posting history."
YOU came here, douche. You need to establish your rep here if you want us to know what it is. Of course, you have done that now - you're a sexist douche! Congrats!
"But in this thread, you're a troll. Simple as that. You've not offered one substantive response to anybody in this thread."
I'm not new here. Shakers know me. They don't know you. And, this isn't your blog. I'm not the troll, douche, you are. And you haven't posted a single thing to make us think otherwise.
"I'm not going to come out in support of Clinton just to make you feel better, Betty."
Ah, so you can't post anything that doesn't insult all women because you don't like Clinton. That makes total sense for a bigot.
Great another lie. That's all you've got, huh? Lying, lying and more lying. Do you not understand how remarkably dumb that is when people can just scroll up and see for themselves?
I think of it as the I Know You Are, But What Am I?, phase.
Not yet, he hasn't. The competition wasn't between him and Clinton, the competition is between him and McCain. And maybe it's a "little rich" that I have high expectations of someone running for president. But that's my right; to say nothing of my vote.
As a woman and as a lesbian (we do prefer that term, you know), I've been working almost 40 years to make sure that progress is made. Smooth, palatable progress. I've been open and honest; I've had to lay my darkest secrets out for public consuption just so that I might get a few of the table scraps that others take for granted. And I haven't minded. I understand how rigid prejudice can be; how blind, how stupid. I understand that prejudice needs coddling and cajoling. I understand about backlash. Boy, do I ever.
But I'm more than halfway through my life. Now it's mine. All of it. Right down to who I vote for - and why I cast my vote their way. And unity? Fuck unity. All unity has ever done is make the privileged fuckers feel better about their privilege. Unity almost always means assimilation and unwarrented concession. And hope? Fuck hope too. I'll manufacture my own hope because otherwise it's just someone else's idea of what my life should be like.
And change? You can triple fuck change to hell and back. Know why? Because change doesn't come from the fucking top down. It comes from the bottom up. And what you're doing Chet? You're trying to dig a hole underneath us, trying to beat us down just a little bit. That's not change. That's what the fuckers at the top have always done.
So, congratulations on *your* win. Really.
I'll be thinking of you in the years to come.
Let me share my most recent epiphany. What's important now is the platform. Either one (or, possibly both of them,) could sell a decent platform. So, here are my requirements (in no particular order, except the feminist in me wants equal rights first.)
ERA. One that includes everything. sex, gender, race, religion, sexuality and any other dumbass point of distinction the rightwing mouthbreathers think justifies discrimination.
Separation of church and state. An ammendment would be nice, but I'll settle for a promise to review and rescind laws and regulations that bring religion into the public sphere.
An end to the war. Like, now. (::duh::) Unconditional withdrawal within 6 months. Reparations.
Fair Trade instead of Free Trade. An end to the power of big business. (Capitalism works best on a leash, IMHO.)
If these are not prominent in the party platform, then I vote Green.
Thanks for the breath of fresh air.
RAMEN TO THAT.
"Q Grrl for the win!"
Hell ya!
Quick! one of the male commenters on this blog copy her comment and pretend you wrote it. Chet's only going to hear it if someone with a penis says it to him.
*LOL*
LOL!/sob/LOL!/sob
I've got a penis and I don't think he likes me very much. He says I won't be missed.
It just happens to be at home on the nightstand right now.
Before this debacle began, I seriously thought that there was a possibility that a female president would be elected in the next 20 years. Now, I'm not so sure.
I won't even try and address the various attacks on McCain that have been expressed in the comments, other than to say that I think our country would benefit from a more civil discussion of politics that doesn't degenerate into name calling. And I say that to both liberals and conservatives.
I think the thing that really hit me about this whole Obama v. Clinton primary season was that liberals--who always promote themselves as the bastion of good things (invariably meaning that all conservatives are bigots)--are the ones spreading this misogynist rhetoric. Obviously conservative talk show hosts did this too, but I think it is ironic that so much of it was coming from the left. As an academic who is surrounded (quite literally) by liberals, I really do try to understand their perspective, but this hypocrisy really gets to me. I think that perhaps both sides need to step back and realize that blinding castigating their opponents (as immoral liberals or bigoted conservatives) is what leads to the partisan divisiveness that we have today. There really are a lot of things that conservatives and liberals can agree on, if you stop and think about about it.
I'm not meaning to sound rude or testy here, I just wanted to point out that name calling doesn't help anything and that all Americans (regardless of their political affiliation) should really stop and think hard about what their political opponents say. Listen with open ears.
Yeah, that hit a lot of us pretty hard, too.
Think of it this way, when he starts caring about us, we'll start caring about him. Round here, we're mostly "cunts" (his word) and queers, etc., and namby-panby progressives. We know what he says about us.
I can appreciate and agree with what you're saying, but this needs to be a two way street. Let those who cast the first stone, go retrieve it.
"There really are a lot of things that conservatives and liberals can agree on, if you stop and think about about it."
I fully agree with this. Except, there's one sticking point, for me, that always prevents any sort of alliance - religion. I'm an atheist. Progressive theists tend to be the more open minded kind, and don't tend to mind my existance. Conservatives, otoh, tend to have a big problem with it, and I have a big problem with their religion.
Ah, but Betty, Chet is a man, so the thread is his by definition. And he doesn't like what you're saying on his thread, so that makes you a troll. I know it doesn't resemble true sense, but it's the best his kind have.
And, quite frankly, her supporters aren't entitled to sit on their asses and have the Obama folks do all the work of unifying.
Actually they are. It's Obama's job, and that of his supporters, to campaign for their votes.
I know you're casting about for some plausible indicator of misogyny so you can ignore my posts; but since I've not leveled a single gender-based criticism, you can't.
In the same post: "a campaign based entirely on her record of being married to power"
that cult of personality that concerns me almost as much as the misogyny.
As a Brit, that's something that concerns me about American politics in general. The whole system (especially the election debates) seems set up to create and maintain them.
Dishonest and stupid both.
It just happens to be at home on the nightstand right now.
LTIA. (= Laughing till I ache)
The problem as I see it is this: the media always depicts the wacky Christians (Fred Phelps), or the hypocrites (Ted Haggard), and very rarely do people see that not all Christians are like that . I really, profoundly dislike both of these people, as do my Christian friends. Where do you see articles about people like my friend L, who has been down to New Orleans with various church groups multiple times (and by multiple I mean in the 10s) to help rebuild the city? Or the fact that my dad (who is a non-denominational minister), gives out large chunks of his paycheck to help out struggling members of the congregation, to such an extent that he works two jobs to make ends meet? You hardly ever see those sorts of positive stories. This negative association with Christianity often leads to negative associations with conservative politics, which is unfair in my opinion.
Ok, well I have strayed far off the topic of this thread, and for that I apologize.
Think of it this way, when he starts caring about us, we'll start caring about him.
And for that matter, I've seen ageist comments against him called out several times here.
YES. The goal is to win in November, I believe. Intra-party bickering only serves to bolster the opposition.
Q Grrl, that's called "proving my point for me."
A quick apology:
I'd like to apologize for hurting all your little fee-fees so badly. I guess two months after her primary loss was a little too soon to expect Clinton supporters to be able to face reality. Keep on keepin' on, guys - keep on perceiving fictitious misogyny in order to ignore substantive debate, that is.
Yeah! Quit yer bitchin, ladeez.
Keep on acting like a jackass in order to ignore substantive criticism, that is.
My, my you think highly of yourself. We're not offended, you frigging goofball, we're mocking you and your tired bigotry.
"Keep on keepin' on, guys - keep on perceiving fictitious misogyny in order to ignore substantive debate, that is."
So you call us guys - sexist - and then claim there is no misogyny? :lol: You are a total fucking moron.
Been a tough primary. I'm sorry misogyny was often the rule of the day. Hillary was awfully close. Get 'em next time.
I look forward to working with you to defeat John McCain in November.
puhleeze go away
Ouside of the online community, too many Obama supporters launch directly into rabid misogynist attack mode the second that they hear Hillary's name. Too many of them are horribly uneducated about what Obama's/Hillary's policies are, too many are directly regurgitating what they hear on the news and in the media. Too many of them fight tooth and nail to prove that not-uh, no one is going after Hillary just because she's a woman, and too many of them believe that racism is worse than sexism when really, the two are equally horrifying. I feel like I can never trust anyone who supports Obama, because I don't really think they care all that much about the implications that this race has had for women.
This campaign made me feel like no one has my back, even within a community that once made my heart swell with that wonderful feeling of finally belonging, of having people who would fight for me, who would stand together with me. But all that this has taught me is that we are alone, and that the people you once thought were allies will turn on you in a second.
IOW, you can stand there and stomp your feet. You can berate me. You can condescend to me. These are all tactics that have historically "worked" before (right down to disenfrachisement). But what out of all of that is going to make me cast my vote for your preferences rather than my own? What compelling reason do I have to ignore my very own self?
I would bet that, dollars to donuts, you're a white dude. If not white, then at the very least a dude. I find it problematic that suddenly, in 2008, dudes are coming up to me and screaming about UNITY! And then they proceed to use every manipulative, low-down, ugly means of communicating their distaste for me, for my views, and for my vote that they can think of. Something isn't matching up.
So again, you can stomp your feet. But how is that going to change me? How exactly is that persuasive?
You see, I'm middle aged. I don't care if my vote is cool anymore than I care about wearing white socks with black pants. I don't care if I'm hip. I don't care if I'm called names.
What I care about is that in this vast country I'm given a few shots to voice my political opinion. My foremothers fought for me to have that right. I take it seriously. Seriously enough that you don't get to sway or threaten that vote. It used to be that prior to the 80's, it was considered rude to ask someone who they were going to vote for. The vote was understood to be between a voter and that voter's conscience. It was a private matter. Now? Now we have folks like you, Chet, who want to bully my vote because you assume you have a right to it. That's not how it works.
[and I won't even begin to blow your mind with the fact that I'm at heart an anarchist, because I seriously don't think you have the political acumen to convince me out of that standpoint]
"Even if I convince one person, one person who isn't even posting, it's worth it. And I have a hard time believing that I'm coming out the worse in these exchanges with Betty and CE. Have either of them responded substantively even once? It's the two of them who are proving my point - there's simply no reasoning with some people."
No chet, I'm sorry. As a pro-Hillary girl who will vote Obama if he earns the nomination, you are doing NOTHING good here for ANY cause. You have demonstrated on more than one occasion that you are a sexist jerk. Obama wouldn't touch you with a 100 foot pole.
Last night when I watched Obama and Clinton speak, I sobbed. I was so full of different emotions, I didn't even know why I was that upset. Now I know why. Clinton was the closest shot we had at a female President and regardless of WHAT you think of her, she was assaulted (yes ASSAULTED) with sexism. And it wasn't just neo-con conservative assholes, it was "democrats" and "progressives." It got to the point that timidly saying "I like Hillary" was enough to merit some random 'anonymous' on my blog calling me a cunt and linking to the "99 problems but a bitch ain't one" video on you tube.
Charming.
Women have been sent a message: "It's not your time yet. You are not accepted." Make no mistake about it. It wasn't a slip up or an accident. It wasn't latent sexism- it's just sexism. It's here. And we aren't even allotted one single moment to acknowledge that. Instead we're taunted with "she was just a first lady," her campaign was run into the ground and it's "her owl fault" on and on and ON.
Please just stop. You are ripping this party apart. If Hillary and Obama's positions are so close, Chet, why are you so keen to rip Hillary apart as some monster? Why are you so keen to be snarky here to the women and men who are truly saddened by what we've witnessed?
Let us acknowledge the sexism. Just that. Nothing more. Let it happen. GO AWAY.
Melissa thanks for this post. You always say it better than I could.
http://tobestalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-cl...
A quick apology:
I'd like to apologize for hurting all your little fee-fees so badly. I guess two months after her primary loss was a little too soon to expect Clinton supporters to be able to face reality. Keep on keepin' on, guys - keep on perceiving fictitious misogyny in order to ignore substantive debate, that is.
How exactly does beating your point into people's heads promote unity? How exactly does acting out on this blog promote Obama? If you're going to put yourself out there, I think you should be asking yourself these same questions.
Chet -- History enthusiast (a self-declared republican) got a much more fair treatment here by not acting out. If we are of the same party, why can you not do the same?
Of course we won't be missed. You can't miss something you never valued in the first place.
And substantive debate? UR doin' it wrong.
Last night, I tried to stick around to listen to Obama's speech, because I felt I owed it to myself - especially if he's going to be the nominee. I figured it was time to see if there was a little more substance behind the form... and there is. But I still found myself just as alarmed at the people in the crowd - you know the ones - the ones who mouthed his words like they were at a revival meeting? The ones who were literally bowing down to him? ("We're not worthy"-ish sort of stuff) How could I not have found that disconcerting? And I was tired that he couldn't shut down the show long enough to be real. (This is interesting, too - Clinton gets hammered for not being sincere, yet the guy who spouts flowery words and classic preachy rhetoric is? Right.)
One last big rant that ties in with the idea that it's Hillary that has to be gracious now. If I hear one more time about all the work she has to do to heal this party, I am going to slap someone in the head. Somewhere around half of the Democrats who voted chose her for a reason - because she spoke to us in some way more than Barack was. Why isn't HE going to now try to convince us why we should back him? Why isn't HE going to tell me how he's going to address the things that are of concern to me? Why is it HER job to now convince me that I should take what I believe to be second best? It's insane. And I truly believe that if we weren't talking about a woman, and one who is perceived as having "overstayed her welcome", despite what the votes say, we wouldn't be having that conversation.
And my husband wonders why every time I find election coverage I cry. I love politics. But, as a woman, this really hurts.
I was fired up just thinking of pointing to HRC on tv to my 3 daughters & saying, "You are so fortunate! There's our president....now go conquer the world". (Of course, I'll still tell them to do so w/ class like HRC). My 8 yr old keeps asking my why she isn't president "YET".
I am starting (tonight, in fact!) to take courses to get my certification to become a principal and/or school superintendent, and I work in a school district where there are no women in any significant leadership positions. Here, women are not even considered for promotion, while men with little experience and few qualifications who look and act a certain way (think "football coach") are vaulted into well-paid positions all the time.
It never bothered me when people objected to HRC on policy grounds: if they thought she did a lousy job a Senator, or they hated her Iraq War position, or thought she cozied up to Republicans too much. That was treating her a serious candidate with whom they disagreed.
But every gendered criticism against her went right through me, because every woman who is or wants to be in a leadership position of any sort, whether in business or public life, can expect people who disagree with her policies to make similar remarks. Either she's a weakling or a castrator, too feminine or totally de-sexualized, but whatever she is, truly is, is located between her legs, not in her brain.
If I am fortunate enough someday to be a school superintendent, I know that people will sometimes disagree with my decisions or policies. I hope that they will respect me (and women in general!) enough to come to me and complain about my policies, or to criticize them publicly, without making it a gender issue. You don't like my ideas about how math ought to be taught to middle school students? Fine! Let's discuss it! But don't make it about my uterus.
This campaign has made me fear that might be too much to hope for, though.
So much for the "you don't allow dissent! echo chamber!" bullshit, eh?
"If we are of the same party, why can you not do the same?"
Because we're icky, disobedient, not nice, not pretty gurlz who won't fuck him and he's a fauxgressive dewd.
H.E., otoh, behaved like an adult and so was treated as such.
HRC is utterly out of touch with women like me - she makes it especially clear with inappropriate comparisons with plantations and the civil rights movement. She could never have shown an understanding of various demographics like BO did in his famous speech.
HRC was not "pushed out" - she got fewer votes and delegates. end of story.
Ah, but if there are...
The next step is organizing and finding some way to prove to the DNC that we are ready, willing and able to walk away from the party if they don't start treating us as equals. Like I said, to me the convention is the point of no return. If the platform is vague and inchoate, if it's centrist, or more of this 'hope & change' vaporware, then this old queer is voting Green.
*looks around* um . .. who said that? Not all of us horrible Hillary supporters are white.
"and how dare you speak for me and act like an out-of-touch, middle aged wealthy white woman represents me more than someone who has actual ties with various communities of color in various countries?"
um . . . who said she speaks for you? Who are you? Have you been round here a lot that others would presume to speak for you?
That's been my plan for months now. I'm totally voting for McKinney.
DW: how about engaging w the substance of my points instead of criticizing how I didn't put all my thoughts in one post? asshole.
but i reckon you're right - privileged so-called feminism didn't ever give a whit about the thoughts of women like me.
Snort. Indeed.
and how dare you speak for me and act like an out-of-touch, middle aged wealthy white woman represents me more than someone who has actual ties with various communities of color in various countries?
Uh...because Melissa didn't do that? She said "there are women" who are hurting, not "all women" or even "most women." She didn't say Clinton represents you. She didn't speak for anyone but herself - as usual. I don't understand - people either don't read Liss's posts at all, or they read things into them that aren't there. It's curious.
History enthusiast (a self-declared republican) got a much more fair treatment here by not acting out.
Yeah, isn't it awful what an echo chamber full of mean girls we are?
If we are of the same party, why can you not do the same?
Because he has no class and can't help himself. Just a guess.
Yes, a thousand times yes. I'm mostly a lurker on political blogs, but I've given up even lurking at many sites because of the ugliness against Clinton. As someone who voted for Obama in the primary, I don't understand why it is so difficult for some Obama supporters to make substantive criticisms, rather than attacking Clinton as a woman. It does hurt me. I don't appreciate being made to feel like I'm a second class citizen simply because I lack a Y chromosome, especially by people who I thought were on the same side. And it definitely does not make me feel better to be given a (virtual) pat on the head ("fee fees"? "sorry ladies"? gah).
I don't know about Geraldine Ferraro and the MSM, but Melissa quite specifically did not say "women." She said "there are women" - meaning some women - and then said "these women," referring to the subset of women she had already described. If you aren't bothered by the misogyny, then she wasn't talking about you; in fact, she specifically did not say "women" were hurt.
I understand your point about the word "women" too often being conflated with "white women," and you're obviously right, but Melissa very clearly did not do that here.
You implied it several times. I'm not white, I am a strong supporter of Clinton. Now, I will vote for McKinney who, honestly, I've always liked best.
"Melissa McEwan . . . saying that "women" are outraged without qualifiers."
She said "some". How much more qualifying does there need to be.
"And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a "despite it all." They don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.
They just have the pain."
Who is she referring to when she says "they"? Who are "these women" and why is she is speaking for "them" and their "pain"?
Did she even try? Clinton faced sexism, and Obama faced racism. In response Obama presented what will probably be counted as one of the best speeches since King's "I have a dream" speech. Where was Hillary's big stand against sexism?
I really don't know how you reconcile that with Obama's speech.
A reminder of the speech:
"Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
"She has made history not just because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
"I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota, and I congratulate her on the race that she has run throughout this contest.
(APPLAUSE)
"We’ve certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who’s shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago, what sent her to work at the Children’s Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady, what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency: an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.
"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that victory.
(APPLAUSE)
"When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.
"Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Seriously, this is not that hard. Melissa: "there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, and—if my inbox is any indication—across the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren't even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman."
With me so far? Those are the people she means when she says "they" and "these women." I really don't understand what's so hard about this.
Jeezy-peezzy, it's like some don't even live on the same planet as women.
___
"A specific example where she speaks for other people:"
Um . . . no, it's not.
So this wasn't actually ever about Melissa's post; it was another opportunity to complain about what an evil racist HRC is. On a thread that exists for the specific purpose of giving voice to anger and despair over misogyny. That's new.
Cameron, you, too, are doing it wrong. Did Melissa say Obama was ungracious in her post? No. Was it ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING ON TOPIC? No.
Comment FAIL.
I'll take your word for it that you didn't mean to, but it sounded to me that you did.
"What did BO have? Sweetie-gate"
That is dishonest. There were many more instances that than one alone.
"but you can't compare that to the consistent message coming out of the HRC campaign."
You're right. His campaign has been far more sexist.
And I'm sure they'd be all for that, if it were possible.
the culture and the media had a great deal of racist bullshit for obama, too, as i'm sure you know. obama's supporters are now able to say that despite all that, he won out, and overcame that racist bullshit to take the nomination. a lot of clinton supporters -- and some people who didn't support clinton, even -- feel shitty because all of the cultural sexism that came crawling out this past season, and was totally accepted and still is being accepted, and there's nothing to lift their spirits right now, and they're even being attacked right now BECAUSE THEY FEEL BAD ABOUT ALL THE SEXISM. which is shitty as hell, and even obama's candidacy can't cheer them up. they're allowed to feel that way! that they feel that way isn't wrong! saying that some of them feel that way is not speaking for "all women".
Obama does have a 100% rating and endorsement from NARAL.
Well, natch. Racism affects men and is therefore a Much! More! Important! topic to discuss. Misogyny just affects women, of all races - who cares about them
Exactly. It's so easy to understand, really - I don't get why it seems to be so difficult for some people.
*ROFLMAO* So does my rottweiler.
if she had, would men have heard it? Through her "shrill", "cackling", "shriek" voice, that is. And through her "entitlement", her "thinking she owed the presidency", her "old bag politics"?
Why would you be surprised? She's, by all appearances, an experienced and capable legislator. She's got at least as much spunk as HRC and values closer to my own. I admit, I don't think she has a snowball's chance, but if all the true progressives shifted to the Green party (even if only for this election) it might happen after all.
I confess that the idea of a McCain presidency fills me with utter and total dread, but if I'm not willing to take that risk, how can I ask anyone else to? How can we ever achieve balance?
In truth, the bipolar [sic] system we have in place now is inherently unstable. We need a three party system, at least, for stability. We need both right and left in order for the center to hold. We have no left wing party. So, I say, let the Dems be the centrists and let's build the Greens up for the lefties. It'll take some guts, but if we don't, the country is just going to keep drifting to the right.
Every time she stood up and gave a speech she was addressing the sexism in the campaign.
If you don't get that, you can sod off.
maybe because she can't mention the fact she's a woman without eleventy-million slavering pundits going "zomg THE GENDER CARD that whiny entitled cunt!"
Snort. Just like Joe "Short Ride" Lieberman. Please.
As a long time Obama supporter and a guy--and a registered Republican ... and a Christian: please be the fuck quiet.
Seriously--how hard is it? How old are you?
-Marco
When people hold her up as a feminist icon that women should support solely because they are a woman, rather than because of any significant policy differences from her opponent, then it is implied that this person represents me (as a woman). This campaign has been about symbolic representation more than actually policy stances.
It's precisely that attitude that makes you cool and hip.
At least to this middle-aged white dude. ;-)
"I'm dropping out of the race and ritually killing myself," apparently.
When people hold her up as a feminist icon that women should support solely because they are a woman
Since nobody here has EVER DONE THIS, you're sounding more and more like a troll.
Okay, who said that? no one here, so why are we being asked to answer for it?
"This campaign has been about symbolic representation more than actually policy stances."
I would say that's more true of Obama's campaign. Trading on intangible notions like hope and change leave a lot open to interpretation.
--Bq
Nobody at this blog is doing that.
bob, I don't know what kind of rock you've been living under, but Clinton could never give such a speech. Every time she dared to mention that hers was a historic candidacy, she was accused of playing the gender card. The level of cluelessness this comment displays is really astonishing.
Every. Single. Time. she mentioned being a woman, she was attacked with "that whiny entitled bitch is playing the gender card". Neither she, nor her supporters, are allowed to talk about her run being historical, because then we're all whiny entitled bitches playing the gender card.
If she did give that speech, she would have been eviscerated for it.
It's your privilege to be confused as to why.
Anytime Clinton even hinted about her candidacy as a woman, she was jumped on for that stupid "gender card" thing. No one would have listened to her. She would have been accused of whining and pandering.
If you can't accept that, I don't know how to help you.
That, too.
But Melissa didn't do that, and in fact, she's called out that stupid idea time after time. And she's called out the racism directed at Obama, and the sexism directed at Clinton.
I really don't know where you are getting this stuff. You're making some valid points, but you're SO directing them at the wrong person.
From above: "Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard."
Here's a link to the whole thing -- from 1995!!!
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillar...
Every time she dared to mention that hers was a historic candidacy, she was accused of playing the gender card. The level of cluelessness this comment displays is really astonishing.--CE
What CE said. Also, it sounds a bit like bob is implying that if HRC had just handled the prejudice against her better, her candidacy would have been more welcomed by the media (the voters already welcomed her pretty well). That's probably NOT what you mean, bob, but it comes off that way.
It's easier for women to see because we have a lot of experience with being verbally squashed (even preemptively) in conversations if the subject of sexism even looks like it might come up. And we're used to being blamed for the sexism wielded against us--we could have risen above it, see, if we had just responded properly...
And Senator Obama's first name is Barack, not Barak. It's a nitpick, but still...
I just read that whole speech again this morning. It gives me chills every time. But today, it also made me really sad.
I'm a troll? I am a consistent commenter in the feminist blogosphere.
Re: Obama/Islam: She could have just said, "he is Christian". Is anything else really necessary? Perhaps it was just awkward phrasing. what about the rest ( geraldine ferraro, bob johnson)?
CE: you are consistently disrespectful. very few people argue policy reasons why she is better for women. many of her supporters simply describe her suffering, implying that people should vote for her because she suffers. many people talk about about how she is a role model and symbolically important for women, which is valid, but really falls apart in the face of her anti-progressive race-baiting.
* i take back my comments about who Melissa's talking about - i scanned the post too quickly and responded out of frustration from the rhetoric coming out of many in the Clinton camp. But I still think she is echoing that rhetoric.
I have no idea whether you're a troll, Bq, which is why I didn't say so. I said you were sounding like one - which is, indeed, what it sounds like when a person criticizes, over and over, statements which have never been made. You said Melissa was speaking for women, holding up an ultra-privileged woman as a symbol of feminist liberation, and referring to "people" - at this blog - saying one should vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman. None of those things is true. That is setting up strawmen, which is, as I'm sure you know, trolling behavior.
And really, you're, like, the twentieth person to come in this thread and tell those women who are upset by the misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton to get over it because she's not a real feminist, is a racist, blah blah blah. Many of us are pretty sick of it. This is not the time or the place - as has been said, in this thread, over and over. If you wish to be treated respectfully, it would be helpful to be respectful of the community and stop making up things about us, chastising us for those imagined statements, and denying the feelings of many of the people posting here.
I've been alternately blubbing and frothing with incoherent rage... :-(
THere have been many, many threads discussing various reasons that some regulars here thing Clinton better represents women. I happen to think that Clinton is stronger on reproductive justice and healthcare, which strongly impact women's lives. I also think she is the stronger fighter, and find it hard to trust Obama to fight for progressive issues. We can disagree, we can disagree passionately and angrily. But assuming that I or others here only care about "symbolic representation" without any apparent familiarity with us is insulting. I would also vehemently disagree that electing the first woman president in part because she would be the first woman president is not a valid goal. Just as I think that electing the first person of color as president is a valid goal, and said so on Melissa's thread about Obama.
People here have also documented and discussed many reasons we distrust Obama on women's issues, beyond "sweetie-gate," as you dismissively call it.
And that should be "those women and men," because there are a lot of men, too. Sorry, guys.
Every time I come back and read this thread, I feel like I'm returning to an abusive relationship.
I think if we all just scroll back up, read the original post and realize that irregardless of politics ---- SEXISM sucks. People used sexism against hillary. That sucks. THE END.
Is HIllary perfect? no. Have people used racism against Obama? yes. Have Clinton supporters been angels? no. Have Barack supporters been sexist? yes.
Can we take a moment to acknowledge that sexism is wrong? And calling it out when it rears its ugly head is necessary?
That doesn't need to be politically divisive or come with a Clinton vs. Obama argument attached!!!!
I re-read the post and one of the reasons it sounded like it was speaking for me was this:
"And I'm sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They're hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought."
Okay, that's fine. I am a non-Clinton supporter dismayed by sexism in the media.
"And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don't have a "despite it all." They don't have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it. They just have the pain."
So here she is saying that non-Clinton supporters against sexism have nothing but pain because they don't have Clinton (the equivalent wonder as the first woman OMG) to celebrate. How does that make any sense? am I not reading that right?
You are. You're being stalked.
Which, actually, I mean quite literally, not as a joke. OK, maybe not you personally, but it feels like the same dynamic. Someone you don't want to associate with keeps following you around.
No, you're really, really not.
Obama gave that speech because of the tempest around Rev. Wright. You can speculate whether or not he would have given the speech had Wright's ministry not gotten such attention, but there's no way to know.
Melissa's saying that Clinton supporters have nothing but pain because they don't have the nomination of Clinton to celebrate. Melissa isn't talking about non-Clinton supporters there.
But I was then determined to follow the campaigns of both Obama and Clinton carefully, which I have; and I have to say that while I'm impressed with the historic implications of both of their campaigns, I was not impressed with either one of their platforms or tactics.
I absolutely LOATHE the idea that Clinton is unfit to be president because of her gender or who she was married to. I am not crazy about many of her statements or the way she obliquely tried to play the racism card. I hate the fact that she voted to support the Iraq debacle, and I remember many of the shady and shitty things the Clintons let slide when Bill was president. But, I do so admire her - I admired her from the second she announced she was running for Senate. She is a brave, bright, opinionated woman who has dedicated her life to this country - and I have to admit, as a woman, I was peeing myself at the thought of the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT, in my lifetime - being told as I was growing up that women could do anything that men could do, and probably better.
I also respect Obama; I admire his intelligence and ability to motivate people. His ideals seem heading in the right direction, if not quite as progressive as I would like. I feel the racism/ Muslim fear mongering/ scary Black man rhetoric directed at him is simply vomit-inducing. However, I don't think he has the experience needed to lift this country out of its pit of despair. I absolutely HATE the Obama-bots who resort to childish insults and slurs towards Clinton supporters.
But honestly, this whole primary race has been yet another demonstration of how Democrats are bound and determined to shoot ourselves in teh foot. Like, "Impeachment is off the table" - double WTF?!?!?! If there was any time for impeachment, it was after Dems swept both houses of Congress in 2006!!! Can you imagine how much pain, suffering and shenaneganz might have been averted if the Dems had just sucked it up and brought charges? Dumb Ass would be in prison by now, and Pelosi would be acting President. Same with elections 2000 and 2004, when Dems were too sqeamish to pursue charges of election tampering and voter repression - things that were blantantly obvious to my 10 year old nephew!!!
I'm tired and just about over the whole thing - really, the only thing I'm looking forward to now is Melissa McEwan's promise to bring the McCain Pain - lord, how I hate that grumpy, sneaky, lying, curmudgeonly fucker. BRING ON THE PHOTSHOPZ AND JOKES, NOW, PLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we all need a good laugh to unify us!
Can we agree that sometimes the 'but' is just totally unnecessary and that by insisting on it when people have asked you to respect the thread is disrespectful of the community you are trying to interact with?
Well, I am talking about the non-Clinton supporters -- if they're women who care about misogyny. My point was that after a primary in which a female candidate was attacked with misogyny and a black candidate was attacked with racism, people who care about misogyny and racism (of which there is huge overlap, of course, and among both candidates' supporters), especially people who care about the misogyny and racism expressed by presumed allies, are smarting like hell.
And for those of us who care about institutional racism, there is consolation (not to be confused with "a consolation prize," which is of little value) in seeing that, despite the racism, Obama nonetheless has secured the Demcratic nomination. That doesn't erase the pain, and it certainly doesn't erase the racism that caused it, but there is at least something to celebrate in that we are seeing a barrier being broken.
Those of us who care about institutional misogyny (and, again, I don't think these are mutually exclusive groups) don't have that consolation, as regards a barrier being broken with regard to misogyny. There was no transcendence; only a loss.
That's not about Clinton supporters or non-Clinton supporters; that's about people who give a shit about real, practical equality at every level. We've got one thing to celebrate; and one thing to mourn.
That was always the way it was going to be when we had two "firsts" competing for the nomination.
It's like having an aunt die and a niece be born on the same day. Of course you're thrilled to welcome your niece to the world; that doesn't mean you don't mourn your aunt. They are separate people, even if part of the same family.
I just wanted to give people a place to mourn. Even people who are also celebrating. Like me.
And, incredibly enough, some assholes won't even give us that.
There's much to celebrate, much to rage at, and much to grieve.
I just found out, as well.
Someone who is distressed by the racism directed at Obama can be comforted and strengthened by knowing he won, in spite of those racist attacks. Proud and relieved that a black man can win the nomination, in spite of the ongoing promise of racism. Even if you didn't support Obama, you can rejoice that the country came this far on the issue of racism.
Someone who is distressed by the misogyny directed at Clinton doesn't have the solace of seeing that a woman can win a nomination in spite of the sexism. Even though misogyny wasn't the sole cause of Clinton loosing, one is left wondering if it was just enough to make a difference in such a close race. Wonder whether if the world was one without either racism or misogyny, the race might have tipped in her favor.
Both racism and misogyny polute the world, and this race. Which of the two would have won, absent those perversions? We can't know.
***
Plus, for many women who became feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, this isn't just a setback - this may well be the difference between whether or not you live to see a world where a woman is president of the US. A woman who was 30 in 1970 is 68 now. Assuming Obama wins, he'll almost certainly be the Democratic nominee in 2012, as well. Which means that it is at least 2016 before there is another primary where there is a fighting chance for a woman. In 2016, the 30 year old woman who joined the feminist movement in 1970 will be 76. If Obama wins reelection in 2012, his VP would be the likely shoo-in for the Democratic nominee in 2016, so that if he chooses a man as his VP, it pushes back the chance for a woman to 2020, when she'll be 80, or 2024, when she'll be 84.
In this situation, it isn't merely Clinton loosing the nomination that burns. It's giving up on a life-long goal. The standard trope about US equality is that "anyone can grow up to be president." But we all know this hasn't been true. But given this concept, one way to frame the feminst goal is to look for the world where a woman is elected president.
Clinton's run put that goal nearly in reach. Her loss likely puts it out of the lifespan of many women who have dedicated their lives to feminism. And for that lost dream, if not for Clinton's loss, it is worth taking a moment for sympathy.
By the way, this was beautifully beautifully stated. Thank you.
it's a hard time for a lot of people, for a lot of reasons.
Thank you, Ursula, for your insight. It was a welcome respite at the end of what seems like a lot of anger and vitriol.
Everyone is entitled to their anger - this primary has been rife with prejudice of all kinds, especially sexism. However, I'm not sure Barack Obama should be the target of that anger... but then I'm a man, and a guest here, so I won't presume to tell anyone how to feel.
I hope we can all work together to not only win in November, but transform the Democratic party into a place where every gender feels equal and respected.
Be well.
This was not a "once in a lifetime" thing.
Tell that to women born in 1919, before they even had the right to vote, who are 89 now and may not even see the next election.
Tell that to the women who are responsible for forcing the US to recognize your right to birth control and abortion, your right to a job free of sexual harassment, your right to a job where you are judged on your performance and not your appearance. In proof of just how BIG a fight they were up against, we are still fighting for these recognitions to mean actual enforcement of our rights. Someone else pointed out that those women, if they were 30 in 1970, are 68 today. In four years they will be 72 and if Obama wins like you apparently want, there will be no chance for a woman to become President because Obama will be running for reelection. In eight years they will be 76. If Obama has been president for two terms, it's highly likely that his VP will be the Democratic nominee, and if that is not a woman, then again... very little chance for a woman president.
It may not have been a once in a lifetime thing for those of us who are younger, but there is no justification for forgetting older women who have had to fight even harder than us for the most basic of rights.
And this whole, "a woman but not Clinton" meme is part of what will make it even harder for the next woman who runs. If not Clinton, who his vastly more qualified, vetted, and recognized than many many women in politics, then who the hell even meets a higher standard? Oh, right, a woman will always be compared to a man as you have done. And guess what. In the media, in the national discourse, she will almost always be considered lesser than that man.
Clinton's loss came in part due to democrats and liberals willing to engage in misogynist attacks. Misogynist attacks from all sides were rarely challenged by anyone with a powerful voice. The success and lack of opposition to those attacks means they will be used again against the next woman who runs for president, and they will make her fight harder. It makes it that much less likely that a woman will be nominated for president any time in the next 16-20 years, unless Obama chooses a woman as VP.
oh, and if Obama's campaign is a 21st century one, then I am dreading the last 60 or so years of my life.
-------------------
Shorter version for easy reading comprehension: Fuck you.
Funny how no one's ever actually said that though, huh. Hope McCain is paying you well.
I absolutely implore you to learn about the electoral system that you so obviously are clueless about- there are OBAMA supporters who only got a chance to vote meaningfully for him because SHE didn't fold them. She was within 2% of him in pledged delegates- it was the most closely fought race in American history and yet she was still told that HER behaviour was inappropriate, HER candidacy was the problem.
The terms that you just used to describe her have been used against ME and for the same reasons- I'm good enough but, I'm educated enough but, I'm experienced enough but. And the but is always I'm not the new shiny Male that walked in behind me. It takes time to get over the resentment that always bubbles up when reminded of that.
Her race was poorly run in many ways, she misjudged reactions, the media played favorites, people around her misbehaved but I do know how the American elections work and I'm not all shiny and new.
translation: Whomever she is, she must be a man with great speechwriters who will make pretty promises of hope with nothing to back it up.
Also a completely subjective standard that bbcaddict seems to assume everyone agrees upon.
Indeed. So bbcaddict is our latest classless, sexist asshole - how many douchehounds are we up to in this thread by now? It feels like a lot.
I want people to stop telling others what sort of person they should find inspiring, intelligent, and classy.
The popular vote between the two was pretty close - close enough that neither should be dismissed as uninspiring, unintelligent, or lacking class. If there was such a huge difference between the two in terms of public appeal, Clinton would have completely crashed and burned from the beginning, rather than pulling off the tightest race in history.
Imaging that Clinton is vastly inferior to Obama in these qualities doesn't fit what actually happen. Telling all of the people who found Clinton more inspiring, more intelligent, more classy or in some other way more appealing than Obama that they are wrong doesn't do a thing to convince them that they are wrong - it just convinces them that Obama supporters have no respect for their opinions. (Obama himself has been pretty good about avoiding this - it's the blogosphere supporters, and the mass media, that are guilty.)
They say that Democrats fall in love with a candidate, while Republicans fall in line.
Telling Clinton supporters to fall in line won't work. If they were the sort of person who thinks falling in line is appropriate, they'd probably be Republicans.
It is up to Obama, and his supporters, to woo Clinton supporters, (and Edwards supporters, and McCain supporters, and supporters of other candidates), into falling in love. That shouldn't be a hard job, as many Clinton supporters were in love with both, with only a slight preference for Clinton. But mocking their first love, or denying that they felt that love, will not win anyone over.
This statement and the question which follows that are meant to demean Clinton instead effectively demeans Obama and his abilities. These sorts of attacks hurt my confidence in Obama's competence more than anything Clinton or any of her supporters ever said about him.
This way of thinking makes it clear that Obama's supporters acknowledge that he is incapable of bringing the party together. He needs Clinton to do his work for him. With this as an example of what I learned about Obama from Obama's supporters, no wonder I voted for Clinton.
If Obama supporters keep up this line of argument , I will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time ever because you and others like you will have successfully undermined him. Nice job, Scott.
And I have a question: why is Caroline Kennedy one of the only three people heading up Obama's VP search? Now, is this patronage what we have to expect? What? She's what Obama considers a great token woman? There was no better qualified woman to be found?
Also for the record, which you can find documented at Media Matters, Clinton rejected repeatedly that Obama was a Muslim in that interview until finally after all the interrogation she added, "as far as I know" - which became the only slice virally shared.
If the allegedly more qualified man fails, it becomes the allegedly less qualified woman's fault. Hence remarks from an Obama supporter who wants to attack people in cars with Clinton bumper stickers. The concept of Obama being responsible for his own win or loss is foreign to this way of thinking whenever there is an "unqualified woman" who should have been investing everything she is and everything she has into his success.
I'd like to know that too. Though, I won't be holding my breath for an answer.
Yes, the discrimination happened in both forms.
One can experience several emotions at once. One can be simultaneously outraged at the racism and at the misogyny. One can be simultaneously pleased that, on the issue of racism, we've gotten far enough that a Black man can be nominated for president and disappointed that the dream of having a woman president is not going to be achieved now. One can support Obama as better than McCain and still believe that Clinton would have been better than Obama.
Having a space to express the loss of one dream doesn't negate the pleasure in seeing another dream achieved. But the lost dream needs respect, and to be mourned, so that the achieved dream can be embraced.
One of the hardest things, throughout the primary process, as a person who opposes both forms of discrimination, has been knowing that there could be complete success only on one of those fronts.
One of the points of feminism is that, as a woman, you do not have to justify working for your dreams by being able to demonstrate that doing so helps advance some other person's cause. The fact that you, as an individual human, dream something, is enough justification. Being told to ignore disappointment over a lack of success on a feminist issue, because it is a success on the issues of racism, counts as being told that, as women, the fact that we want something for ourselves is not a valid goal or priority. Likewise, being told you can't express outrage over misogynist discrimination without taking the time to address racist discrimination - that misogyny, alone, isn't enough to be outraged over, or that expressing rage over misogyny somehow undermines efforts against racism.
Success on both fronts is needed, and success on one front does not equate success on both. The fact that the discrimination cuts both ways is not a reason to remain silent on the outrage about misogyny, or to pretend not to grieve that a feminist goal is not yet achieved, when it seemed within reach.
I'd really like to understand what you find objectionable about the post, Still. I apologize for asking you to educate me, but I genuinely don't "get it," so I'm going to have to ask.
The sentiments expressed here are reflective of some women of color to whom I've spoken (and certainly not all white women to whom I've spoken); it's only about women experiencing this thing, which I tried to make clear in the intro. I genuinely don't understand how I'm making you feel as though I'm not hearing women of color or not being an ally, because I'm talking about a specific experience of some women.
I do want to understand, though.
Also wanted to thank Melissa for this post.
Except for an occasional troll who might well be a Republican trying to sew seeds of dischord, the blogs I frequent were substantive in their critique of Senator Clinton.
I really disliked her, but I've voted for my female Senator, Congresswoman, State Senator, Councilwomen, and Board of Education members. Her sex mattered nothing to me. She was an unremarkable rookie Senator who was wrong on multiple issues. The adoration she got through no merit of her own sickened me and propelled my opposition to her candidacy.
Just thank you.
Here is a thread with a hundred examples or so of ostensible progressives using sexism against Clinton.
yes, it's certainly true that obama has more experience. why, he's had a penis for 47 years!
clinton's been in the senate longer. if you disagree on issues, fine. if obama's lack of experience is also a dealbreaker for you, fine. if you support obama while dinging clinton for lack of experience, though, that's just mystifying.
The claim here is not that Hillary Clinton was the perfect vessel for feminist ideals. It is not that her platform is so significantly better than Obama's. It is not even that she improperly lost, or a debate on the several contributing reasons for her very close loss.
The thing, I think, that people are pissed at here is at what she had to endure, and especially what she had to endure from supposed allies, including Obama supporters. And how that parallels what women have to endure, from everyone, including men they trusted (and women they trusted), and whom they thought were not the sort of people to do that sort of thing.
Is there a race parallel? Of course - to some degree at least. But that doesn't make the fact of gender condescension wrong.
Most people who supported Clinton in the primary will support Obama in the general. That even includes some people who, right now today, out of rage and grief, say they're voting Green or not voting. But pointing this out, and acting as though they have no right to vent that rage and grief right now, isn't helping. It isn't helping in a big way.
Let. It. Go. This is not about you and it is not about Obama. What this is is a lot of people realizing things have not reached a place they'd dared to hope it had.
And the realization doesn't come from Clinton losing. It's from acknowledging that the misogyny, showing here and there throughout Clinton's entire campaign demonstrated rather emphatically that we're not there yet. It happens that right now is the end of the whole depressing movie.
I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee.
I've never commented on Shakes before... I mostly just lurk here, and I already commented on Feministe about how inspired I am by Senator Clinton, and how I'm going to try to draw on her strength when I feel like giving up. I'm not really a crier, but I cried thinking about how much I admire her for fighting the good fight so long and so hard. I'm not American, and I was only 7 when she became First Lady, so I was basically indifferent to her. I liked her, because I was always a feminist and I was always drawn to smart, capable women as a kid, but I didn't know that she is actually amazing. I look at her now, and I hope that my only female cousin, who is five, will remember this race at least vaguely, and remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton was tough and determined and look up to her the way I do now.
That said, I have a response to Chet who posted this way up there in middle:
Even if I convince one person, one person who isn't even posting, it's worth it.
After reading every single troll comment, I am convinced of something. I'm convinced that there's a huge wing of the Democratic party that is anti-choice. I know, it sounds ridiculous. Even if they've been really disappointing on making women's issues a priority, they aren't actively trying to remove our reproductive rights.
But here me out. Think about this one thing that keeps coming up when Obama's less enlightened minions - I don't want to disparage the intelligent and thoughtful supporters who made supportive comments and aren't misogynistic tools - show up to tell us what to think and feel. I'm going to use a quote from Baal's post:
McCain would fill the Supreme Court with Allito and Scalia clones, and our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters will lose their reproductive freedoms. This guy is the worst thing that could happen to women the world over, not just the USA.
They make this threat over and over, and it's true. McCain is horrible on women's issues, and on children's issues. Reading through his voting record is disgusting. We might as well elect his good friend Rev. Hagee. And if we want to talk about elitism... what do you call someone who is the son and grandson of Admirals, went to the Naval Academy, and whose wife is an heiress?
But still... it's a threat. They're banking on us voting for Obama no matter how badly they treat us because of the threat he poses to our reproductive rights.
Anti-choicers want women to be slaves to their reproduction systems. How is what these people are saying different? They want women to be slaves to the Democratic Party because of our reproductive systems. If we complain about bad treatment, they tell us to shut up, because if we don't support the Democratic Party, our reproductive rights will be taken away. They expect us to sit down and be quiet because they don't really have time to make silly things like women's issues an actual priority, but they also expect us to take it, because if we don't, our reproductive rights will be taken away.
It's heinous. It's unacceptable. It's anti-choice.
If I was American, why would I want to vote for a party that takes my support for granted because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support? A party that has a huge contingent of supporters who think that I should lick up misogynistic shit and like if because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support?
I wouldn't. I don't envy American women for the choice they're going to have to make this November. I'm looking down from Canada and wishing that there was a better option for you, one where all women, regardless of race, can be proud to support a party that fiercely promotes women's interests and right to fully participate in the public sphere free of sexism and that really special combination of sexism and racism.
This can't go on. Something has to change.
A party that has a huge contingent of supporters who think that I should lick up misogynistic shit and like it because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support?
I have this theory that any post that criticizes someone else's grammar or spelling will have some sort of mistake in it. Apparently it also applies to criticisms of reading comprehension.
Can we take a moment to acknowledge that sexism is wrong? And calling it out when it rears its ugly head is necessary?
Clearly not; putting the boot in is far more important.
I say all of this to say thank you for saying what you did, in the way that you said it because it allowed me to set aside my notions of race and gender and walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Shoes that shouldn't have been that different than my own but were.
Thanks for your insight and unflinching honesty.
White women have privilege. Definitely. On the other hand we are in a really odd place politically. Because we're women, white men have no use for us politically except as trophy wives. (What do you think a First Lady's for? Do you imagine an unmarried man can attain the Presidency these days?) Because we're white, we're viewed as out of touch or worse by people of color. Which leaves us where, exactly?
So we don't all have the experience of being in poverty? Well, actually, some of us do. So we don't have the experience of institutional discrimination stretching back thousands of years? Um... Actually, that's not right either. So what is left--are we to degrade ourselves to live in the conditions in which poor people of color all over the world, including the United States, already live? Why? What's the point? I thought the point was to elevate people of color, not to drag everyone else down to their intolerable living conditions.
So what is the purpose, exactly, of all this anger at white women? Are we the safe target? Is it easier to make us feel bad than it is to actually get white men to change their ways? Since they, y'know, ultimately call the shots and everything?
I think I know the answer.
I'll be voting for McKinney if she's on the Ohio ballot. If she isn't, I'll vote for Nader, and anyone who thinks that will be a "spoiler" vote can kiss my big fat pimply white ass. If neither is on the ballot and I don't know any of the other third-party candidates (we have no third parties on the ballot in Ohio, so they all have to register as independent), I'll skip the presidential slots and just vote state and local. And whatever I vote for, if I have something else to vote for besides the Big Two, that's what I'll do.
Because at this point I wouldn't touch the national Democrats with a ten-foot pole. What the hell were they THINKING, running a black man against a woman in the primaries? Way to encourage unity, there--and then to join in with the misogynist bullshit as well? Tell me why I should not instead support a party which actually has feminism explicitly stated in its values and its platform. Please, enlighten me. And I wish you luck--it's possible you could think up an angle that I haven't, but I doubt it. You can't even hold abortion over my head. As otherwise pointed out here, it's not like the Dems do anything useful to protect abortion rights in the first place most of the time, and I really think the only reason they ever do at all is they don't want to see Democratic men stuck paying child support. Honestly. I wish I could feel differently, but the evidence won't let me. So I'll lay in a stock of pennyroyal and blue cohosh, cross mental fingers, and vote my values for once. It's not like the Democrats ever do.
A man who is 4 more years of Bush?
I am angry that they care so much about their hurt feelings that they can't realize that it's a RACE for nomination, one person has to lose, the better candidate has won (and actually, had won since February) based on a better campaign. If Hillary hadn't stacked her campaign with people giving her bad advice and hadn't run a 20th century campaign in the 21st she MAY have won.
To all you Hillary people- go, lick your wounds, vent, get drunk and smash bottles, come back when you're ready to start acting like adults and not like whiny 8 year olds claiming you'll "never get that whathaveyou AGAIN".
Yes- you will. Unless you have terminal cancer or are going to stick your head in an oven who knows.
This was not a "once in a lifetime" thing.
To say that discredits any other women coming up in the ranks, women currently in politics and women considering entering politics.
There will be BETTER female candidates than Hillary Clinton. Ones who can run in a race and not embarass her sex, one who can at least acknowledge when to hold 'em when to fold 'em etc.
Barack Obama was the better candidate and he had more votes. One of them was mine. As a woman and as much as I'd like to see a female candidate I don't want her to be Hillary Clinton. I want her to be as inspiring, intelligent and classy as Barack Obama is.