North America

Hating Hillary

Published 22 May 2008

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

In this comment piece on sexist language in the US media in relation to Hillary Clinton Andrew Stephen suggested that Carl Bernstein had publicly declared his disgust for Hillary Clinton's thick ankles. We are informed that Carl Bernstein intended, in his biography of Hillary Clinton, to refer to comments made by others about her when she was at high school. We are happy to accept that Carl Bernstein was not motivated by sexism, and we are sorry for any embarrassment caused.

Post this article to

322 comments from readers

DarylS
22 May 2008 at 10:58

Mr Stephen: "I am no particular fan of Clinton."

Oh I think you are.

Keith
22 May 2008 at 11:10

I have a different viewpoint. I have viewed this from afar in South Africa and comment as follows:

1) Thye experience argumen t was always spurious and, more importantly politically dull and unpromising - it could never psychologically match the promise of change.

2) Hillary has shown a breathaking lack of ethics and honesty combined with an insulting level of cynicism - for example, lying about Bosnia, trying to change the rules when it suits her re delgate counts.

3) Whether Hillary is racist or not, she has used race as an issue - "hard working Americans, white Americans..." DIsgraceful.

4) Hillary's assertion re 'obliterating Iran' argues remarkable immaturity and petulance and strongly mitigates against her beinf nominated as president. Personally, I find this a touch scary.

5) You brand the media as generally sexist. In some cases, you're no doubt correct. But to cite the nutcracker and other such light humor as sexist is just a failure to see normal humor at work.

6) Obama's statements re 'when you were a corporate lawyer..." were absolutely on the mark. Quite unfairly she attemptted to label Obama as an eltist - and got very fairly whacked on the chin - tough!

7) Complaining that she has been conflated with Bill is really ingenuous. For god's sake - he's been her chief campaigner - she's bragged about her 'experience' and contribution to his periods in office incessantly. The epithet 'Billary' is on the nail my good sir.

Just a point od interest in conclusion. I had supper with my wife and some of her friends a few nights ago. Unfortunately, racism persists, and one lady said "I don't really like blacks, but I love Obama..." Thye man seems to radiate a profound aura of great appeal that transcends race and cullture. No wonder Hillary lost - it's nothing to do with being a woman - it's because she's yesterday's candidate and Obama promises a new dawn in global politics - an era of honesty and integrity for which we have longed for decades.

Paul Evans
22 May 2008 at 11:19

I agree with Andrew Stephen. I don't find self-declared progressives chuckling over slogans like "bros before hoes" especially edifying either.

Keith
22 May 2008 at 11:27

Yes Paul, that is very distasteful - so much so I doubt it did Hillary any harm whatsoever - it didn't raise a smile from me either - unlike the nutcracker, or the Kentucky Fried Chicken Hillary Special - they're just good natured satire.

nathanieledwards
22 May 2008 at 11:53

Wow. I completely agree with this. For a person that is being discriminated everyday in society, I see and had a first hand account of shirts that read bros before hos, iron my shirts, go hom bitch slogans while I was at the voting booth or at political rallies.

No denying, the media had a bias. No denying, sexism was shown in this cycle. No denying, everytime the news channels talk about sexism, men are always the commentators and never women. No denying, comments written in the blogs about sexism and how it doesnt exist in this election are by a majority of men. And thats all I'm saying, look deeper. If Barack Obama was treated the same way, which no denying, he wasn't, he probably would be out of the race by now. No denying.

tdpolitics
22 May 2008 at 12:15

A America under Hilary has already been show on US tv-the devious blonde VP who poisoned her boss to gain power on behalf of 'The Company' in Prison Break.

diane
22 May 2008 at 13:24

I think you are completely wrong with claiming Sexism. It is purely Hillary-ism and has to do with her character and personality, not gender. Unfortunately she is a step backwards for all women, as people are completely turned off by the crybaby, playing nastily, wanting to change rules, and accusing everyone else of own failures. This promotes the stereotype of little girls and does nothing for serious professional women (like me, 55 years old, white ).

Just think ; if Obama would have said to another - male - competitor : you are likable enough. this would have been seen as completely normal, even extremely gracious.

mediahack
22 May 2008 at 13:41

Sharp analysis!

As the Obama team condems the "politics of fear", they have brillantly unleashed their own "politics of hate". Axelrod et al. will do what it takes to win the nomination.

vote4thebest
22 May 2008 at 17:50

exellent objective analysis!

One thing to add is that Obama, his supporters, and these so called party leaders and pundits keep making these arrogant and insulting statements to say that Clinton and her supports should now behave like good citizens and vote for Obama! Obama is successful in creating a new party of 48 states that run by sexists. Many, if not all, will either write in Hillary's name or vote McCain, and also leave the party.

leciaramelle
22 May 2008 at 18:22

Thank you Andrew Stephen for your analysis. As to the comments of Keith about the lies of Clinton in Bosnia, well I wonder why no journalist took the bother to check the content of Obama's biography as the Chicago Tribune did last year (if you want I can send you the link later) where it emerges quite plainly that his autobiography is nothing more than a beautiful fiction, he depicted a political engagement in his youth he never had, he writes he became fluent in Indonesian and his school mates tell he had great difficulties speaking Indonesian, and so on. And think that just a few days ago the Washington Post or the New York times just published an article on his authobiography and simply reported what he had written in it, without questioning the truthfulness or the 'embellishments' it contained. And consider the following: during his mandate at the Senate Obama spent almost all his time either setting up his financial machine (by organizing fundraising for other Democratic members, so that he got a good insight of where to tap the money later) or writing another book about himself, meant to boost his presidential bid. So here you have a wholly self-centred person, intent on becoming US president. Is this the man whom you want to lead your country? He reminds me very much in a way, his so called 'charisma', Bush during his first campaign, he used to say 'Follow me and I will lead you! To late now to ask where.

haviland smith
22 May 2008 at 18:31

Bravo for a courageous and spot on article. You forgot, however, one of the key Obama/Axelrod strategies that I think was the driving force that shoved African American voters to their side. They took Bill Clinton's use of the word "fairytale," with reference to Obama's experience, and branded it a racist slur. I am still reeling from that one. I just can't figure it out and I am an African American. Fairytale? Racist?

Your contrarian approach is a breath of fresh air amid the stale, and now predictable misogynistic reporting throughout the U.S. media. Newspapers and TV news outlets are largely populated with the same Obama-zazis who are flooding the blogs throughout cyberspace, spreading their vitrolic and venomous brands of "hope" and "change." They treat Clinton's supporters like lepers. Surely they aren't stupid enough to believe they can elect him to the presidency all by themselves.

sara collman
22 May 2008 at 20:42

Excellent article Mr. Stephen!

sara collman
22 May 2008 at 20:42

Excellent Article Mr. Stephen

mntruthseeker
22 May 2008 at 20:56

I commend you Mr Stephen

I am a woman and have felt very uncomforable with some of the way things have been going in this campaign. I am also one that felt something just wasnt right .

thank you very much. I think you are a real gentleman.

brosb4hoes
22 May 2008 at 22:24

Why Hillary lost;

Bros Before Hoes, Man.

Frita
22 May 2008 at 22:52

The anti-feminist movement has done its job. Men for the most part have been trying to shape women into well manicured tight pieces of meat to be used for sex and discarded for the next one. Young women these days in America seem especially anxious to be little Ho's rather than intelligent women of substance. Heck - they start dressing like prostitutes in grade school now. That is why so many young women hate Hillary; she is an intelligent woman of substance and they are more interested in whore contests. The biggest whore always wins - ey? MTV has done its job. Ho's and pimps rule and feminism is extinct.

Frita
22 May 2008 at 22:55

The anti-feminist movement has done its job. Men for the most part have been trying to shape women into well manicured tight pieces of meat to be used for sex and discarded for the next one. Women who do not fit the role are called "dykes" or "fat" or just plain laughed at. LIKE HILLARY. Young women these days in America seem especially anxious to be little "Ho's" rather than intelligent women of substance. Heck - they start dressing like prostitutes in grade school now. That is why so many young women hate Hillary; she is an intelligent woman of substance and they are more interested in whore contests. The biggest whore always wins - ey? MTV has done its job. Ho's and pimps rule and feminism is extinct. We are worse off than we were 50 years ago.

mk5112 TX
22 May 2008 at 23:28

keith from So africa - are you sure you didnt watch a biased media channel in your country????? It kind of sounds like that.

You are parioting many of the same things the obama supporters have been saying.

That said , I am in agreement with this article-its about time this is coming out.

mk5112 TX
22 May 2008 at 23:29

keith from So africa - are you sure you didnt watch a biased media channel in your country????? It kind of sounds like that.

You are parioting many of the same things the obama supporters have been saying.

That said , I am in agreement with this article-its about time this is coming out. mk5112 TX

prudence
22 May 2008 at 23:39

Thanks for this article.

It's a shame that the legions of deranged Hillary-hating misogynists have nothing to answer for. Hopefully the media will.

rushmorewallace
23 May 2008 at 00:28

Andrew Stephen is one of a (minute) few journalists to have been a voice of reason during this campaign, even La Monde Diplomatique put aside its reliable skepticism to anoint Obama as a political Messiah.

Mr Stephen is spot-on about the 'unshackled sexism' directed at Clinton. However, I do not believe that 'racism will (then) rear it's gruesome head' to the an extent that shall prevent Obama from prevailing in November. Obama has in David Axelrod a master of smear and spin - the Democratic party at last has its own Karl Rove and another ill-equipped, evangelist-styled President to go along with him, buoyed along by a compliant, unquestioning media.

In which case, Mr Stephen's clear-headed insights shall be needed more frequently and more urgently.

kk2b
23 May 2008 at 03:15

I think like many you are overreaching. Was the media sexist? Sure to a large extent. Was it racist? Sure to a large extent.

But you like many are cherry picking. For instance, Obama referring to her being a “corporate lawyer” and running against two opponents is quite off the mark. It was not sexist and right on the mark, she was a corporate lawyer -- that was her career. And she has run on a platform of experience very deliberately positioning herself as something as a co-president during Bill Clinton's term.

Obama was acknowledging that. And the truth is her career in government is only a few years longer than his (if you exclude his serving in the Illinois house).

As for eulogies being written, you haven't done your homework, they have been a plenty for other candidates and Kennedy going to the mat with Carter was railed against by many.

Additionally she has polled quite well with male voters. Given how close many of our elections have been I would say that the numbers she has received with male voters are indicative of sexism not playing a large role in this race.

The numbers were against her by March 31st. She has every right to continue to run and the media had every right to point out it was pretty much futile. If anything, I would say they have given her more media attention than she deserved. Sexism played both ways, even though she was effectively out of the race in terms of real possibility they continued to cover her. Unlike Ron Paul who they just ignore.

There are many like me who would never vote for Senator Clinton unless we were forced to, i.e., she took the nomination and it was her or McCain. Why?

Because we don't like her politics. We didn't like how she attacked the woman who Bill had slept with when they had the nerve to come forward. We didn't like her vote for Iraq. We didn't like her co-sponsoring the Religious Freedom Act. We didn't like her putting forward the Flag burning amendment. We didn't like how she blew health care through her divisiveness and refusing to work with all we needed on board to pass it (the only executive role we have ever seen her in). The list could go on, but I think I've made my point.

The truth that everyone is denying is that Senator Clinton, regardless of what she has done, at least in her political life is trading on her husband's name and service not her own. Many of the people who voted for her were voting for Bill or because she was a woman.

I'm a white 53 year old woman who has worked most of her professional career in a male dominated industry (a geek among geeks, I design/write programs for programmers) where frequently I was/am the only woman in a roomful of men. So yes, I know what's it like.

She might share my gender but not my values. And a a seriously flawed woman candidate it just not good enough. Anyone who thinks she deserves my vote because she was a woman need only to look at Clarence Thomas so see how little shared characteristics indicate shared values.

Sexism might have played a role, just like racism might have played a role in WV and Kentucky. I just might take her complaints about sexism if she along the way mentioned she made a few mistakes herself. But not her she is forever the victim, even today she had the nerve to compare Florida moving it’s primary up against DNC rules to Zimbawie. Sexism doomed her -- I think not, her being Hillary Clinton doomed her.

dukat
23 May 2008 at 05:22

Thank you for this well-written and well thought-out article. It's rare to find this level of sanity in the press lately. Please, keep up the good work! And to all the commenters on here slandering Hillary, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

skeptic
23 May 2008 at 05:57

Yes, there has been sexism in this campaign.

But it is complicated by the fact that while certainly not just an appendage to Bill Clinton, she was the first lady.

And while other candidates didn't drop out before the primaries ended or the convention, most didn't get much coverage after the front-runner was declared teh winner by the media.

Aniela
23 May 2008 at 06:26

Lets face it, common sense, pragmatism, practical political solutions which are Hilary's forte, are not as sexy as Change! Change! Change! delivered in that slow evangelical preacher style that is supposed to engender hope and optimism. Good Luck America! Its a shameless slog these primaries, Half a billion dollars have been spent on slander, propaganda and empty promises, by all the various candidates, and there are many more months to go, now that seems criminal. Nevertheless this dreadfully obsolete and wasteful system seems to be Americas answer to democracy . Spin and more Spin. I find it amusing that a "seriously flawed woman candidate is not good enough", does that mean a seriously flawed male candidate makes for a better president? Is that not sexism, and if not, what is?

Keith
23 May 2008 at 10:10

MK5112 TX,

No, I haven't seen any TV here on the issue - mainly due to lack of time and deference to my wife's aversion for news programs. But of course, I read the press across a broad international spectrum daily.

I have no misogynistic axe to grind, and in my time I have been a strong supporter and admirer of many of the world's great female leaders. But Ms. Clinton seems to me to lack principles and honesty. Just today she (hysterically) declared the situation re votes in Florida to be comparable to the brutal suppression taking place in Zimbabwe - this is parody politics and cannot be taken seriously. It resonates like the ranting of a petulant child denied ice cream.

Ms. Clinton is a political chameleon whose expressed opinions meet her needs of the moment. I cannot respect her because of this.

We rightly condemn Iranian leaders for their expressed intentions to destroy Israel - we consider such statements to be immoral, ugly strident screams of rabid Islamism. And yet it's okay for Hillary to express her intention to retaliate by 'obliterating Iran'?! Doesn't the world need more mature leadership than this? Even Bush and his demented crew haven't stooped to this level.

If Obama said such a thing it would resound around the globe - and yet it seems that many people expect such ranting from Ms. Clinton and that naysayers must be sexist mysogonistic party poopers. How sad.

Bo Gardiner
23 May 2008 at 12:08

Re: the above comment by Skeptic criticizing this essay: "And while other candidates didn't drop out before the primaries ended or the convention, most didn't get much coverage after the front-runner was declared teh winner by the media."

Umm, that's precisely the point. In America, the media are not supposed to be the ones declaring the winner; their doing so now is what's unprecedented. Plus there's that little complication that by the end of the primary, if the MEDIA allow her to finish, it is projected that she will have won the popular vote.

The previous commenter uses a tired, dishonest red herring argument in claiming that this excellent essay says anyone opposing Clinton must be by definition sexist. The author said no such thing; no one is saying such a thing. This is an old tactic to silence and smear anyone who dares call out real bigotry.

Lee
23 May 2008 at 14:17

Great article.

While most U.S. media, blogs, and Obama supporters denounce Hillary's campaign rhetoric , they ignore Obama's race-baiting and total lack of experience.

timl
23 May 2008 at 15:08

i HAVE WORKED IN NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS AND IN AND FOR THE NATIONAL MEDIA...

oops caps lock!

This is one of the very, very few pieces that gets what actually has happened here.

This is far from over though.

This is where this all has been leading since the Clinton team of Sosnick, Craig Smith, Maggie Williams and Ickes took over from the catatonic pair of Patty Doyle and Penn.

Since then we have won every state we needed to win - leading by 500,000 votes since feb.

When Obamas lawyer stopped the mi revote - over the amazing reasoning that it was unfair that those who had already voted in the gop primary couldnt vote AGAIN in the revoted dem primary - I saw this could be their campaign's fatal mistake...

But only 'IF' Hillary was able to win TX,OH,IN,KY, WV...

Well...it seems she has....and since Obama stopped the MI revote - we now will fight to count that state as voted. There can be no "compromise". The Obama campaign already showed this, the revote was the frigging compromise!

Because of Bauer's dirty dealing -Hillary gets ALL her MI delegates and then we fight over the uncommitted!

This was and is the plan folks! The media didnt and dont get it - but this is why she has fought on - not to maybe be vp as the media fools keep suggesting - but to get the majority of votes in the primaries and winning over the SDs.

The media may be with O'barry - but the wind and the tidal change is with US!

Avedon
23 May 2008 at 15:16

I'm a long-time critic of Hillary Clinton, and for that matter of Bill Clinton. But I'm not a Republican and I know the difference between disliking Bill Clinton's cowardly center-right policies and thinking the Republicans are right about him. Same goes for Hillary.

When this race started, I disliked Hillary and liked Obama. But I've seen the same stuff described in this article and come to the conclusion that there is nothing bad you can say about Hillary that you can't also say about Barack - and the race-smears and sexism make him even worse. He's not only done the GOP's work against Hillary for them, he's also done the GOP's work against racial equality for them. They have been trying for years to convince black Americans that Democrats are just as racist as they are, and now Obama has based his campaign on convincing them that they're right!

Just a look at this comment thread is a fine example of how well Axelrod has done his job. Look at all the people who point to Hillary's more conservative votes but ignore Obama's conservative activities. (It was Obama, not Clinton, for example, who voted against the 30% cap on interest in the bankruptcy bill fight. And it was Obama who wanted to vote for Roberts for the Supreme Court and had to be told that it would not be a good idea - but he still went out in public saying there should be no filibuster of right-wing nominees.)

And look at all the right-wing talking points in this comment thread! Suddenly all the nasty stuff the Republicans invented against the Clintons is true! Like the last 15 years of constant libel and slander of the Clintons was actually all truth! I'm waiting for someone to say they hate Hillary because she murdered Vince Foster.

I see Hillary was mean to the women who had sex with her husband (knowing he was married) and then went to the media to tell it to the whole world. Yeah, how could a woman not love women who did that to her family? What a mean person Hillary is!

And the claim that she was a corporate lawyer - well, actually, she wasn't, she was a family lawyer. But it's very convenient for Obama to broadcast this lie - and that came out of his own mouth and can't just be blamed on out-of-control supporters.

I wanted to vote for someone with a real progressive message in this election, but Obama's supporters wanted to vote for "hope" and "change".

Which offers no hope, and is no change, because EVERY politician says that every four years. Even McCain is saying that.

Oh, yeah, and what's Obama's other promise? "Unity". Just like Bush, he's a uniter, not a divider. And that's working out just the same way.

jane austen
23 May 2008 at 15:53

What I liked best about Obama was his claim that his mother and father came together because of Selma, Alabama. Problem is Selma was 1965. Obama was born in 1961. This guy has a problem with both history and geography. He puts the Great Lakes in Oregon and claims we have "57 states." Sorry but I expect a potential president to have a few more smarts than that and at least to have an understanding of basic American history.

boohall
23 May 2008 at 16:41

Keith

23 May 2008 at 10:10

MK5112 TX,

You give your self away with your statement about 'your wife won't let you watch news programs'.

Poor thing, with the wife problem don't take it out on Hillary.

Mr. Stephen, thank you for this well written article. We need more reporters to see what is happening. The damage to the party will not be repaired. There is talk of leaving the party en mass.........

laurie
23 May 2008 at 16:57

Great posts Timl and Avedon. At the beginning I quite liked Obama. In particular I liked his middle name-Hussein. I thought it could be a great unifier of Arabs and Americans, make a change, you know. I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole now. There has been continual slurring of Hillary, The whole thing has gotten out of hand and is disgusting. Many women are very fond of Hillary and respect her, because of the media blasting she got over Lewinsky, and the excellent way she handled that. What is Obama trying to do, foment racial riots if the super delegates don't choose. He has already subtly, and not too subtly, tried to wiggle into people's minds the idea that he has already won. That if Hillary wins she is cheating. If however he wins and loses to McCain, that too will be Hillary's fault, because she split the Party

. I personally feel that Howard Dean and the whole of the Patrician echelons of the Democratic Party right up to Ted Kennedy are responsible for this. Why was a newbie candidate not vetted? Why were he and Axelrod so clearly abetted? Obama was a Chicago machine politician. His wife's father was part of that machine. Yet he could freely make himself out to be a messianic combination of JFK, FDR and MLK. Why was so much media madness not countered by any form of rational thought? By any care about what could happen to the Party. By any kind of moral ethics? Sexism was just great, racism? let's avoid the slurs.

If I were a Hillary supporter in Kentucky or West Virginia, I would be extremely annoyed to be called some kind of Appalachian redneck. Obama's surrogates have continually denigrated any kind of Hillary vote as racist, they have whipped up their supporters to incredible levels of hate and a total lack of respect for one's opponent.

I am afraid that if Obama wins, the Democrats will NOT be getting a President in the White House. Once more they will have blown it, and they certainly don't have the moral high ground as far as women go.

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 17:21

It isn't just sexism that goes against Hillary in this election, because women like me (supposedly her core supporters) aren't voting for her. There are a number of political reasons for our choices, but it all boils down to the fact that we don't want HER - specifically HER - as president, or even veep. I believe any other woman running for president would be treated with the same respect Shirley Chisholm was when she ran for the office back in '72. Hillary's problem is that Hillary disrespects anyone who doesn't agree with her. She is the Great White Mother who Knows Best for us all - and she'll ram that Wisdom down our throats whether we like it or not. The American press never derided Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher because they happened to have vaginal orifices. Hillary's being called a bitch because she IS a bitch.

No Blood for Hubris
23 May 2008 at 17:24

Absolutely brilliant. Thanks.

jacilyn
23 May 2008 at 17:43

How can people say that racism will have something to do with why Obama is going to lose the general when people who were willing to vote for him have changed their mind about him because of his own actions and attitudes?

hysperia
23 May 2008 at 17:48

Wow. I thought the article was well done (still do) and wanted to say so, but now I've forgotten what I wanted to say - result of reading some of the comments. Keith in SA thinks the Hillary "nutcracker" is "light" humour? OMG. I came across that thing months ago while while looking for a book for my granddaughter on Amazon. She didn't understand it and I tried to explain. And it could not be explained. She just kept asking (But why is the cracker between her legs?" I don't think she was especially upset because she didn't get it, but it sure pained me because someday, she WILL get it. I truly do not think it matters in the end whether you are pro-Clinton or not. The media conversation, the conversation between and among Americans, has been assaultive and demeaning to ALL women. I am half-heartedly glad that Clinton will not be nominee or President. We could expect it to get worse and I find that hard to imagine.

nancysabet
23 May 2008 at 17:57

Thank you Andrew for this excellent article. I have been with Hillary's campaign since New Hamshare‘s primary. I have never in my entire life, as a Democrat, seen such an attack on any candidate running for an office. For those of us who are very close to her campaign this media rampage has been brutal and painful. None of our Democratic leader came out in her defence...shame on them!

nancysabet
23 May 2008 at 18:03

Thanks Andrew for this excellent piece. I am a volunteer in Hillary's campaign since New Hampshire‘s primary. I have never in my entire life, as a Democrat, seen such an attack on any candidate running for an office. For those of us who are very close to her campaign this media rampage has been brutal and painful. None of our democratic leader came out in her defence. Obama campaign not only try to stop it , they did every thing to escalated this barbaric media behaviore towards Hillary Clinton.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 18:11

Obama is ridiculously underprepared and is making more and more mistakes every day. He did not know basic WWII history and claimed he would speak with our enemies just as Truman, Ike, and FDR did. They did not talk with our enemies. The media is so in the tank with Obama it's absurd.

McCain, at least, is mature. Obama, I fear, will be humiliated, as he was in the last debate for which he was alarmingly unprepared, and then will lash out militarily. Obama flipped Hillary the bird (gave her the middle finger) after the last debate, when it was ABC commenters who asked the questions. Obama is a very insecure man.

I am a Democrat but Obama is way too soft and naive with national security. Bush was a war-monger but McCain is different, I hope.

Frenchy
23 May 2008 at 18:11

Sadly, I think GavrielleLaPoste typifies the mindless sexism of the kind so brilliantly described in this article. Spreading the word that Hillary Clinton a "bitch" is the only case the Obama dirt-merchants can make against her. Besides which, she is actually more progressive than Obama, although that is now what Obamamaniacs want you to think. He said he was in favor of launching a pre-emptive US nuclear attack against Iran long before Hillary Clinton made her comment. He wants the US presence in the world to be increased, God help us. He wants to make the US military machine even bigger. He's in the massive pockets of the lobbyists in the pharmaceutical companies already. Well done, the New Statesman, for seeing through him. If only the US media had done the same from the beginning like you have.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 18:14

Women in the U.S. won the right to vote fifty years after black men. Few in the U.S. know this, and many still suffer from white guilt.

Obama's campaign has called everybody who didn't vote for him racist, and at first it worked in his favor. At this point they have worn out the "racism" word and it has lost its power.

Frenchy
23 May 2008 at 18:15

In my last posting, I meant to say "that is NOT what Obamamaniacs want you to think". Couldn't agree more with AJ Fish, by the way. Obama's combination of ignorance and arrogance is a very dangerous one.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 18:16

The media here also preferred George W. Bush and was relentlessly critical of Al Gore, who they tagged as a liar in the 2000 race. The media (cable news channels, which do no original reporting and simply read wire stories then invite pundits to discuss them,) was also a big cheerleader for the Iraq War.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 18:56

Honestly I think it comes from Obama - if he were not such an insecure man the media would not be channeling this so much and lashing out at Hillary.

McCain is much more secure with who he is.

nancysabet
23 May 2008 at 18:57

WOMEN UNITED TO DEFEND HILLARY"S PRESIDENCY

Join us in D.C. for

Meet The DNC Rules Committee Members Who Will Decide Michigan And Florida

http://www.alternet.org/wire/86091/

YOU HAVE TO REGISTER ON 27th in order to be able to attend the meeting. Call DNC 202-863-8000

FrankDelo
23 May 2008 at 19:05

The article and the comments convey a startling lack of awareness or self-criticism about one dynamic in the U.S. Democratic primary that played quite a consequential role: the Clinton campaign's tone of entitlement. This unremitting drumbeat from Hillary's camp set a lot of voters' teeth on edge and drowned out sympathy she sought to cultivate first as a trailblazer then as an underdog. As happens in many situations with a presumptuous person, her taking this tone drove lots of Democrats, men and women, to show her she did not deserve the nomination and couldn't take their support for granted.

Drood
23 May 2008 at 19:08

Excellent article. It is astonishing how many people can't see what has been going on in this campaign. For those who think the Obama campaign has not race-baited, what do you think was happening when;

(i) Jesse Jackson jnr said that as the primary season was heading to South Carolina where there were a large number of African-American voters people should remember that Hillary cried for herself and not for the victims of Katrina;

(ii) when Michelle Obama said black America was going to wake up and get it;

(iii) when in South Carolina Obama said, using Malcolm X's words about white politicians, don't be 'bamboozled' and 'hoodwinked';

There was one beneficiary from what went on in teh South Carolina primary: Obama. How on earth was it in Hillary's interest to antagonise African-Americans in a state in which they were a large proportion of the Democratic primary electorate? Before that primary, she had significant AA support. If she had kept it she would have probably won that state.

On the sexism front, what do people think Obama meant when he said that he understood that 'periodically, when Senator Clinton is feeling down, she feels the need to attack him'.

If Obama is the agent of a new kind of politics, how can explain that in his primary election for the Ilinois state legislature he has his lawyer challenge the signatures of all his opponents until they were removed from the ballot. Similarly, is it just coincidence that in both the primary and Senate election seat for Illinois in 2004 that the major candidate he faced was forced to drop out because under sudden media pressure details about divorces from several years earlier were released by a judge?

Finally, if Hillary were committed to the politics of personal destruction in the way so many Obama supporters are convinced don't you think just once she might have mentioned Jeremiah Wright in a debate or ran an ad about Obama's relationship with him before ABC bought the videos. Hillary could have gone for Obama on Wright from day one and she chose not to.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 19:10

FrankDelo the entitlement at the beginning of Hillary's campaign, and the media referring to her as "inevitable" was not helpful to her. But she's been the underdog since about March and this is the best thing for her - people see she's a really really solid candidate, works really hard and appeals to a lot of people.

Obama is probably the least experienced presidential candidate in history.

rennies
23 May 2008 at 19:19

Thank you so very much for this article — unhappily a lone voice in the insanity.

I am a woman in Hillary's demographic (one of "the dry pussy brigade" as I was called by an Obama blogger). The unbelievable misogyny expressed during the primary has at times felt like a gang rape. The tolerance of this reprehensible treatment of its most qualified candidate by the Democratic Party has caused me to leave it after fifty years of being a yellow dog.

No amount of uterus blackmail (the Supreme Court! the Supreme Court!) will prevent me from voting for McCain in November. If women are ever to get respect, let alone leverage, in the Party this is the only sane move.

A strong Democratic Congress will offset McCain, who is not Bush, anyway.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 19:21

Rennies - which blogger called you that? My guess: Avarosis ("America Blog") another gay former Republican just like Andrew Sullivan.

Maggie
23 May 2008 at 19:45

"...the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do"

Mmmm. And I'm sure they'll do it, right after they rethink how they handled Gore, Iraq, Kerry ...

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 20:00

Frenchie,

First, as a woman, I cannot be a sexist, let alone a mindless one since I never said I wouldn't vote for a woman. I said I wouldn't vote for THAT particular woman.

Second, my political reasons for not voting for her have nothing to do with Obama or McCain. They have to do with the fact that as MY senator in New York she has consistently failed to represent MY interests. She has created NO legislation whatsoever during her tenure in the senate - and she's certainly been there long enough to have pushed through a bill, any bill, with her name attached to it.

In addition, I do not like her health care MANDATE. With 50% tax on my income already, I don't need an extra 10% taken right off the top to pay for everyone else's health care - especially men's Viagra prescriptions, but not birth control pills or abortion for women.

And when I say she is a bitch, I know whereof I speak. Having met her at a Democratic Party function where I, being one of the little people, was treated to a sneer and a dismissive "How dare you!" look when I attempted to serve her table. I was just doing my job and she didn't appreciate me moving in on her left to serve while she was talking up some rich donor. So please don't lecture me on Hillary. She IS a bitch when she isn't running for office. And she doesn't give a damn about my needs or yours. Obama gets my vote because he beat out John Edwards, whose pro-union views I heartily support.

Washington LC
23 May 2008 at 20:02

Thank goddess--someone finally got it right!

I am so tired of hearing "liberal" Obama supporters decry the Clinton camp, while in turn, express their support for McCain if Obama should lose the Democratic ticket.

Do Obama supporters fail to see that Clinton's policies are far closer to their candidate's than those of McCain?

There is certainly an Orwellian aspect to our current system, as we continue to debate whether some states (i.e. Florida and Michigan) should have their votes counted or not.

Not to mention the latent sexists "undertones" which have run rampant throughout this race, and which we will look back upon, historically, with embarrassment.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 20:06

GavrielleLaPoste -

"First, as a woman, I cannot be a sexist, " - the most sexist things I've heard this primary season have come from women. They ask why Hillary is campaigning like a man. They say the only reason she voted for the Iraq War Resolution (a vote for deterrence) was because she's a woman, and she was trying to prove she was tough because she would run for president. They said nothing of Chuch Schumer's vote for the same thing, or John Kerry's, or Dianne Feinstein's.

Young women said they couldn't trust Hillary when she's on her period. (Clueless young women don't realize Hillary is 60, but that's beside the point.)

Try to be more creative and use a gender-neutral adjective that does not rhyme with witch, we might believe you're not a sexist.

But being a woman does not mean you're not sexist. Some blacks believe whites are superior, doesn't mean it's true.

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 20:17

AJFish-

I am not some young, clueless girl. I'm 48 and have been feminist all my life. It's women like Hillary, who play the victim when they aren't winning that give the rest of us a bad name.

And if you want gender neutral adjectives, here's what I consider Hillary: A lying sore loser and a pandering political hack.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 20:55

I did not say you were clueless. But if you call her a bitch, she's a two-term Senator who has done way more for this country than Obama has, you are no feminist in my book.

Thanks for setting all women back.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 20:57

Oh and you buy into and REINFORCE the victim thing. Obama has blamed all his electoral losses on racism. He blamed his poor debate performance on Hillary when it was the moderators and the VOTERS who asked the questions. You are setting all women who dare to aim higher back by calling them whiney victims. Hillary is no victim.

Kirian
23 May 2008 at 21:14

After reading the article and all of the comments following it; I have arrived right back where I started.

We are all of us aware that the media is not unbiased; but why should we expect it to be? It is after all run by people that want to sell their product above all else.

Most news is evaluated by its entertainment quotient not by how fair and balanced it is. All three of the candidates have said things that could be questioned and for the most part have been; if not by the Media certainly by the opposing side.

And from reading this and other comment sites so has the general public.

I will vote as I see fit, based on my needs and what I have judged to be the correct candidate based on what I have heard the candidates say as well as their history.

No amount of name calling or mud-slinging , will change my decision. I am nor have I ever based my political decisions based on the gender, race, or party of whom I voted for. I read, listen to the news, watch the news and read everything I can find from the Internet to magazines, books, and newspapers.

My decisions are as well rounded and well thought out as I can possibly make them. I do not hate Senator Clinton, I do not revile Senator McCain, and nor do I worship Senator Obama; I view them all as savvy politicians. After all each of them has managed to rise to and achieve their perspective senatorial seats. In the end I shall vote for the person that I believe most exemplifies the abilities and position that I personally feel will give me what I think is best for myself and the United States of America.

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 21:16

AJFish

I love how a man deigns to lecture a WOMAN on feminism. LOL! If I'm a sexist, you're a misogynistic racist. And if Obama is blaming his "poor debate performance" on Hillary then he is COMPLIMENTING her skill and not belittling her because of her gender.

nancysabet
23 May 2008 at 21:23

Inspite all these brutal attacks, Hillary is winning. She is ahead in popular vote and Hillary has a best case scenario of 341 electoral votes to win in Nov.

I'm not sure what the superdelegates are thinking, but I sure hope they have a path to victory if they go with Obama. I hope this path is based on reality and not wishful thinking. Hillary has a path backed up with real numbers from a polling company that generally has her numbers lower than actuality. Her numbers are holding steady or moving up. Obama's numbers are going down everywhere. And he has no states that are opening up for him where he has a clear advantage over Hillary.

Frenchy
23 May 2008 at 21:41

"GavrielleLaPoste" is a fake, everybody. Firstly, "she" is a man. Secondly, he is gay.

chklaver
23 May 2008 at 21:46

I think your article is dead-on right. I work at a university and have heard many people make anti-Hillary sexist jokes while passing in the hall. But, you don't hear one about Obama. In fact, this whole primary season has put a muzzle over any discussion about politics at all because there is more than a hint of being called a "racist." Not only did Obama up the ante with his "you were working as a corporate lawyer when I was in the streets remark," there was no questioning about the fact they are nearly 10 years different in age, and she was a different point in her life than he was. That was just too obvious a comment for the MSM to make. So they have been very compliant in the build-up of Obama at the expense of Hillary and other women in politics. I've noticed this Obama favoritism at the get-go. The MSM seems to have been more concerned with having a bros vs. hoes political drama unfold rather than giving all the candidates a shot since the beginning.

Another point, is that the painting of those who do not support Obama as "uneducated." That is the most insulting thing of all. It has allowed another avenue for Obama supporters to insult the rest of us -- i.e., we "must have not went to a good school," or had bad grades kind of crap. Labels are labels and the Obama Team has been the quickest to throw them, as far as I'm concerned.

I've been absolutely appalled at the entire process, and ashamed to consider myself a member of the Democratic party.

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 21:49

nancysabet,

Projecting electoral votes in the General Election based on the primaries is an exercise in foolishness by the media pundits. One has nothing to do with the other. Although they won't tell you that because they want to see a fight, it's good for their ratings and selling advertising dollars.

The primaries are populated, for the most part, by the hardcore party members (a very small percentage of each states' population) who are interested in politics all year long. We are the people who vote in every election, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant (school board, medical examiner, dog catcher, etc.). The GE is made up of everyone else. Mostly people who vote every 4 years out of a sense of duty or because it's the "in" thing to do. They read a few articles on the candidates' positions at the last minute and make their decisions based on that.

Projections in May based on primary exit polls or likely voter lists are notoriously fallible. And no one who is a hard core political junkie (like the super delegates) will take them with anything other than a grain of salt. They are, in fact, as crass as it sounds, far more interested in who has the widest coat tails to get them re-elected.

chklaver
23 May 2008 at 21:51

I think your article is dead-on right. I work at a university and have heard many people make anti-Hillary sexist jokes while passing in the hall. But, you don't hear one about Obama. In fact, this whole primary season has put a muzzle over any discussion about politics at all because there is more than a hint of being called a "racist" if you don't support Obama. Not only did Obama up the ante with his "you were working as a corporate lawyer when I was in the streets remark," there was no questioning about the fact they are nearly 10 years different in age, and she was at a different point in her life than he was. That was just too obvious a comment for the MSM to make. as they obviously have been very compliant in the build-up of Obama at the expense of Hillary and other women in politics. I've noticed this Obama favoritism from the get-go. The MSM seems to have been more concerned with having a bros vs. hoes political drama unfold rather than giving all the candidates a shot since the beginning. How sad.

Another point, is the painting of those who do not support Obama as "uneducated." That is the most insulting thing of all! It has allowed another avenue for Obama supporters to insult the rest of us who do not support him-- i.e., we "must have not went to a good school," or "had bad grades" kind of crap. Labels are labels and the Obama Team has been the quickest to throw them out, as far as I've seen, and you've shown here.

I've been absolutely appalled at the entire process, and ashamed to consider myself a member of the Democratic party.

GavrielleLaPoste
23 May 2008 at 21:53

Frenchie:

Wondered how long it would be before someone losing an argument would yank that old chestnut out! And here it is. I'm a man AND I'm gay. My husband and three children are going to be very shocked! LOL!

My dear, I believe you need to address your own issues on that score. Careful, you're projecting.

AJ Fish
23 May 2008 at 22:05

Well Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and our next president so we have a long time to work this all out.

Today Obama said to seat the Florida delegates, so he hasn't clinched the majority 2,025 because he just jumped the number up to 2,209 with his own words.

chklaver
23 May 2008 at 22:30

I don't know anyone who would consider being told that "you're likeable, enough" during a debate no less, wherein a comment wasn't even necessary ,to be some sort of compliment, or a gentlemanly remark.

It was a explicit maneuver to call attention to oneself during a political debate where that person wasn't doing so well. The add-on "enough" certainly showed a dig, or hesitancy. Was this Obama's idea of some act of chivalry, rescuing Hillary from the hurtful comment that she wasn't "liked very much" (is this usually remarked to candidates during debates anyway?0. And then, combined with some of Obama's other gestures of "amity" -- grabbing a candidate's arm during a debate or a fellow congress person's arm during discussion is supposed to be one of goodwill, what are you comparing these acts to? Pres. Bush's grabbing/hugging of the German PM, or rubbing bald men's heads, or, assigning everyone a "nickname." Is this what people consider appropriate and dignified social interaction and acts that a statesman should do?

God help us.

Marc1A
23 May 2008 at 22:40

Keith from South Africa said:

5) You brand the media as generally sexist. In some cases, you're no doubt correct. But to cite the nutcracker and other such light humor as sexist is just a failure to see normal humor at work.

By your standard, I could wear a t-shirt with a monkey eating a banana with theObama 08 logo displayed, and pass that off as "normal humor at work." I'd like to see that workplace. If this is normal at your workplace, who's the boss, Michael Scott? So many other things to say about the other typical Obama talking points but not a lot of time so I'll just say that if the country picks a fashion statement over a person of true substance, it will not produce the change the country needs and is not good for the world.

If you lived hear and got to see the full coverage of the campaign, you would see the daily vicious attacks that the author is describing. You might have a different opinion.

Miss American Brit
23 May 2008 at 22:47

Hillary is a consummate politician. Ergo: a liar and a fraud. Obama is just the lesser evil of the two.

Miss American Brit
23 May 2008 at 22:49

Andrew Stephen. I think you 'mispoke'.

AJ Fish
24 May 2008 at 00:12

Hillary Clinton has done more for women and children than so many politicians and Obama has turned everybody cynical. He has run a true scorched earth campaign. He is a nobody and has been there for nobody.

AJ Fish
24 May 2008 at 00:18

Miss American Brit try stepping down from your beauty contests and reading a few books. Obama is just a pepsi logo and little else.

Runa
24 May 2008 at 00:57

Thank you, thank you Mr. Stephen ! You articulated what so many of us feel and articulated it so well.

I am a woman of color and I have watched this primary with increasing horror. The main stream media is the worst offender .What is especially disheartening is the way woman journalists ( see The Slate's XX factor column for example) have joined the misogyny and sexist outpouring.I am sick to the stomach and I am hoping McCain will win - even though I thought I was a committed Democrat

dkings123
24 May 2008 at 01:09

Thank you! Now, if the country would ask the Superdelegates to stand by while the 50 states count EVERY vote. Meanwhile, the media could take a holiday and let the people decide for themselves.

robert123
24 May 2008 at 05:55

The media have used sexism to ensure a Republican victory, with reporters displaying sexist attitudes rather than outright Republican bias. If Obama is nominated, he will be the least qualified Democratic candidate in history, even less qualified than George Bush was in 2000, and the weakest of all the Democrats who entered the primaries in terms of potential to win the election in November. And if McCain does win, which he will if Obama is nominated, the media will have achieved the incredible. Obama is not just a first-term Senator with no experience in the House, he was unopposed in his Senate race, and it is possible he has never debated a Republican.

Posercom
24 May 2008 at 06:44

Thank you Mr. Stephen. I am so disgusted by the misogyny, not only in the media but in Washinton's Women Haters Club that I almost want to denounce my American citizenship.

Is it at all posible that MSNBC, which is owned by G.E. a defence contractor, deliberately promoted the democrats weakest candidate to insure a victory for John McCain in the fall? I have thought about that possibility for a while, and recently MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (who worships Obama) admitted that she thought John McCain would beat Obama. I know that she is right. But why; after elevating Obama to messiah status, would she wait until it is nearly impossible for Clinton to win the nomination to confess that she believes Obama can't beat McCain. Four more years in Iraq will be very beneficial to G.E.. MSNBC is their propaganda machine. Thats what I think.

Posercom
24 May 2008 at 07:04

Barak Obama defeated a bill in the Illinois state senate that simply stated that you could not kill an infant who survived an abortion. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was not opposed by orthodox liberals like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer nor Hillary R. Clinton. It was not even opposed by the National Abortion Rights Action League. But when identical language was introduced in a bill- The Induced Infant Liability Act, Obama defeated the bill. He was the only on to speak out against it on the floor of the IL state senate. He aggressively and effectively voted for infanticide! This fact is well documented by Jill Stanek- Top Ten Reasons Obama supports infanticide. YOUTUBE video-Obama's Mad World. You can read his speech on the floor of the Illinois senate through links on Jill Staneks site. She is one of the nurses who testified before the house and senate-telling how infants who survived abortion where being killed outside the womb or left to die in soiled linen bins. Obama will never be scrutnized by the US media until Hillary Clinton, the only remaining candidate who can beat McCain, is down for the count. They want their war and they will keep it by promoting the weakest candidate to take on John McCain.

Washington LC
24 May 2008 at 07:05

Many women have hated men--and ourselves-- for some time now. Why else did it take so long for "us" to get the vote? I guess we've all been "victims."

vidiii
24 May 2008 at 07:50

You are the best Mr. Stephen. You have the best analysis that I've ever read. I have the same reasoning when I wrote some comments/postings in TalkingPointsMemo.com but it was never published because I am not a journalist and they are pro-Obama. Anything the Clintons say is racist but when Obama called Hillary Annie Oakley (is this right?) and made some gestures on his shoulders which suggest to brush off Hillary's comments nobody ever called him sexist, arrogant and presumptuous. I am Asian here in CA and majority of my community will vote for McCain rather than Obama. We tend to be Democrat but not this time if Obama is the nominee. Many said they would rather have a Republican for 4 years than a Black president for a day. Watch CA in November, the Asians and Latinos comprise more than a quarter of the CA votes. I understand the culture of these groups because I am Asian with Spanish influence. We vote by personality not by policies. Obama is such a polarizing personality not Hillary. Believe me among these group of voters, color of the skin is the keyword not the Iraq War. Why did Zwarzenegger won, because this group of people love him.

Maria
24 May 2008 at 11:58

Thank you. I am heartbroken at what is happening in America right now. If Obama wins we will probably not get the green economy we need to survive and the whole world will be worse off. I think this is a major tragedy in the making.

nancysabet
24 May 2008 at 12:51

I am a Democrat and :

I will not stick with this Party if it makes the foolish error of overriding the peoples’ will and bypasses the strongest and most electable candidate for the sake of political correctness. That’s a losing strategy, and haven’t we lost enough presidential elections lately?

I will not stick with this Party if the votes and delegates from Florida and Michigan are not recognized IN FULL, and immediately.

I will not stick with this Party unless there is an immediate reversal of the hostility (and often sexism) demonstrated by party officials such as Donna Brazile, a “neutral” analyst on CNN and supposedly “undeclared” Superdelegate. What a joke this entire party has become. It’s disgraceful.

I, along with millions of other Hillary supporters, are watching. I urge you to do the right thing in the interest of party unity.

Thank you.

Grace
24 May 2008 at 13:30

I have dropped my subscription to Air America.

I have unsigned from e-lists of Kerry,Kennedy,Dodd, Leahy,Michael Moore.

I sent back my Springsteen albums.

I stopped watching MSNBC.

I won't buy HAyden's new book.

I quit NARAL.

All my money goes to Hillary now and after, if the men get their way, only to women's groups that support women..not pretend groups like NARAL.

I have a college degree and I will never-ever-believe this nation's power structure cares about women except to get our votes and our donations.

Nada mas.

nancysabet
24 May 2008 at 14:05

Grace, Amen!

One more sad point. Obama has turned out to be one of the most divisive political figures since Nixon.The candidate who said he has this great talent for unifying people, a talent that shows up nowhere in his past, has created more divisiveness in the Democratic party than any figure in history.But the issue that has caused one of the most serious divisions is the one that Obama himself has created over race.

willa
24 May 2008 at 14:08

It took a Supreme Court ruling to hand over the White House to the Republicans in 2000. The Democratic Party and this offensive sham we call the objective U.S. media are working tirelessly to ensure that the Republicans remain in the Oval Office in 2008. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their political cronies must have visible welts from all the backslapping.

I travel abroad extensively for my job. In the past eight years, I have seen European attitudes toward Americans shift from sympathy to anger to all-out shock at our amazing stupidity and our failure to see what is happening right before our eyes.

Al Gore got a raw deal. Hillary Clinton is getting a raw deal. Yes, we get the government we deserve—the past four years have been a painful reminder of that fact. I do not believe that Obama is qualified to lead this country. If we were at peace, maybe he’d have time for some on-the-job training. But at this hugely critical juncture, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for Obama to figure out how to do this job. But that point likely is moot. I do not believe that Obama can beat John McCain, and I find the prospect of President McCain even more terrifying than having a rookie in the White House.

marybecker
24 May 2008 at 14:41

It's worse than sexism. It's gotten to the point where we Hillary supporters cannot OPEN OUR MOUTHS anymore. It reminds me of how communist Russia was depicted in the 50's. There is no such thing as free speech for us. We must watch our backs at work, in our neighborhoods, and any other place. We are ridiculed and attacked everywhere if we do not support Obama. Those who are young don't remember the 60's when Phil Ochs sang about the "KNOCK ON THE DOOR," That's how I feel.

helps@chariot.net.au
24 May 2008 at 15:19

Anyone who has followed Hillary's life trajectory from her college days to being a two term Senator, would have seen that she is "presidential material". She is a woman that can elevate the reputation of the Office of President to the heights of Roosevelt 's New Deal era. USA needs a president that can bring quality of life in America to the levels of the European Union with universal access to:

free education and health services,

racial and sex equalities,

unemployment support and retraining,

retirement pensions for all,

air, water and soil pollution controls,

oversee stock markets operation for true economic stability

conduct peaceful international policies.

If Hillary does not win the presidency, America and the whole world will be the losers.

madonna
24 May 2008 at 16:14

Sexism, racism, etc. This race has it all. Obama started the racial crap and the MSM started the hatred of Hillary. What are they afraid of? A strong woman scares the bejesus out of some men and makes them act like little boys. The DNC isn't any better, everyone knows Howard Dean wants Obama as President.

I am very afraid of Obama, he has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy or anything else. Why does MSM want him as President? No one actually knows.

madonnas02
24 May 2008 at 16:26

The sexism in this election is unbelievable. The fact that everyone is even saying Hillary is changing the rules shows exactly how bias the media actually is (and how knowledgeable people really are).

Florida and Michigan were not the only states that violated the delegate selection process timing rules

The RULES clearly state:

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

That being the case Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina all violated this rule. Why are Florida and Michigan the only two states to be punished for it?

Regardless, under the DNC rules, the Florida and Michigan primaries clearly count, and they are entitled to have 50% of their delegates seated at the convention as allocated by their state primaries. However, given that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were not penalized at all, the equitable options are to strip 50% of Iowa’s, New Hampshire’s and South Carolina’s delegates, or Florida and Michigan should not lose any, just as the other three states were not penalized. It’s not only fair and just, it’s simply following the rules.

All states should be treated equally when voting, one state should not get waivers others do not. Are you saying that some states are worth more than others? That's what it sounds like to me.

On another note, Obama violated the DNC's rules by campaigning in both Michigan and Florida via television(CNN) nationwide. According to the law he would not be be allowed any delegates from those states anyway, so as far as Michigan and him not being on the ballot goes- it's irrelevant he wouldn't get any delegates from either state regardless.

The rule states:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, MAY NOT receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus

that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes,

but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that

reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring

campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news

conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than

fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using

paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or

establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic

voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic

organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The

Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are

covered by this section

LInda in DC
24 May 2008 at 16:47

It was such a relief to read this article, which points out what is so obvious and yet is apparently invisible to the U.S. media. I was a proud progressive before the Obama campaign; once it closed ranks around Obama and blinded itself to any and all evidence of his emptiness and powerful ambition, it started to destroy the progressive movement (and has split the Democratic party in two). Obama supporters in the progressive movement have employed the worst of Republican political tactics, including threatening their own if they don't toe the "party" line. The worst thing is the situation Mr. Stephen addresses: the real possibility that now, if Obama is not the nominee (or even if he is the nominee but loses the election), it could trigger massive racial unrest. The entire reason for that would be, ironically, the tactics of the Obama campaign as supported by the MSM. And why, indeed, is the MSM so behind Obama? Is it really just because he's the best story? As we learned during the Bush years, the MSM is controlled by wealthy Republicans. So why is the Associated Press going so far as to prominently feature pictures of Obama that frame his face against a glowing circle of light (a "halo" effect) -- just as it was doing with George W. Bush? Is Obama a Manchurian candidate put forth by the real controlling factors behind U.S. government--power, business and money? or is there some other explanation?

suziq
24 May 2008 at 16:53

Wow!! Thanks for such an objective article. It touches on many points we have needed to bring up. You have courage and integrity which are rare characteristics for a member of the media these days. Please keep up the good works! We are proud of you!

hillgirl
24 May 2008 at 16:57

Thank you Mr. Stephens. If I might add that waht ahs been most unforgivable is the diminishing of Senator Clinton's lifelong dedication to public service, her encyclopedic knowledge, her comprehensive understanding of domestic and international issues, her courage and commitment to human rights, women's rights and children's rights, her international diplomatic experience, her dignity, grace and compassion. She is an American hero with a resume that would dwarf those of the other candidates and yet she has been treated in this unspeakable way. I am an American, and I am ashamed. Senator Clinton is the best that this country has to offer both to our American and international citizens. I say God Bless her for staying true to her mission and representing so many of our voices.

dmhkh
24 May 2008 at 17:08

I believe it is time we make a comment about the Obama campaign whining, hate mongering, trying to shut everyone up who states any deficiency in their candidate( who has many), into a racist. But the latest hysterical uproar and taking Senator Clinton's remark about the primaries historically running into mid June and twisting that into an assasination remark is over the top. It is time we call them on that and turn this right around and get them Unnominated. No one needs this distorting ,dishonest bunch of despots running our country, the United States of America. Our country has seen enough, we do not need to tolerate this also. . And the media God Bless them if he will, but probably won't, and jwill ust send them straight to hell. ( a just reward for theri past 8-10 years behavior)

MSBLUEGRASS
24 May 2008 at 17:48

Thank you New Statesman and Andrew Stephen for this excellent article. The reason we are seeing this article, is because of money and influence...or the lack of it, in your case! I would imagine, this being a "foreign" publication, you are not being muzzled by Soros, and influenced by General Electric as MSNBC, CNN, and the major networks are. That being said, the DNC and major party players, Kennedy, Kerry, Howard Dean etc. are betting on the wrong horse in this race. Senator Clinton has won 17 million votes so far in this primary, more than any other candidate in history. She will end up with the most popular votes.

Despite being outspent, denigrated by members of her own party, misogynists, political pundits, her opponent, and the MSM, she just keeps on fighting. Any thinking person can see, SHE is the person to lead this great nation. Call her a Bitch if you must, in the words of Tina Fey, "Bitches get things done" and I would want her on my side in any talks with foreign powers. She has proven over and over again, she one smart, tough, articulate, savvy, experienced, respected, cool- and-calm-under-fire-candidate.

I have followed her campaign closely, gone to four rallies for her in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana and always come away IMPRESSED. Senator Clinton is the best candidate in this race and I am putting my money on her, both literally and figuratively.

Although I think Senator Obama may eventually gain more experience, knowledge, backbone, and become more politically astute, we don't have time for his education and vetting in this race, and we don't need a novice posing as a leader with our country being in the dire straits in which we are finding ourselves. I am not going into all the vile and nasty campaigning which has been perpetrated by the Obama campaign and his supporters, as I think this has been covered here and is well known. Superdelegates can be bought as we have seen repeatedly in this campaign. It is just a shame that some people cannot see what is happening.

Caucases need to go. They are a way for voters to be intimidated and also do not allow participation by all members of the voting public.

As many Obama supporters are so fond of saying, Yes, I think our country is ready for an AA President...just not this one at this time!

Blather6369
24 May 2008 at 18:05

As an independent - but one who wouldn't have voted Democratic this year, for either candidate - I've watched the Obama/Clinton fiasco with detached fascination.

Ultimately, I'm left with two conclusions.

First, a strangely inexplicable increased respect for Hillary Clinton. While I continue to disagree with her politics in many cases, I've developed a bit of a grudging admiration for her tenacity. A great many conservative-leaning voters now feel the same. A figure we once loathed has earned a bit of respect for her sheer determination.

Second, and far sadder, is my great loss of respect for the mass of liberal voters and pundits. It is fine to disagree on issues and policies, and since leaving the Democratic Party a few years ago, I've outgrown most of the liberal beliefs of my youth.

But the one thing I expect is that people will at least live up to their own ideals. And the very last thing I expected to see was liberals openly, even gleefully, embracing sexism, racial divisiveness, anti-feminism, and blatant stereotyping of almost every sort. The Left may win this election, but it has abandoned every core belief it holds - including some I personally respect. When feminists call other women whores, they have sold their souls to the political devil - and sold them cheaply.

Whether Obama wins or loses, the American Left has suffered a tragic, and self-induced, defeat. For progressives to be taken seriously - by themselves most of all - they must openly reject their own recent behavior.

Many of them will soon realize their own shame. America is a poorer place today because they abandoned their own principles.

LInda in DC
24 May 2008 at 18:29

I have to wonder whether the MSM's dramatically differing treatments of Obama and Clinton have been orchestrated by Rove or someone like him, who foresaw that support for the two would likely be split to begin with in the Democratic party, and employed the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer. Have the MSM support one candidate continuously and unfairly, demonize the other continuously and unfairly, and voila! - a quiet, harmonious split in the ranks becomes a blood feud. If that's the case, Rove or whoever couldn't possibly have foreseen how effective the tactic would be.

LInda in DC
24 May 2008 at 18:36

to Blather 6369: you've just posted nearly exactly the words I was thinking (and was about to post to one of my own blogs). I was going to word it this way: is the progressive movement committing suicide--or is it being murdered? (the "murder" reference is to my last post in this section). Even if its demise is being deliberately hastened, I have to agree with you that progressives have been entirely complicit. I've been glad to see today some posts by progressives who are ashamed of what is happening. And saddened to see those who do be immediately condemned by their blogging peers as likely "trolls."

Annavedo
24 May 2008 at 19:13

Thank you for writing this article. When, as you suggest, history reflects on this political season, I hope it stumbles across your words and gasps in horror that some "got it" and tried to enlighten the masses. I especially appreciate that it was written by a man. In this frighteninly sexist climate, it lends creedence to the facts, and avoids another claim of shrieking feminists going hysterical.

pdxpunk
24 May 2008 at 19:22

You are simply delusional, as are ALL democrat/liberals.

"But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been."

Where the hell have you been for the last 7+ years? The kind of vile, hateful, borderline psychotic rantings regularly uttered by the leadership of the democrat party, the punditry, the media, the left-web and anywhere the democrat party line is spouted that has been leveled at our current President ring as bell? But now that your side is getting the same treatment you think it is some historic moment? Are you f*cking kidding me? Suck it up, lefties...You pigs created this swamp, now you get to wallow.

jan
24 May 2008 at 20:13

I am so thankful that so many articles are starting to pop up showing Obama's true colors. I just wish this could have happened months ago. Thousands of us have been typing and phoning our hearts out trying to get people to listen and now thankfully it is starting. I totally agree we need to stop his campaign of hatred and racism before it is to late. This is his style of getting elected. The only way he can win is to disqualify all his runningmates. How is it even though this is a public fact it is so overlooked? Anyone who still watches msnbc needs to stop now!!!! Please join us in emailing your representatives and as many super delegates you can and let them know how you feel about what is going on and what you will do if it is not stopped. The party is about dead now and they really want to believe we will support him. Somehow we must make them believe we will never do that.

Thank you so much for this article.

lyn003
24 May 2008 at 20:16

Thank you Mr. Stephen - I greatly appreciate some validation for my "voice in the wilderness" position that I have maintained since nearly a quarter into this "race". You, and others here, have expessed their position and stories much more eloquently than I can. I am generally left tongue-tied by the sick knot in the pit of my stomach.

canta
24 May 2008 at 20:18

I join the chorus of thanks for your article. My only concern now rests with getting a wide audience for your thoughts. Perhaps it is not too late. Hillary is by far the better candidate, but as long as Obama is seen as the "candidate of the future," promising "hope" (don't all candidates do that?) and "change" (ditto), many people who support him will not consider anything else.

I watched Senator Clinton's interview with the South Dakota Argus Leader's editorial board. As has happened so many times before, I was blown away by the breadth and depth of her knowledge, her understanding, her passion and compassion. Yet what everyone now knows about this interview is that Clinton mentioned RFK's assassination and was pilloried for doing so. That's the tenor of our times. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who supports Clinton, defends her in this morning's NY Times. But even so, to watch this woman at work answering questions about things she cares deeply about--and she cares deeply and widely--is to watch someone who is eminently qualified to be president.

I am a lifelong Democrat (and it's been a long life!); yet I'm not at all sure I can support and vote for Senator Obama if he wins the nomination. There's so much about him we don't know--or don't want to believe, and he is so woefully uninspiring, finally, if one discards the crowd-pleasing rhetoric.

Thank you again, Andrew Stephen, and thank you to all the supportive remarks above. You have given me heart.

jaycee NC
24 May 2008 at 20:20

Thank you for listing all the insensitive remarks I had forgot a few and I don't want to because there will be round two and we need to be ready. After scanning the blogs I see the hate mongers read informative articles also. Too bad some of their mothers didn't wash their mouths out with soap, they could use a little discipline to be out in polite society.

cmt
24 May 2008 at 20:26

kkb2:

I would rather have someone running this country who has done the things you describe instead of someone who has not shared their complete background, who has shady associations, who describe hard working people as uneducated and bitter and who has lied at every turn you can image especially regarding his mentor, is close to or is at Marxism in his thinking, has money coming from unknown places to handle his campaign and was not a senator when the decision was made for the IRAQ war and who has deliverably calculated and manipulated this campaign to make himself the winner at the cost of the voters. I question your real reasons for not supporting Mrs. Clinton. What is she wrong for staying with here husband, I guess that makes her weak; there are more women supporting Mrs. Clinton than there are those who think they are to good to support another female because of their own personal feelings. This is about our nation not about how you personally feel about a candidate, obviously you would rather deliver this nation into the hands of someone who might be a national threat. Thanks for realizing that sexism has turned this campaign into a nightmare, you gave Mrs. Clinton some credit; check your other way of thinking but as always those are your opinions.

taylorbath
24 May 2008 at 20:26

You've summed up exactly what I and many other women across the country have been noticing too. Regardless of whether one is for or against Senator Clinton, the way she has been treated by the media and by political operatives is horrendous. The first serious woman for President deserves more respect.

The only 'good' thing to come out of this whole campaign process is the wake up call to women that we still have a long way to go for equality.

jan
24 May 2008 at 20:28

To pdxpunk

How can you totally miss the point here? This has nothing to do with someone saying something about our candidate, it is the racism and the sexism. You can have all the fault you want with their policy or even their intellect. But when we start bringing back racism and become litterally vial about women then we have gone to far. This is about politics and we need to keep it that way. If what has been happening to Bush the past 7+ years was what was going on now you would not be hearing anything from us, but this is a whole different ball game.

Nilla32103
24 May 2008 at 20:33

If we have learned anything in the last 7 years, we are certainly not acting like it. Thank you for this excellent article, from your lips to the ears of THE POWERS THAT BE, I for one, do not want to go back to Stepford.

casablanca
24 May 2008 at 21:01

Thank you Andrew for writting this article.

I am a long time Clinton supporter/volunteer and I am a gay male Pledge Delegate for Hillary Clinton to the Democartic National Convention from California.

We have been called every name on the book while out campaigning for Hillary and unless you are on the campaign trail you don't really know what we really go through everyday, but we don't give up as we look at Hillary and what she goes through everyday and she inspire us to keep going, she inspire us!

I respect everyone and you opinions and isn't amazing that we have the right to speak as many others do not have that right to do so in this world.

I support Hillary cause I know she is the best qualified candidate to be President.

While campaigning I have been able to talk with many Obama supporters and asked what is it about Obama that made you vote for him? may responses were cause he is younger than her, cause he is a man and she is a woman, I will never vote for a f***ing woman.

When I ask what has Obama done to make decide to vote for him? they didn't know anything about him or what he had done, it was kind of scary to know that they are not taking the time to read about the candidates and how is this candidate is going to change/impact your life.

When you are interviewing a candidate for a job opening, you want the more qualified candidate for that position, unfortunatly the position is the President of the United States and I believe we do not want to elect an unqualified person for this position, believe it or not is not just the United States that will suffer but the whole world, think about it.

It is time for a qualified and experienced Woman to take this job, this campaign it has not been about race but gender, I look forward to going to the convention and nominating Hillary as our candidate, as I would not vote and would not support Obama.

The whole world is watching!

yvebonney3
24 May 2008 at 21:03

Yes this is about race but Obama made it about race, when he accuses the Clinton's of racism and everyone knows how they have always helped and been there for minority groups of all colors. He has turned the civil rights movement backwards instead of forward,. It would make Martin Luther King sick to his stomach if he could see whats happening today. And the Count the Vote in Florida? The Democrats were given no other choice by the Republican majority but to have their primaries early, the voters came out to vote on the only day given to them. It's not about whats fair to the candidates but whats fair to the voters. Neither candidate campaigned there. These votes should count as is, without manipulation by politicians.

Average Jane
24 May 2008 at 21:04

Thank you for this refreshing and insightful anaylsis. I suspect if Mr Obama is crowned the nominee there will be a backlash of untold proportions this November...and well deserved it will be!

barbf
24 May 2008 at 21:20

I find it ironic that Andrew is writing an article about sexism in a magazine called NewstatesMAN.

tv 24 May 2008 at 21:32

I attended the Democratic Colorado State Convention last week and sat next to a lady in her 50's who was in her full Democratic Party gear. When a speaker on stage mentioned Obama's name, imagine my surprise when she turned to me and said "I am never voting for that guy." She then told me that during her congressional district caucus, she was surrounded by young male Obama supporters who thought it was in good fun to heckle Hillary supporters by calling them the C-word, the B-word, and the Wh-word. She got teary re-telling me this story. I am guessing that in her 50 years, she has never been verbally abused with such hate and vileness. I, too, have been called a racist b**** for not supporting Obama because I'm Chinese American and somehow in this insanity, I'm racist because of the Rodney King incident. (helloooo!!! that would be the Korean community, but what does it matter, we all look alike to a true racist).

This primary has caused such deep wounds in some women that we will never be able to remain quiet. The fact that the party didn't stand up to say "enough is enough" speaks volumes. If not to defend Senatory Clinton, at least to defend the women of this party. If the same hate was targeted at the African American community, our heads would hang in shame. A bullseye target with Hillary's face in the center advertised as a urinal target is about the last straw that this female can handle. As someone's wife, daughter, a mother of a daughter, I will never stand to be called the c-word or b-word because someone has mommy issues.

Red in Denver
24 May 2008 at 21:56

I am a female "Independent" living in Colorado. I don't watch much TV other than sporting events, CNN, MSNBC & Fox News. I've been following the political race carefully, wanting to make an informed decision.

The issue of sexism in this campaign has become more and more apparent to me over the last several months. I've also noticed what could be termed "agism", although it is much less vitriolic than the sexism. What is particularly annoying is that all three (gender, age and race) are considered 'protected classes', yet it's QUITE apparent that, in the mainstream media, sexism is completely acceptable, while racism is not.

Not surprisingly, ALL of the responses I have seen to the few comments about sexism in the media, BY the media, has been denial. I am so glad to see a respected BBC editor/columnist make these points.

It appears that a media 'insider' -- outside the USA “looking in” -- can see things more clearly. He states that he feels the US media “will have to account for their sins. ”

I hope he’s right. Maybe, FINALLY, in my lifetime, I won't have to hear these type of sexist comments when I'm watching cable news programs.

ohmercy
24 May 2008 at 22:25

LindaDC and Blather 6369 and many others.

I have to agree about the "murdered" and I also have to say the Progressive Movement is complicit (or committing suicide?).

The media bias was so evident almost from the beginning. Actually when the field narrowed Matthews etc were praising Clinton's tight and flawless campaign blah blah blah. At the time I was supporting Obama and I agreed she was and had a pride in her. Don't forget when this started most people, particularly Clinton supporters were so happy with either candidate and would have voted for either. Happily.

Then one day the media turned. It was like night and day. I turned on Hardball one day and it was praise for Clinton. I turned it on the next day and it was demonization, misrepresentation and distortion of and about Clinton. I was left flabbergasted. As it kept up I was emailing the various shows and telling them the bias they were showing Obama was not doing him any good. He needed to be questioned, tested, toughened. (little did I realize he was plenty tough hiding under that passive- aggressive exterior.) I also spoke out when I saw the distortions..."That is NOT what she said, I realize paraphrasing is something anyone does but you are changing the meaning." on and on.

I would also defend her on the blogs HuffPo while stating being an Obama supporter. Apparently it is not enough to support Obama, you must hate and demonize Hillary.

To no avail.

As I said I started off supporting Obama but like several of the posters here eventually the pattern of passive aggressive attacks and manipulations by the Obama campaign became insupportable. (or un?) The condescension by Obama, his resurrecting and repetition of neocon spinabout Clinton was troubling. "She is too polarizing." No one is in and of themselves polarizing. What you say about them is what is polarizing. They may annoy you, aggravate you. You may disagree with them, not like or approve of their politics but polarizing? That is on you. (him, not "you". lol) People have responsibility for their own reactions, for their own attitudes. If you feel polarized then you have taken what you don't like, your reactions about her and projected YOUR OWN polarization onto her. The people who are so incensed and flipping out and acting hatefully are the ones who are, the ones who keep repeating that garbage are polarizing. polarizing.

He also arrogantly proclaimed months ago that he could get her votes supporters but she couldn't get his,

Well, that may have been correct in the beginning of the contest. It isn't certain now.

I never thought I'd vote anything but Democrat but I am leaving the party and becoming an Indie. I won't vote for McCain... sorry... I just can't do it. But I can write Hillary in and I am considering. There is a campaign going on for that. If I thought a million or two men and women would do it I think I would as well.

As it turns out Obama's supporters are the most divisive I can ever remember. I call them ObamaCons since they seem to be on the flip side of neocons. (for real conservatives and republicans please understand I find these separate from neocons which are a scary bunch. For those who do not know about PNAC which is their "manifesto" go here: www.newamericancentury.org and be prepared for the neocon agenda to scare the hell out of you. Many of them were attached to the Nixon White House and I think they have never forgiven anyone associated with his resignation. I'm not sure but I think Hillary was the one doing the research that uncovered the legal precedence.

This is all I can come up with for the constant attempts to ruin her (and Bill) from the moment they hit Washington.

Otherwise it seems so irrational to me.

We know they are not above anything in attempting revenge and ruin on people they feel went against them. Plame, Siegelman, Gore, Kerry, Clegman and more.

But I digress, as I usually do.

I better stop though I have to come back

The Fop
24 May 2008 at 22:28

I grew up in Florida during the 60's and 70's. The Democrats down there were very centrist Southerners. I moved to New York in the early 80's and got my first taste of the mudslinging of big city left wing politics. We've had several Democratic mayoral primaries here where the ugliness of identity politics was on full display.

Here's how it works: The Hispanic candidate represents the Hispanic vote....."we are the true liberals, just look at all the hip, trendy Hispanic revolutionaires". The Jewish candidate represents the Jewish vote....."we are the true liberals, we know what it means to be discriminated against, that's why we marched in Selma with the Blacks. The Black candidate represents the Black vote......."we are the true liberals, the civil rights movement was the most important event in liberal politics". The female candidate represents the female vote......"we are the true liberals, the feminist movement was the most important even in liberal politics".

All these left wingers accusing each other of not being pure enough. Then they have run offs where the Hispanic candidate tries appealing to the Blacks and the female candidate tries appealing to the Jews. And in the end, despite all this ugliness, the Democrat candidate usually wins because New York City is so liberal.

Right from the get go I predicted that the Clinton vs. Obama campaign would end up just like these New York City Democrat mayoral primaries. Now the whole country can be as turned off by liberal identity politics as I was.

Racism? Sexism? Whatever......I'm sick of this whole victim mentality, and people thinking of themselves as part of some oppressed group. The Clinton supporters accuse the Obama supporters of being sexist, and when Obama loses in November, his supporters will say "I hate this damn racist country".

They can all go back to their victimhood, which is where they are most happy anyway.

JaneEdwards
24 May 2008 at 22:33

An excellent article. What is particularly appalling to me is how many women have bought into the media's sexism and are suporting Obama so that they won't be targeted as a radical feminist.

ohmercy
24 May 2008 at 23:16

The Fop.

Actually their have been threats of rioting... "a reckoning" if Obama doesn't win the nomination.

I wonder if that will be threatened if he were to lose the GE.

I noticed HuffPost didn't mention that or the Recreate 68 movement who are threatening... actually training... to create hell at the convention. Yet they just reported that the Clinton supporters are planning on "swarming" the meeting on the 31st about seating the Mi Fl. delegates.

No one is claiming to be a "victim" they are pointing out the sexist and misogynist systemic attitudes in this country that makes the blatent use of it to attempt to destroy not just a campaign but the woman herself.

A perfect example of how the media sexism. Well, two: one flows from the other. Clinton was asked about sexim the other day. She said that many women are deeply offended by the level of sexism and that the media seems silent about it and the vitriolic misogyny present while they do cover perceived racism. Immediately the media jumped on it stating flat out that Clinton is claiming sexism in the media is why she is losing. So they are completely distortin what she is saying, making it look as if she is "whining" and why is she bringing it up NOW, why NOW, over and over (yet whenever her campaign mentioned anything to do with being a woman she was accused of playing the gender card.) Other pundits said they wish she had talked more about the historic nature of her campaign... yet when she did at Wellseley she was pilloried for it. The woman can't win. Anyway, so there the media is claiming Hillary is blaming the media for sexist coverage of her campaign and that is why she is losing...(and then screaming about how her campaign is why she is losing)... and yet what she actually said is there is a LACK of coverage on the vitriolic Misogyny and some women are deeply offended.

So this is an example of what her point was.

Recently there was a big story about the curious George Tee Shirt that some ass bar owner was selling down south some where. It says Obama 08 and has a picture of George eating a banana. Yes, it is offensive and was rightly covered.

tThe Protesters outside the bar were interviewd as was the horrid owner.

What was not reported or mentioned or even shown is this: On that same bar is a huge marquee with big letters that says " I wish Hillary had married OJ."

For some reason that wasn't newsworthy, that wasn't offensive or important enough to be covered. The interviews were outside but there were no shots of the marquee. Good editing.

So a picture of Curious George with Obama 08 is offensive but wishing Clinton dead, murdered in a hideous, brutal and horrific manner which would cause unspeakable suffering is not offensive enough to mention.

WTF?

So you see not only is their an enormous amount of sexism it isn't deemed important enough to mention except to demean and denounce anyone who suggests it and deny it is present.

Even the women pundits will hem and haw about it, saying yes its there but that being said...

whatever discounting remarks they are making including Hillary shouldn't be talking about it at this time;. Yet racism is reported constantly even suggesting that many voting for Clinton are racists!

(or old ignorant white women)

Between the media and the Obama supporters the atmosphere has become incredibly poisonous.

BTW, not liking Hillary is not sexist but denying sexism exists and also is used in this campaign is.

druidmary
24 May 2008 at 23:24

Boy, thank you for this article. Really wraps it up.

We have several blogs and websites, speaking to this.

I most recently wrote an article that shows even our own woman senators buy into the Obama-mania.

please consider coming by the forum to read this article and perhaps consider writing to these women who turned their backs on Hillary.