Mark Kleiman suggests that revisiting this appalling episode in McCainiac misogyny might be a useful party unity exercise:
John McCain -- kind of an appalling guy.
« We Have Ways of Making You Agree to Our Permanent Basing Deal | Main | The Trouble With Porkbusting »
"How Do We Beat The Bitch?"
06 Jun 2008 10:03 am
Comments (90)
but Dan, nobody's threatening to vote for you.
Both of the above points are valid.
I was hoping he'd said it himself, although I'm sure he's not THAT stupid.
Still, that could go viral and end this thing right here and now.
Don't forget his alleged -- but multiple-sourced -- verbal rebuke of Mrs. McCain when she teased him about his hair. Charming.
Right. Its not hypocritical to oppose candidates who have failings that you yourself share.
For example, although I was conflicted about it, I was marginally in favor of the Iraq war back in 2003. Its not hypocritical for me to support someone like Obama who was wiser than me.
Don't forget his alleged -- but multiple-sourced -- verbal rebuke of Mrs. McCain when she teased him about his hair. Charming.
Even worse, as Kleiman notes, is McCain's appalling joke about Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno. That is something he actually said. Every Democratic pundit or guest who appears on cable TV bring this up, and ask: "how can anyone vote for someone this repellent?"
Andy, don't be so bloody delicate. Who knows how many readers might happen by here not knowing that he called his wife a "cunt" (and, as a bonus) a "trollop"!) in public?
Yeah, it's too bad there's no video of the trollop rebuke. That would put McCain's newfound respect for feminism in the proper place.
And note at the end, he uses the phrase "Democrat party", which is, of course, not the name of the party. Perhaps he respects whoever wins the nomination of the "Democrat Party" but not the winner of the nomination of the "Democratic Party"?
Obama events look like sold out concerts, and McCain events look like Florida neighborhood association meetings.
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
McCain never dropped the B-bomb in this clip, a questioner did. Though he laughed, he pretty much rebuked her, "translating" the question and stating how much respect he has for Sen. Clinton.
Playing this clip over and over is just as likely to endear McCain to Clinton voters as it is to alienate them, IMO.
Thanks for posting this, because we can't let the mean-old-man remake himself into a feminist. Not only are his policies completely wrong for women, he's not exactly the most chivalrous guy.
Yeah, we have long expected this kind of thing from Republicans.
But tell me, fella, how does that excuse the same kind of thing from Democrats?
Oracle, you'd be right if "that's an excellent questions" was a rebuke. But it isn't.
This kind of stuff is so stupid. Anyone whose vote is affected by moronic stuff like this or the bitter comments or the arugula nonsense is a doofus. There is plenty of legitimate stuff to hate McCain for, we don't need to dig for him not rebuking someone at a small gathering.
Is "bitch" still misogyny when a woman says it?
Come on Yggy be serious, these troll posts aren't up to your usual standards (low as they are).
It would be awfully hypocritical for Obama supporters to accuse McCain of misogyny when the misogyny was rampant during the Obama campaign against Clinton. Obama supporters are probably the most misogynist in the history of modern campaigns. Heck, all you need is to look back at the comments on this site to see that.
Let me be more explicit because I see few here understand the problem.
If you are trying to appeal to voters for whom misogyny is a deal breaker, it is not enough to suggest that the other guy is a misogynist. You have to demonstrate that you aren't a misogynist.
As the situation now stands, what this campaign season has revealed is that the Democrats, including many who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" have just as much of a problem with misogyny as the Republicans. Which goes a long way in explaining the lack of progress women have seen on issues of vital importance to them -- issues of both political and economic equality -- over the last 30 years.
Dems can't just point to the other guys anymore and say -- "they're worse," because they've now quite thoroughly proven that they are no better.
I can't vote for McCain on issues of foreign policy and economics. But, please, don't insult me by insisting I should vote for Obama because Democrats display conduct toward women any less creepy that what is demonstrated in this clip.
Anyone whose vote is affected by moronic stuff like this or the bitter comments or the arugula nonsense is a doofus.
Have you traveled around the country lately? This is a lot of voters you're talking about.
Let me be more explicit because I see few here understand the problem.
If you are trying to appeal to voters for whom misogyny is a deal breaker, it is not enough to suggest that the other guy is a misogynist. You have to demonstrate that you aren't a misogynist.
As the situation now stands, what this campaign season has revealed is that the Democrats, including many who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" have just as much of a problem with misogyny as the Republicans. Which goes a long way in explaining the lack of progress women have seen on issues of vital importance to them -- issues of both political and economic equality -- over the last 30 years.
Dems can't just point to the other guys anymore and say -- "they're worse," because they've now quite thoroughly proven that they are no better.
I can't vote for McCain on issues of foreign policy and economics. But, please, don't insult me by insisting I should vote for Obama because Democrats display conduct toward women any less creepy than what is demonstrated in this clip.
Anyone whose vote is affected by moronic stuff like this or the bitter comments or the arugula nonsense is a doofus.
Well, maybe, but we need a majority.
Democrats would be wise to call Republicans on their use of the infantile insult "Democrat party" whenever they have the chance.
A lot of Republicans become very defensive when confronted about this stupidity (going back many years) because its party of GOP folklore to use this kind of thing.
They have a hard time showing respect for a party many regard as illegitimate and un-uhmurican.
Bush's people were kicking and screaming for days when Bush was pressured to apologize for using the epither in the SOTU.
It's good nit picking.
I agree with Oracle. I am no more a supporter of McCain than Matt but McCain was diplomatic and made it clear that he respected HRC. Credit for TPM for including his critical clarification.
News flash, Clinton supporters already knew about this. Having a bunch of Obama fanboys start wielding the "misogynist!" club NOW, after the woman in the race is safely vanquished, is not exactly endearing.
Not that it's not a good thing, generally, to call out misogyny. Probably just a little more credible when there is a continuing pattern of sincere concern rather than just raw political calculation.
How is that appalling? He answered her with a joke to diffuse the hatred, a facepalm, and a gentle rebuke: "I respect Senator Clinton." (She's not a bitch, she's a Senator.)
If you want to criticize McCain for caving to the worst elements of his party, he's got plenty of policy flip-flops to answer for. Why are you getting distracted by a clip that to my eye shows him in a pretty good light?
"Anyone whose vote is affected by moronic stuff like this or the bitter comments or the arugula nonsense is a doofus. "
The doofus vote could be the margin of victory.
News flash, Clinton supporters already knew about this. Having a bunch of Obama fanboys start wielding the "misogynist!" club NOW, after the woman in the race is safely vanquished, is not exactly endearing.
Not that it's not a good thing, generally, to call out misogyny. Probably just a little more credible when there is a continuing pattern of sincere concern rather than just raw political calculation.
News flash, Clinton supporters already knew about this. Having a bunch of Obama fanboys start wielding the "misogynist!" club NOW, after the woman in the race is safely vanquished, is not exactly endearing.
Not that it's not a good thing, generally, to call out misogyny. Probably just a little more credible when there is a continuing pattern of sincere concern rather than just raw political calculation.
the Democrats, including many who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" have just as much of a problem with misogyny as the Republicans.
esmense, can you point me to a good elaboration of this point of view? Every argument I've seen on this point has been almost entirely about the media's treatment of Clinton, which I don't think is a good reason to refrain from supporting Obama.
Matthew, John McCain has treated Hillary with greater respect than Obama supporters have, and even Obama himself.
If you're going to try to use Fear of McCain to drive Hillary's supporters, it won't work.
He could have brought up his 3 daughters - we've heard a lot about them the past couple of days
How is that appalling? He answered her with a joke to diffuse the hatred, a facepalm, and a gentle rebuke: "I respect Senator Clinton." (She's not a bitch, she's a Senator.) He refused the bait on the ugly part of the question and proceeded to answer the substantive part (how do we beat her).
If you want to criticize McCain for caving to the worst elements of his party, he's got plenty of policy flip-flops to answer for. Why are you getting distracted by a clip that to my eye shows him in a pretty good light?
I can't vote for McCain on issues of foreign policy and economics. But, please, don't insult me by insisting I should vote for Obama because Democrats display conduct toward women any less creepy than what is demonstrated in this clip.
Fair point. But Obama himself hasn't exhibited behavior like McCain's (yes, there was "Sweetiegate," and no, that's not acceptable). Laughing along with calling Hillary a 'bitch' and telling jokes about Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno are a far cry from a slip or two.
Agreed with oracle and others above. Looks like an awkward situation for him, and he responded delicately.
I'm with Oracle on this too. McCain's sins are legion, but this isn't one of them.
How is that appalling? He answered her with a joke to diffuse the hatred, a facepalm, and a gentle rebuke: "I respect Senator Clinton." (She's not a bitch, she's a Senator.) He refused the bait on the ugly part of the question and instead answered the substantive part (how do we beat her).
Granny-with-potty-mouth is incongruous and funny (even if it's tragicomedy) and a person is entitled to laugh.
If you want to criticize McCain for caving to the worst elements of his party, he's got plenty of policy flip-flops to answer for. Why are you getting distracted by a clip that to my eye shows him in a pretty good light?
Yep. I'm with the Oracle crew too. This is the same blunt instrument with which people are trying to brand Obama as a racist because he had a fiery black preacher. It should be beneath us.
Esmense, I've also had a huge (HUGE) problem with misogyny during the campaign. But, it's come from the media and it's come from Obama supporters (and McCain supporters, which I suppose should go with out saying) but not from Obama. When some of the Obama supporters who were unloading on Clinton start expressing outrage over GOP woman-hating it comes of at best like a bunch of concern trolls (or like Republicans trying to explain that we ought to support their war on Islam because of the treatment of women in fundamentalist Islamic groups.
I think it would be great, however, if Obama himself started calling out McCain on stuff like the failure to slap down the "bitch" comment, and I think it really would help heal some divisions. Obama hasn't been the problem - it's been his supporters. I'd like to see that underscored by Obama himself.
I think many of you are missing the point.
Listen to the laughter in the room. It's not only that you're voting for a guy who is laughing at Senator Clinton being called a "bitch".
It's that you're voting with people who think it's hilarious.
That should tell you something.
For this particular incident, it was a reflection on McCain's supporters. You know, there's nothing wrong with making the election into a campaign against McCain's supporters who are the sort of cranky, angry people calling Hillary a "bitch."
"How do we beat the bastard" - hateful of men? yes/no
It's funny how all of these "feminists" like the idiots posting here and Joan Walsh think that Hillary is too weak to defend herself against misogyny in the media and that she must be saved from the big, bad media by a man, i.e. Barack Obama.
Just shut up, already. The media sucks, and if you can't manipulate it, you've got to deal with it.
And it's also funny how none of those outraged by the alleged sexism in this campaign were howling about it until it was obvious their girl was finished. Sounds like after-the-fact rationalization to me.
You people are as transparent and as hypocritical as they come. Enough already.
Right. And he's the same guy who likes to tell crass jokes about the daughter of a sitting U.S. president:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno"
"How do we beat the bastard" - hateful of men? yes/no
Certainly hateful of those whose parents weren't married when they were born.
Right. And he's the same guy who likes to tell crass jokes about the daughter of a sitting U.S. president:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno"
I've noticed this before, but on this thread it's ridiculous: why the fuck can't Hillary and McCain supporters learn not to double (or triple, or quadruple) post? Are you mashing the keyboard with your foot or something?
what this campaign season has revealed is that the Democrats, including many who call themselves "liberals" and "progressives" have just as much of a problem with misogyny as the Republicans. Posted by esmense | June 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Esmense,
With all due respect, you do not have the evidence to justify your beliefs. This is a rediculous smear of the Democratic Party and its dedicated members.
I've also had a huge (HUGE) problem with misogyny during the campaign. But, it's come from the media and it's come from Obama supporters (and McCain supporters, which I suppose should go with out saying) but not from Obama.
Kudos to Melinda for raising this obvious but elusive point. Any misogyny directed against Hillary came from the Chris Matthews-types in the media, or from independent Obama supporters and anonymous blog commenters. Yet Obama still gets blamed.
John Petty, or anyone else: point me to one instance where Obama, or any of his staff, or anyone officially connected to his campaign, was guilty of wielding misogyny against Hillary. (And no, "periodically" doesn't count.)
Meanwhile, Obama supporters have legitimate gripes about things Clinton herself and her campaign spokespeople have said... But we digress.
This is the same blunt instrument with which people are trying to brand Obama as a racist because he had a fiery black preacher.
Agreed with Oracle and especially Adam's follow-up. To be honest we need to make a distinction here between McCain and his followers, just like we need to make a distinction between Obama and his. There isn't any way in hell that I'll vote for a warmonger like McCain, and I'm not saying that he hasn't said awful, foolish things, but what we have here is a bitch calling another woman a bitch with McCain doing the whole headshaking, oh-Jesus-why-did-she-have-to-say-that-on-camera thing.
Of course, politics is everything but honestsy, so all of the above is probably moot.
The mistake many are making is believing that the feminist outrage over the alleged misogyny from the Obama campaign towards Clinton is based at all in a concern for women's rights, rather than an intense emotional investment in a single candidate and crass political calculations on how to consolidate a voting bloc in her favor.
For evidence, see people in this thread who express concerns over misogyny but at the same time apologize for McCain calling a "very good question" someone who asked how to beat that "bitch". This is the same McCain who's insult to Chelsea, Janet Reno, and women in general is already documented in this thread. But McCain didn't crush their hopes of Hillary being President, Obama did. As such, we shouldn't be surprised when their feminist rage isn't turned towards the GOP presumptive nominee. A vote for McCain isn't a statement of righteous feminist anger, its a vindictive, petty, and tribal act.
"Matthew, John McCain has treated Hillary with greater respect than Obama supporters have, and even Obama himself.
If you're going to try to use Fear of McCain to drive Hillary's supporters, it won't work.
Posted by John Petty | June 6, 2008 11:07 AM"
What has Obama done to treat Clinton with actual disrespect, especially disrespect for her as a woman? I would say McCain's joke about her daughter is a lot more disrespectful to Clinton, especially on gender, than anything Obama has done.
This is the same blunt instrument with which people are trying to brand Obama as a racist because he had a fiery black preacher.
Agreed with Oracle and especially Adam's follow-up. To be honest we need to make a distinction here between McCain and his followers, just like we need to make a distinction between Obama and his. There isn't any way in hell that I'll vote for a warmonger like McCain, and I'm not saying that he hasn't said awful, foolish things, but what we have here is a catty old chick calling another woman a name with McCain doing the whole headshaking, oh-Jesus-why-did-she-have-to-say-that-on-camera thing.
Of course, politics is everything but honestsy, so all of the above is probably moot.
It's the company you keep. The 'bitch' reference has less to do with misogyny than straight up hatred of Clinton. If some Clinton supporters want to join the ranks of Clinton haters, fine. But they're also joining the social conservatives, where there's a strain of thought that believes women's suffrage is the cause of many of society's ills. John McCain opposes equal pay for women suggesting that, rather than fight, women become over-qualified with more training and education to compensate for perceptions that keep wages lower. If some party realignment is occurring, some Clinton supporters probably belong with that coalition.
Other Clinton supporters have different reasons. One lady was on with Neil Cavuto having just started a Clinton supporters for McCain group. This lady was adamant that race wasn't a factor although red, white and blue would be nice. She pointed out that she could not vote for an associate of terrorist bomb-maker William Ayers. So some Democrat defections are differently principled and, I would guess, partially influenced by The Protocols of the Secret Muslim.
Clinton supporter states Clinton campaign used 'divisive tactics'
A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp "has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have."
Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.
For all those claiming the misogyny has not come from the Obama campaign directly, let me remind you of Jesse Jackson Jr's (an official spokesman of the campaign) outrageous statement after the NH primary that Hillary Clinton "did not cry for Katrina."
A calculated, tactical, consultant shaped appeal to both misogyny and racial resentment. A masterly bit of politics -- playing on gender prejudice and race baiting all in one breath.
If you don't see it what was at play in that statement from the campaign, it is most likely because you share the prejudices and resentments that were so masterfully and intentionally being appealed to. Or, you are closing your eyes and ears to reality because it would diminish your notions of your candidate's purity.
Whether Obama is a misogynist or not, is beside the point; there is no denying that his campaign played to those who are -- and willingly benefitted, without protest or condemnation, from the sexism displayed by his supporters in the media and online.
Is that a reason to vote for McCain? No. Nor is it necessarily a reason to vote against Obama -- although I am personally morally repulsed by his campaign's tactical exploitation of both gender and racial (and to a lesser extent class, as well as generational) insecurities, prejudices, divisions, resentments and fears. As repulsed as I have long been by the Republican party's use of such tactics.
Unlike many here, I simply cannot excuse in Democrats what I have for decades denounced in the other party.
The reason for this is important; the revelation of the depth and breadth of misogyny in the Democratic party, and the willingness of a major contender for party leadership to exploit it, goes a long way in explaining the lack of progress, and on some issues, back sliding, women have seen on issues of vital importance to them -- issues of both political and economic equality -- over the last 30 years.
In other words, misogyny in both parties has had and continues to have consequences, real political and economic consequences, for women and the often especially vulnerable others (the young, the elderly) who depend on their support and care. Consequences that many of us believe the nation simply can no longer afford to let stand.
Given that, the question for us isn't party "unity." It has now become this; how do we get these vital issues addressed outside of, regardless of, in spite of, the obstacles to doing so that BOTH parties represent.
Obama has promised to address these issues of course. But so has every other Democrat who has run at any level over the last 30 years. Yet, they haven't done so.
What this campaign has revealed is how empty that rhetoric is and has always been. And the Obama campaign, unfortunately, because it was the first to be seriously challenged by a woman, provided an opportunity that earlier campaigns did not -- the opportunity to see the vast chasm between the party's rhetoric and its actual view of and concern for women and their issues.
Best of luck to those Clinton dead-ender women who are casting their lot with McCain...
For all those claiming the misogyny has not come from the Obama campaign directly, let me remind you of Jesse Jackson Jr's (an official spokesman of the campaign) outrageous statement after the NH primary that Hillary Clinton "did not cry for Katrina."
A calculated, tactical, consultant shaped appeal to both misogyny and racial resentment. A masterly bit of politics -- playing on gender prejudice and race baiting all in one breath.
If you don't see what was at play in that statement from the campaign, it is most likely because you share the prejudices and resentments that were so masterfully and intentionally being appealed to. Or, you are closing your eyes and ears to reality because it would diminish your notions of your candidate's purity.
Whether Obama is a misogynist or not, is beside the point; there is no denying that his campaign played to those who are -- and willingly benefitted, without protest or condemnation, from the sexism displayed by his supporters in the media and online.
Is that a reason to vote for McCain? No. Nor is it necessarily a reason to vote against Obama -- although I am personally morally repulsed by his campaign's tactical exploitation of both gender and racial (and to a lesser extent class, as well as generational) insecurities, prejudices, divisions, resentments and fears. As repulsed as I have long been by the Republican party's use of such tactics.
Unlike many here, I simply cannot excuse in Democrats what I have for decades denounced in the other party.
The reason for this is important; the revelation of the depth and breadth of misogyny in the Democratic party, and the willingness of a major contender for party leadership to exploit it, goes a long way in explaining the lack of progress, and on some issues, back sliding, women have seen on issues of vital importance to them -- issues of both political and economic equality -- over the last 30 years.
In other words, misogyny in both parties has had and continues to have consequences, real political and economic consequences, for women and the often especially vulnerable others (the young, the elderly) who depend on their support and care. Consequences that many of us believe the nation simply can no longer afford to let stand.
Given that, the question for us isn't party "unity." It has now become this; how do we get these vital issues addressed outside of, regardless of, in spite of, the obstacles to doing so that BOTH parties represent.
Obama has promised to address these issues of course. But so has every other Democrat who has run at any level over the last 30 years. Yet, they haven't done so.
What this campaign has revealed is how empty that rhetoric is and has always been. And the Obama campaign, unfortunately, because it was the first to be seriously challenged by a woman, provided an opportunity that earlier campaigns did not -- the opportunity to see the vast chasm between the party's rhetoric and its actual view of and concern for women and their issues.
I'm not a McCain fan, but he came across as entirely classy in that clip imo. "That's a good question" followed by rephrasing the question in a way that you're more comfortable with is a standard political response.
Get a clip of McCain himself calling her that and you've got something. I'm predicting you won't find any such thing, ever.
Esmense -
I think you're high. For the most part, the country has moved beyond sexism.
Sure, there are Chris Matthews-types out there - and Hillary Clinton (or you) could unite people around an effort to get him off the air. But the fact that Hillary Clinton entered this race as the one to beat shows that there just isn't something that still needs to be addressed on this subject. There was not "high anxiety" across America about the notion of electing a "woman" president. There was no oppression here. That fight has already been won. Hillary Clinton proved that.
She just didn't win the nomination.
Kent, we do have one of him calling Chelsea a genetic freak spawned by a lesbian. Does that count? How is accepting 'bitch' as legitimate discourse defined as 'classy'?
esmense, how does your belief reconcile with Hillary Clinton's own campaign? Just as you find misogyny harder to take from Democrats, I had a really difficult time with some of the problematic gender framing coming from the Clinton campaign-- Carville's 'give one of her balls to Obama, and they'd each have two' comes to mind. For me, having a woman in the top seat should come as more than just a symbolic victory against sexism, and that was one of the reasons, in the end, I couldn't vote for her.
You want to know what McCain thinks of women? He voted against the Equal Pay Act, which would have overturned the Supreme Court's egregious Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision. When asked why he voted against the bill, McCain said that he believes in equal pay for women, and that the route to it is better education and training-- when the whole point is that women get paid less for the SAME work as men. It's not that they are undereducated or undertrained. It's that they're paid like they're undereducated or undertrained.
Al: "Heck, all you need is to look back at the comments on this site to see that."
Unfortunately it is true that some comment threads on this site were far worse that the appalling things McCain said. But I don't think comment threads on blogs should count as evidence of comparative misogyny in campaigns. First of all, HRC is the first viable female candidate so there's not much to compare it to.
Secondly, and most importantly: as troll-like as some Obama supporters were, do you think any of them would have dared asked the question that McCain was asked? That kind of language is standard in public GOP settings. But everyone knows that Obama and his campaign wouldn't stand for it. So it's wrong to say that Obama's campaign is setting any record for misogyny. It's more hand-waving about Obama's supporters in general and their supposed unprecedented, terrible sins.
esmense-- The only example you mention is Jesse Jackson Jr's appearance on, I think, Hardball. I agree that his language was offensive and obnoxious. But it was, AFAIK, one appearance by one surrogate. I've only heard about it from Clinton supporters.
Now, you can argue that the media should have covered it like they did, say, Bob Johnson's obnoxiousness. But they didn't. (The rationale, I guess, would be that Johnson's comments came as a few other Clinton surrogates were saying kinda similar things, and Johnson did so on a higher profile show).
So the only people who know about Jackson's comments are those who want to have a reason to be angry at Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand it.
"But tell me, fella, how does that excuse the same kind of thing from Democrats?"
Which Democrats are you talking about? Before you say "Chris Matthews", I reckon that he's more of a douchebag than a Democrat. But seriously now, which genuine, Democratic party representatives, expressed a similar sentiment?
Just wonderin', you know.
Did you read my post? Jesse Jackson, Jr., official Obama campaign spokesman, speaking officially for the campaign, is one example that I gave and that anyone seriously following the camapaigns should be aware of. But there certainly were others; Democratic politicians, not media personalities.
And then, of course, there is the fact that NO male Democratic politician stood up and condemned the behavior of media personalities like Matthews.
emense, I get it, Jesse Jackson pissed you off. But that statement is borderline sexist at best and (at the risk of playing Oppression Olympics) nothing compared to some of the stuff that came from Clinton representatives and supporters. And you still haven't answered my question about Clinton's own campaign.
When you press the Hillary dead-enders/perpetual victims like esmesne, the ony example of sexism from the Obama campaign is that JJJr. comment.
But I don't feel that comment was sexist in the least. The point he was somewhat intemperately making was that Hillary did not shed tears for Katrina, but she did tear up when her chance for the presidential nomination was threatened.
He was saying she was self-centered, and/or that she didn't really care about black people, only her political ambitions.
I'm not going to defend his comments as totally fair and appropriate, but he did say it as a time when Bill Clinton was wagging his finger claiming that Obama's claims of being against the Iraq War were a "fairy tale", and the chairman of Hillary's NH campaign was wondering aloud whether Obama was a drug dealer, so some pretty hard punches were being thrown from the other side as well.
My only point is, if the Jackson Jr. comments are all you can point to when claiming that the Obama campaign made sexist critiques against Hillary, you got nothin'.
Too bad Hillary's not still in the race; her camp might have made hay on the comment - even though it wasn't McCain's. On second thought anybody who knows Mrs. Clinton, knows her diction could make a sailor blush. And Bill, didn't he just call somebody or other a scum-bag? It was in the news. Wrong Clintons? Okay, the comment was out of keeping with the way we want or expect politics to be conducted. It was a sexist remark. The term "bitch" is denigrating. But the remark wasn't intended for public consumption, nor was it said to anyone's face. It's insulting sure, but there's no real harm. So, that's an important distinction. Mr. Obama got my vote, and I hope Hillary will return the White House furniture still in her possession by November. But I can’t help thinking it a testament to the Clintons, that throughout the process, this remains a non-issue: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Who does this slum captain McCain think he is, by golly! Humph.
This is "appalling"? What was McCain supposed to do? Dress the woman down? Have one of his temper tantrums? Convene the private school Diversity Committee and have an assembly to discuss the incident? He didn't even say it, and then answered that he respected HRC.
The term "bitch" is denigrating. But the remark wasn't intended for public consumption, nor was it said to anyone's face. It's insulting sure, but there's no real harm."
I have a real difference of opinion with you about that. As long as that type of language continues, and people overlook it, then misogyny continues.
No one would accept the use of the "n" word in any context. It carries a meaning that everyone recognizes to be racist - and no well-meaning person has it in their thoughts let alone their speech.
Those words which are flagrantly sexist do not seem to be recognized in the same way.
Sexism is wrong, but you don't have to embrace a foolish consistency between the words "bitch" and "nigger" to appreciate and act on that. They simply don't have the same resonance.
Wait, Hillary isn't a bitch? I'm sorry, I thought that the left wing blogosphere had ruled otherwise.
Q: "So how do we beat the bitch?"
A: "That's an excellent question."
Someone should just put that in a repeating loop as an entry splash at Talk Left...
Just a quick note: the reason Sen. Clinton's supporters bring up Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s appearance on Hardball is because his stupid comment is the only example of someone in the Obama campaign making a sexist comment in Melissa McEwan's Hillary Sexism Watch. To them, you see, Obama is responsible for what Chris Matthews, Christopher Hitchens, and people on the internet say.
I'm sure Sen. Clinton's apology for Larry Johnson's racist, idiotic ramblings is forthcoming.
I have concluded that the "bitch" is as offensive as the "nigger". Think about it. "Bitch" says (a) you are a female (dog) and (b) you must act a prescribed role demanded by society.
"Nigger" says (a) you are of african american origins and (b) you must assume a prescribed role demanded by society.
Both words are commonly used when the woman or african american are considered out of line.
So if that woman had asked "how do we beat the nigger" she would have been immediately thrown out of the place.
But it's ok to ask how to beat the "bitch."
Double standard.
It's time for people to take a stand.
Those arguing others, or who say they sometimes called Hillary Clinton a "bitch" should be thrown out of proper society.
It would be awfully hypocritical for Obama supporters to accuse McCain of misogyny when the misogyny was rampant during the Obama campaign against Clinton. Obama supporters are probably the most misogynist in the history of modern campaigns. Heck, all you need is to look back at the comments on this site to see that.
Posted by Al
hmmm.... sounds like mccain's been spending time at obamabot blogs like this one. he's got your and excitable andy's tone down pat/
hmmm.... sounds like mccain's been spending time at obamabot blogs like this one. he's got your and excitable andy's tone down pat...
You know, I'm sick of this make nice horseshit. Hillary Clinton lost an primary. If that's the end of the world for you and you've gone apeshit about it, I don't really care why. If a sizeable portion of this country is that nuts an election isn't going to save us. Vote for whoever you want to but you've lost so shut the fuck up.
Good point Ed. Freedom of speech should belong only to the victorious party. The vanquished must remain silent. It's in the Constitution.
How about when he called his own wife a "cunt"? Too bad we don't have video of that one.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html
Don't forget his alleged -- but multiple-sourced -- verbal rebuke of Mrs. McCain when she teased him about his hair. Charming.
So, having your husband call you a "cunt" is now somehow worse than having your Hubby admittedly fucking numerous individuals within your "orbit" and "sexually harassing" multiple women 30 yrs younger than you- while you choose complete submission(60 Minutes/Gennifer) and public apologism/humiliation!
Hillary for Pres!
gotta say i am impressed with the obama "movement" - who'd have thought they could have elevated the tone of political discusson so much. "shut the f*ck up": now THERE"S change i can believe in.
and there are still some people who wonder why so many of will never vote for someone with such offensive and tyrannical followers.
so what are you going to do when pumas don't just shut up? try to open up re-education camps so we can learn to revere the "lightworker."
mccain is looking better and better every day.
gotta say i am impressed with the obama "movement" - who'd have thought they could have elevated the tone of political discusson so much. "shut the f*ck up": now THERE"S change i can believe in.
and there are still some people who wonder why so many of will never vote for someone with such offensive and tyrannical followers.
so what are you going to do when pumas don't just shut up? try to open up re-education camps so we can learn to revere the "lightworker?"
mccain is looking better and better every day.
Hillary is a bitch.
And anybody who supports Clinton is a bitch - male or female. And an asshole to boot.
And anybody who doesn't like that fact can kiss my ass, too.
Happy now?
gotta say i am impressed with the obama "movement" - who'd have thought they could have elevated the tone of political discusson so much. "shut the f*ck up": now THERE"S change i can believe in.
and there are still some people who wonder why so many of will never vote for someone with such offensive and tyrannical followers.
so what are you going to do when pumas don't just shut up? try to open up re-education camps so we can learn to revere the "lightworker?"
mccain is looking better and better every day.
Before coming out swinging, all those interested in the next president being a progressive, one interested in more peace in the world, more justice at home, and all those kinds of good things, should read the recent TPM post called "Silent Majority."
Remember, the McCain camp cannot possibly attract very many Clinton supporters on the issues. But by throwing verbal bombs and provoking on the internet, the McCain campaign can try to sow division and maintain false distinctions. The fact that a number of the supposedly 'pro-Clinton' posts here appear multiply is worth noting. So is there surprising consistency, and their single-minded focus on denigrating the Obama campaign. They're really not about defending Senator Clinton's very substantial accomplishments, when you look at them; rather, they seek to fan animosities.
Read the TPM comments, and consider the possibility that you're not simply dealing with 'dejected' or 'resentful' Clinton supporters at all.
"For all those claiming the misogyny has not come from the Obama campaign directly, let me remind you of Jesse Jackson Jr's (an official spokesman of the campaign) outrageous statement after the NH primary that Hillary Clinton "did not cry for Katrina."
A calculated, tactical, consultant shaped appeal to both misogyny and racial resentment. A masterly bit of politics -- playing on gender prejudice and race baiting all in one breath."
I'm calling bullshit on this one. The whole accusation of misogyny in her moment in NH came about because a double standard was claimed - whereby a male politician could supposedly display emotion in public, but a woman could not.
The difference in Jackson's comment, as masterful as it was, (and as incapable as some are of understanding it) is that it doesn't criticize Hillary for showing emotion, nor does it call into question her sincerity in showing that emotion. It calls into question her choices of what matters enough to her to be worth those emotions.
If Hillary cared as much as about Katrina as she does losing her own campaign, then it's possible that she might have shown some emotion about that. But since she didn't, Jackson is given the space to move in and attack her on issues of character - like whether she cares more about herself than the people of America whom she claims it's all about. That has nothing to do with anything particular to men or women. It has to do with narcissism, which is a gender-neutral trait.
Many people who were turned off by Hillary saw narcissism, and I had no sense that such people would have been any more apologetic about it in a male candidate. Gender issues are important, but I think most people's views of women are informed moreso by how women are viewed within their own families than by what occurs in the broader American landscape. Electing a female narcissist might have had some symbolic benefit, but it's hard to see how it would have had the kind of impact some have hoped for. Women are encouraged by her strength, and it's understood that this will encourage more women to run for office. But they could never find a way to successfully defend her on issues of character, and often felt disappointed in her - at least those women who admitted to feeling that issues of character were important.
And Bill Clinton's behavior on her campaign showed everyone what a psychological disaster he really was. The fact that, after growing up with an abusive father, she grew to continue relying that strongly on drawing so much personal inspiration from Bill, shows how developmentally challenged she really was and had always remained when it came to issues of character.
The presidency is revered for how it showcases the often remarkable personal characters of those who occupy it. Placing the symbolism of demography above that during the campaign is a mistake. Obama's campaign successfully disentangled issues of demography from issues of his own character, and Hillary's did not.
Comments closed June 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, I'll have to stay out of this particular unity exercise. I called her a bitch a couple of times too, so it would be hypocritical of me.
Posted by Dan Kervick | June 6, 2008 10:12 AM