People should listen to Michelle Goldberg.
« McCain Hates War | Main | Luster Lost »
What She Said
06 Jun 2008 05:29 pm
Comments (93)
I have to say, this sort of screechy, inflexible behavior from Clinton's female supporters would remind me of my ex-wife, if I had an ex-wife.
Why do you think we should listen to Michelle Goldberg?
Anyway, when you consider that the next president is likely to appoint as many as three U.S. Supreme Court justices, you have to figure the Dems will damn well find a way to torpedo themselves and hand the next 40 years of Constitutional oversight to the GOP.
Why do you think we should listen to Michelle Goldberg?
Wild guess: because he agrees with what she wrote?
I usually agree with Michelle Goldberg but I thought that column was a bunch of reactionary hooey. Maybe it's a generational thing.
Look, Obama was my third choice (after Edwards and then Clinton) but I like him, I think he'll be a good candidate and a pretty good president, and I think it's thrilling that an African-American is very likely to be the next president of the US. That said, soi-disant "progressives" (that word used to mean something) spewing vituperative sexist garbage all over liberal blogs has been more alienating than I guess you guys could ever understand. I quit the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform act, which was pretty much the last straw as far as I was concerned. I was hopeful that I'd be able to come back, but as good as Obama may be as a candidate, the party membership is apparently just as regressive as it was when the DLC ran the joint. I'll vote for Obama but not in the Democratic column, and I'll keep pulling the lever in the Working Families Party column and sending my money to third-party actual progressives.
Thanks, guys.
I have to say, this sort of screechy, inflexible behavior from Clinton's female supporters would remind me of my ex-wife, if I had an ex-wife.
This is, of course, precisely what Goldberg was talking about.
One thing that has truly shocked me, in the last several months, is how deep misogyny runs within supposedly progressive circles.
That's not a good reason to vote for McCain or against Obama, but it is a good reason to work hard for reconciliation with disaffected Clinton voters, and to try to take that beam out of your own eye before commenting on others.
Good short piece by Christopher Hayes over at TAP:
What was most striking about her campaign was the sexist venom directed at her from so many corners of the establishment, and the steely resolve with which she faced it down. That dynamic is what, I think, helped her win New Hampshire, avoid an early demise, and inspire the passionate support she gained from white women of her generation. These women are the backbone of the Democratic coalition, and they live life within the chaffing confines of a culture that feels as if it has, depressingly, outrageously, grown more sexist over the last several decades. As a male writer, I can say this lived reality is probably too easy for me to brush aside. But as Dana Goldstein pointed out, the presence of these sentiments, in all their vulgarity, presented progressive men with ample occasion for introspection on the ways in which progressive politics, and the discourse we all engage in sometimes explicitly, and more often tacitly, reinforces this power imbalance. This will, I hope, I believe, have a profound lasting positive and progressive effect.
That said, soi-disant "progressives" (that word used to mean something) spewing vituperative sexist garbage all over liberal blogs has been more alienating than I guess you guys could ever understand.
I'm sympathetic, in part because such sexism is wrong, but also because that's how I felt about Clinton's war vote and the behavior of the Democratic party over the six years afterwards, when she and her husband may have been the most powerful people in the party. That Clinton supporters couldn't make a legitimate progressive case for Clinton to progressives ought to have signaled something to those supporters. If it did, they seem to have missed it, they didn't care, or the just couldn't ever understand.
If the woman in question either doesn't vote or votes for McCain, she'll still wind up with a man she hates as president, which maintains the status quo.
We will be blindingly and amazingly fortunate if McCain is elected and maintains the status quo. I expect that, if he is elected, the current status quo will become next year's unreachable daydream.
Maybe that's it - that there's some confusion that opposing the war in Iraq is the totality of what it means to be "progressive" these days.
the reason to listen to michelle goldberg is that she does an excellent job here in discussing, in an adult way, the various real strains and tensions that exist in the democratic body politics and among various related constituencies.
it's completely unlike the childish ranting that matthew has provided us on the topic....
One thing that has truly shocked me, in the last several months, is how deep misogyny runs within supposedly progressive circles.
Bullshit. Hillary's negative were sky-high before she started, even among Democrats.
It isn't women who were being trashed, it's this woman. People don't like her. Even her husband sought an alternative to her.
I know that telling baby-boomer women to quit wallowing in victimhood is a lost cause, but to pretend that this is our problem is stupid at best and disingenuous at worst.
People don't like Hillary. It's not a fucking syndrome.
.
Maybe that's it - that there's some confusion that opposing the war in Iraq is the totality of what it means to be "progressive" these days.
This is certainly correct, and accounts in significant part for the desire of so-called progressives in the netroots for conservative VP candidates who had the right position on the war.
However, I think it's also fair to say that lack of opposition to the war in Iraq should be beyond the pale in any truly progressive coalition.
Bullshit. Hillary's negative were sky-high before she started, even among Democrats.
I never said anything that could be refuted by this statement, so I think we're talking past each other.
Of course there were good reasons to oppose Clinton, and of course choosing another candidate can be disentangled from misogyny.
Not misogynist: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries because she is the further right of the candidates on foreign policy issues.
Misogynist: I have to say, this sort of screechy, inflexible behavior from Clinton's female supporters would remind me of my ex-wife, if I had an ex-wife.
The latter, of course, is what I was responding to.
"Maybe that's it - that there's some confusion that opposing the war in Iraq is the totality of what it means to be "progressive" these days."
Not the totality--but probably a sine qua non.
DivGuy:
I understand, but disagree. The kind of behavior exhibited by Hillary's dead-enders would turn off just about anybody, even women. Making comparisons to common social arrangements isn't misogynist, it's an illustration.
Saying "should we call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE," for instance, isn't an example of ageism.
As I have been shouting into the blogsphere for years, "the demo" has a very crude and crass culture. When we don't like someone, we tend to get personal. That doesn't need an -ism to explain it. We're running down McCain's age, for instance.
So, why aren't references to Obama's race licit? Well, for one, they are in certain circles. For another, ageism and sexism have never had institutions like slavery or organizations like the KKK after them.
Bear with me for one more example, DivGuy: we can bash Tom Cruise's religion, but attributing actions to a Jew's background invokes too much bad stuff. All discriminations are not equal, and I wouldn't compare Hillary's life in the political class to what Obama went through coming up on his own.
Anyway, Hillary was disliked by an awful lot of people, a lot of them Democrats (I'm not one of them). And, when Hillary got behind, she went negative, and that's when her negatives went even higher.
If baby-boomer women want to pretend that this is Bush/Gore Florida all over again, they're just reinforcing negative stereotypes of women (emotional and stupid). As I said above, living under the lamentable boot of the patriarchy is what they know, so reinforcing their own misery might actually feel more comfortable than working to end the Republican hegemony, which entails risk and the unknown.
.
Maybe that's it - that there's some confusion that opposing the war in Iraq is the totality of what it means to be "progressive" these days.
As already noted, it's not the totality, but it's pretty definitely a necessary condition.
Maybe that's it - that there's some confusion that opposing the war in Iraq is the totality of what it means to be "progressive" these days.
A lot more happened than that. The Republicans didn't bend the country over just by invading Iraq. Though Dem fear about seeming soft by opposing a war-leading President sure as hell helped them to get a lot of the other stuff.
In any case, we're not really talking about "progressives," but the so-named progressive blogosphere, which came to life largely because it was made clear that anti-Iraq war voices had no seat at the Democratic establishment table. And the Clinton campaign made clear, by its inability to admit mistake, that such voices wouldn't be welcome at any table at which she sat at the head. It shouldn't be too surprising that that same section of the blogosphere didn't support Clinton. Frankly, I find it much more shocking that so many mainstays of it were friendly to the Clinton campaign or remained neutral. "The Iraq War: Wrong, but Not That Wrong!" I guess.
Making comparisons to common social arrangements isn't misogynist, it's an illustration.
Reducing a person to a stereotype of her gender is misogynist. It's not a "common social arrangement", it's a way of dismissing someone's person and opinion by considering them only as a member of a class, and using a false, insulting stereotype of that class.
It's textbook misogynistic rhetoric.
So, why aren't references to Obama's race licit? Well, for one, they are in certain circles. For another, ageism and sexism have never had institutions like slavery or organizations like the KKK after them.
Sexism is lived everyday in our society in the clear fact of unequal pay, in the sickening commonness of sexual assault, in the fact that no woman had won a presidential primary until this January. Women are still alive whose mothers were not legally allowed to vote for much of their adult lives. You seem to be dismissing societal sexism by lumping it in with ageism, and I think that's badly wrong.
Grand Moff-
Also, I never compared sexism to racism. They are different things, that work in different ways. I have no interest in arguing whether one person faced "more" discrimination.
All I was saying is that sexism is real, has real, terrible effects, and should be unacceptable within any movement that desires to call itself progressive. This is surely true of racism as well, and some Clinton supporters have also shown themselves beyond the pale in that regard. But, as an Obama supporter, I think it is right to address the beam in my own eye before focusing on the speck in another's.
What I don't get about the boo-hooing Clintonistas is how they decry the sexism -- non eof which emmnated from Obama -- but are deathly silent on the racism issuing from Hillary HERSELF> Admittedly, white feminism has a very long history of using bigotry to advance its agenda, but are allof you "progressives" beyond that yet?
What I don't get about the boo-hooing Clintonistas is how they decry the sexism -- non eof which emmnated from Obama -- but are deathly silent on the racism issuing from Hillary HERSELF> Admittedly, white feminism has a very long history of using bigotry to advance its agenda, but are allof you "progressives" beyond that yet?
I think it's pretty clear that the Clinton campaign played on racist tropes more than the Obama campaign engaged with sexism.
This does not excuse misogyny among Obama-supporters, such as that displayed by Bill upward in the thread.
We should be able to condemn both and allow neither in the progressive coalition.
Reducing a person to a stereotype of her gender is misogynist. It's not a "common social arrangement"
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. You referred to an example: "I have to say, this sort of screechy, inflexible behavior from Clinton's female supporters would remind me of my ex-wife, if I had an ex-wife." Marriage, and divorce, are common social arrangements.
It's textbook misogynistic rhetoric.
Really? If I refer to a guy as sneaky and he happens to be Jewish, am I falling prey to the stereotypes of antisemites? Hillary gave me more than one "Mommy Dearest" moment during the primary. Living down to stereotypes isn't the observer's fault.
Sexism is lived everyday in our society in the clear fact of unequal pay, in the sickening commonness of sexual assault, in the fact that no woman had won a presidential primary until this January.
Yes, but Hillary has plenty of money, was not sexually assaulted, and lost the primary by running a bad campaign, so none of that really applies, does it?
You seem to be dismissing societal sexism by lumping it in with ageism, and I think that's badly wrong.
Not lumping, comparing. For instance the following:
Also, I never compared sexism to racism.
I apologize if that came across as an accusation, but honestly, I was just anticipating another line of argument.
I would also like to apologize for the way I first addressed you. I am frustrated with the phenomenon under discussion, and did not mean to direct that at you.
.
Well, of course "progressive" pretty much by definition requires an opposition to this war. But, you'd also think it would involve a broader pacifism as well as a far, far broader set of issues.
I don't understand vicious sexism among people who self-identify as progressive, and I guess what I keep coming back to is that there's a definitional problem. Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party so far to the right that moderates think they're radical. And they may be, in the context of the times, but *wow* that's depressing if true.
Living down to stereotypes isn't the observer's fault.
We should avoid using racist and sexist insults. This seems rather simple.
It shouldn't be too surprising that that same section of the blogosphere didn't support Clinton.
The DLC and anti-activist mercernaries like Mark Penn are the natural enemies of the left blogsphere and represent the forces and trends we've opposed so long. They ran Hillary's campaign, so I'm surprised at how well accommodated she was.
I gave her the benefit of the doubt early on, and that was naiive on my part. Once she started in on the Republican-style low-information voter tactics, I was done with her. Those tactics continue with her (supporters, as of yesterday) rhetoric on the "popular vote" and FL and MI.
Corporate henchmen and Republican tactics. Yeah, Hillary's persona non grata in the left blogsphere. Go fucking figure!
.
Being pissed at a fellow Democrat is part and parcel of a long primary. There was a time, somewhere between Bill's South Carolina comments, Kyl-Lieberman and Senator Clinton's enthusiastic applause for certain pro-war parts of the SOTU that I thought to myself "Damn, I'm going to have to vote 3rd party if Clinton gets the nomination". A few days later I pulled my head out of my ass and realized that pretty much anyone, including Hillary Clinton, is much better than John McCain and I should be voting accordingly. A similar moment of realization might take longer and be less common among Hillary's supporters than it could be because of the length of the campaign, but it'll start happening and it'll start happening pretty soon.
GMT-
While I'm not as negative on Clinton as you are, I would note that you articulated a clear set of harsh criticisms of Hillary Clinton without engaging in any sexism.
I'm not asking for anyone to like Clinton, just to articulate their opinions about Clinton without sexist insults and tropes.
We should avoid using racist and sexist insults. This seems rather simple.
I regularly refer to a SCOTUS justice as an "uncle tom." I was known to refer to our former AG as a "pocho."
These are racial, but are they racist?
Is "stepford" sexist?
I'm sorry, DivGuy, you seem both reasonable and intelligent, but your "textbook" approach seems too simple and has a hair-trigger (not that you should care).
G'night folks. Olberman's on.
.
Said Gloria Steinem:
"[M]ost Americans are smart enough to figure out that a member of a group may or may not represent its interests," she wrote. "This time, we . . . could double our chances by working for one of these candidates, not against the other." When reporters asked if she was supporting Clinton or Obama, she said, "I just say yes."
If, by November, a number of Americans aren't smart enough, they can by all means vote for John, or stay home. He will oblige by continuing the killing of their sons and daughters, but managing to sound more concerned than Cheney while he does it.
Was that too over the top? I can never tell.
Shorter Grand Moff: I wish all these whiny bitches would shut up about that bitch.
There are plenty of "harsh criticisms" that can be made of Obama without being racist, as well. Those who supported Obama in the primaries should remember that.
I agree with Michelle Goldberg, though, almost entirely.
It's pretty disingenuous for Michelle Goldberg to suggest Obama ever called Hillary "sweetie."
And pretty sad that there is a section of support for Hillary that feels wronged by Obama, who never did a thing to incite them except beat Hillary, and yet seem to forgive all the race baiting Hillary's campaign did.
Ugh.
Baracklounger:
Except condescendingly call her "likable enough" and allow his staff to insinuate that she and her husband were racists.
Tim K,
She and her husband race-baited, so no insinuation was necessary.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/06/andrews_says_he_heard_racist_s.html
DivGuy,
Your textbook standards are silly. Harriet Christian, for example, was both screechy and inflexible. You can see it on the YouTube of her screeching at the DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting and her interview with Neil Cavuto, in which she holds onto absolutely ridiculous arguments in the face of politely presented facts and reason. Harriet Christian is a Hillary supporter. So your notion that no Hillary supporters are screechy and inflexible is total bunk: we have videotape.
Is videotape technology sexist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no6ENZdbVi0
Tim K,
She and her husband race-baited, so no insinuation was necessary.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/06/andrews_says_he_heard_racist_s.html
DivGuy,
Your textbook standards are silly. Harriet Christian, for example, was both screechy and inflexible. You can see it on the YouTube of her screeching at the DNC Rules and Bylaws meeting and her interview with Neil Cavuto, in which she holds onto absolutely ridiculous arguments in the face of politely presented facts and reason. Harriet Christian is a Hillary supporter. So your notion that no Hillary supporters are screechy and inflexible is total bunk: we have videotape.
Is videotape technology sexist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no6ENZdbVi0
Screechy:
Oh yes of course, if a politician says it we know it's true. Particularly a politician who just got crushed in a 20% landslide in his fool-hardy challenge against a sitting Democratic Senator.
Screechy -
It's the "ex-wife" line that is misogynist. Reducing a person to a stereotype.
Barackalounger,
Obama called a reporter "sweetie" and he later called her and apologized...so this has to be what Goldberg was referring to.
It's the "ex-wife" line that is misogynist. Reducing a person to a stereotype.
1. Some people are stereotypes.
2. You have every right to use caustic language to describe someone who divorced you.
3. There is nothing inherently misogynistic in pointing out 1 or availing yourself of 2.
Of course if Obama had lost then racism would be the explanation.
Hearing the Dems shouting "racist" and "sexist" at each other for months on end says much about the nonsense that is identity politics.
Of course if Obama had lost then racism would be the explanation.
Take your hypothetical bullshit elswhere. Obama never played the race card. And he didn't lose.
Jay J:
So, because Obama called a reporter "sweetie" and then apologized, those summoning righteous feminist anger in their rationale for voting for McCain or not voting at all are somehow rational?
Please.
As I noted in another thread, there are next to -0- instances of the Obama campaign engaging in gendered insults or otherwise gender-baiting. But it's feminist outrage that is supposedly fueling the opposition to him amongst (mainly) older, democratic white women. The tension between the reality of the Obama campaign's actions and the Clinton-turned-McCain-supporter's version of that reality is obvious and undeniable. The only conclusion to draw is that the anger has little to do with feminism or social justice, and much to do with a deep emotional investment in this candidate and her success.
And, well, the idea that with the country on the precipice here, in terms of global opinion, climate change, the economy, Iraq, etc etc...how unbelievably important this election is, and how clear the choices are...the idea that we might end up making a terribly and obviously wrong choice because a significant portion of reliable Democrats vote against the candidate who most clearly and obviously represents their values, and for the candidate who clearly and obviously stands in opposition to all their values, out of a petty grudge and hurt feelings...well that fucking sucks.
And I'm not gonna apologize for those people, or more harsh tone for them, either. Your candidate lost. GET OVER IT. Edwards supporters did, and he was treated much worse than Clinton by the media.
Sometimes, something you really really really want, doesn't happen. That's not sexism; that's life. Deal with it, and move on. This election is too important to be decided by bruised egos.
How was John Edwards treated at all badly by the media?
Hearing the Dems shouting "racist" and "sexist" at each other for months on end says much about the nonsense that is identity politics.
While the Clinton campaign itself never called the Obama campaign sexist (pretty much just the media), I think it is interesting how the Obama campaign bent over backwards to keep the word "racist" away from the political discourse. While shouting "sexism" can empower Hillary, crying "racism" would surely have sunk the Obama campaign.
The sad truth is that the only thing racist white folks hate more than "arrogant" black people is having their own racism rubbed in their face.
Hearing the Dems shouting "racist" and "sexist" at each other for months on end says much about the nonsense that is identity politics.
While the Clinton campaign itself never called the Obama campaign sexist (pretty much just the media), I think it is interesting how the Obama campaign bent over backwards to keep the word "racist" away from the political discourse. While shouting "sexism" can empower Hillary, crying "racism" would surely have sunk the Obama campaign. In fact, the Clinton campaign folks were the ones running around trying to warn everybody that white folks have a problem with Obama.
The sad truth is that the only thing racist white folks hate more than "arrogant" black people is having their own racism rubbed in their face.
And, well, the idea that with the country on the precipice here, in terms of global opinion, climate change, the economy, Iraq, etc etc...how unbelievably important this election
Every general election is "unbelievably important" to blind partisans. But people whose knowledge of history extends back more than a couple of election cycles, who understand the very limited power of the president to make major policy changes, and who are aware that the fates of both individual and collective lives are shaped mainly by forces that have nothing to do with the outcome of any particular election realize what utter guff this "unbelievably important" shtick is.
How was John Edwards treated at all badly by the media?
I think that John Edwards was treated to as much sexism by the media as Hillary. His masculinity was questioned by the both the mainstream media and the right wing. The right wing called him "Breck girl" and a "faggot" while the mainstream media spent months pondering why a real man would need such an expensive haircut or care about his appearance.
OK, having listened to Goldberg, WTF are we supposed to do about it?
I mean, Bill's sexist remarks at the top of the thread are as bad as I've seen, excepting the "Iron My Shirt" guys in NH, which I'm half-convinced were a plant. Maybe it's because all I do over at DailyKos (on the days I go there) is read the frontpagers, and skip the comments and diaries. I wish I'd have known there was a problem back when it was happening, but this is the second post in a little over a day that I've read about it, now that it's all over.
The time for this discussion was 2, 3, 4 months ago.
What to do about it now? Damned if I know. Hillary came in to this race with every advantage, and managed to blow it. She didn't lose because of sexism, and she was willing to get friendly with Richard Mellon Scaife, and kick dirt in MoveOn.org's face, in order to drag Obama down with her. Yeah, I remember 1998, and who was standing by her and Bill then, and who was tearing them down. I bet you do too.
What I want to do is remind these so-called 'feminists' of my g-g-generation that by now, feminism should have moved beyond playing the victim card in situations where there was precious little victimization going on. Nobody said the first serious woman candidate for President, or the serious black candidate for President, would have just as smooth a road as a white male candidate, and neither of them have. But neither of them have had impossible hurdles thrown in their way, either.
Hillary could have won this, if either (a) she'd acknowledged she blew it on the Iraq war, or (b) she'd managed her campaign in a competent manner. Either would have sufficed: she could have won either by being right and incompetent, or wrong and competent, or better yet, right and competent.
But if you're wrong and incompetent both, then you can take a pile of advantages and turn them into a big fat loss. Her bad.
Sorry, women of my generation: Hillary let you down. That's the story. I'm sorry if you're feeling upset about it, but I don't know what else to say.
I think that John Edwards was treated to as much sexism by the media as Hillary. His masculinity was questioned by the both the mainstream media and the right wing. The right wing called him "Breck girl" and a "faggot" while the mainstream media spent months pondering why a real man would need such an expensive haircut or care about his appearance.
I think some people were wondering why somebody who says poverty is the cause of his life needs to live in a huge house and get $400 haircuts. I don't think that was about sexism, it was about hypocrisy.
Edwards was taken seriously as a candidate even though it was always clear he would never win.
"...Sorry, women of my generation: Hillary let you down..."
Hillary's real problem is that Bill never trained her properly. Oh sure, he humiliated her in full view of the entire nation. But let's be honest here. Mere humiliation is just not a workable training substitute for the daily bitch slapping that women really need, and secretly crave.
Not only what Ben said re: Edwards, but on top of that, it's worth noting that the gendered coverage Edwards received was by-and-large all he received, as opposed to the countless "inevitable" stories, and paeans to the Hillary machine and her depth of experience, and her and Bill's oh-so-fabled ability to comeback when the chips are down, how she's best with her back against the wall, and on and on and on.
Please. Did she get some tough treatment from the media? Yes. She was also given a free pass on 11 straight blow-out losses that resulted in an insurmountable deficit of pledged delegates. If you want to know what was a "fairy tale" at all in this campaign, it was the story pushed by the Clinton campaign and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the media that she had any chance at all of making up that ground post-Wisconsin. There was none. Absolutely none. And, hey, we don't even have to look back and wonder "what if". The Wright story gained traction and blew up in Obama's face...not once, but twice! She won Ohio and PA big. She won KY and WV and PR big. Etc etc. And where'd she end up? Exactly where anyone with half a brain knew she'd be in late Feb: no closer to catching him in pledged delegates.
It was facing math like that that lead to Edwards ending his campaign. But Hillary was given a free pass to tar the likely nominee of her own party for 3 months.
And then even after all that, and after Obama actually hits the number and goes over the top, she still doesn't concede and instead makes the entire 1st week of his victory about her, and what he's going to do about her, and will she concede, and will she be VP, etc etc?
The entire campaign post-Wisconsin has been disgusting and masturbatory, and frankly, I'm tired of this thin-skinned bullshit from Clinton supporters who are now justifying their continuing anger with some faux claims to a moral high ground.
And Mixner: while it may be true that every election some chicken littles claim its really really important, sometimes, you know, elections are really important. Like, say, 2000, e.g., was really fucking important. And if you don't think so, tell it to the 2 million Iraqi refugees in their own country, the 2 million more dispersed around the region, the 100s of thousands dead there, etc.
Yeah, you know, sometimes, this shit matters. Electing the whole leader of the free world in the middle of a humanitarian crisis (and Iraq is a humanitarian crisis), 8 years of inaction on climate change, and an economy in the tank...yeah, you know, its just not quite the same as 1996.
Of course, recognizing that isn't nearly as fun as adopting a smarmy, know-it-all posture on the internet.
people whose knowledge of history extends back more than a couple of election cycles . . . realize what utter guff this "unbelievably important" shtick is.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
This sentiment lead to George W. Bush.
He tried to lead us into a cold war with China before he lead us into a dangerous and unnecessary conflict in Iraq.
He ignored the Israel-Palestinian conflict for six fucking years.
He left OBL to go free and play in the mountains and plan more attacks.
He ignored North Korea for years and only tried to take on Iran after it was determined that they weren't an imminent danger.
He's pushed back developments in stem cell technology and American biotech for at least 8 years.
He's made the rich much richer while making the poor much poorer.
He's spent the US into the poorhouse while ignoring infrastructure, healthcare, education, and research.
Seriously, if you don't realize that these things matter, you are either disengenious or slow or fucking both.
There was a virtual media blackout of Edwards while he was running, very well documented at the time. It's hard to use polls to justify that, since low visibility makes for low polls (and Edwards had prior credibility from previous runs, so he wasnt an unknown).
There is a difference between agreeing with the feelings of the Hillary Clinton supporters that Michelle Goldberg describes and acknowledging the reality of those feelings. I don't particularly feel that the "we wuz robbed!" bitterness of Hillary Clinton supporters is warranted (or mature). However, I have to accept that it is real. That's why Goldberg's article is worth reading.
Michael:
Are you done re-litigating the primaries?
Despite everything you said she was still the better candidate, and remains the stronger candidate, and the most electable nominee and the process elected the wrong candidate. The campaign post-Wisconsin was an effort to do well enough in the subsequent primaries to A) Win the popular vote, and B) Convince the superdelegates to make an independent judgment and nominate the most electable Democrat, which was exactly what they were meant to do when they were created.
That effort failed, but it was hardly pointless. The Democratic party decided to roll the dice instead.
Wow. You think rich people who care about the lives of poor people are hypocrites, Tim? What a narrow, rigid, Republican-constructed moral universe you inhabit.
I never supported Edwards, but I think a campaign between him and Barack Obama would have been much more interesting and issue-oriented than the one we got when he had to drop out but hillary stuck around (Hillary the multi-millionaire who also talked about the poor and working class, Tim. Though hardly with the eloquence and sincerity of John Edwards).
Despite everything you said she was still the better candidate, and remains the stronger candidate, and the most electable nominee
Your worthless opinions were neither asked for nor useful.
She was neither better, stronger, nor more electable than her opponent. She was merely well known, well connected, and well funded, just like every other winning establishment candidate since Walter Mondale, and that strategy almost always wins, but this time it didn't, because her opponent was an insurgent who doubled as a political phenomenon.
I think some people were wondering why somebody who says poverty is the cause of his life needs to live in a huge house and get $400 haircuts. I don't think that was about sexism, it was about hypocrisy.
That's a bullshit Republican frame. There is no hypocrisy in a rich person helping a poor person. Hypocrisy is "clearing brush" like Bush or talking about Applebees when you've never been in one (like David Brooks).
Oh, and the reason why the haircut cost $400 was that they got the dude to come out to the plane to do the haircut.
Wow. You think rich people who care about the lives of poor people are hypocrites, Tim? What a narrow, rigid, Republican-constructed moral universe you inhabit.
I never supported Edwards, but I think a campaign between him and Barack Obama would have been much more interesting and issue-oriented than the one we got when he had to drop out but hillary stuck around (Hillary the multi-millionaire who also talked about the poor and working class, Tim. Though hardly with the eloquence and sincerity of John Edwards).
sweaty guy:
John Edwards was a hair-do.
Tyro:
If you're going to call my opinions worthless I really don't care for what you have to say.
Political phenomenon? Could you literally be any further up Barack Obama's ass? Talk about cock worship.
John Edwards was a hair-do
Isn't it interesting that Hillary stole almost every one of her major policy positions from him (including her "signature" issues of health care policy and the focus on the working class)?
Tim I was not an Edwards supporter, so don't bother riling me by insulting him. I want to know why you support the lady millionaire who talks about the poor, but not the guy millionaire. Why does Hillary get a pass from you, and Edwards doesn't?
ben:
Shouldn't you be less worried about people stealing good ideas (which she didn't, by the way) and more that the Democratic nominee doesn't have a universal health care plan?
ben,
I hate to break it to you, but George W. Bush is not a candidate in this "unbelievably important" election. But thanks for demonstrating that your own political consciousness isn't really about anything in particular except hatin' on that mean ole Texan.
Mandates do not a universal health care plan make. Ask Mitt about that.
That said, Hillary was the person most responsible for getting UHC pushed off the table for 15 years. I'm not sure I'd want to "roll the dice" and let her try again.
"A few days later I pulled my head out of my ass and realized that pretty much anyone, including Hillary Clinton, is much better than John McCain and I should be voting accordingly. A similar moment of realization might take longer and be less common among Hillary's supporters than it could be because of the length of the campaign, but it'll start happening and it'll start happening pretty soon. "
Andrew hit it right on the nail here. THis is the real reason why Hillary should have thrown the towel much earlier: her refusal to do has a big chance of costing the democrats, the U.S. and the world big-time (unless you're a dingbat, in which case, every vote should count, baby).
Look, the writing was on the wall last Saturday - pretty much everyone knew the endgame, there was no air strip left for HRC, and she was still trying to pull a Sansom-in-the-temple (if HRC thought she could superdelegate the nomination away from Obama AND get elected, even though a HUGE chunk of Obama supporters would NEVER support her after that, she is an imbecile. If HRC did know that she was not going to get Obama supporters to back her after her putsch, but still kept going, she is nothing short of a thug). It wasn't 3 months ago that the Harriet Christian's of the world were doing their thing - it was 7 days ago!!
Please tell me again how it was sexist to try to do the same unity dance CURRENTLY BEING DONE BY ALL DEMOCRATS A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS EARLIER?
One final comment: Ms. Goldberg's story is interesting, but she did not address an essential element - by and large this feminist women's rage feeling that she reported (and which I do not denyh exist) is a generational thing.
I think it was over at Poblano's/Nate Silver's, but I read an interesting today about how Obama won younger women and women up to about 49. It was the over 50s (the older boomers and pre-boomers) who were rabidly pro-Hillary.
Now granted, these women may feel that they will never see a woman of their generation become President. But they may well get one of a slightly younger generation (life expectancy being what it is, can a 55 to 65 woman tell me that she really can't countenance a female Presiden in 8, 12, 16 or 20 years time? Come on...). I'm no feminist, and I'm only a man, but I would think that second-wave feminism isn't about just one generation of women, right?
I hate to break it to you, but George W. Bush is not a candidate in this "unbelievably important" election.
Those that have a memory that goes back farther than last week will remember that the election of 2000 was widely regarded as incredibly unimportant. It was supposed to be a race between the moderate liberal and "compassionate conservative". It was the election that let everyone (with a couple of neurons to rub together) that elections do matter.
George W. may not be on the ballot this year, but his policies surely are.
I hate to break it to you, but George W. Bush is not a candidate in this "unbelievably important" election.
Those that have a memory that goes back farther than last week will remember that the election of 2000 was widely regarded as incredibly unimportant. It was supposed to be a race between the moderate liberal and "compassionate conservative". It was the election that let everyone (with a couple of neurons to rub together) know that elections really do matter.
George W. may not be on the ballot this year, but his policies surely are.
She was neither better, stronger, nor more electable than her opponent. She was merely well known, well connected, and well funded, just like every other winning establishment candidate since Walter Mondale, and that strategy almost always wins, but this time it didn't, because her opponent was an insurgent who doubled as a political phenomenon.
She also had a real problem with message coherance, and was unable to define her opponent(s) or herself until it was largely irrelevant. Until she adhered to a more populist line towards the end of the campaign, her candidacy seemed to serve no real purpose.
This same lack of purpose can be seen in the remarks of Hillary advocates such as Tim K, who borrows the GOP's "rich people who talk about helping poor people are hypocrites" line, for no reason except to score some instant gratification in an online argument.
Hillary's campaign had no message except "I should win". I would be interested to see if she makes any demands on Obama to talk about issues important to her, as Edwards did when he dropped out. Instead I imagine the compromises Obama will be forced to make to win her allegiance will be along the lines of what he can do to advance her own political career. Because when Hillary wins, we all win, right?
Those that have a memory that goes back farther than last week will remember that the election of 2000 was widely regarded as incredibly unimportant.
Untrue and irrelevant. You're outdoing yourself.
Now tell us more about how much you hate Bush. You know you want to.
Hillary's fiercest partisans are ziocon bloggers like Echidine who want a candidate that will "protect Israel." They're also the ones filled with preposterous loathing for Chris Matthews for his "Nazi misogyny". In their minds any criticism of Hillary is tantamount to rape. And they wonder why their ranks have dwindled to mere nothingness.
How many American media networks does Tim K. actually have access to?
Wow Mixner. You are really demonstrating a capacity for willfully ignoring the point.
You say: I am very wise and experienced and know that elections don't matter.
He says: Actually elections do matter, as can be seen from the consequence of recent presidential elections.
Do you get it now?
Ben:
I guess she was also responsible for why it didn't happen for the 45 years before that as well.
Other things Hillary is to blame for:
World Hunger
War
All Evil in the World
As far as sexism goes, I've faced two kinds: the construction guys who make vulgar comments on the street and the male business colleague who sabotages my career. Trust me, I know who is the bigger threat.
Sure, Hillary got leered at by the misogynist media guys (Olbermann, Matthews). But in the end, she got screwed over by Mark and Bill, her oh-so-"faithful" colleagues. And any woman who doesn't realize that this is the true sexism of Hillary's campaign is bloody well blind.
“If you're going to call my opinions worthless I really don't care for what you have to say.
Political phenomenon? Could you literally be any further up Barack Obama's ass? Talk about cock worship.”
Classy. Is this how they discuss politics up north? Tyro didn’t use foul language and besides, he did actually have a point. Your opinions here are not all that useful, they are totally unsubstantiated. Different polls say different things and no poll in May can possibly be accurate for a November election. The process produced the candidate that it did. If HRC ran a better campaign, she would have won. End of story
Raindog:
Calling Obama a phenomenon is not a point, it's a gush.
"You are really demonstrating a capacity for willfully ignoring the point."
This is what Mixner DOES here. He's a "torture troll". Ignoring points and bizarrely parsing sentences is his methodology.
Ignore him.
Only McCain has addressed the true concerns of mothers with young children.
For instance, he has made it a priority that we, as a society, should be able to sell bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
Only McCain has addressed the true concerns of mothers with young children.
For instance, he has made it a priority that we, as a society, should be able to sell bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
"Calling Obama a phenomenon is not a point, it's a gush."
Which makes it proper to use that kind of language, at least without someone using it at you in the discussion first?
I also think it is important to recognize the reality of the disappointment, anger, and resentment among many second-wave feminists over Clinton losing. And I also think it is important for something to be done about it. The most helpful thing, of course, will be Clinton no longer stoking those feelings, and instead working to moderate them and to otherwise persuade those people to vote for Obama.
Probably too late to chime in again now, but DivGuy:
Misogynist: I have to say, this sort of screechy, inflexible behavior from Clinton's female supporters would remind me of my ex-wife, if I had an ex-wife.
The latter, of course, is what I was responding to.
As the person who originally wrote the "misogynist" line quoted above, I rather hoped people would take it as obviously ironic, which it obviously is. Lighten up!
I mean, Bill's sexist remarks at the top of the thread are as bad as I've seen, excepting the "Iron My Shirt" guys in NH, which I'm half-convinced were a plant.
MINE WAS A PLANT, TOO. Jeez.
Jeez indeed.
I've been sitting here wondering when the hell somebody was going to point out that the ex-wife comment was obviously meant ironically. Yet earnest discussion continued about Bill's 'divorce' even though the comment ended with "if I had an ex-wife".
I suppose this actually proved to be an excellent example of people only seeing what they're predisposed to think they're going to see.
As the person who originally wrote the "misogynist" line quoted above, I rather hoped people would take it as obviously ironic, which it obviously is.
My apologies. I'm sorry for missing the joke.
I gotta say, it's striking the number of people who wanted to defend your post as perfectly fair and serious. But either way, sorry about that.
No problem DivGuy. Just sorry I delayed your opportunity to laugh uproariously until the following day.
Calling Obama a phenomenon is not a point, it's a gush
It's neither a point nor a gush: it's a fact. Obama is simply am extremely charismatic politician who had an incredible campaign. He had a huge amount of natural political talent, correctly diagnosed the mood of the country in a way that Edwards and Clinton didn't, and exploited the opening to great effect. Few primary front-runners ever have to compete with someone like that, but Hillary did, and she slammed up against it.
Hillary's campaign had no message except "I should win".
To be honest, I did find that message compelling. It wasn't just that she had raised a lot of money, it was that she had packaged herself as a Midwestern Methodist moderate, had Billy Graham quip at a crusade that Bill Clinton, "should become an evangelist and [let] his wife run the country," and then negotiate a truce with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife to get them to lay off their media campaigns against them and even get them on her side. It was a compelling picture because it reflected just the right amount of careful planning and Machiavellian know-how that I wanted to see in a president.
It just so happened that this was merely the most brilliant primary campaign of the 20th century, and that wasn't enough to compete with Obama.
Michael,
It's true that Obama called a reporter "sweetie" and that he apologized for it. And it's true that a poster thought that Goldberg was accusing Obama of calling Hillary a "sweetie."
Nothing in that factual observation warrants what you addressed to me.
@Tim K: No. Regardless of how one feels about Obama, unless you can point out another presidential candidate who's raised as much money as quickly and drawn as large of crowds, he's by definition a phenomenon, or, as Webster's puts it, "a rare or significant fact or event."
So Mixner's "knowledge of history" teaches that elections are not that incredibly important. Except, don't bring up George W Bush 'cause that's, like, ancient history or something.
Knowledge of recent history teaches that the wise dudes who concluded in 2000 that elections didn't matter were morons.
I see from the link that Michelle Goldberg's upcoming book (to be published April 2009) won the J. Anthony Lukas "Work-in-Progress" award. What a total ripoff. My upcoming book, provisionally titled "The Greatest Book Ever Written," obviously deserved to win. Hell, I was more than ready to email the judges the page I've written so far.
Comments closed June 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's easier to bitch than work.
If the woman in question either doesn't vote or votes for McCain, she'll still wind up with a man she hates as president, which maintains the status quo.
It's the misery she knows.
.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 5:57 PM