Return to: Home | World Affairs | 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

323 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.

frenchie
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.

frenchie
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.

frenchie
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.

http://hillaryisourchoice.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?...

also, at

http://hillaryisourchoice.com/women_pride.htm

ohmercy
24 May 2008 at 23:42

Thank You so much Mr. Stephen.

I've wanted to thank you and keep getting side tracked into postiing to other commenters.

Anyway, thanks so much. This has been so disturbing that sexism is seen as acceptable. When anyone mentions it they are denigrated. If Clinton herself or campaign mentions it she is playing the gender care. (Obama is never inserting the race card. au contraire, the clinton campaign is doing that. Now with this latest "outrage" again what she said is being completely distorted into suggesting that she is waiting for Obama to be assasinated!

Did she say something stupid , or insensitively, or without thinking? yes, she did. But to suggest such a thing, that she is some how counting on his being offed is way over the top. I believe far more grotesque than what she actually said. If you listen to the whole comment in context (which of course isn't being played) and you hear her inflections you can see/hear very clearly what she is saying. Could she have chosen a better example? Certainly, but I think she is discussing with her circle how outrageous it is that people are trying to force her out by citing Bill and Bobby not winning till JUNE... which is what her accent was in her comments and what she has been saying, she wants this to go through all the primaries.

(despite her rhetoric about the convention. This IS politics... helloooo)

I've heard the story again today a few times with the edited clip, emails condemning her, blog comments condemning her, editorials condemning her, the mention that some others have different opinions and no mention of the defense of her by Bobby's son and a mention she appologized but not tape of that.

Meanwhile Obama got a free 1/2 hour of air time on major channels to talk about Wright... which he then lied about... or should I say embellished or changed his earlier statements and some of her later statements when throwing Wright under the bus.

Yes, the media went on and on about it and dii not give him a free pass but did manage to always say of course he doesn't think that way.

OH, one more thing about the Bobby Kennedy thing.

Olberbama... Like our current pResident I cannot bear to say his name anymore.

his "Special comment" (meaning his self indulgent, self righteous spewing his hate of Clinton stated vehemently that the word assasination should not be uttered considering that his family, the anniversary, TeddY, threats to Obama and meantime he is saying the word over and over again. huh?

He also went on and on listing all the things "we have forgiven you for" listing her supposed crimes, imagined or distorted, spoken with such obvious hatred it boggles the mind thaqt he is saying "we have forgiven" when it is beyond apparent that HE didn't!

BTW he has taken down his contact info on his show webpage or if it is still there I can't find it. Guess he doesn't want to hear the protests though it seems he is a hero to many.

Also BTW Clinton has recieved many death threats.

pffttt.

OH NO, I'm sorry, I'm ranting when I wanted to just say thank you and say I agree.

Keep up the good work.

30yrdem
25 May 2008 at 00:24

Thank you for a honest piece. To see someone in the media recognize this and actually write about it means very much to me.

Again, Thank You.

StarDust
25 May 2008 at 01:13

I have noticed that when Obama people, for the most part, in stating the argument to vote for him use expletive words against Hillary and nothing else of any real substance to convince us not to vote for her. I am a Hillary supporter, but I have been very confused by the people who do support Obama. How are we suppose to believe that he and they are not sexist if the language they use to post against her should be bleeped out. I am beginning to think that these people may actually be Hillary supporters, because they sure are doing a very good job at sending us to her. I actually feel much better after coming to this conclusion because it was very hard for me to fathom how anyone could be THAT blind to actually vote for the man.

RandyRanson
25 May 2008 at 01:44

This point of view adds to your excellent description.

The American public blame the Clinton's for giving them George W. Bush, the worst President in the history of the United States. They feel that Bill's infidelity, led to Al Gore not being nominated, thereby, the Clintons are indirectly blamed for the country getting George W. Bush. When all along it was the ignorant voters who made the choice, and now to get directly back at the Clinton's for having George W. Bush as the President, they wish to take it out on Hillary Clinton, who had nothing to do with that election.

That's why the country are ready to vote for an untested unproven candidate, with little or no experience, someone who professes change from old Washington, which means a change that gets away from the likes of George W. Bush, but hidden in that message is another, that says get away from the Clintons too.

The public feel they can hide their guilt in choosing GWB over Al Gore, by closing the book on that era, with a new face. They should remember that George W Bush was a new face, and look what a horrible legacy he left behind him. At least the Clintons, brought in a surplus and brought down the deficit as well as the high record of unemployment. America is in a stupor after the mess George W. Bush has left them with, and Barack Obama is in no way the answer, he's the excuse.

RandyRanson
25 May 2008 at 01:45

This too can be considered along with your apt article.

joy20
25 May 2008 at 02:02

As a white woman of 53 years, I would not vote for Hilary unless it was her against McCain.

Yes, sexism is appearing; good for us to see it and work continuing to change how perceptions influence so many.

Yes, racism is going to come forward again, so let us clear that up further!

Why I cannot vote for her - #1 - she's stood by her man when any sane woman would have left - all the years of his womanizing and she stayed - is not healthy for her or her daughter. So her mental/emotional compromise is something I can't have in the position of power she seeks.

Why I cannot - #2 - she's currently saying stupid things because she's so tired. So, she's not taking care of herself and she's got dirty fighter mode kicking in...

Why I cannot - #3 - continuing #1's theme - she's still married to Bill and he's not going to take on and invent the role - 'first man'. He's too globally focused than to be the domestic diva of the White House.

Many women I know will not vote for her unless it was down to her vs. McCain.

Good luck to us. We're gonna need it - WHOMEVER is elected. The winner may be the loser with all the issues facing the USA in the next few months and years.

Razielnovel
25 May 2008 at 02:31

Great articial!!!! I agree with most of what was written, but I want to add the media particually NBC, MSNBC, don't like Hillary because she"s too conservitive for them or not liberal enough for them. OBAMA IS SO LEFT THAT HE LEFT THE COUNTRY1111111111 if he ever becomes president I will have to leave this country, that I love so much, and cry . Razielnovel

AJ Fish
25 May 2008 at 02:35

joy20 what an enlightened woman you are. Try to get with the 21st century. You know is some backwards countries if a man cheats they shame the woman maybe that's more your speed.

S Billingsley
25 May 2008 at 02:37

Bravo. And thank you. I wish U.S. journalists would take a moment to step back and see what is really going on, and then report on it as you have, Mr. Stephen.

The media continues to go along with the anointing of a nominee before the race is actually over. This being while the race is still statistically very close, and while Hillary Clinton is actually ahead in the popular vote.

Hillary's recent big wins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana (where she came back from a huge deficit to win in Obama's neighboring state, where the county with the highest population in the state is in the Chicago TV news market) are all the more impressive, when you consider the fact that the Obama campaign has been outspending the Clinton campaign many times over on advertising and everything else.

I hope the superdelegates are putting some serious thought into what they are doing. Either candidate would win the big "blue" states, but Hillary has won and done well in the "swing" states, which would very likely go back to McCain if HIllary Clinton is not the nominee for the Democrats. We need a strong candidate who can actually win in the Fall and then use her experience, strength and determination, and thorough understanding of the political system to actually achieve the goals of the Democratic Party. No time for a novice now.

Razielnovel
25 May 2008 at 03:01

I think Howard " The coward" Dean, is in the tank for Obama that if he don't side with Obama, all the secret-muslems would come out of the woodwork and raise hell at the convention in Denver. Howard Dean is also very liberal just like NBC.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:11

The press had been horribly disrespectful of Hillary Clinton. They have been so ridiculous that they have ignored the real issues surrounding Obama and his wife. We speak about them individually, but collectively they paint a fair picture of a very dangerous candidate. Any other candidate would have brought down with these reports, but not so with Obama. I think the reason is the hatred and jealously towards Clinton who has shown incredible grace under pressure and brave leadership. Obama almost looked hysterical the other day when his angry bitter, American white hating wife was attacked. She asked for it and she got it. I have never seen Hillary act so foolish. I am ashamed at the media....do not feel that it can be trusted to provide us with realistic unbiased news coverage. They are a bunch of macho male idiots.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:15

To Joy20:

What ridiculous reasons to not vote for Hillary. You obviously have equally ridiculous reasons to vote for Obama. You aren't voting for her behavior in her marriage through her husband's affair! You aren't voting for her husband. You are and should be voting for her experience and against the experience of this Obama nightmare. Your post was the most silly thing I have read all season.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:19

I am one part of the growing number of democrats that will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Out of all of the elecitons I have read about, and the candidates that have run for the Presidency, Obama better be watched closely, examined and examined again as he is not who he claims to be. This is our country, and we need to protect her with proper information, and a realistic vote FOR experience, not FOR dreams and fancy words that carry nothing behind them but a marxist agenda and black power politics.

Plumb Bob
25 May 2008 at 03:20

Oh, good God in heaven, will you get a damned CLUE?

No figure in US politics has acted in a more consistently dishonest manner than Hillary Clinton. She's thoroughly, wholeheartedly dishonest. One can be certain that no word that comes from her mouth has anything to do with what she genuinely believes, except by coincidence.

It's not possible, in your mind, that the "misogynistic venom" that has been leveled at Hillary Clinton is a reflection of the public attitude about what sort of human being she is, and only incidentally focuses on what gender she is?

Please.

isalam
25 May 2008 at 03:21

The only candidate who was all along opposed to the Iraq war and remains so all through his campaign is Barrack Obama.......this in itself is worth all 'our' support.

When I say 'our' I include all Newstatesman readers.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:23

I never said I liked Hillary. But between her and Obama, she wins. However, there is still much to be revealed about Obama. It isn't all out there yet. He is dangerous, inexperienced and surely, if you cannot see his political hungry power chasing decisions from his choice of churches, friends and etc., you must be drinking dumb juice.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:36

Imroz:

That wasn't a hard decision for Obama. The war against Iraq was an easy vote for him. He is a Muslim, and it was a war against his people, his roots, his race. Evidently you haven't looked at his junior senatorial voting record. But, if you want to really investigate his poor stand on issues; you can find his voting record at votesmart.com. He has avoided most of the issues and a "NV" is entered in the tally. He is such a political opportunist that he didn't want to be recorded as "formed" on an issue that might hurt him in his presidential run.

Then after you read that, of course to be informed fully, you can go to the Finalcall.com interview of Louis Farrakhan. You know the guy don't you, he is The Leader of the Nation of Islame in the US. This interview will place some truth on Obama's intentions and his affiliations. In the interview Farrakhan talks about how he and Dr. Wright and other Muslim leaders have "groomed Obama to be a unifier to save the miserable white race who finds themselves in such a horrible situation". He also calls him his "Muslim brother". If that isn't poof positive of some very rightful concerns, then read on about how Farrakhan hates America, just like Dr. Wright and Michelle Obama. Read on to Obama's counsin Obinga who with Obama's agreement is planning to reintroduce Muslim Sharia Law in Kenya. You know don't you that Obinga is the newly elected co-president of Kenya? Did you know that Obama has many of the Nation of Islam followers on his campaign? Be informed and after you are, ask yourself if these are the associations and the experience you want to lead this country. How could you ever say yes to any of them unless you were brain dead or of the particular religious decent that Obama obviously is. Then there is also the numerous lies and inconsistencies Obama has claimed himself. One simple issue is his name. He claims that his name; "Baraka" is African. Ths is a lie. It is Arabic and comes right out of the Koran and means "blessed". You don't understand the Muslim faith do you? They feel lying to gain power under Allah is allowed. Even Allah lies to spread his faith and acheve his purpose. There are so many Obama lies that it is alarming. Reserach, personal research is needed to investigate these claims. Once completed, you simply cannot but find the truth. After all, a converted Muslim is rejected by other Muslims. Severely rejected and in the Middle East, subject to execution. It isn't as easy as converting from being a Baptist to a Catholic. An apostate Muslim would not be supported by Hamas or any other Muslim leader. I'd say you better think this through a bit more carefully and ignore the fancy but empty speeches of this very dangerous man and hope and pray that while Hillary is not the best democratic choice, she is the only choice. Please protect America.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:47

Hillary can beat McCain. Obama isn't going to get far against McCain. His inexperience is going to be so obvious. Hillary can beat McCain. I will vote for Hillary unless Obama is the nominee. I feel so strongly against Obama that common sense dictates that I will and must vote McCain over Obama. Millions feel the same way. Howard the Dean, has messed up the democratic party and it is in pitiful shape. To think that they anointed Obama is scary. I simply cannot stand by this decision. Hillary has the popular vote...period. She carries the states needed to win against the Republicans...how can it be any clearer than that; they are afraid of a race war if they take a stand. This means that they care more about their party then our country. A fact that has been showing it's ugly head for a long time now. Their ordination of Obama, just proves this fact. Obama is not right or ready to be President of the United States of America. Everything must be done to keep this from happening. More and accurate reporting must be done to expose his political hungry ties and his inexperience and more information on his background is necessary.

Demi
25 May 2008 at 03:51

Even the crowds that seem to follow Obama are lies. He gets in behind a youth event or after a concert event to show a growing hysteria of support. I find this representative of the hysteria he chases to support his image and fame. It is simply not true stuff.

1american
25 May 2008 at 03:53

URGENT: Go to www.dontvoteobama.net before it is too late! AMERICANS need to know the truth.

He must never get into the Whitehouse!!!

stanjks
25 May 2008 at 04:03

Thank you very much for this article. US media is no longer journalism; it is the land of punditry.

The pink elephant is in the room:

Anonymous said...

It's a wonder if the MSN will ever be all over Operation Board Games - It will be a Damn Miracle if they discover it before the Trojan Horse entires the White House - If they wait till after that - then this country will stop dead in its tracks for the next 4 years while we tune into BoardGamesGate. What an absolute disgrace. There must be some way to push this story NOW. Maybe we can all chip in and rent out a cable network for an hour and have a special report run - It is absurd this information is sitting in blogospehre heaven with the majority of the populations clueless.

Rezko is first, who's next?

This trial focused on Tony Rezko, but the prosecution may be focusing on someone else now. Rose said, "These guys always like to work their way up the ladder."

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=900...

In-depth analysis by Evelyn Pringle:

http://www.opednews.com/author/author58.html

The pink elephant is in the room. Will the US media ever talk about it?

VinceP1974
25 May 2008 at 04:10

I was glad to see 3 or 4 comments out there from non-Leftist, like myself, who are viewing this circus with absolutely no surprise.

It should be pointed out that all the dirty tactics mentioned in this article are done by the leftist MSM or Democrats. The Democrats and the Press bathe in Group Identity Politics (like the guy from NY said). they cant even see past their little groups in their own election.

To extrapolate this and describe America, generally, as racist or sexist is without basis. I'm an independent Conservative and would have no problem voting for a woman or minority , provided I agreed with their positions, and that's how most of the conservatives I know would vote.

It's like Democrats have no idea on how to run campaigns without resorting to the tired cliches of branding people racists, sexists. and all the other words they use to silence their opponents.

On blog after blog all you see are the Obama and Clinton people using the exact same arguments against each other as if they are using the same Mad Libs book and filling in the names.

My favorite one has to be . "OMG Clinton/Obama is doing the GOP's dirty work for them"... Ummm . no.. what is new here is that your typical irattional attack behavior has now been turned on each other.

I loved when Clinton released the picture of Obama dressed in tribal gear... and you heard all the Obama people saying "That is just so low... she's no different then the evil Republicans!"

Wow who knew Democrats were so easily manipulated into acting like Republicans! Hillary Clinton, the lying wife of a perjury-committing President calls Gen Peatrus a liar... and Obama , who marinated in the racist enviroment of TUCC in my hometown of Chicago for T W EN T Y YEARS and raise his daughters with those values, calls America racist.

These candidates are so weak (McCain is weak too.. but this article isn't about him)... they accuse others of the character flaws they themselves have ... they are brittle.. unable to handle criticism.. and when they do decide to handle it , it's a big deflection job or a "poor me" act.

Want to hear something racist/sexist... if this is the way woman and black candidates for the Democratic Party are going to act, can you please spare the nation of the indiginity of having to relive the Baby Boomers endless guilty over things that America has progressed beyond decades ago. The rest of us.. especially the generation after the most Self-Absorbed and Irresponsible Generation are sick of it.

Dollayo
25 May 2008 at 04:16

This is great. Will it dawn on any of you democrats that this is what you get when you practice identity politics? Not one policy issue is ever discussed. You fight over DNA and who is offended the most. This election has confirmed to me that I made the right decision in leaving this party. Have fun children.

susanwy
25 May 2008 at 05:00

I sat here reading this blog post and comments tonight listening to the libertarians debate on c-span. While I have been an independent since Reagan, I have leaned left in my national politics for a long time. But, I'm done. I have watched as the democrats have ripped each other apart on, as someone posted above, identity politics. Pathetic absolutely pathetic.

Hillary has been treated unfairly in the campaign, but the MSM just want history and ratings. At some point they decided that the first AA POTUS would bring more ratings and advertising $$ than the first woman. I know one woman in Seattle just like Joy20. She wouldn't vote or even consider Hillary because she stayed with Bill. I did note that when I stayed with them during a recent visit, she slept alone while her husband was confined to the basement. Hmmm, I wonder if she was projecting something...Off the point however.

Meanwhile the libertarians debated the ISSUES. No one snide remark about race, religion or the fine woman candidate they had on stage. And while there is much I disagree with on the libertarian platform, I find there is much I do agree with. They don't want to camp out in my bedroom, make my end of life decisions, tell me what I can or cannot put in my body and they want us out of Iraq now. So, I've made my decision...if Obama is the nominee, I'm voting Libertarian. Live Free or Die (right)? They can't possible screw this country up worse than the dem/repubs.

AJ Fish
25 May 2008 at 05:22

On all you blaming the Democrats for identity politics, watch when Obama goes against McCain. It will not be about issues because Obama cannot talk issues. He is running on the fact that he wrote a book about himself. It's total identity.

Hillary tried to debate issues but Obama and the pathetic self-hating Democrats just wanted to get into personal attacks and calling everybody racist.

Just wait.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 06:25

Most of the democratic primaries have not been about issues, A.J. ... I doubt that Obama would not want to debate issues, he has tried on a number of occasions. And remember the comments coming from the Clinton campaign, including Mr. Clinton, used racist epithets and banter... not the Obama campaign. Nevertheless I wouldn't vote for any of the two, I think Obama could if he wanted to ignore the tepid comments and continue on the issues, if he was the candidate of change, which he is not.

VinceP1974
25 May 2008 at 06:27

Obama seems to spend more time telling all of us about what he will not permit to be discussed then he does speaking in specifics.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 06:53

yeah ok, well if can't give specifics its because the crap Hillary's camp is spewing, including the recent comment about Obama being assassinated, again I wouldn't vote for him either, but don't blame one or the other, they both suck, and this election is a farce...none of the candidates are bringing up issues important to the public nor pursuing policies which the public is demanding.

ohmercy
25 May 2008 at 06:57

Avedon and Washington LC

and others.

As far as Obama being more liberal than Hillary.

ummm... no.

I forget the group, but some non partisan group who does these kinds of studies ranked Obama right in the middle. 49 I think. Hillary was ranked around 26 I think so in fact Clinton is more liberal than Obama and not by a skimpy margin.

It seems fitting that O is smack dab in the middle since he is someone who has a reputation for not taking a stand on anything.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 07:09

Obama seems to be taking a radical stance on diplomacy and foreign policy, lets see if the Hillary camp can ever tow away from the bushy policy of scorched earth in the middle east. Thats a stand and very distinct one!!!! Quit with the banter man, lets talk about the real issues.

Silvia
25 May 2008 at 07:22

This is about the best analysis that i have read to date about the elections in America. Excellent Job in pointing the spotlight on their very incapable media (which by the way cheered their boys up to go to Iraq as if they were sending them to a picnic in the Middle East. What a bunch of incapable coonies ) whose only business is to spew their opinions around and do no research or reporting. Are they lazy? Must be all that obesity that made them that lazy.

It is a shame that the first serious political fight between a woman and African-American has been rigged by the media. It seems to me that every time someone criticizes Mr. Obama, he or she is accused of racism, and that's the killer dagger in the heart. Once you are prounced racist, you are done, cooked, finished. Very clever from the Obama folks. Could that work against the republicans? I don't think they care about being called racists, the republicans that is.

I guess it is permissible to call a woman politician a bitch and whore, which is basically calling an African-American a nigger. I get the American news channels on my cable and it seems that it is even funny for them because they laugh about it all the time. I wonder if one of those laughing boys called Obama a nigger how fast he would be pulled off the air. Something to pander about, indeed.

Women have a long way to go in America. Surely, the Tories would have never ever allowed Miss Thatcher to be called a whore or a bitch on the air or the press. I remember when she was our prime minister, the Tories were like hyenas defending her honor against sexism and they even built a mythical image for her as the "Iron Woman."

Sisters in America, i advise you to ditch the two-party system as the boys with their fascination for everything phallic would never allow you to be part of their exclusive male-only club. Get a parliamentary system where you can build a protective wall around you and make those dirty boys work for you once you get enough seniority.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 07:31

Stop IT!!!!! Listen sylvia you just said n*gger and for what.... discussing politics, anyone who called anyone a B*tch or **ore, isn't rational, and isn't doing much in terms of the issues including sylvia, you crazy person.

midwayblues
25 May 2008 at 07:33

Hilary, why don't you run as an Independent and become the President of this country, Democrats, Independents and a lot of the Republican votes? You know you could win

Silvia
25 May 2008 at 07:45

I am sorry Neatman if i offended you, but i think it is your media who has called Miss Clinton a whore and a bitch. You are being hysterical a bit, don't you think so? I was just pointing the fact that to me a bitch, whore and nigger are the same vilifying terms. The first two enslave us and reduce us, women, to pure sexual objects to be possessed for pure sexual satisfaction of you men, the last one reduces black men to pure working machines for the economic satisfaction of also men.

Now, don't go hysterical on me again. It's just the reality of your situation and in your country.

I love how Americans go around lecturing people with their stern language.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 07:55

O sorry miss S. I didn't know you were english, i wasn't being hysterical. That term N**ger is associated with the suppression of the African American, since reconstruction. Lynchings, segregation, and continued suppression and isolation, till this day. And I agree with you it is embedded in our society, no matter who hard we try to erase it, it's impossible. Though I'd hate to keep racism to our country, it was most prominent in Europe.

Silvia
25 May 2008 at 08:11

Do you think i am an ignorant of your history?

I do know the history of your country very well Mr. Neatman. I graduated from Berkeley University in late 1970s. I am very familiar with the toxicity and the meaning of the word nigger.

However, you have to understand that on that side of the Atlantic Ocean or this side here, to me the word whore, bitch and nigger have the same level of toxicity. If you don't mind your political media calling a woman running for president a whore and a bitch, well you are showing a high level of mental compartmentalization and that is a pure product of your societal pressures and culture. Whore =Okay, Bitch = Okay, Nigger =NO. What is this reasoning? Whoever calls a woman a whore and bitch is calling a black man a nigger. You might not hear him/her saying uttering that word, but s/he is thinking about it all that time.

neatman
25 May 2008 at 08:35

Ok now I think your a little hysterical, when did I ever say **ore or **tch were appropriate terms, or "okay", anyway i think its trivial comparing or equating those slurs and with all due respect, stupid; in particular racial slurs are not as common as those such as **tch or **ore, nevertheless, this isn't a helpful disscussion, but to settle it, I totally agree with you our media sucks, and we do need to reform some of our democratic institutions. And get rid of the two "viable" parties, for something more productive.

demnolonger
25 May 2008 at 09:26

Thank you for this article Mr. Sullivan. You have unveiled our dirty little secret. Senator Obama's supporters are indeed largely complicit in this strategy. They know full well that their candidate is fatally flawed but their tenuous collective manhood is inexorably tied to his campaign.

They're loath to give up the one demographic they can still bash with abandon and they are willing to sacrifice our country in the process.

Sadly we have produced legions of ineffectual, sophomoric geldings and we just might have to suffer the consequences of their inadequacies.

RzS
25 May 2008 at 10:04

Thank you for the article.

Although Hilary is far from perfect, I'm on her camp & have put up w/ quite a few demeaning jokes & comments. I'm ashamed of the disrespect & hate showed women by the press, Obama supporters, Republicans & Democrats alike, & even other women who have absorbed , from the culture, this self-hating attitude.

I will not vote for Obama, McCain, Paul, or any other of the availabe candidates. They're not there for me.

Obama is as vacuous as any politician could ever be.

I do believe Obama 's campaign of divide & conquer seems right out of Carl Rove's universe of "dark matter".

The Country suffers in the end. We've lost the respect of most other countries, we've made more enemies around the world w/ our insane wars than we have guns or military might.

Only Hilary can deal with this mess and bring it under control, if the powers that be will allow her.

I don't approve all of her ideas and didn't approve all of my Mom's ideas either. But they both know how to bring their universe to order.

AAwoman
25 May 2008 at 11:36

I completely agree with this article. I am an African American woman and I was really proud of both candidates at first. I felt that if Obama became president it would have been great because there would be the first AA president and also the first AA first lady. I actually identified more with Michelle than Senator Barack. If Hillary became the President it would be great because we would have the first female President. So the issue of gender and race was nullified for me and I began paying attention to the issues immediately. I eagarly watched th SC debate expecting to be proud of Obama since I knew nothing about him. I saw him attack Hillary first too. I also thought accusing Hillary and Bill of racism was unfair. I thought it was stupid for him to play the race card when the Hillary camp had a bigger one, Pastor Wright. Obama played the race card King and the Clinton camp had the Big Joker. I initially thought the problems I had incurred in the world were only due to race. Now I realize that I too must suffer from sexism after watching the horrible media coverage of this race. I am also ashamed of how racist and disrespectful the black community has behaved. They turned against the very people who helped the black community. I don't think they realize they have set race relations back 100 years. I have been able to see how unelectable Obama is and feel the Hillary is the best chance the democratic party has of getting elected this fall. If she is not the nominee I will vote republican for the first time in my life. I no longer trust the judgement of the DNC and unfortunately beileve that McCain is the better candidate between he and Obama. I really think the democratic party will be crushed after this election. If they fear an uprising from AA's they will get a bigger backlash from Working Class Whites and it will be their own fault. Everyone knows the superdelegates are the ones who will choose the nominee. If they choose the weakest candidate, loose and things get worst, they will have a huge backlash.

PragmatismRules
25 May 2008 at 14:03

Obama is a spineless incompetent and will never get the vote of this independent voter!

VinceP1974
25 May 2008 at 15:35

"I do believe Obama 's campaign of divide & conquer seems right out of Carl Rove's universe of "dark matter". "

This is what I was talking about earlier.. the Democrats unleash the hounds on each other... and then say "OMG, you're acting like a Republican"

Do you Dems really think these tactics aren't your bread and butter?

In the past I have said to the Clinton supporters.. now you know what it is like for Republicans when the MSM actively works against you.

And I have said to the Obama people.. now you know what it is like to be a Republican in the 90s when the Clintons were fighting for their lives and doing anything to win.

Hows it feel folks?

And btw ... neither Obama nor Hillary are acting like Karl Rove... please think for yourselves people and actually research your candidates.

Both Hillary and Obama are disciples of Saul Alinsky a radical Leftist in Chicago who wrote "Rules for Radicals"

Hillary wrote her thesis about him , titled "There is Only the Fight".

Indeed.

I have to laugh at these Karl Rove conspiray theories... and cry over the utter stupidity of those who utter them.

Time Mag wrote of Alinsky's method:

“In his [Alinsky’s] view, the end of achieving power justifies a range of means…If the occasion requires, Alinsky’s forces will not refrain from spreading rumors about an antagonist or indulging in something that comes very close to blackmail.”

Hillary decided that working in the streets of Chicago wasn't glamorious for her , so she moved onto other ways to climb the ladder of power.

Obama came to Chicago to work in the streets as a "Community Organizer"... a disciple of the agitation methods of Alinksy.

Here is an exerpt from an article describing the relation between Obama and Alinsky's princples... is not Michelle Obama following the script perfectly?

"The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease."

Here is more from the same article [the article is titled Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu on American Thinker]

Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago.

Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community.

Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

==========================

Thank you Democrats for choosing these people. The contempt is mutual.

OldLeprechaun
25 May 2008 at 15:54

Mr. Stephan-

You seem willing to attribute various reasons why we white American men refuse to support Senators Clinton or Obama. The reason is quite simple; they are both ardent Marxists.

Kathryn
25 May 2008 at 16:12

JOY

So you do not believe that marriage vows should be honored? You do not believe in redemption? Forgiveness? Maintaing your marriage through better and WORSE?

People like you are the very reason we have a divorce rate of nearly 50%. People make mistakes and married couples who believe in their vows and HONOR them work through problems, like affairs, and their love grows stronger and their marriage bond grows beyond the failings and is the richer for it. I admire Hillary for staying and working through it in counselling, they clearly are very happy now, you can see it when they are together. People have faults, Bill Clinton would be the first to admit he had many. She forgave him and their family is intact and their marriage is obviously stronger because of it.

Chetan
25 May 2008 at 16:38

I feel so sad for this world that we are still terrified by women. When are we going t realize that we all have part man part woman in us?

Politics is a nasty game, mostly played out by people who have some major imbalance within them, thus wanting to put their power over others into effect.

Thank you for a balanced and fresh view of a stereotypic situation.

Come on America! We can do better!

Este316
25 May 2008 at 17:00

This isn't about sexism in the media. This is about Hillary Clinton waging a nasty little campaign that's backfired on her and now blaming Obama and the media of sexism thru surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro. Puleeze! This woman is a blue blood who has had advantages and access to power that I as a working white schmuck will never enjoy. So please don't play the "sexism" card. She's scorching the earth in a desperate bid to win and her RFK assassination remarks are deplorable. She will lose not because of sexism but because she doesn't deserve to win.

demnolonger
25 May 2008 at 19:15

My apologies Mr. Stephen, for referring to you earlier as Mr. Sullivan.

My thanks to VinceP1974 for proving Mr. Stephen's point.

Luvit125
25 May 2008 at 19:59

VinceP1974

I see you like long lists so i got one for all you Oblama Loving republican book smear quoting right wing movie watching arseholes. If Oblama ever ( I know he wont) gets the presidency. These same voices you DUMMIES like to quote will have a whole new set of hit jobs on that thing he calls a wife and his bigtime associations with the scum of the EARTH louie faraqua. So heres the list for you.

Obama Lies - Quick Glance

OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES as of April 03, 2008

(68 lies and counting)

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I Won Michigan - LIAR, no you didn't.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don't Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I don't Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other people's words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you won't wear a flag pin and you don't put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.

49.) My Wife Didn't Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife's words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn't Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company - LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.

52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair - LIAR, your wife's pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%!

53.)I Barely Know Rezko - Only 5 Billed Hours - LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko's wife buys the lot beside it that you can't afford, saving you $625,000.

54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly - LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko (first $66K, then when caught lying $86K, then when caught lying again $150K and now caught lying YET AGAIN OBAMA, it's $250k) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.

55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.

56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.

57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko - LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him.

58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright's, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said "Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did."

59.) The Passport Invasion is a conspiracy to find dirt on me! - LIAR. Your own Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor is the CEO of the company that looked into your records. PS - You had them look into yours to hide the fact you looked into Clinton's and McCain's more than a year before!

60.) Rev. Meeks has nothing to do with my campaigning - LIAR. Rev. Meeks appeared in ads for your Senate Campaign, donated to you, and helped raise money, then AND NOW. PS - He also seems to despise America.

61.) My wife didn't mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - LIAR. Again, MicHELLe's comments perfectly sync with Wright's, Meeks', and Farrakhans, both in language, anger, and direction.

62.) I am very Anti-Terror - LIAR. [03/30/2008] One of your good pals is long time radical and terrorist William Ayers, with whom you have been seen in the last 12 months and who has helped the now jailed khalidi, Professor at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to the University, to raise money for Palestinian terrorism attacks against Israel. PS - Your church published a pro Hamas Manifesto - guess you weren't there on THAT Sunday either? How lucky for you.

63.) I have the best plan to cure the Mortgage Crisis - LIAR. [03/30/2008] You and your campaign buddy Penny SubPrime Bank Collapse Prizker have had your little fingers full of subprime cash - Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans: Obama received $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly NOT LEAST - Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. I am sure that cash all came from folks who knew the subprime loan they had was a dream, eh?

64) I played greater role in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion - LIAR - [03/31/2008] It was found that Obama -- the day after sitting for the interview -- filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama's own handwritten notes added to one answer. Read Obama had greater role on liberal survey

65) I did NOT play the race card: - LIAR - [03/31/2008] Obama was the first to play the race card. According to Phialdelphia Inquirer, Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the "black" candidate. Read more here

66) I did not take money from oil companies: - LIAR - [03/31/2008]

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn't take money from PACs. He also doesn't take money from lobbyists.

But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals.

Two of Obama's fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. Source: Associated press via Yahoo News

67) "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month. - LIAR - But yesterday, he told a different story. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

68) Look at my education record in Illinois - LIAR - In reality, Obama never really championed the local councils. He supported them behind the scenes and only eventually came out publicly on their behalf. When he did weigh in, he came down on the wrong side of the debate--against protecting principals from unwarranted dismissals and in favor of keeping councils independent, no matter what. In the end, the resolution of the conflict between the two sides didn't alleviate anyone's concerns. Instead, it prolonged a turf battle that seems to have dragged down academic progress in the years since. Read more here. Source: slate.com

Source: ABC News: Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

This is the LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES. Updated to reflect new dishonesties.

The Audacity Of Hypocrisy .

rodmc
25 May 2008 at 22:56

No politician is perfect, but so far the Republicans have held their fire on Obama. However this was part of their plan, i.e. get rid of Clinton (the one most likely to win) and leave the weaker one to run for President - then of course go after him. This is after all a man who has been forced on several occasions to clarify or update his autobiography. Just wait, the gloves are not off yet and when they are the only option will be a Republican victory. There are too many vested interests to let any old Democrat in.. once they have smelt the oil they are unlikely to give it up too easily...

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 03:45

Luvit125:

I support none of these nitwits running for office... and I oppose the Marxist Obama most of all.

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 03:48

demnolonger

25 May 2008 at 19:15

"My thanks to VinceP1974 for proving Mr. Stephen's point."

Hmmm so someone claiming that Bill and Hillary have this great loving passionate relationship with absolutely no evidence to back it up should go unchallenged because Hillary is a woman?

This is the insanity of the Left and their identity politics.

Sorry, I dont play your stupid game... all candidates are fair game.. and I certainly will speak the truth when lies about the liar are told.

Thank you for being so typically mindlessly thoughtless.

tomkat
26 May 2008 at 03:53

I have been riding the Hillary train since the beggining of the Primaries. I even stayed on the train when Bill and Hillary were race bating thinking it was a clever way to win a race. But now Hillary and Bill are claiming SEXISM. They are hypocrites, and I am getting off of the Train: NOW!

demnolonger
26 May 2008 at 05:10

VinceP1974, this article is about sexism and the dolts that will support an inferior candidate because of it. You have no personal knowledge of the Clinton's relationship and you must think us fools to purport that you do and expect us to give your ramblings any weight.

But since you're so willing to believe drivel and hearsay, I have a bridge you and tomkat can bid on. Just jump off his train when you get there.

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 06:18

If Democrats want to insist that their party is full of sexists... so be it.

I'm not a sexist, so Hillary gets no kid-glove treatment from me.

We do agree on Obama's lightweight-ness.

Have you seen this video of him showing off his crotch to the Press? It's revolting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F45rXyuTZjo

Susan B
26 May 2008 at 13:59

Thank you, Andrew Stephen!

And to the Hillary-haters out there, maybe you need to trust the American media less, study some history, and begin thinking for yourself.

Susan B
26 May 2008 at 14:19

P.S. VinceP's diatribe against Obama is equally pernicious as the sexism against Hillary, and does nothing but feed fuel to the notion that Hillary supporters are racists.

We all need to stop demonizing and use our brains. That's why Andrew Stephens is one of the few voices of reason out there. Thank you again. As an American feminist--one of those out-of it "older women" who support Hillary--I appreciate your saying what the American press is too cowardly and/or sexist to say. I DONT appreciate it when Hillary supporters do exactly the same sort of thing to Obama that others have done to her. That sort of thing only gives (in most cases, ill-informed yet potent) ammunition to the racists.

factsonlyplz
26 May 2008 at 14:40

Of the media, CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times and the Associated Press are particularly noted for the lack of authenticity trueness or reliability in their political reporting. These jerk-offs feed off one another’s misogynistic crudeness and propaganda, and we long ago accepted that and give them the respect & belief they deserve.

My family will never vote for Obama. Our decision isn’t based on race or gender but on sober consideration of his qualifications, history; basic philosophy per his autobiography, actions & associations; inexperience; & demonstrated immaturity. Obama as president could be a recipe to disaster. Even more important, all evidence indicates that Obama has no liking for America & Americans, & we believe that aside from his lack of other qualifications this precludes any possibility that we could ever choose him.

factsonlyplz
26 May 2008 at 14:42

Susan B
26 May 2008 at 16:07

Actually, I see now that it was "LuvIt" who came up with the long list of "Obama's Lies," which I incorrectly attributed to VinceP.

Jessica
26 May 2008 at 16:20

I thought that this was a very well-written article.

I, pessimistically, have assumed that the rampant sexism that appeared throughout this primary season just meant that America wasn't yet ready to deal with sexism, to root it out. So, I'm curious about your statement that we "will have to account for our sins." What do you think will happen? Do you really believe that we will do something about sexism, and that by it rising to the top right now, we'll be able to get rid of some of it? I more fear that it's just become the status-quo, and that it'll take even more effort in the future to move beyond our gender binaries.

Claire
26 May 2008 at 17:43

This is the single most lucid article on this electoral race that I have yet read. As a woman and also as a person who has never yet been turned on by demagogic speakers (they are always dangerous and so they scare me, whether they are on the left or the right). Since Hitler, I mistrust them.

Sarah
26 May 2008 at 17:54

Keith - a large majority of women do not find the nutcracker or the KFC special to be "good natured". They truly are strong examples of sexism. Please do not speak for us.

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 19:03

I love how Susan is all against demonization and then falsely accuses me of posting a perfectly legitimate list of Obama problems and EVEN WORSE implies I support Hillary.

That is the mind of a Democrat.. "If not A then B".. "If Anti-A Then Hater"

Watching Obama and Clinton supporters attack the critics of thier candidates has been really enlightening... It seems the entire Democratic Party voter base are nothing but brittle emotional children, who read out of the same Mad Libs playbook, just changing the names.

It's getting old.

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 19:13

antileft : This isn't about me. I guess you see nothing wrong with Obama showing off hard-on in his pants to women reporters.

oooo-kay.

Susan B
26 May 2008 at 19:22

I totally agree with Claire, both about the article and about demagogic speakers. Not to mention herd-mentality thinking. There's been way too much of that in the Obama phenomenon. Every time he says "This is about you, not me. And together we will change the world!" I shudder.

Susan B
26 May 2008 at 19:28

Vince: I never suggested that you were a Hillary supporter. Don't be so narcissistic as to imagine that every comment in my post was about you. As to the list of "Obama lies," it's loaded with unsupported bile peppered with a few well-substantiated accuracies.

BalconesFalk
26 May 2008 at 19:47

Andrew, I appreciated your insignts. Here are a few of my own as an American Hillary supporter:

Presidential politics has come to a sad pass when instead of rational debate, educating the voters about the issues and proposing programs to solve our dearth of problems, that so much valuable broadcast media time is devoted to plucking one word from a candidate's one-on-one televised interview, focusing attention on it in the extreme, and creating a sensationalized spectacle.

Senator Clinton was repeatedly asked why she was being asked to drop out. She came up with the examples of previous primaries that had remained undecided in June. She mentioned two races, one her husband, Bill Clinton's, and the RFK campaign that ended when he was assassinated. Even Barack Obama found no ill intent in her remark. She might as well have added President Carter whose nomination was decided at the convention before he went on to win the presidency.

The outlandish performance by Keith Olbermann was a disgrace to the profession of journalism. He came off like a drama queen according to an Obama supporter I know. His over-reaction even made her wince. Olbermann and others like him are highly paid talking heads for national cable networks. They apparently have no shame when it comes to unilaterally savaging one candidate as if de facto surrogates for her opponent. News, like entertainment, has sponsors, with fees based on ratings. Ratings make money. Tasteless hucksterism increases rating. "If it bleeds, it leads," at the national level

Inexplicably a few days earlier, Mike Huckabee, in a speech before a convention, upon hearing a loud sound, quipped that it must be someone taking a shot at Obama. Somehow this racist tinged assassination imagery didn't raise an eyebrow in the media. Oh, someone said, but he is not a candidate any more, as if that excuses the blind-news-eye averted from such an allusion to murder. It was at an NRA convention.

Is it somehow acceptable for a man to joke about an imagined assassination attempt but unacceptable for a women candidate who being repeatedly badgered to explain why she thinks she is being pressured to drop out uses the word "assassinated" in establishing a time line for other presidential candidates whose primary races went to the month of June.

The story that needs to be written after this campaign becomes history must examine the vicious sexist campaign that was waged against Hillary Clinton by cable news networks and the press. As the only woman in the race, it began when her poll figures were running 20 points ahead of her remaining opponent. What makes it all the more odious is that the sexism appeared to become pattern of offensive as though sport. It was generally met with a shrug and seemingly taken for granted.

Who is the arbiter over broadcast conduct in the interest of propriety? Network executives? No way--outrage boosts ratings. Did anyone in the Democratic Party leadership take the commentators to task by coming to Hillary's defense? Not a peep. How about the FCC? What ever happened to the Fairness Doctrine? Think of the uproar if Obama had been the butt of similarly ubiquitous racist attacks. By comparison the sexist attacks appeared to be perfectly acceptable.

Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder and Geraldine Ferraro reported that they endured ridicule, belittling and continuous deprecation when they ran for the presidency. Shirley Chisholm, who embodied both being a woman and black, concluded that sexism had been far worse than racism. She maintained that it had detracted from her ability to campaign effectively, to get her message out and go after the votes, moreso than race. She believes that sexism marginalized and sidelined her campaign.

Now comes Hillary Clinton, with name identification comparable to Jesus according to one wag, and her front runner status is inexorably chipped away through a barrage of unwarranted sexist attacks. Meanwhile her opponent enjoys hands off reverence. The contrast in their treatment by the press was palpable. Even men noticed and remarked on the sexism aimed at her. Many women stopped turning on their television sets.

Close to 18 million voters were undeterred, they voted for Senator Clinton despite the cant of the media detractors whose motive bespoke flexing their power, self aggrandizement and democracy be damned. Attempting to sway public opinion--becoming the story instead of honorably reporting it--the impact exerted on public opinion multiplies exponentially over the public air waves. No candidate has ever had to endure the damage dealt Senator Clinton and still she won more votes than any candidate in history!

Even handicapped by the news media and outspent many times over by her opponent she finishes with a resounding popular vote victory. As this horse race nears the finish line--the two opponents run neck and neck. I hope that when the Delegates assemble in convention and their votes are finally cast and counted, that she emerges to take her rightful place atop a dream ticket. She is smart enough, tough enough and experienced enough to make a great president. With the two candidates pulling together for the General Election the Democrats could sweep all fifty states. Then we would have sixteen years to repair this great nation, to restore our vibrant economy and revive our beleaguered Constitution. It is the right thing to do.

Best,

BalconesFalk

Ginny
26 May 2008 at 20:16

Thanks Stephan! But, to be fair, like a great athelete, Hillary has tried every angle and every move to win. She has spun the gun, race, religion and gender issues as far as she might - but not beyond what was fair play and to get the opportunity to push the causes she has always fought for: Social Justice and a secure and well working America. The bottom line on this "treatment" issue, though, is that black folks are not going to walk away from this primary feeling cheated and maligned - women are.

Obama supporters - YOU who are ALREADY trying to blame Hillary for their loss in Novemember -thremeber how well you were treated by us Hillary supporters while you face the repbulicans. We know the truth when will you?.

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 22:50

Susan

Well if you didnt' like the other list, then here's another one for you.

Each lie is documented at the webstie.

Remember.. this is Mr. Uniter.. Mr. Hope and Change. Mr. New Politics.

Mr. Fraud.

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/

"Obama's Disgraceful Trail of Documented Lies: 50 and growing longer"

50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement

49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan

48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright

47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story

46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC

45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"

44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo

43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove

42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did

41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation

40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer

39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did

38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel

37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he lied since 86

36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA

35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality

34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos

33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies

32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied

31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru

30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies

29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people

28 Obama tells verifiable lie #28: This time its about THAT flag

27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him

26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion

25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice

24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement

23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!

22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied

21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted

20 Claimed would not run for President

19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins

18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth

17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003

16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill

15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied

14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied

13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed

12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit

11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice

10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied

9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times

8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story

7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital

6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him

5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree

4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied

3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige

2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied

1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied

psnow@maine.rr.com
26 May 2008 at 22:58

Mr. Stephen,

Thank you, profoundly, for saying this so well. Watching this has broken my heart, and what you describe is what I see. Can't really hold it against Obama for taking the advantage and running with it, but if he wins, he's kidding himself if he thinks it's been a level playing field. There has been a double standard, and despite it Senator Clinton has gotten seventeen million votes. She's my hero for taking the heat for women everywhere, for the future generation of female leaders, and for men who want their roles and opportunities broadened as well. "When you liberate a woman, you liberate a man."-Margaret Mead

VinceP1974
26 May 2008 at 23:19

"She's my hero for taking the heat for women everywhere"

What does a statement like that even mean.. can you explain?

emmagold
27 May 2008 at 01:29

As a Briton who hasn't (as I should possibly be ashamed about) been paying very much attention to the Presidential race I found the article very interesting. It especially reinforced my own long-held belief/perception (as a white Jewish woman) that racism is seen as MUCH more important and serious as sexism.

While reading all the comments I was particularly struck by the following (notes I made while reading them): "Obama supporters are voting NOT for what he's DONE - they don't KNOW what he's done - just cos he's young and male!". What a trivial reason for voting for someone who - if he wins - will have the power to affect what happens not only in America but also the rest of the world.

"Bullseye target/Hillary's face in centre as urinal target"(!!) How disgusting and woman-hating! This just PROVES the sexism shown by some people in this election; can you imagine OBAMA'S face in a similar position? (not, of course, that that would make it acceptable to have Hillary's face but still).

"Wish Hillary had married OJ"(!!); ANOTHER very woman-hating comment! Why is it apparently seen as acceptable to make such comments about women?

Someone said Bush was elected in 2000 as a reaction to Clinton's behaviour (I think; didn't make a note about that). From this side of "the pond" we heard that he was elected IN ERROR because of the "hanging chads" system which, among other effects, meant that the votes of some Jews were counted for an openly anti-Semitic candidate; why would any Jews knowingly and intentionally vote for someone like that? Their votes were obviously counted wrongly and so might many others have been. We also heard that Bush's brother (or cousin), disenfranchised all the Black voters in Florida (under the -obviously false - pretext that they were criminals; some may have been but I'm sure not ALL of them were) because he knew they would vote for Gore. I also heard that, before the result was clear, another relative of Bush's, the president of (I think) Fox, "called it" for Bush thereby more-or-less forcong Gore's hand to concede to him. In my very strong opinion, therefore, Bush CHEATED his way to the Presidency; sorry if that's offensive to Americans.

Finally; an awful lot of commenters have said that if Obama is the Democrat candidate they'll vote Republican. As a Briton who feels VERY strongly against the Iraq invasion, including the fact that the terrorist attacks we suffered in London (I'm a Londoner) in July 2005 were related to this), could I make a VERY strong plea for you not to do this? I understand he's Bush Mark 2; don't you think we've had long enough of Bush Mark 1?!

demnolonger
27 May 2008 at 01:52

emmagold,

We can vote for a Republican this time without fear because John McCain is a well known moderate. He has to pander to his conservative base, but I don't believe he will stay in a war that is this futile.

Any other Republican would be DOA, but a perfect storm had McCain bowing out in 2000 to get the nod this year.

If Obama gets the nomination, this liberal Democrat will have no problem voting for John McCain.

bells
27 May 2008 at 02:01

Thank you so much for this article. So many Americans have an uninformed and irrational dislike of Senator Clinton that I believe is largely the result of being brainwashed by our own media. What has been done to Hillary Clinton will not be forgotten by millions of women when the election takes place in November.

robin
27 May 2008 at 03:01

Thank you so much for this insightful article and validation of what so many are feeling. I think the sexism goes back even further, to when Hillary . Clinton tried to forge a new role as a first lady by working on healthcare instead of "having teas" as Obama has tried to define her experience in the white house.

You speak of civil unrest by african americans, but there is a large undercurrent of rage simmering and slowly starting to emerge among women due to this election. There is an underground movement called the "quiet riot" , who will protest vote for McCain. Also there is the women's PAK who put out the ads in USA & the NY times.

In addition to their fury at the Obama campaign, these women are furious with the mistreatment of Hillary by the democratic party, as well as the party's total disregard of them, and their belief they will fall in line around Obama if he is the nominee. African americans make up about 18 % of the dem. vote. Women constitute over half of the vote, plus are largely responsible for grass roots org.

The democrats are in trouble if Hillary is not the nominee. Robin

ethereal_girl@comcast.net
27 May 2008 at 03:48

If you don't get this article about woman hating.....you probably hate women. Ask yourself if you someone referred to Obama with the "N" word what would happen?

Rioting in the streets in many cities. So why is it acceptable to disparage Hillary Clinton without a second thought? Male sexist attitudes that's why. Bill Clinton used poor judgment, but use your brain, Hillary is not Bill Clinton.

If Barak Obama were white he'd be sooooo gone with his ultra liberal ideology. So he's being voted for because he's the token black. Isn't it prejudice to vote for or against someone because of their race?

Georgemeredith
27 May 2008 at 03:56

Mr. Stephen has got it right on all counts. He only forgot to mention the collusion of the Democratic Party in the ordination of the unqualified Obama. In addition to the DNC's anvil chorus ("Defer to the man, b****"), they let Obama singlehandedly veto any proposal to count FL and MI votes or delegates. As of now two of our 50 states have no voice in the nomination. If they get one before the fall, it will be too late to have a say in the nomination. I will hold Mr. O personally responsible for that theft of democracy. And no, I will not be voting for him (and I am a lifelong Democrat who has never missed an election... or should I say, "was"?).

PacificGatePost
27 May 2008 at 04:07

The imbalance on Hillary Clinton in the media was evident even when she was the front runner and Oprah hadn't yet shone her light on Obama.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/media-imbalance-...

Mister Snitch
27 May 2008 at 07:00

sooooo.... all the Bush-bashers REALLY hate MEN.

DeppDogg
27 May 2008 at 07:11

Not only an excellent piece of actual JOURNALISM, but well researched and backed up by cited facts. Well done Mr. Stephen. Bravo.

As for Keith in SA, you missed the point of the article. No one asked whether or not you liked Hillary Clinton and I doubt if anyone eligible to vote cares one way or the other. The article is about the existence and practice of sexism in American politics as illustrated in this campaign. If you are, indeed, thoroughly read, I assume you've read the postings which I will not repeat here for propriety reasons but which are some of the most vile and reprehensible pieces of filth that I have ever seen.

We all get that you don't like the woman.

Some 17+ million of us (and counting) like her a great deal. So what.

Read the article again. Maybe you'll understand what it's about.

"Mr. or Ms. Shakebooty" -- I would respond to your ridiculous comment and suggest that you're both ignorant and offensive -- but I think your post makes those points all by itself. But thank you for your reasoned and well thought-out comments. Really thought provoking. You could have a future on MSNBC. I would forward your blog post to them immediately. You're just what they're looking for.

DeppDogg
27 May 2008 at 07:15

Not only an excellent piece of actual JOURNALISM, but well researched and backed up by cited facts. Well done Mr. Stephen. Bravo.

As for Keith in SA, you missed the point of the article. No one asked whether or not you liked Hillary Clinton and I doubt if anyone eligible to vote here (USA) cares one way or the other. The article is about the existence and practice of sexism in American politics as illustrated by this campaign. If you are, indeed, thoroughly read, I assume you've read the flood of web postings which I will not repeat here for propriety reasons but which are some of the most vile and reprehensible pieces of filth that I have ever seen.

Anyway, we all get that you don't like the woman. That's your privilege (even though largely irrelevant).

Some 17+ million of us (and counting) like her a great deal. So what. That's not the topic of the article.

Maybe you should read it again. It's fairly straight-forward and even has a title, usually a good clue to the topic addressed therein.

To "Mr. or Ms. Shakebooty" -- I would respond to your comment and suggest that you're both ignorant and offensive -- but I think your post makes those points all by itself. But thank you for your reasoned and well thought-out comments. Really thought provoking. You could have a future on MSNBC. I would forward your blog post to them immediately. You're just what they're looking for.

exit21
27 May 2008 at 11:47

Demi, have you no sense of irony? Did it not occur to you as a Hillary supporter that it might be inappropriate to post a vicious attack on Obama's wife as a comment on a report about sexist abuse?

Susan B
27 May 2008 at 12:31

PsNow said it very well: "Can't really hold it against Obama for taking the advantage and running with it, but if he wins, he's kidding himself if he thinks it's been a level playing field." Absolutely. He'd also overcome some of the resentment against him if he acknowledged the endurance of sexism, even in the campaign, in the same way he acknowledged the endurance of racism. I don’t believe it would lose him any of his “base,” and I think it would bring a lot of Hillary-supporters (not the racists, of course, but he’s not going to get them, anyway) over to him.

RE. voting for McCain, nomatter how pissed I get, I’d never consider not voting for Obama in the election. Which isn’t to say that I haven’t gotten progressively more disenchanted with him. But disenchanted is one thing, letting the Republicans win is another. Emotions are running hot right now, and for good reason. (If Obama had been treated the way Hillary has, there would be race riots.) But Obama is NOT McCain--just consider their different stands on reproductive rights, for one thing--and we need not to forget that.

Thanks again for this article, Mr. Stephens, and also for all the intelligent and astute comments on this blog. It's been depressing and frightening to see my own country, once again, behaving in a mindless, irrational, way. It helps to hear rational voices from over the ocean.

KendallJ
27 May 2008 at 12:41

Great read and very accurate. Senator Clinton has been treated very badly without just cause. She is my Senator here in New York and we love her here. She is wonderful. She it the hardest working Senator I think N.Y. has ever had. I am appaulled by the vitriolic misogyny that has gone on here with the complicity of the democratic party. We women are well over 50% of the democratic party and can and will decide this election.

When Dean gets his head out of his ass he's going to see the title waive coming. The ground swell is growing by the second. There will be hell to pay for what this party has done to Hillary Clinton and the women of this country!!! It will rain McSame, if Hillary is not the nominee!!!!!And the elitist coalition of Obamabots will diminish to the size of Mike Gravel's following.

Dean better think about whether this little power grab that he, Brazile, an others are attempting will back fire. No democratic president, DNC chairman gone for rigging the election and shoving the loser down our throats!!!!!!

Susan B
27 May 2008 at 12:52

BTW, just to clarify (since there's so little clarity nowadays, I don't want to contribute to the muck,) when I wrote "he'd bring Hillary supporters over to him," I meant post-primary nomination (assuming he gets it), NOT before. So long as she's in the race, Hillary is my choice.

VinceP1974
27 May 2008 at 12:56

What I love about this thread is that the Democrats who are commenting here do not even dispute the central thesis.. that the Democratic Party is full of sexists (and the other implication.. that it is full of racists)

And yet they somehow think the Democrats have a moral high ground.

What also fascinates me is a few of the Hillary Supporters who think that if someone is strongly anti-Hillary that it must be because that person is a sexist. Well maybe if that person is a Democrat , it's true.

But there are many of us out here who are not Democrats and not sexists. The reason for my strong dislike of Hillary (and Bill) is that she's a compulsive liar and deceitful

She's a follower of Saul Alinisky and his immoral system of political action. "Rules for Radicals"

It would be nice if some Hillary supporters would acknoweldge that they agree that reasonable people are completely justified in thier opposition to Hillary on those (and other) basis.

Obama (another Alinksy disciple) is just as much of a liar as Hillary is. And they have both invented a persona for themselves for this campaign that is a total misrepresentation of their true self.

Many of us don't understand why this seems not to bother their supporters. It looks like the supporter just doesnt' care about the contempt the candidates show toward the truth and to the intellegence of voters.

KB 27 May 2008 at 14:02

Mr. Stephen,

Thank you for so acurately reporting the media bias during this campaign. Never in US history have we had such blatant sexism but of course we have never had a female candidate. I have never seen such hateful and hurtful misogony. America may be losing an opportunity to show itself as a leader once again in the world...all as a result of machismo. A mediocre president will only serve to divide and delay any real progress in the US. These pundits should be ashamed and removed. What ever happened to real journalism?

cmt
27 May 2008 at 16:02

Susan B:

just one thing this race is about the nation and whose hands we put it into, you would rather place our wonderful nation into the hands of Senator Obama who has wife that is bitter towards America, thinks that we should hold hands with Iran, has placed everyone under the bus including his grandmother just to win this election just because you don't want to step outside of the box and vote republican although that candidate might be a bit older he is patriotic, has served his country, has two sons in the war and his trust level is higher than Senator Obama's, staying within the party when something this important is at stake is amazing. Sorry just my thoughts vote as you wish.

Chino08
27 May 2008 at 16:06

Absolutely brilliant. The unaudulterated truth.

jstopper
27 May 2008 at 16:11

Andrew,

How many marriage proposals have you received since you wrote this article? Your mother should be very proud of you. Thank you for standing up and speaking the truth. Integrity and courage are sadly lacking among media people these days. Three cheers!

Jill Topper in Colorado

BennyLava
27 May 2008 at 16:20

This article has a pretty damning litany of reprehensible commentary, and I've witnessed enough of it myself to make me queasy. Katha Pollitt wrote something to the effect of, "If they keep this up, I may have to vote for her." But I don't believe that sexism cost Clinton the nomination. A lot of demographic analysis indicates that being a woman helped her with voters, particularly women who might otherwise be turned off by her war vote.

She lost the nomination because of a very shortsighted campaign strategy. Mark Penn believed as late as last fall that the primaries were winner-take-all, and that winning California would put Clinton over the top. When he found out the truth, the campaign did not alter their strategy. Clinton herself said in December that everything would be wrapped up on February 5. She lost the nomination in the 11 races that happened in the following weeks in February, which her campaign had not planned on being competitive.

The notion that sexism is what killed Clinton at the polls runs directly counter to the argument her campaign has been making that she is more electable. If true, it is disturbing, but no more so than the notion that Obama can't win because he is black. And I certainly don't agree with the statement this author makes that "the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever." I don't see how Obama is any less qualified than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or even Hillary Clinton herself.

While the sexism from some of the pundits is clear enough, the author has had to do some clever interpretation to read coded sexism coming from the Obama campaign itself. It may be there, but I certainly missed it. Reading his examples just makes me believe that Obama is a much more skillful politician than Clinton.

Also, on the point of Clinton being forced out of the race prematurely: just try to imagine if all of the election results had been reversed. Clinton was the presumptive nominee, and Obama came up short. Imagine how much pressure there would be on Obama to withdraw. He would be seen as the consummate spoiler. The Clinton campaign's strategy of repeating the notion that everything would be wrapped up by February 5 was clearly designed to increase this sort of pressure.

ae 27 May 2008 at 17:30

As a 31-year-old female PhD student, I was lucky to grow up in a generation and a family in which I've never felt held back from doing the things I want to do (which do not involve playing sports or running for office or coal mining) by my gender. I find this whole discussion very interesting and a little puzzling. I voted for Obama in the primaries, but I think Hillary's also a good candidate and I would be happy to vote for her for president in the general election if she got the nomination. Like many well-educated women of my generation, I suspect, I recognize sexism out there in the world but I don't feel that it affects my life enough that I would be willing to make my vote choice based largely on the candidate's gender.

At the same time, Stephen gives many examples--for instance, Chris Matthews' and Tucker Carlson's comments--that are appalling. This also reminds me of the Home Depot salesman who told me that Hillary is a "goddamned gun-grabbing bitch" (which is an extremely sexual image, if you think about it).

But there are other examples Stephen provides that just seem to be normal politics. We all know that political campaigns are largely about momentum, and it seems fair--or perhaps unfair but at least not blatantly sexist--to focus on which candidate has momentum, and which candidate's ahead in the delegate count. It's also unfair but not obviously and necessarily sexist or racist for a journalist or commentator just to *like* one candidate more than other, and to bias coverage accordingly--they're people, after all. People like each other for many reasons, beyond simply race and sex. It's hard to figure out when commentary that hurts a candidate becomes unfair, not to mention unfair and caused by sexism or racism. One of the things that complicates this, of course, is the very different life histories of the two candidates--Barack was virtually unknown on the national scene, while Hillary had a very long history of an often poisonous relationship with the national media. It's very clear that she brought this relationship into the campaign as baggage. It's even harder to untangle the impact of sex and race since we have only one black person and one woman in the race. In some alternative universe in which we had at least two women and at least two blacks, it would be easier to start to separate out what's related to sex and race and what's related to other candidate features. I'm sure there's been sexism, and perhaps also racism, in the campaigns and their coverage, but I’m not convinced that either has been overwhelming or the key factor deciding the outcome of the race.

Reading this article and the heated commentary that follows, it occurs to me that Barack and Hillary have both been playing the same game, a political game that any campaign strategist would tell them they have to play. Even in 2008, it comes down to very simple identity politics. They're each attempting to use their own disadvantaged status to appeal to members of their own group, while branding their opponent as unfriendly to that group and themselves as friendly to their opponent's group. My sense is that Barack's generally been more successful at this game—and at seeming above the game altogether—and that Hillary and her most ardent and upset supporters are now playing their final card: "he won at the game *because* he was sexist." The truth is, of course, that both are liberals with similar views and both would promote policies that are more or less equally friendly to women and racial minorities. Any hidden, underlying sexism and racism either harbors probably doesn't even really matter very much for their policies.

What really worries me about this is the way we’ve all fallen for it. Liberals are sniping at liberals, progressives at progressives, Democrats at Democrats. We’re consumed with the “who’s more prejudiced?” game that Barack and Hillary’s campaigns and the media have been promoting. If we look for evidence of either’s guilt, we can find it. This is incredibly divisive and unhelpful to what should be our ultimate goal: electing someone other than John McCain in November. The fact is that either Barack or Hillary will do better at promoting the policies liberals believe help women and minorities than will McCain.

I also believe that this contest over "which is more severe in the US, sexism or racism?" is silly and harmful. Though the two often have similar effects on the targets, the means by which they prevent social mobility manifest historically in very different ways in this country—lynchings, nooses, and segregation versus family power games and glass ceilings. Of course these histories make the field look very different for Barack and Hillary. Power games and glass ceilings are subtler, softer, and less violent than segregation, lynchings and nooses, and so unfortunately they’re less taboo for the kind of well-educated people who become journalists and commentators. But this doesn’t tell us whether sexism or racism is more pervasive out there in the world and which one constitutes more of an impediment to supporting a candidate. The truth is that, though I’ve read a lot about both, I don’t know the answer and I would be suspicious of any claims to know. I suspect that some minority of American voters out there would never vote for a black person, regardless of what they said to a journalist or survey taker, and that a similarly-sized minority of people would never vote for a woman. The two groups probably overlap but are not identical. These minorities will only shrink over time, in part as a result of experience with women and blacks in office. Our goal should be not to focus on these numerical minorities, but rather on the majority who are ready to vote for either a woman or a black person with the right message and campaign.

JoeTN
27 May 2008 at 17:33

The unforgivable behavior of the media, the far left bloggers and the Obama campaign is shocking. It is easy to see their agenda. To cram Obama down our throats, no mattter what. Unfortunately, middle America has voted and not for Obama. We cannot accept him as the nominee in the General. Should the Supers not address this, we will have a Pres. McCain bacause Obama is unelectable.

It does feel good to know that voting still matters and these creeps cannot pick our President for us!!

JoeTN
27 May 2008 at 17:36

The unforgivable behavior of the media, the far left bloggers and the Obama campaign is shocking. It is easy to see their agenda: to cram Obama down our throats, no mattter what. Unfortunately, middle America has voted and not for Obama. We cannot accept him as the nominee in the General. Should the Supers not address this, we will have a Pres. McCain bacause Obama is unelectable.

It does feel good to know that voting still matters and these creeps cannot pick our President for us!!

jstopper
27 May 2008 at 17:38

Mr. Stephen's main point is that sexism in the U.S. is okay but racism is not okay, regardless of both being equally against the law. No indignant outcry from the masses echoed from the media after the sexist comment about Senator Clinton's thick ankles. Can you imagine the hysterics if Carlson had made fun of Senator Obama's kinky hair? Just for openers he would have been fired. (Remember the Imus fiasco?) The media has treated Senator Clinton differently than Senator Obama. The media has treated Senator Clinton grossly unfairly.

What has happened to our country? All is NOT fair in love and war. No one in the public eye has attacked Obama with the gutless tactics used against Clinton. If they had, you can bet the ranch that racism would have been cited. Over the past six months, more than a few of media folk's behavior has been a disgrace to democracy and an abuse of the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The likes of Russert, Matthews, Couric and Carlson, to name just a few, have proven unworthy of their positions. How could they take years of work building reputations as reputable journalists and throw it to the dogs? And what a gruesome legacy they've left for their grandchildren, especially their granddaughters.

Children on the playground play with more civility. Embarrassing. Disgusting. Repugnant.

Obama's true grit has not been tested because of the poppycoddling he's received by the media. When his free ride is over, I'm betting he'll cave.

Jeff
27 May 2008 at 18:54

So let me see if I have this correct: At one time, HRC was said to be the smartest woman on the planet. Yet she was fooled by "idiot" Bush into voting for the Iraq war, she was naive about her healthcare fiasco, and she's been beaten by a rookie black congressman with a muslim name. Make up your minds. If she's such a genius, why does she keep failing at every turn? It's not sexism, it's the fact that most people know a scam when they see it. Where were all of you HRC supporters when Elisabeth Dole was running for Pres? I think when it really comes down to it, you HRC supporters need to look in the mirror and recognize that YOU are the sexists.

Jeff
27 May 2008 at 18:57

To Keith from S Africa: very nicely written and dead-on point.

Monique from NC
27 May 2008 at 19:03

You have captured the events of our campaign for the democratic nominee as no other. Will America wake up and realize before it's too late they have been totally manipulated by the media?

rozz62
27 May 2008 at 19:23

How dare the leadership of the Democratic Party turn on Hillary Clinton! How dare they betray Bill Clinton! How dare they not speak out when Hillary is disrespected by words like bitch, whore and the "c" word! How dare they allow them both to be smeared as racists, playing the race card! Where was Howard Dean ? Where was Nancy Pelosi ? Where were Hillary's colleagues in the Senate when the Clintons were being so unfairly accused and denigrated? The Democratic Party has a lot to answer for. If we had stood as a party with one voice and said, "no", we will not allow one of our own to be so disturbingly maligned, we would now have a unified democratic party electorate at the end of a virtually tied primary race. Instead we are deeply divided. Now, since the party's leaders have chosen again and again not to speak up, I will.

I am a Hillary supporter and along with millions of Democrats throughout our country , I have been outraged by how the media have treated her throughout this primary season. But what is most disturbing is how my Party has stood by and allowed the demeaning and dishonest attacks on Hillary to continue. This is not the party I thought I belonged to. This is not the party that espouses fairness, justice and equality for all. This is not the party that elected Bill Clinton President in 1992 and 1996 and Hillary Clinton as Senator in 2000 and 2006. That party knew that it had benefited enormously from the Clinton administration as well as the incredible accomplishments of one of the most activist, hardworking First Ladies in our history. That Party stood proudly by a president who many called the first black president because both he and his wife had demonstrated a lifelong commitment to civil rights and human rights.

Imagine if Democratic leaders had done what Hillary did when President Bush associated Barack Obama with terrorism in his much lauded speech in Israel. Remember, Hillary gave a heartfelt statement that Barack was one of our own and she would not stand by and allow him to be so denigrated ?

Women are outraged. We are still fighting for her, and we are ashamed of how our candidate, a woman who has devoted her adult life to serving others, a woman who has been a distinguished First Lady, a woman who has helped her colleagues pass legislation and win races in their own states, a woman who has stood up for all of our rights, has been treated not just by the media but by her own Democratic Party. Throughout all this, Hillary has maintained her focus, her message and her dignity. This is truly courage under fire. This is what it takes to be a great president. It is not over until the lady in the pant suit says it is and I and millions of others are with her.

BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC for manipulating the Presidential election with the biased pushing of obama before researching.

May 27, 2008

Tracking Polls (General)

Gallup: McCain 47, Obama 45

Gallup: Clinton 49, McCain 44

Rasmussen: McCain 45, Obama 45

Rasmussen: Clinton 47, McCain 45

Hillary Clinton's plummets Obama in West Virginia and KY raises serious doubts over Barack Obama's ability.

It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win in a general election. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election.

http://www.dontvoteobama.net

rozz62
27 May 2008 at 19:24

FACT: CLINTON WINS THE STATES THAT MATTER IN GENERAL ELECTION.

DONATE: hillaryclinton.com

Obama's Favorable Rating Drops!!!!

FOX News Poll: Nearly half of Democrats (48 percent) think Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating McCain in November — 10 percentage points higher than the 38 percent who think Barack Obama can win

In Kentucky, 8 in 10 Clinton voters... say they'd be Dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee; about 60% of Clinton voters in Oregon said the same. MORE Clinton voters in KY say they'd support John McCain than support Barack Obama. Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win in a general election. Lost in all the talk of the inevitability of Barack Obama's nomination is the fact that Hillary Clinton has a very compelling case of her own. The contorted Democratic primary significantly differs from an actual presidential election. Caucuses, which is proportionately favor young, vocal enthusiasts who are willing to stay up late in the night; superdelegates; unelected party officials who are free to ignore the

will of the people and proportional representation of delegates are all electoral processes that have no parallel in November.

If the Democratic primary were a winner-take-all contest based on electoral votes like the general election, Clinton would lead Obama 290-214. The fact that Obama has won the majority of states, most of which are small, or has a slight lead in the popular vote does not mitigate the fact that Clinton is by a large margin the more competitive candidate in a national election

http://www.dontvoteobama.net.

letsgetgoing
27 May 2008 at 20:41

Interestingly, you leave out two women who must be considered among the worst perpetrators of the sexism against Hillary - Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington.

jchbrock
27 May 2008 at 21:06

Thanks for the essay. I agree completely, and your analysis does not even cover the most egregious attack on Hillary that happened as a result of her interview on May 23 with the Argus Leader in South Dakota.

The site Politico has a piece entitled Media Hype: How small stories become big news, which is a sort-of-apology to Hillary for their hype of her discussion of primaries that went into June, including her mention of the year RFK was assassinated as an example. I have followed this campaign since January and am continually shocked at what the media latches onto in its effort to bash Hillary.

Further, I think the Obama campaign strategy has been, and continues to be, to build on the GOP hate propaganda of the 90's and to do all that it can to promote hatred of Hillary. And, this strategy has been aided by the media bias towards Obama and against Hillary. On the morning of May 24, the Obama campaign sent a transcript of Keith Olbermann's attack on Senator Clinton to reporters. As everyone knows, Olbermann is the Rush Limbaugh of the left and is the dirty part of Obama's campaign. Shameless!

writeon
27 May 2008 at 21:49

I agree with almost everything you wrote, unfortunately I wonder about the 'excessive' rationality expressed in your comments, compared to the swirling maelstrom of raging emotions these two candidates conjure in their supporters.

It's like a form of 'civil war' has broken out in the Democratic Party and it's hard to see why, as the candidates don't seem all that different on a range of substantive issues. Clearly both of them are intensely ambitious individuals and ultra-competitive, but politically aren't they supposed to be on the same side, in the same party? Obviously, formally, they are members of the same party, yet it's getting harder and harder to believe it!

Is Clinton closer to Mcain than Obama is? If true, does that even matter? Aren't all three candidates, in reality, members of the same party, the Ruling Class Party, but represent competing factions, or wings? Isn't the United States in fact a form of one party state? There is one dominant, concensus 'ideology', but there are differences in attitudes and emphasis and perhaps most importantly in personalities. In the absence of ideology 'personality' becomes the main, obsessive factor separating the candidates.

This is why the 'civil war' analogy is apt. Civil wars are usually characterized by intense conflict, bitterness, hatred and insane violence, because the element of betrayal and blood against blood is an integral element, leading to savagry and something close to insanity.

puella
27 May 2008 at 23:52

You know what....

Perhaps I am a misogynist. Perhaps I am a sexist pig who never realized that I think all women should be barefoot and pregnant, baking pies in the kitchen and only making noise (positive "oohs" and "ahhs" and perhaps the occasional "spank me, I am a bad girl!") when I deem it appropriate. Perhaps that IS the reason that I, a resident of New York State, am not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton as my preferred choice for the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Oh, wait.... I am a woman... hrumph!

And you know what, as a woman, I am sick to death of the victim mentality and ever present martyrdom syndrome of that camp telling me and all who will hear that that is the reason she is losing... and yes, she is LOSING.

The very fact that she, and so many of her sister-soldier supporters are not only willingly, but eagerly donning the guise of the battered, delicate bloom of a girl being beaten up by mean, dirty boys shows THEIR willingness to legitimize one of the most disgusting and unearned misogynist stereotypes I can think of.

If you want to be a fighter, expect to get swipes back. If you are a girl fighting, do not label those swipes as sexist attacks when you are not winning the fight. To do so is the worst kind of sexist attack, that which self sustains sexism by someone of your own sex.

And for God's sake... please spare me Bill "sure I'll f*ck ya darlin'" Clinton as the guardian of womanly virtues and progression.

I am not voting for Hillary Clinton because in two terms as my elected representative, I have found her to be very very lacking. I do not see those issues resolved, but rather enhanced as campaign continues.

We had a chance for a woman to really blaze some trails for women in politics.... crying "like a girl" every time she does not get what she wants... does very little towards furthering that cause.

VinceP1974
28 May 2008 at 00:28

Yesterday Obama was giving a Memorial Day speech where he said that he had an uncle who served in WW-II and took part in the liberation of Achwitz (sp?) concentration camp.

The problem with that is , it was the USSR Red Army that liberated that camp.

Between Obama's phatom relatives and Clinton's phantom sniping attack, it's disgrace how both of them just make up whatever they want and the Democrat voters just lap it up.

jlxn
28 May 2008 at 01:02

I've been voting Democrat since I started voting in 1978. Obama's campaign against Hillary has turned me forever against the Democrats.

jlxn
28 May 2008 at 01:04

Puella, ever hear of the Stockholm Syndrome?

booksnmore4you
28 May 2008 at 01:25

Hillary supporters, the post by Keith, 22 May 2008 at 11:10m nailed the real reasons why Hillary has lost. Don't give in to this Republican's divide and conquer strategy disguised as framing sexism as why Hillary lost. Nothing is further from the truth, and I am a former supporter of hers.

NCMike
28 May 2008 at 03:34

It is the saddest state of affairs, that ideas are no longer frankly discussed. Instead, the issues become simply the semantics of political correctness. Until the media (who are the guiltiest of all at using the pc benchmark) stop dragging the discussion into semantics, rather than ideas and issues, which heretofore had been protected as free speech, we will continue to be side-tracked by the demagogues of both the media and politics.

voxpop
28 May 2008 at 05:05

We live in an sexists society. Clearly and undeniably. So if for no other reason, its good too raise these questions.

That said, all candidates are unfairly assailed. I think when the slander is taken as script by the public that it's an issue worth examining.

Like Dean being called a "Wild Man" because someone mixed his screaming audience 10 decibels lower than his mic. That the whole country dismissed him because of this lame trick/slander still bugs me. It would bug me if Hillary was actually being dismissed due to sexist remarks like "fat ankles" being accepted by the public at large but she isn't.

I think those that don't like Clinton, by a wide percent, don't have a problem with her being a woman. They don't like her campaign and or her politics.

taghioff.info
28 May 2008 at 08:15

Hellooo. Why all the pessimism, when before in American history was there both a black and a woman Presidential candidate?

Why are we shocked that America is racist and misogynist, we knew that already.

But the current election seems to indicate that things are getting slightly better.

ray h
28 May 2008 at 17:42

vince 1974

thank you and Andew for such enlighting

information

the only problem is not enough folks will get to read this

to help them make a choice

cwcrosby
28 May 2008 at 21:06

I keep reading about sexism being Hillary's problem. It is not. Her problem is Bill and Hillary Clinton, and that they are neither Republicans nor Democrats, but powercrats.

Hillary is hated because she compromised with Bill on Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski. Exactly what her terms were with Bill are conjectural. That she is unprincipled is not.

The media bends over backwards to be understanding about the over-the-top statements made by Hillary, and by Bill for Hillary, from the RFK assassination comment, to the racist remarks about her support by white voters. She and Bill know what they are saying; their comments are calculated, like everything else they do. They do not deserve the adoration they receive from the likes of Andrew Stephen. The should apologize to the true feminists who have erroneously ascribed to them progressive intent.

I don't know the outcome of the election in November. We can hope that Obama will prevail and will become a good President. Further scheming by Hillary, if successful, could well turn off another generation of voters to the Democratic Party, and to the progressive ideals that are needed to improve our nation, our economy and our society. I trust this will not occur. If it does, it is for that reason that soul searching would be needed, not because of some bogus misogynistic animus that exists only in the minds of Hillary's hard core supporters.

djcny
28 May 2008 at 23:48

II agree 100% with this article and think it was extremely well written. I notice that many of the people that dislike Hillary are very personal about it, as if they knew what's in her heart and mind. It's clear they do not, otherwise "hate" wouldn't be part of the equation. That leads me to believe that they have been brainwashed into believing all the slander and bias reporting. No one will give a concrete reason, for their vitriol, for instance, maybe they disagree with her stand on the issues or dislike something that she has done as Senator of NY. All they know is that they "hate" her. Why? They very obviously parrot all the lies and distortions out there. When people are closed minded they don't want to become informed. They want to continue to fuel their hatred, because their hatred is what motivates them.

mboutell
29 May 2008 at 00:55

Great article!! There is no doubt Obama has ridden into this nomination on the coattails of sexism. I, along with countless other women, are outraged at how Hillary has been treated and we know it's because she's a WOMAN...NOT a Clinton! Misogyny is rampant and it's all over this presidential race and with that, an ugly head is emerging out of the Democratic Party---the extreme left (supporters of Obama). November 4th will not be Election Day, it will be the day of a New Revolution! Women, let your voices be heard!!

Indiana
29 May 2008 at 01:24

Thank you Mr. Stephen for the best article I have ever read about this democratic primary. You have touched on so much that has troubled me since this primary season began and taught me about so many more. It is a shame that none in the US media have presented us with such a factual and unbiased account of Senator Clinton's mistreatment. Misogyny in the primary is rarely discussed and only superficially mentioned when it is.

I have been outraged by the misogyny that has come from the left of the political spectrum. These are not Republicans doing this to women. These are Democrats! I would have been less surprised had this kind of hate come from the right of the political spectrum. This primary has really opened my eyes about the attitudes towards women in America and the hatred of women that is embedded deep within the US media.

America will never truly return to having real democratic elections until the media practices journalism again. They betrayed American voters similarly in the 2000 election and gave America and the world George Bush. Remember the media mantra that there was no difference between Senator Al Gore and George W. Bush? This is the same shallow and shameful media at work.

breakfastmonkey
29 May 2008 at 02:46

in the end both of these two candidates want more to become president than to uphold their own moral integrity. which in itself is a fundamental insecurity in the moral fiber of a person. this country will never see a good man or woman, black or white in the white house. i'd suggest doing your best to becoming overly detached from such proceedings and keeping your opinion to yourselves, cause in the end not a single blogger, reporter, analyst, or drunk at a bar has the first clue as to whether or not these people we elect will be worthwhile or if the media spin is accurate. those will argue "you can't do nothing", "to have a voice or not", but in the end if my voice will always be the quintessential lesser of two evils i will always choose to refrain. and do my best to NEVER add to the negativity produced of our own stupidity. and i think thats what this article is doing. everyone picks sides and produces more negativity.

drink the hemlock. you choose to live here in the land of the free. lead by example or drink the hemlock.

luvleep
29 May 2008 at 04:13

Your article was very poignantly written (for the points you chose to make) and a lucid piece. However, where you failed is in your (what I suspect to be deliberate) inability to really write objectively; you presented only the sexism Hillary has faces, without highlighting any parallel attacks and prejudices (noticing I am not using the 'R" word) rallied on Obama. Both candidates have had their fair share of bashing, sexism and otherwise.

What I will say is that Hillary has not been the innocent victim, standing on the sidelines voiceless. In a lot of ways she has "made her own bed" and now must "sleep in it".

What's interesting about these election blogs is that so rarely is a supporter of Hillary ever able look at the race objectively. For them everything Obama is unelectable, inexperienced, a Muslim, non-patriotic, elitist, mendacious, and let's not forget: SEXIST!! As a woman with a minor in Women's Studies, I look forward to the day when a woman is the leader of the "free world". However, I don't believe just any woman will do. I don't believe Hillary has presented herself to the vast American people as presidential. If anything, she has made me think that her emotions would get the worst of her and I don't trust her judgment. To me this election has very little to do with sex or race: I don't see either candidate as defined by those factors. Rather, I see how each one uses those factors to their advantage. Overwhelmingly, I see a case where Hillary is using her sex to account for her losses. And when its convenient, her race as well. What I see is Obama trying to stay away from the race issue and present himself as a candidate for all people. Sorry, but I don't hear him saying "Black people all over America are telling me..." or saying this is the year for the Black man...That is why his campaign his been so successful. For once, people are willing to put aside issues of race, gender, economics and class and rally against the status quo. They want change and they want someone they can believe in. For many, that person is not Hillary Clinton. Woman, sheep or cat.

VinceP1974
29 May 2008 at 07:29

Indiana made an important point:

"I have been outraged by the misogyny that has come from the left of the political spectrum. These are not Republicans doing this to women. These are Democrats!"

Conservative/Republcans have actually been feeling very sympathetic towrard Hillary because we know exactly what it is like to have the Media campaign against you.

We have admired her for tenacity, and not backing down to the media.

Of course we also like the fact that she can't help but continue her pattern of compulsive lying... so we know that alone was enough to keep her from being nominated.

Hillary could have won this thing had she not played both sides of the fence with the NY State Licenses for Illegals at one of the first debates within seconds.

Poor Hillary,, so much drive and ambition yet no shame, no honor , or respect towards other people.

Lightweight Obama is going to be nominated .. a man who will meet Iran's President before he would meet our own military in Iraq.

Obama who hasn't figured out how to run against McCain other than to say he's old (Democrats are not only racist and sexist.. they are also ageist) or to somehow pretend he's George Bush.. talk about old politics. What a fool.. the people see it.

As a conservative, I dislike all 3 of them. However only 1 is worthy to be the Commander in Cheif of the world's best men and women.

Please think about that when you vote. You are choosing the leader of the people who save our lives, give them someone they can respect.. not that America-hating Marxist fraud.

Jenny Webb
29 May 2008 at 10:26

VinceP1974 have you ever actually read Marx? And if so which part of his writings is Obama signed up to?

VinceP1974
29 May 2008 at 11:05

Why would I waste my time reading Marx? The Koran was bad enough.

Anyway... Obama is a follower of Saul Alinksy style of social activism.

Obama actively sought the endorsement of the Marxist party Chicago DSA

http://www.chicagodsa.org/

"Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States and around the world by training and mobilizing socialist activists to participate in a vibrant and diverse socialist organization at both the local and the national level. DSA both educates the public about democratic socialist values and policies and builds progressive coalitions to win victories that move the U.S. and the world toward social democracy. In the near term, democratic socialists struggle for reforms that shift power and resources away from corporate elites and put them in the hands of ordinary citizens. In the long term, democratic socialists fight for a world in which all people share equally in the governing of the economic, political and cultural institutions and relationships that shape their lives. "

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932

"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates ... The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included ... Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat

...The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

===

For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barak Obama.

Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy. To volunteer, call 773 846 2262. Contributions may be sent to Obama for Congress 2000, PO Box 497987, Chicago, IL 60649

===============

So that Marxist group is pleased as punch with him.

Plus the church he goes Trinity United Church of Christ , adheres to a specific philosophy called Black Liberation Theology.. which has it roots in Communist Cuba .. it's the fusion of Marxism and some sort of Christianty and Black Supremecy.

======

He lauched his one of his runs for office from the Marxist and Terrorist Ayers house.

So it's very clear to me what Obama's game is. That he doesn't go out and wear a hammer and sickle on his lapel is just tactics.

One woujld have to be a fool to think that Obama can be associated with Marxists all of his adult life and that he doesn't agree with them.

Obama is a deceiver.

He will never be Commander in Chief. never.

Jenny Webb
29 May 2008 at 12:31

Well first of all if you want to develop a critique it's good to understand what you are talking about which might imply at the least a cursory understanding of Marxist philosophy otherwise it sounds like you're just making a silly slur. Incidentally Marx disliked the term Marxist. Left wing minority parties often pick a bigger political force to endorse if they believe it will more their ultimate goals closer. In Britain we've had this happen quite a lot over time. Just because a Marxist supports you doesn't mean you're a Marxist. Democratic Socialism has been pretty widespread in Europe on and off and has harnessed the benefits of the market system - the galvanising effect of profit - to fund a variety of social provision from Britain's NHS to, say, France's model of health insurance funded by employers. It's called a mixed economy and is, perhaps, not a bad model guaranteeing pretty good healthcare for all. I very much doubt Obama is anywhere near even that! He's certainly not a Marxist!

jchbrock
29 May 2008 at 20:10

Obama is just hopelessly ambitious. He spent two years in the Illinois Senate before he started running for the U.S Senate, then spent two years in the U.S. Senate before he started running for the President. His knowledge of American history and policy is inadequate, although he has learned something about policy from Hillary. His campaign strategy was to partner with certain media commentators to promote his candidacy and to slander Hillary, for example, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. This strategy paid off, especially with the young, who seem to lack a sense of fairness and respect for the truth (which is unfortunately a sad commentary on our society).

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has been a key part of Obama's campaign. I heard Olbermann say "the Obama campaign called ...". This particular call was about the supposed snooping into Obama's passport file. It later turned out that Hillary's passport file was also breached and the hype was dropped by the Obama campaign.

Your article does not even mention the most egregious attack on Hillary that happened as a result of her interview on May 23 with the Argus Leader in South Dakota, in which she talked about primaries that went into June, with one example being the year in which RFK was assassinated, which we remember well, being of a certain age. On the morning of May 24, the Obama campaign sent a transcript of Keith Olbermann's attack on Senator Clinton to reporters, so that there would be further hype.

The site Politico has a piece entitled Media Hype: How small stories become big news, which is a sort-of-apology to Hillary for their hype of her discussion of primaries that went into June. Of course, we will never see any type of apology from MSNBC/NBC. And Obama behaves as if it were nothing and excuses Hillary. What a sham!

We will be voting for Nader, for the first time in our lives. The level of Obama's campaign is too much for us, being of a certain age.

Judy and Jarrett Brock

JayMendez
29 May 2008 at 23:37

The treatment of candidates. Interesting, politicians ought to get respect, I won't oblige.

Lisa Ann Walter
30 May 2008 at 01:49

Dear Mr. Stephen,

While slogging through the most depressing political landscape I can imagine in a lifetime of political activism, some brief moments of light shine through.

Your article was one of them.

Just because someone else is saying it, I don't feel as completely marginal and disregarded.

Please take 10 minutes and watch this piece I created months ago in the hopes that the lights would be turned up bright on the terrible, entrenched bias being perpetrated and accepted within the popular press. Made all the more horrific in that no one seems to be paying the least attention.

www.MediaGate2008.com

I have worked in the entertainment industry for my entire adult life - I created two network t.v. shows that took a humorous look at the life of a career Mom, I produce for television and have appeared in numerous blockbuster movies including the remake of "The Parent Trap" as Chessy, the Nanny as well as in "Shall We Dance", "Bruce Almighty" and "War of the Worlds".

I've been a strong career woman and before that, raised in D.C., was a very politically active feminist. And I am frankly appalled.

My hope was that people would find this piece and viral it out to let folks know the outright misogyny that has flourished in our media,which clearly reflects an enormous societal backlash...because it is grossly ignored or just accepted.

I am interested in your feedback and thoughts,

Lisa Ann Walter

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
30 May 2008 at 02:07

Andrew Stephen is just ridiculous in his assessment of the media against Hillary. The amount of logical fallacies is immense.

First of all, he's complaining about radio stations that are far right or far left wing, crazies in both parties who can't be taken seriously.

Also, the tale of McCain laughing along with his supporter after she said "How do we beat the Bitch" is absurd. No polititian in his/her right mind would laugh at such a sexist comment. If McCain had done that exactly as Andrew described, he would have been kicked out of the race a long time ago.

And complaining about 16 senators out of 100 being woman is only helpful to Obama's cause. Still, the number of women senators is disgustingly low, but its even worse for the african american population. there have only been five african american senators in U.S. history.

And to use Chris Matthews as an example about the media's attacking Clinton? Its called "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Matthews is not going to be politically correct. He is going to say what he wants to say, just like Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reily. And Matthews doesn't speak for all of NBC. In fact, he is constantly made fun of by Darrell Hammond from Saturday night Live, on NBC.

Another ridiculous notion is that the media has never proclaimed the victor of a political nomination before the primary contests are over. It happened this election. McCain was proclaimed the winner weeks before Huckabee finally dropped out, and Ron Paul, although not the best example, has been struggling throughout the entire campaign.

Also complaining about the gender stereotypes in America, it doesn't help Clinton. Gender stereotypes go both ways. I can't count the number of times I've seen ridiculous stereotypes about men and women both on the news and fictional television shows alike.

And why would you complain that Hillary was reffered to as "cool and calculating". Isn't that a compliment. If its not, I'd sure love to know why.

And whining about the attacks on Bill by the media has to be balanced by the fact that Bill has been just as vicious against the media as the media has been agianst Bill. Instead of "Open Season", maybe it should be considered a battle against the two.

And what is this accussation that Obama and his campaign have been attacking Clinton. I have watched many of these debates, speeches, and news conferences, and not once did I see an attack from Obama against Hillary. Obama is only attacking the one person he should be attacking, McCain.

The fallacies that arise from this article are numerous, and I could go on and on but it would probably piss people off and make my fingers cramp up. I support Clinton, I think she would be a great president, but trying to turn Obama into a raving sexist a hole is just a ridiculous thing to do.

jchbrock
30 May 2008 at 04:46

The previous writer, this so-called Hillary supporter, does not believe events in Stephen's article that I have witnessed myself. Yes, I have followed this campaign closely since January. Believe.

For example, "Hillary_Supporter" wrote:

"Also, the tale of McCain laughing along with his supporter after she said "How do we beat the Bitch" is absurd. No polititian in his/her right mind would laugh at such a sexist comment. If McCain had done that exactly as Andrew described, he would have been kicked out of the race a long time ago. "

Stephen is accurate. Before the South Carolina primary, McCain was at a fundraiser in Hilton Head, which is a wealthy conservative enclave. A well-dressed woman stood up and said, "How do we beat the bitch?" McCain smiled, chuckled, and said, "That's a good question."

In the debate before the Texas primary, Obama said Hillary was "whining." In a debate before Super Tuesday, Obama suddenly, without any warning, just as Stephen described, "While I was ... , you were a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart." The truth of the matter is that when Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas, she was an honorary member of the board of Wal-Mart, which is the largest employer in Arkansas. She used her position to promote environmental practices, wage increases for employees, and the promotion of women. She was successful with environmental practices; Wal-Mart was the first big box store to use sky lights.

In a speech in Denver, before their caucus, Obama said Hillary was "divisive, polarizing, calculating," the adjectives that the GOP used in the 90's to defeat Hillary's health care plan.

My husband and I hardly ever agree on anything but we do agree on this: Obama is hopelessly ambitious, without regard for others. He spent two years in the Illinois Senate before he ran for the U.S. Senate, then spent two years in the U.S. Senate before he ran for President. His knowledge of American history and policy is inadequate. His campaign strategy was to partner with certain media commentators, for example, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, to promote his candidacy and to slander Hillary. This strategy paid off, especially with the young, who seem to lack a sense of fairness and respect for the truth, a sad commentary on our society.

Olbermann of MSNBC has been a key part of Obama's campaign. I heard him say "the Obama campaign called ...". This particular call was about the supposed snooping into Obama's passport file. It later turned out that Hillary's passport file was also breached and the hype was dropped by the Obama campaign. One of the recent attacks on Hillary happened as a result of her interview on May 23 in South Dakota, in which she talked about primaries that went into June, with one example being the year in which RFK was assassinated, which we remember well, being of a certain age. On the morning of May 24, the Obama campaign sent a transcript of Olbermann's attack on Senator Clinton to reporters, so that there would be further hype.

The site Politico has a piece entitled Media Hype: How small stories become big news, which is a sort-of-apology to Hillary for their hype of her discussion of primaries that went into June. We have not seen any other apologies from the media. And Obama behaves as if it were nothing and excuses Hillary. What a sham!

We will not be voting for President, for the first time in our lives. The level of Obama's campaign is too much for us, being of a certain age.

Judy and Jarrett Brock

California, USA

tomngi
30 May 2008 at 17:51

While I would be the last to dispute media sexism towards Hilary Clinton, it should be pointed out that a lot of the criticism and personal barbs can also be attributed to the revulsion many feel towards the less savoury aspects of her personality: namely ruthless, scheming, underhanded, and ultimately untrustworthy. In short, she is as likeable as Dick Cheney.

mvanvoor
30 May 2008 at 22:32

Democrats love to lose... Kerry in 04 was a bad decision, Obama in 08 a disasterous decision. Obama can't win 50% of white democrats... how the hell will he win 50% of white general election voters?? He's a black racist.. the Father Pflegy video shows that it's not Rev. Wright, it's that environment.. so strong a force in shaping one's views, even the white guy is spewing anti-white rhetoric! With 20 years, I can only admire Obama's self-control in repression his true feelings for as long as he has...If Obama wins the nomination, he'll crash and burn and dem's can only blame themselves (which they won't of course, they'll blame all of us "typical white people" that are all a bunch of evil racists!)

ceojuliej
30 May 2008 at 23:39

Oh GEEZE, I think all of you Obama fans are the most ridiculous people in the world. May you never have daughters that want to achieve something in the world. Did you not have mothers? What is wrong with you ignorant people?

I am a proud Hillary supporter who is voting and campaigning against the DNC and OBAMA. May OBAMA be as humiliated and disrespected as Hillary was.

He is a racist and may this end his political career once and for all.

May the DNC be totally be permanently damaged by this outrageous brokered campaign

May the delegates and superdelegates claim that they were the power behind destroying the Democratic Party and

May Hillary join the ranks of Independents and win the Presidency of the United States.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
30 May 2008 at 23:51

Pot calling the kettle black ceojuliej. your calling us ridiculous but your falling into all of the anti-Obama propaganda that the GOP spreads around. Take a good look at the political scene for once you cherry-picking jerk.

mike_angels@yahoo.com
31 May 2008 at 01:54

Hillary is not hated because she is a women. Hillary is hated because she is a bad women. There is a difference. We've seen all kinds of gender-referent slurs on Bill Clinton. Do we call that male hatred? Maybe we should.

Not only men can be despicable. Members of the male sex are not the only ones sometimes fairly susceptible of condemnation and ridicule. And women, when they go bad, often have characteristic way of doing it--like casting themselves as victimized females to cloak unspeakably ugly aggression.

The problem with this article is that the guy who wrote it could not see, for example, the difference between someone who says "that woman is an incredible bitch, and someone who says "all woman are bitches." There is a big difference, and its wrong to include the guys in the former catagory with the guys in the later.

Lisa Ann Walter
31 May 2008 at 02:22

Keith in Texas: Her title is Senator - not Ms. - Clinton.

You wouldn't say Mr. Bush, would you?

@luvleep, GavreilleLaPoste, et. al: The problem with "Hillary" is that folks are quite comfortable calling her Hillary. But notice it's always "Obama"...with all the respect that THAT implies. Even I, and other loyal supporters make that difference. Probably because she does feel more readily accessible and relatable...like a (to quote you) "Great White Mother who Knows It All". The difference between us, GLaP, is - I don't hate and resent that mother as you seem to. I respect and honor her.

Maybe cause I'm one too.

And I was a child during Chisholm's bid for Top Post, in fact I campaigned for her - but I remember it as clearly as the first issue of Ms. Magazine I received...probably with her on the cover.

And she wasn't respected. Not in any meaningful way as a viable contendender. She was respected as an esteemed politico from Texas, but - no, uh-uh, not even hardly. Tolerated, perhaps, patted on the head for the effort maybe...And if she had seriously eroded the voter bloc of a DNC-preferred candidate? What do you think would've happened at a time when both feminism and racial "equality" were nacent and tenuous.

You know as well as I do...

"You know, Shirl...what's best for the party is....there's a good, girl, now. Run along and don't fuss and bother the men-folk".

@Mike_Angels

Bad Woman? Really? "Women, when they go bad...." Seriously, dude? What is that? A New Fox Special? What's your evidence? Never mind. Your damage happened way to long ago for anyone to help you. I hope you get over the Mommy issues. I'm sure she did love you. And the ex probably didn't mean to make you feel so castrated. Don't worry, you'll find someone else who will put up with your knuckle-walking.

And, um, I don't remember ANY gender-specific slurs against Bill. I remember the truth being told about him, and his wife sticking by his side, and then all of you continuing to call her hideous names throughout the entire ordeal. Bad Woman, indeed. Shame on you. Does Bad = Determined, smart, opinionated, a threat to your manhood...stop me when I get close.

She could do nothing that would please people like you.

Finally:

I do not understand people who use the example of Bush's "dynasty" as a reason not to repeat with "Another Clinton"...They are hardly the same animal.

For example, I believe Senator Clinton obtained several advanced academic degrees, some of them with honors - whereas Bush can spell cat. Usually correctly.

Wisewoman
31 May 2008 at 02:45

People listen to me. I am a 62 yr old black female who marched with Dr King in Jackson, MS. This is an excellent correct piece of work. As an avid hillary supporter I am ashamed of the conduct of Obama and his supporters. Before my "too old mind" according to Obama's supporters fail me, I want to ist another sexist comment made by Obama himself during the PA campaign. When Hillary described how her granfather taught her to shoot, Obama deriled her recollection by saying something to the effect Oh now she's Annie Oakley with her sixshooter. Now if a man had said his grandfather taught him how to shoot would such a sexist comment have been made? Like George Wallace (a democrat), this man has caused harm to race relations and the democratic party. Because I am retired I have followed this race closely. The charges of racism against the Clintons were contrived to win the SC primary. Remember Obama had won Iowa, lost New Hampshire, lost nevada before the SC primary. He was desparate and had to win SC or he might have been out of the race. So he played the race card with the help of Rep. Clyburn in SC. The feinged indicatin and accusations was potent because obama knew if he could make blacks angry enough and inject them with a sense of betrayal by the Clinton, they would turn against Hillary and vote for him. Although Hillary's support among blacks was around 70% , that is exactly what happened and her support in SC slipped to 18% and between 8 and 10% in later primaries where it remained. The perceived indignation of Bill saying when asked at 10:00AM, practically before any voting had started that Jessie jackson won SC got blown up to he said this AFTER OBAMA HAD WON SC, thereby bringing race into the campaign. All the statement s "roll of the dice" said by Charlie Rose (Clinton did not agree with the statement but rephased it into something different), "fairy tale" speaking about Obama's Iraq vote. etc were all put into memos and sent to the media outlets to hipe lies about racism. I despise Obama for this because I feel it has negated much of the hard work done by me and others of my generation. For this reason I view him as a lying traitor and could never bring myself to vote for him. When I found out today that he schemed to get two people off the ballot by challenging their signatures in order to run unopposed for his seat in the Illinois legislature, I realized that he was the one who would "say anything and do anything to win "although he had accused Hillary of that at the beginning of the campaign.

Fannie
31 May 2008 at 03:04

Gavrielle LaPoste, perhaps I can make a suggestion to you, please go and read about Shirley Chisholm, and any other woman that has run for the office of Presidency. You need to look alittle deeper into the history, and you will learn that for a span of 150 years

women in politics have been protrayed in the most

negative manner. Sister Shirley was not accepted as

a serious candidate, and it was her being a "female"

that caused the negative reactions! I know, because

I visited her in D.C. and had personal communications with her on the subject!

Knowledge is powerful, see, feel, and learn!

Peggy McGilligan
31 May 2008 at 05:26

All good comments; very educational: http://theseedsof9-11.com

timmy
31 May 2008 at 11:23

"The fact that people DON'T like Hillary does not mean they are SEXIST."

Are you sure? I dont like hillary and Im sexist...

timmy
31 May 2008 at 11:36

In all seriousness though, there are a lot of sexists around- but theyre generally on the other side. I havent heard any democrats anywhere seriously saying "I wouldnt vote for her because shes a woman", but Ive heard so many people say "Im voting for her because she's a woman" and "you should vote for her because she's a woman" and "if you dont vote for her, no women will get in for years and years..." It all sounds pretty sexist (and completely moronic) to me.

Susan B
31 May 2008 at 11:44

I am a sixty-one year old professor who, like Wise Woman, has followed politics CLOSELY since I was in my twenties. I don't think it's arrogant for me to say that she and I have...let's say, a more historically informed...assessment of this situation. People who have grown up accepting media spin as Truth and who therefore see the Clintons as "ruthless," "scheming," "bad people" are apparently unaware that this is the legacy of what Hillary rightly called "a vast right-wing conspiracy" composed of charges that never stuck, but left a trail of trash against them behind, ready to be picked up and thrown at the right moment by some astute competitor. This is just what Obama has done. Hillary Clinton (as Wise Woman points out) had the strong support of most Blacks until Obama entered the picture. Only then did the race-baiting campaign against her begin. Isn't the timing just a bit suspicious? As to sexism, you have to be a fool to not recognize how deeply it has permeated this campaign. The latest: a white "wanna-be black" preacher deriding her viciously, in Obama's church, to the delighted cheers of the members of the congregation. Just think what the reaction would be if the media caught the congregationists at the Clinton's church cheering at a comparably hateful "sermon" against Obama!

timmy
31 May 2008 at 12:34

Right, so a "white wanna be black preacher" (no racism intended) said some negative things about Clinton. HOW IS THAT SEXIST?! Cant you see how moronic you sound?! Youre just labelling everything that is against one particular woman as being sexist, arent you?! What a load of boneheaded twoddle.

Susan B
31 May 2008 at 13:03

"Some negative things"? Have you seen the videos? And this wasn't just any preacher. This was someone whom Obama has known and worked with for over 20 years. And the congregation was Obama's church. Have a look at the video before you show your ignorance again in this blog.

VinceP1974
31 May 2008 at 16:50

Lets all thank Senator Obama for forcing us, the US taxpayers , to fund his buddy of the cloth. Accordign to NYT:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Mr. Obama more eagerly met the demands for spending earmarks for churches and community groups in his district, said State Senator Donne E. Trotter, then the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. "I know this firsthand, because the community groups in his district stopped coming to me," Mr. Trotter said.

Typical of Mr. Obama's earmarks was a $100,000 grant for a youth center at a Catholic church run by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a controversial priest who was one of the few South Side clergymen to back Mr. Obama against [Rep. Bobby] Rush.

Father Pfleger has long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church. Father Pfleger, who did not return calls for comment, is one of the religious leaders whose "faith testimonials" Mr. Obama has posted on his presidential campaign Web site.

END QUOTE

And lets not forget, his daughters go to that church.

I wonder why the Left is not concerned with Obama's close ties to religious extermists like this.

Susan: Are you voting for Obama.. a man whose close friends and allies include dangerously bigoted religious leaders... a Senator who is inappropiately giving Federal money to his racist preachers?

Are you going to vote for Obama lke you said.. a man who funds the man who launched a vicious (and it was vicious) against Hillary.

Frankly I dont understand how anyone can be in a party that is full of these people.

Susan: please tell us.. how does it feel to be the sort of person that when confront with a choice between power and principle, you choose power.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
31 May 2008 at 21:26

timmy's right. you can't just label everything attacking clinton sexist. what that pastor said was ridiculous, stupid, and rude but there was no sexism in it. before you start calling people ignorant take a good look in the mirror.

gumchewer
31 May 2008 at 23:26

well done. i am british living in the uk but we need a voice of sanity from those who report from the us. your man here does it superbly.

spankerit
01 June 2008 at 02:06

It's something out of a bad horror movie-- lets get all the redneck idiots we possibly can, and encourage them to vote....many cant even read... let alone know ANYTHING about politics-- but yeah...they should be voting... I say we need to have mandatory IQ testing to be able to vote--- if you don't have a 110 or higher... you shouldn't be allowed to vote...I don't think thats unfair either, because 110 is nothing spectacular, but would demonstrate an ability to comprehend issues.

======================================

Wisewoman
01 June 2008 at 04:44

I am a female who is not fooled by "OBAMA THE CHARMER". The man is a fraud and a liar. When pictures were shown of his poor African grandmother in Africa in her dirt floor house feeding the chickens, my thought was why doesn't he send her a couple thousand dollars to fix up her place? He doesn't care about her like he didn't care about his white grandmother when he threw her under the bus in his so-called race speech. His modus operandi is to use lies, half-truths and diversions, examples follow:

SC Primary: Lied when accusing the Clintons of using race when they were the ones who were guilty. Note Michelle's stump speech "come on black people, Iowa whites voted for him now its your turn". Passing out memos to the media accusing the Clintons of using race to win. Does it make sense that the Clintons would piss off black people so that they would vote for Obama?

Race speech: Bottom line of the speech was Rev. Wright is pissed off, whites and blacks are pissed off, and everybody has a right to be pissed off so there, end of conversion. It was a diversion from Wright's comments about America and his awful comments about the Clintons (did you see his lewd sexual gesture in the pulpit) for which Wright should apologize and Obama should encourage him to do so.

Comments about small town PA: The most notable thing in addition to the comments is the laughing at his comments that were heard in the background. THAT CROWD WAS MAKING FUN OF THESE PEOPLE and Obama did not STOP THEM AND INSTEAD PROBABLY LAUGHED TOO. The problem with Obama is that he does not know who he is. As he stated in his book "Dreams of My Father" he used manipulative tactics to survive in his white world. He said one of the effective tactics he used was to satisfy white people by being courteous, smile, and make no sudden moves. "They were more than satisfied, they were relieved-such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered black man who didn’t seem angry all the time. WHAT A DANGEROUS CHARACTER!!!

GIVE ME HILLARY ANY DAY!!

timmy
01 June 2008 at 05:05

""Some negative things"? Have you seen the videos? And this wasn't just any preacher. This was someone whom Obama has known and worked with for over 20 years. And the congregation was Obama's church. Have a look at the video before you show your ignorance again in this blog."

Ok, so let's just say that this man talked about eating children, kissing bin laden, and burning churches. Let's also say that he is saying this purely because obama told him to (and ignore the fact that obama specifically distanced himself from the comments).

Assuming all those things- HOW IS THAT SEXIST?? Come on- answer the question!!! Quit dodging it- or quit using fluffy arguments.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEXISM AND NEGATIVE COMMENTS. Get over it.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
01 June 2008 at 05:40

your completely ridiculous you know that. complaining that obama has used tactics that were dishonest at times to get into political positions. He's a politician. Its a rare sight to see a politician who hasn't lied to help benefit his/her cause. ANd stop being so contradictory. Don't forget the monumentous lies Hillary has told to benefit her campaign. For example saying that she came under fire in Bosnia.

Susan B
01 June 2008 at 09:31

Timmy: "Let's say" is no replacement for facts, and you should learn to refer to them, not to your imagination. The man didn't talk about eating children or Bin Laden. He did a caricature of Hillary crying, saying "Boo Hoo! I'm Bill's wife!! I'm white! This was mine! And he took it away!! Boo Hoo! Boo Hoo!!"

This discussion has become unworthy of Mr. Stephen's article. I'm gone. So now Timmy, Vince et al will have one less person to interfere with the stream of willful ignorance that has been spewing out.

timmy
01 June 2008 at 11:37

Yes you would go. Why? Because youre COMPLETELY unable to answer my question and you know it. Here's the one that made you look like an idiot:

"HOW IS THAT SEXIST??"

Youve completely failed to answer it. In the preacher's comments, there's anger, silly arguments, and childishness- but no sexism, and you know it. Byebye, loser. Your candidate will last another 3 days.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
01 June 2008 at 20:25

what's your problem. that's exactly what she was talking about with the sexism thing. there's no doubt that she's shouting sexism everytime Hillary's attacked but what your saying is the most sexist comment I've heard concerning this campaign.

VinceP1974
02 June 2008 at 00:29

Obama/Hillary_Supporter : It helps when you address your comment to a person. And refer to the specific comment that you responding to . Otherwise no one knows what the heck you're talking about.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
02 June 2008 at 01:12

its implied. if your really that slow then hopefully this will help. Vincep1974

timmy
02 June 2008 at 03:10

And the comment? Come on, dumbass, pay attention. I cant see anything sexist in his post.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
02 June 2008 at 03:38

what the hell is your problem timmy im on your side and your calling me a dumbass. This vince guy's obviously a jackass and your joining in with him.

Obama/Hillary_Supporter
02 June 2008 at 03:40

besides I said it was the most sexist comment I've heard. I didn't say it was a completely sexist comment. stop trying to throw me in the lot with susan and all the others.

flibbertijibbits.for.obama
03 June 2008 at 19:37

timmy:

How thick can you be? Let's see if we can spell it out for you: Pfledger ridiculed Clinton's tears - crying is a typical sexist criticism of women. Do you get it now, moron?

aloanstar
04 June 2008 at 06:51

This is a really well thought out piece on exactly what has been going on in this race. I loved it and it means even more impressive that it's a man who actually sat down and empathized, in a very heart felt way, how many women see their place in this country. I appreciated reading it and Andrew for sharing it.

nancytc
05 June 2008 at 01:08

All I have to say is that Obama will be making a BIG mistake if he doesn't have Hillary Clinton as his VP.

AND I MEAN BIG...

MoniQueMoniCat
05 June 2008 at 05:41

I will NEVER, ever, never vote for Obama. The only qualification I keep hearing about him is he's BLACK and he will make history because he is black.

That is a silly and irresponsible reason to vote for the leader of the free world.

He is a product of the Chicago machine, nothing more, nothing less. And I truly believe the Obama campaign cheated in Indiana - the districts that border Illinois. How obvious it was. It was ironic they screwed up and accidentally low balled their count and accidentally let her win. Make no mistake about it, they MEANT to forge the votes against her.

JUST SAY "NO" to "O"

I am voting for McCain.

My main reason: Obama is no friend of Israel - he sat in that bastardized form of Christian mixed with black nationalism and nation of islam church with Farakhan for 20 years?

No thanks.

rimalaw
05 June 2008 at 07:52

I have to tell you that I am so pleased that a MAN wrote this article. Thank God there are people with eyes, ears, and BRAINS out there!!!! I am working on a Law Review Article on this very issue. There is Sexism and anyone who doesn't see it is either a man who cannot understand it for the reasons you wrote above, or a woman from one of two categories: 1) The brain washed old fashioned Bible wielding Backwards thinking view that the man is in charge and women are too follow, or: the worst group, 2) women who are jealous of each other and super competitive and hate the idea of other women exceling (i.e. women who look at another woman's nice clothe and say "who does she think she is???"" etc.. Your commentor Diane above is in the #2 Category. Women please realize that we are supposed to build each other up, not tear each other down. Do you see how the black community supports a fellow black candidate, you should take some lessons.

rimalaw
05 June 2008 at 07:57

Did you also notice how sexist father Pfleger was talking about a white woman thinking she can walk into the presidency when women weren't even given the basic right to vote until 5 amendments after black men were given this right (even though that amendment reads differently). And how he compared the black struggle (while it has been hard) to a woman being raped over and over and over and over and over again!!! Yes he said it that many times. Where is the OUTCRY??? Can you imagine if the reverse was used comparing the plight of Women to some horrific acts inflicted upon blacks in the horrific lynchin days? Why haven't we really given it to him? Does he really know what it's like for a woman to be raped over and over again? To be violated in the most basest of ways. To never be the same again??? What is that SEXIST jerk talking about? Please realize that sexism is not always coming in on a trumpet or a banner saying look at me, I am a sexist comment... It is often like the Description given of pornography by the Supreme Court... I know when I see it.

Cygnus Radio
05 June 2008 at 10:48

Hillary has experienced the hard core conscious and subconsious sexism that will probably prevent her from breaking that last glass ceiling in this country until 2012 .. and all the men ( and women ) that have perpetrated it might be able to breathe that collective sigh of relief at maintaining the status quo . by voting for a man .. even tho he is not qualified , lacks the necessary experience , and has been proven to be a liar , dissimulator ,back peddler ,panderer , secretive pretentious , narcissist and has the behavior patterns of an abuser..I will never vote for him and I have a degree in hard science , where you need proof and facts . While the 55- 65 year old flabby jowly media personalities sit and opine and whine ; their 25 - 35 year old female yea sayers say things like" I just dont see the sexism ". Look again ladies, before you are relegated to the sexually irrelevant and invisible segment of the population , when you reach 50 years of age . So much would fundamentally change if a woman were to be president . She would elevate the level of all women to " importance " on a new scale that might prevent so many men from seeing women as objects . This is only a small part of the obstacle Hillary has been fighting and she knows it full well , when she says there is sexism . It isnt even worthy of the ire that the accusation of racism has , because it simply isnt as" important " that the female half of the population are treated as less than in this culture.and in many ways women wear a very real form of cultural burkha , and especialy here in this presidential race.

Charles
06 June 2008 at 13:11

Mr. Stephen protests too much. Obama's occasional less than noble swipe at Clinton was harmless, generally a sign of his impatience and right on (his reference to her Wal-Mart past) in its pointing out her chameleon ways. Clinton did herself in by playing the poor-little-me too many times and crying foul every time things got a little personal, projecting herself as someone who could dish it out but not take it. And as for that reference (twice) to the untimely end to Bobby Kennedy's candidacy, well that spoke for itself . . . Nasty! I don't know if Mr. Stephen is a Brit or not, or if he spent much time in the United States during the Clinton years, but speaking as one who lived through that (and who considers himself a Democrat) I can assure him that disgust with the Clintons was always cheek-by-jowl with admiration for their political skills. There were too many times during this primary promise, when I - and many, many other Americans - felt that old déja vu . . .

gcarth
06 June 2008 at 13:50

I agree with ' Charles'. And what's all this Hillary Clinton rubbish about a woman president being good for America. Since when was Hillary a woman?

She plays by men's rules (when it suits her) and does nothing, as I see it, to further the cause of genuine female equality.

Nick
06 June 2008 at 16:16

There will be a candidate for president who is both Black and Female.

Vote Cynthia McKinney

Green Party!

gcarth
06 June 2008 at 17:12

I thoroughly agree with you, Nick.

Vote for Cynthia Mckinney of the Greens. I've just read up on her - she sounds an excellent choice for President - the only sensible one in reality. But of course we don't live in a world of reality.

In Britain our own Green Party MEP, Caroline Lucas, is the only politician who addresses the real issues. Feminist supporter or not, she asks the simple relevant question of how we can possibly go on expanding our economy indefinitely. and should we not be factoring in other values other than consumerism.

As a bloke, I would vote for her for Prime Minister (and President if we had one in the U.K.) if I had half a chance!

Serosch
06 June 2008 at 20:37

Hillary Clinton is racist, calculating, scheming, and a psychopath who is on record as saying that she will obliterate Iran, the oldest nation in the World.

lspencer
06 June 2008 at 23:32

You have embarrassed yourself as a journalist. Please sit down and try again.

lspencer
06 June 2008 at 23:40

The central point of your argument (somehow arguing that linking Hillary and Bill is unfair politics) is embarrassingly inaccurate. If Bill were simply a passive spouse, then maybe you'd be onto something. Instead, he advanced an agenda of personal attacks on Senator Obama. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with Obama implying that he had been battling both Clintons, because he was.

Further, there is nothing sexist or wrong about pointing out that Hillary is a far less skilled politician than her husband. That isn't any more sexist than pointing out that the husbands of women like Nancy Pelosi are most likely less skilled politicians than their wives.

Foreign journalists such as yourself try to claim that they are "detached" from the situation and therefore more able to comment accurately on American politics. On the contrary, as a foreigner, you are far less qualified to comment on our political goings-on. Please leave whatever agenda you have at the door and stop commenting on issues that you clearly have no grasp on.

Senator Clinton has been treated in an offensive manner by countless men and women during this election cycle, but so has Senator Obama (see the absurd "Hussein Obama" tactics). That is, unfortunately, the nature of American politics. No man (or woman) has any right to be above these attacks as long as they continue to sling them themselves.

sunnyday
07 June 2008 at 01:39

Why do you say that you are not particularly a fan of H. Clinton? It's like saying "I hate her too but for nobler reasons" That's just as stupid. Well, I a fan of Clinton, and if she is not chosen as VP, I am voting for Mc Cain.

MC in Oregon
07 June 2008 at 05:44

This article concurs with my observations. The responses to it show how people's views are shaped and warped by the media. I watch very litle tv, only occasionally read a main stream media newspaper but do watch outtakes on youtube, have been appalled at the sexism. But the sexism has been overt only on the sidelines. It is seen in the lack of response to the "inadvertant comments." The people who disagree with your assessment clearly have let the BO media crowd frame the message so they can see it no other way.

elcooney
07 June 2008 at 12:54

The media was an extension of the Obama campaign and never gave Senator Clinton her due.She was demeaned and criticized in the most vile way.All her actions were attributed to political ambition and demonized.No one runs for any political office without ambition, but it was tolerated in Obama and served as a reason to denigrate Clinton.Had she tried to run for the Presidency with Obama's resume, the Media would have derided her as an interloper and unworthy candidate.Sen. Obama was never questioned nor vetted nor criticized in any way.When it takes SNL to point out the bias, the Media should hang its head in shame.Where is reporting the news without regad to personal feelings?Certainly it was no where to be found in this campaign, and the Democratic party will field the candidate of lesser stature as a result.

leftbank
07 June 2008 at 20:07

Thank you for this article. Finally, an acknowledgement of the conservative press biases. However, I think what's as disturbing as the sexism in the press is this blogging culture where practically every uneducated illiterate response gets to post its hate speech in the name of democracy and public opinion. Rarely are the comments more than recycled headlines without originality or insight.

robspiro
07 June 2008 at 22:38

'the media was sexist, the media was pro-obama, the media stole HRC's nomination.'

boo hoo.

the very same media annointed her the president way back in the beginning of the campaign, there's an excellent daily show clip currently making the rounds illustrating this quite clearly. She basically started out as the incumbent yet obama wrested media control away from her. she had it, he took it... its called politics.

And if I recall, one of the selling points of HRC's campaign was that she would get down and dirty and out-fight the repugs at their own game. they threw everything including the sink at obama (they named a campaign strategy after it), nothing stuck... he does the same and you scream foul?

and what about bending the agreed upon rules concerning michigan and florida? the insult 50-states strategy? (look it up)... saying that caucasing was undemocratic because she was'nt winning them? her chief strategist did'nt know that democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries? failing to have a game-plan after super tuesday? i won't even go into the crazy statements from her and bill...

I don't like HRC, thats obvious. but she entered this race with every advantage and she lost... narrowly, but she still lost. the fact that 'least qualified presidential nominee ever', a 'deeply flawed candidate' beat her in spite of all her advantages says to me that he organized his resources better, picked a better staff, controlled the perceptions game, and was always several steps ahead... in short he has demonstrated every quality i want from a nominee.

HRC's minions can continue wailing that the media did her in, the truth is that she dug the grave herself and got in, all they had to do was fill it up with dirt...

berrigrl
08 June 2008 at 00:30

Thank you! I just hope the american media takes note of this very important piece. I am a Gen-X professional ultra progressive female San Franciscan and I wake up everyday weary of what I will read (and on occassion see) and am invariably angry and outraged by the end of the day. The fact that anyone can possibly say for a moment this hasn't been sexism, it is Hillary has some serious cognitive impairment in reason and also thinks that if a woman is perceived bad enough, a witch burning may be acceptable as well. I am supporting and always have been the third candidate as this country isn't really a democracy with just 2, so don't call me a whiner over my loss.

berrigrl
08 June 2008 at 02:16

GavrielleLaPoste

poor girl, did someone not treat you right. don't they know how important you are? ah, poor baby

suzannet1
08 June 2008 at 18:21

Thanks for the insight. If all your article had done was to allow for the string of reader comments, it served a vital purpose: a perfect demonstration of the very ugliness and imbecility you intimate. Once again, the Hillary-haters emerge from their dark little holes to spew a few more misogynist lines for their sad little reasons. It's like clockwork. Any defense of Hillary Clinton seems an open invitation to cretins who need just one more chance to strut their nasty stuff!

Kija
08 June 2008 at 18:33

Judith Warner wrote a piece on the 5th also lamenting the sexism unleashed during the primary. There were over 450 posts.

Early on, a poster wrote "One reason sexist commentary isn’t met with the same fury as racist or anti-semitic commentary might be that blacks were, within recent memory, skinned alive and hung from trees and Jews were murdered by the millions."

In the more than 400 posts that followed not one person said that every two minutes a woman in the US is sexually assaulted. No one mentioned the murder of women by husbands, boyfriends and strangers. No one mentioned the epidemic of violence against women that continues to this day.

Yes, African Americans were enslaved. Chattel slavery. Yet, into the 19th century, women were also legally chattel.

I don't like getting into oppression olympics, but the utter obliviousness of that poster and many of the posters here boggles the mind.

You can say there is no sexism until the sun rises in the West, but that just shows you cannot see past your own nose.

WAdem
10 June 2008 at 04:23

Excellent article. I am amazed how the worm has turned and Obama supporters who trashed my wife and I for supporting Hillary now want us to join them in making him President and leader of the Free World. Funny, now I don't like his politics and think he has too much baggage to bring to the job. Moreover, in response to David Shuster of MSNBC, I'm really bummed out by Michelle pimping for Barack.

hillaryclinton
10 June 2008 at 08:06

You know, women evolved naturally to be submissive. That's nature. Someone has to be in command or there will be constant disagreements. Unfortunately, modern women have stopped all that- so we now have a massive increase in divorce, rises in depression, a break down of family ties, and a lack of cleaners. Time to go back to nature, women. Ask yourself- is it really a good idea to have two dominant people to each couple? Can it really work? Is this the reason for the massive rise in divorces which coincides exactly with women's liberation? In the name of human happiness (women's as well as men's), should the women go back to being submissive and, indeed, quit bitching?

twinkie
10 June 2008 at 16:34

The conclusion I reached after living through this primary season is that the PEOPLE have no say in the political process. Money and power groups determine the candidates and the outcome of the election from the get-go, therefore, personally, I will not vote probabl anymore since my right has been replaced by a gesture to support hidden groups with money and power.

I agree w/Mr Stephen 100% but why are these blogs and articles coming only now when is too late? how come Rev. Wright was not enough to 'mess' up Mr. Obama's campaign? why did Obama get any delegates from Michigan when he wasn't even in the ballot?

Lets just stop wasting our time so many Tuesdays since votes are meaningless, it was already proven in 2000, 2004 and now it became bi-partisan in 2008.

Is anybody thinking about the money spent on political campaigns?

I support H. Clinton, I will NOT vote democrat, I will NOT vote republican - my vote was already voided in the last 6 months.

KH 10 June 2008 at 22:35

This has nothing to do with sexism. The Clinton machine is one of the worst things that has happened to this country, and not because of Monica Lewinsky. They are a pair of political desperados, and let us hope this is good bye and good riddance.

Karl Hiller

29 Eagle Street

Spring Valley, NY 10977, USA

Sue Shone
11 June 2008 at 04:42

Thank you Andrew Stephen for your timely article. Your theme resonates strongly here in New Zealand, where we have a brilliant woman Prime Minister who is constantly subjected to shameless sexism. From the so-called harmless "sisterhood in sensible shoes" taunts, through to the gross caricatures of misogynist catoonists and anti-family accusations, Helen Clark endures the onslaught. Daily she faces hateful - and to use your words "gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind". It will be a tragedy for the Labour Party, the country and particularly for the women and minority groups in New Zealand if she is not re-elected later this year.

Sue Shone

Wellington New Zealand

Abby
11 June 2008 at 22:45

I have been watching BBC America for months because I cannot tolerate the obnoxious NBC/MSNBC talking heads.

I found a wonderful article in AsianNews about Obama which only reinforced my worries about the man and his wife. The quality of US news has sunk so low that my family has even begun watching FOX news; an unapologetic right-wing, conservative station, for a less anti-Hillary bias.

How awful for America that we must go to foreign press for fair coverage of American politics.

Thank you very much for this article; I am printing it and giving it to my mom to read too. One thing that you failed to mention was that the Equal Rights Amendment was soundly defeated back in the early 80's. We are also on the verge of losing many of our reproductive rights; abortion, forms of oral birthcontrol; many pharmacies and hospitals feel that it is up to their discretion regarding giving rape victims the 'day-after' pill to prevent pregnancy. It is a very bad time to be a woman in America or the parents of a female.

The people in my family discuss the opinions that you wrote about but it is so rare to hear anyone else with your voice; you have given me a bit of legitimacy; Thank you.

I don't believe that Obama is qualified to lead our country; I will be looking to see if you have any ideas that match mine about that as well. I know that Hillary isn't perfect but she is an educated woman who devoted her entire life to helping others.

First Bush and now Obama; we are truly being led down the path of the least qualified, petulant, arrogant, egotistical macho males on the planet.

Abby
11 June 2008 at 23:15

p.s. What REALLY irks me is when Obama condescendingly says, that Hillary is a great 'public SERVANT.' Technically, I suppose he is correct but was a sneaky, nasty image for a man to use against a woman. Certainly if she referred to him as a 'servant' the media would be all over her for reinforcing the image of a black man waiting tables for whites.

Robert Powell
12 June 2008 at 09:42

Until this one...

Robert Powell
12 June 2008 at 09:44

Sorry I just realised I conflated the previous two comments as I read them. Doh. I'm agreeing with Tod. Drink anyone?

gumchewer
12 June 2008 at 14:16

great stuff all round new statesman

Democrat for Hillary
12 June 2008 at 19:25

Your article is well taken....you did neglect to mention Morning Joe on MSNBC and his band of broadcasters.....who are dripping with bias and disdane for Hillary.....they are also guilty of the morphing of Hillary and Bill as though Senator Clinton cannot stand on her own two feet. It is clear to me that she is an exceptional person with tremendous expertise and experience. You are right the Democratic party has been saddled with the least competent candidate. The press has engineered this entire election with its bias by both male and female killer commentators going for the throat iof Hillary Clinton in an unabashed manner. I am ashamed of NBC and MSNBC. There were commentators on other networks equally blatant in their scathing remarks. The networks have indeed influenced the voters in this primary and I suspect that will happen in the General Election. Watch closely it has already started......network owners will select their candidate....There is no FREEDOM of the press.

Abby
12 June 2008 at 21:12

Spankerrit: re: your IQ idea.

I believe that MANY REPUBLICANS voted for Obama because they believed that Hillary had a chance against McCain but they were betting that Obama didn't.

In fact, I know a few Republicans who did just that; I called them friends even, although now, I have been having a difficult time looking at them in the eye.

frenchie
12 June 2008 at 22:25

I think it is now clear that people all over the world are waking up to the sad realisation that Obama is very, very bad news. Poor America. Poor world.

gondwanaland
13 June 2008 at 09:45

This article is absurd, and the responses are shocking. It's as if Andrew Stephen is living in a parallel universe where The Clinton's ran a dignified campaign.

They didn't.

Accusations of sexism are risible, though it's certainly true that Billary went to great lengths to appeal to "white" voters.

Those Clinton supporters who are intending to vote for McCain are not true democrats, and never have been. Obama and Clinton are pretty close together on policy, so why all the fuss? As an Obama supporter i would have happily voted for Clinton had she made the nomination.

Talk about sour grapes.

There are many reasons why HRC failed to win the nomination, but the elephant in the room is clearly her support for the Iraq war. Had she taken a principled stand, Obama would never have got near the nomination. I think her supporters here, and the writer of this article, are well aware of this but have chosen to ignore it.

Also, many seem to have forgotten that only a few weeks ago Clinton was talking about nuking Iran, while Obama was talking about negotiations. Am i really reading a New Statesman comments page? Cos it sure looks like The Spectator to me.

Will Obama make a good president? I certainly think he'll get the job. McCain is dead on arrival IMHO. Way too old, and far too close to the discredited Bush agenda.

Obama will be an OK president, as would HRC had she been nominated. Neither would make the necessary foreign policy choices that America desperately needs, though Obama's opposition to the war puts him in a rather better position.

Last week's AIPAC grovel was hardly an auspicious start, though at least he managed to avoid threatening genocide on the world.

The short memories of Clinton supporters here are bizarre.

America can do without dynasties, and the world can do without leaders who threaten to drop nuclear bombs on people they should be talking to.

Clinton lost because she failed to distance herself from the disasters of Bush's foreign adventures. In fact she supported them.

Many people want to see change in America, but Hilary wasn't the one to do the job.

drew
13 June 2008 at 15:11

"What REALLY irks me is when Obama condescendingly says, that Hillary is a great 'public SERVANT.' Technically, I suppose he is correct but was a sneaky, nasty image for a man to use against a woman. Certainly if she referred to him as a 'servant' the media would be all over her for reinforcing the image of a black man waiting tables for whites."

Thats about the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

Gideon Polya
13 June 2008 at 22:53

I am an economic conservative who would love to see a woman leader of America - the men with a few exceptions have been so awful. However I also believe in "all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and am also unalienably committed to the core messages from the Jewish Holocaust (6 million victims, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) and the World War 2 Holocaust in general (30 million, Slav, Jewish and Roma victims), specifically "zero tolerance for racism" and "never again to anyone".

Hillary Clinton's consistent support for US and US Alliance racist Asian wars (now 25 million Indigenous avoidable deaths in post-1950 US Asian wars) make her unfit to hold any public office - she belongs in the dock before the International Criminal Court.

Hillary Clinton supported the Gulf War and Sanctions against Iraq (1990-2003 excess deaths 1.9 million, under-5 infant deaths 1.2 million); the Afghanistan War (post-invasion excess deaths 3-7 million, under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million, 4 million refugees); the Iraq War (post-invasion excess deaths 2 million, under-5 infant deaths 0.6 million, refugees 4.5 million); and the brutal colonization of the Middle East by racist Zionist-run Apartheid israel (post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million, under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; 4 million Palestinians still imprisoned in Bantustan-style Concentration Camps; 7 million Palestinian refugees).

Neo-Bush-ite, Bush-lite Hillary Clinton is complicit in the ongoing Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghan, Biofuel and Climate Genocides (see: http://www.liberalati.com/?q=node/261 ) and the deaths of 4 million utterly innocent infants (see: "US mass infanticide. 4 million reasons why Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/19275/42/ ).

demwit
15 June 2008 at 08:43

This is the best and most objective article on the systematic smearing of Hillary Clinton by the Obama campaign that I've seen. The demagoguery and demonization carried out by Obama and Axelrod was semi-fascistic and, even if Obama wins in November, it will be a tainted win. Mr. Stephen, I hope you'll write a book about it, since people need all the information in one place. A book would also be helpful for future female candidates, who need to prepare for ad hominem assaults from male candidates which those candidates wouldn't make against other male candidates.

If you do write a book, I hope you'll include one chapter on male-bonding between men in the commentariat and another chapter on how Geraldine Ferraro was smeared. Even after it was pointed out that Obama himself had made remarks similar to Ferraro's, he nevertheless unfairly and unjustly went on framed her as an extremist and paired her with Rev. Wright in the speech on race in America. That inaccuracy and sexism should appear so blatently in the middle of this speech is not only shocking, but Ferraro shouldn't go down in history as something she is absolutely not.

I'm one of those who will be unable to vote for Obama in November because of his dirty campaign as well as his lack of depth as a politician. Just as in 2000 and 2004, image has won out over substance.

Susan B
16 June 2008 at 15:23

As my previous posts said, I think Andrew Stephens articles is dead-on. One important omission, however--and I have found this to be the case with all the recent articles discussing (finally) the misogyny of the press--is the focus on MSNBC and neglect of more "respectable" reporting like CNN, which has been equally (and unrepentantly) sexist, especially Frank Cafferty and Jeffrey Toobin, described as part of "the best political team on television." Gloria Borger and Roland Martin haven't been much better. And let's not forget Maureen Dowd in The New York Times. I'm afraid that if critics only target the most tabloid reportage, it can be dismissed, while CNN, The New York Times and others can pretend (to themselves as well as to us) that THEY'VE been above reproach.

Serosch
17 June 2008 at 08:54

Clinton is a lunatic who wants to murder 80 million Iranians.

proudlyleft
17 June 2008 at 18:22

There's sexism in the US media, no doubt. And there is racism in the US media too. And they are there, in different forms, everywhere else, to a greater or lesser degree. But lets not shout sexism in support of one candidate or racism in support of another. Sexism or not, Hillary Clinton turned out to be the more populist and less principled candidate of the two in the Democratic run-up. It was a pity. But it was so. Make a list of statements attributed reliably to Obama and Hillary and compare them. You are not SEXIST if you come to the conclusion that she brought up some ready and glib catch-phrases -- religion, god etc -- to undercut some reasonable statements by Obama.

Maggie in Florida
18 June 2008 at 04:03

Finally the world gets to see the sickness in American men and women who want to be like them for fear of being ...well, feminine.

The misogyny and sexism is pathological and dictates most American men both immaturely developed and well...downright stupid for allowing their deepest feelings to go public as they have.

Think about the mental stability of American women when they like men like this. Pretty sick society isn't it?

papigosh
18 June 2008 at 17:10

Hear the rant of a so called editor.

"In their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever".

This editor seem to miss the point about the essence of democracy. It could also be called an art or practice that allows the people make a choice on available evidence and their perception therefrom. For instance, a sizable number of people both in the UK and US vehemently kicked against the war on Iraq especially as there was no shred of evidence linking Iraq and terrorism including 9/11. Nevertheless, his so called 'experienced' and favoured politicians like Hillary Clinton thought, felt and voted in line with this very flawed reasoning plunging us into one of the biggest human catastrophy of our time excluding its impact on our economies.

And he has the nerve to call a man who forsaw this disaster like other ordinary citizens and voted against, 'the least qualified presidential nominee'. I wonder what his take would be on George W Bush? Oh i forgot, George W Bush does not exactly look like Barack Obama or does he?

He goes further to say, 'but will Obama live up to the hype? That, i fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate.

Did he bother to back his assertion with any evidence? Not necessary because he depends on his crystal ball and his deep-seated hatred for a man whose only crime is having the AUDACITY to beat an 'unbeatable phenomenon' called Clinton in an electoral contest. We should all learn to lose gracefully and Obama contrary to popular myths knows this. He lost woefully, his very first attempt at public office in Illinois.

Shouldn't this particular editor know better? Having to lose gracefully is a political skill and again his favoured candidate has not demonstrated this skill and experience and it is absolutely unrelated to her sex.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton was a formidable and credible candidate, unfortunately, a better one was on offer. Mr Stephens should deal with it as it appears Hillary is already coming to terms with reality. Crystal ball gazing and reality are mutually incompartible.

collhic
20 June 2008 at 17:09

This is, by far, the best article I've read on how the media shamelessly handicapped the Clinton campaign. It is also one of the rare articles which candidly details the very real vitriol the Obama camp and supporters spewed throughout the process as well.

The audacity of hope is more aptly the audacity of hate.

CiCi
23 June 2008 at 14:51

Even after all this time I'm still amazed at how easily the Obama camp managed to paint the Clintons as racists. I guess we Democrats can only hope that any criticism of him by Republicans can also be painted as racist, because it is obviously easily swallowed by the media and many voters.

I'll support Obama because he isn't McCain, but I won't ever forget what his gang did to two people who did so much for all of us. It was shameful and I'm happy to see some here who saw thru the crap, but sad to see so many actually bought the lie.

We must hope he governs with more honesty than he campaigns or else Democrats will be set back for decades.

thinker
07 July 2008 at 17:12

papgosh:

Obama did not vote against the war - he was not a senator at the time, and what's more the much touted supposed speech that he gave in 2002 opposing the war was never recorded and was recreated by his campaign for advertisments, so who knows what he really said. Further, since becoming a senator, Obama did not make even an anti-war comment and even admitted that he did not know how he would have voted if he had all the information and was in the senate and in a position to vote. He has also supported every bill that has come before the senate aimed at keeping the war going. Plus, contrary to his campaign statments, his aides have admitted publicly that his promise to end the war is meaningless because he will not make a decision until after he is elected and has had a meeting with generals. How on earth does this all amount to superior judgement from a man who by the way did not have the wherewithall to avoid sniffing coacaine regularly at some point in his life.

outsider
22 August 2008 at 22:11

Before you swoon over Hillary, check out 'Hildabeast' on the web. And ain't it a shame, that all MSM plays the 'tweedle dee - tweedle dum' two-party game; like 'New Labour' and 'Con(by name, and by nature)servatives, the same bankers, industrialists and secret societies control the policies.

Now, why not cover a decent candidate, Cynthia McKinney? Boy, would she shake the Establishment to their hell-based roots! She may not have a bat in hell's chance of winning, given no money and a blanket media blackout.

Check out her policies, NS, and be chastened. Talk about chalk and cheese; if there was an all-party public debate of all candidates, of maybe four hours duaration or more, with the discussions continueing for following days till all the points the candidates wanted to make were made and answered by the other candidates, she would not wipe the floor with the whole shower, only because they would have fled with their tails between their legs in confusion.

Check out runcynthiarun.

London UK

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Andrew Stephen was appointed US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998. He is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.