And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.

Obama spent a good five minutes praising Clinton and claiming she would still play a large part moving forward. But let’s not let pesky facts get in the way.

Chill—it’s not just Obama.  It’s the media’s treatment of her, the ‘Country Music’ shirts, the constant nitpicking of her attire for no reason other than that she’s a woman, the nearly crazed leap by so many blogs when the returns came in today.  She has indeed been treated shabbily by many people, and she didn’t deserve it.

I’m not saying that this wasn’t a factor, but what were the expectations?

Fashion nitpicking?  Sorry, but as long as fashion remains a deeply sexed aspect of our society, the frivolous minds of a media who peddles fashionism as a primary product will drift there.

Sexist language and outbursts by Hillary’s critics inside and outside the media?  Sorry, but I have a hard time imagining sexist language and sterotypes not living on another hundred years into the future, although I’d like to hope they lose some of their edge. Sexism has been with us for a very long time, and feminism not nearly such.  I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but not everyone who calls Clinton a b**** is a dyed in the wool misogynist, just as not everyone who calls something they don’t like ‘gay’ is a particular homophobe.  The language and thinking behind it changes slowly.

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why this is such an open wound.

Michael - so far as I understand, this is still a feminist blog.

Generally speaking, saying “That’s just the way it is” does not lead to social change, or the eradication of social ills.

Look, a good number of pro-Hillary blogs have serious personal issue.  You can’t argue with the irrationals. There is ALWAYS some excuse to play victim. They are at point of no return, because their argument was constructed on premise “all or nothing” for Hillary. That Hillary nomination survival equals winning. Since there is still some chance, then she is winning. It doesn’t matter if the whole thing isn’t very logical and actually harming a lot of causes in very obvious way. ... The rest will be too coward to say anything or do the right thing. Most probably talk about some inane subject, T-shirt , random doll or something.

My prediction:

1. Hillary will remain vague and pull the Tanya Harding option.
(When Obama get massive swiftboating, SD will move to Hillary side. Then floor fight.)

2. Hillary will retain her campaign asset, if not moving it to help her chance to clinch floor fight via Tanya Harding option. (Watch your back Obama.)

so, that would be my base operating assumption until Hillary announce concession before convention.

Generally speaking, saying “That’s just the way it is” does not lead to social change, or the eradication of social ills. Catnik on 06/03 at 11:05 PM

therefore one shall throw tantrum, take the ball and go home, and vote McCain.

Yeah, social ill my ass.

woman cloths in media vs. War and collapsing national fiscal policy.

We are not talking about poor under educated woman, here. But somebody with advance degree.

A tantrum?  Watch out, squashed - the Clintonian strawmen are getting bruised.

To expand: Is anybody surprised by the misogyny and general sexist vitriol flung at Clinton?  No.

Is it possible to still be angered by such misogyny, regardless of whether or not Clinton was the personal candidate-of-choice?  Yes.

The point, squashed, of my linking Melissa’s post was to point out a vocal supporter of Ms. Clinton who is NOT “throw[ing] tantrum, tak[ing] the ball and go[ing] home, and vot[ing] for McCain.” There’s no reason to believe that Catnik isn’t another.

The person who displayed the largest lack of respect tonight was Clinton. Even in Little League you have to high-five the team that beat you.

She isn’t being hustled off the stage - quite the opposite. Obama underscored her importance moving forward, and you can bet the media will be full of “What will Clinton’s next move be?” stories for weeks.

Obama himself did everything tonight up to conceding and bent over backwards to praise Clinton.

“Melissa wrote that well before Obama took the stage…”

But Auguste quoted it after he’d left AFAIK. I guess the post had a shelf life of 2 hours.

Whining = throwing tantrum.

Give it few more days, somebody in that blog circle will start lashing out one way or another. Then the whole thing snowball. This is standard blog drama. After few days then people will play stupid, wondering why there is big backlash against fight. Same bullshit happens EVERY 3 months.

You can set your clock against it. .. over and over .. and over again.

And people wonder why feminism issues are marginalized.

“And I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November.” Catnik on 06/03 at 11:30 PM

give it few more days.. her proxy will start showing on TV doing saying funny things.
(did she concede or suspend her campaign? No. her campaign premise is still the same. Go to denver and do floor fight, change the delegates count in the meantime.)

I hope I am wrong. But like I say…give it few days…watch what hillary does, not what she says.

“Whining.”  “Tantrum.” “Tanya Harding.”  “Irrational.”  “Playing victim.”

Ladies and gents, I think we might have a bingo.

Notice what she didn’t congratulate him on?

And look, I’m not on the Hillary is a terrible person bandwagon. But one of my pet peeves is when someone links to another post with words of agreement when the original post is just wrong. She was offered much graciousness by the victor.

The victor tonight is not Chris Matthews or the guy who printed up some C.U.N.T. shirts. The victor was Obama, and I don’t see how he could have been more gracious.

there you go… right on schedule.

One can practically engineered outrage and count the linking pattern.
It’s every 3 months or so. It has amazing regularity.

Squashed, give it a rest already.  You hate Clinton.  We get it.

Sqashed, for both your sake and ours, please just shut the fuck up for the next six months.

Michael - so far as I understand, this is still a feminist blog.

Generally speaking, saying “That’s just the way it is” does not lead to social change, or the eradication of social ills.

Fair enough.  I’ll admit to not having seen a lot of the misbehavior in question, so I’m not sure how egregious I’d see it, if it were, say put together in an illustrative you tube video to highlight the problem.  But, given that, I’m not sure why this /hurts/ so much to people watching it happen.

I would say that if you call her that, you are at the very least using sexist frames and language, and that puts you a number of steps down the road to being a misogynist. Same with the gay thing.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the sexism behind the ‘bitch’ stereotype is deeply normalized.  I know that I saw some kerfuffle somewhere recently over women using the term ‘bitch’ to describe women, even women who would normally be thought of as feminist, if not ideologue feminists.  The language thing is a sometimes…nuanced issue.  Pushing for change in how people speak is a hard case to make, because people internalize so much of their world view in speech.  People don’t want to hear that words that they’ve used their whole life aren’t acceptable because they reflect some deep seated bad-think, and will often resent attempts to paint them as what -ist the words supposedly imply.

I can really only speak for myself, here - but, as a rule, my anger and frustration regarding Hillary’s treatment has not been focused on Obama.  He’s done things which have irritated me - and so has she. 

But while Obama was gracious, his voice was one in a cacophony of nastiness.  The two candidates do not exist in a vacuum, and much of the really nasty stuff stems from the punditry, from the media, and the hordes triumphantly crying out to put the “bitch” in her place.  It stems from proclaimed progressives, who don’t hesitate to use sexist insults and language.

This isn’t anything new.  This isn’t anything unexpected.  Does that make it any easier to take?  Does it make it less disheartening to watch someone go through that?

Melissa didn’t even mention Obama in her post, beyond two basically neutral comments unrelated to her point.

And her post wasn’t a liveblog. She wasn’t referring to the speeches being made (at least that’s not how I was reading it.)

I’m talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all women.

There can be little doubt that many in the media—particularly those on the right—attacked and framed Clinton in sexist terms. However, I, and many I have spoken to, are not convinced that that this sexism played any significant role in her defeat. Clinton, I believe, was defeated by 1) her poor campaign choices, 2) her lack of regret regarding her Iraq vote, 3) her belief that she needed to move rightward to capture ‘swing voters’—a traditional DLC tactic. I think we can acknowledge the sexism which was directed towards Clinton without crediting it with her loss.

Michael -

It hurts because for many of us, we’re seeing our own experiences with the patriarchy being played out on a national stage.  It hurts because it is not just about Clinton - it’s about all “uppity” women, and the price society imposes on them for not meekly playing by the rules.

Find—DLC returns 0 results.

The saddest part of the whole thing is that a lot of otherwise smart people have been distracted to the real reason why she lost, at least within the activist crowd. It’s a reprise of the netroots vs. DLC war that keeps on spouting up every now and then. Anybody who doesn’t realize that, quite frankly, is missing the entire point.

The media sexism is bad but I mean really. They’re just bad in every which way.

Actually, that’s the second saddest part. The saddest part is how a lot of smart feminists have been conned in supporting the patriarchy in such a big way. Make no mistake, there’s one candidate who’s tearing that down, and that’s Obama. How?

I strongly believe that the patriarchy can’t survive outside of an authoritarian environment. Hell, that’s what it IS. And listen to Clinton’s speech tonight. It’s I I I ME ME ME all that. So was McCain’s….but he’s John McCain. WTF did you expect?

Maybe we expected more from the Clintons. I know I did. Maybe it’s the bigotry of hard expectations. But at the end of the day they just never lived up to them.

The patriarchy will crumble when we act as we and not I. One of the CNN commentators was SHOCKED, SHOCKED that Obama never talked about himself…..

duh.

That’s been what he’s doing from pretty much day one. The focus is on the movement. On the community building…hell that’s what he DOES. That’s his life, his background, that’s what he’s used to.  And that’s the work that tears down the fucking authoritarian patriarchy that haunts us.

Melissa didn’t even mention Obama in her post, beyond two basically neutral comments unrelated to her point.
And her post wasn’t a liveblog. She wasn’t referring to the speeches being made (at least that’s not how I was reading it.)
Auguste on 06/04 at 12:02 AM

right, she is just conveniently make a random general point unrelated to election. When most blogger are having to explain justification to continue certain political position. Hey, maybe she is commenting about election in Zimbabwe.

... I know. Maybe that entry was some postmodern experiment on absurd contextualism. It’s nothing but word games, association and spinning. But, whatever…

The problem I have Catnik is that people purposely conflate all those different factions - Obama, Obama’s campaign, his supporters, the media, random whackjobs, etc.

It sounds like you are differentiating between them but many are not. Which is how you end up with wacky shit like a Republican started a 527 that exists solely to call Clinton a cunt, therefore Obama is sexist, therefore we should vote for McCain.

Not to minimize the implicit collaboration of various forms of sexual discrimination but, it seems to me that terms like ‘The Patriarchy’ function in the same way as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to conflate different kinds, degrees, and levels of threat into an amalgamated badness.

Sexism is bad.  Sexual discrimination is worse.  Sexual violence worse still.  But, ‘the Patriarchy’ makes it possible to transfer aggression from deserving targets onto bystanders.

Forgive the shorthand, but sexism is a societal ill.  It is learned in the cradle, broadcast from every screen, preached from the pulpit, and played out in countless interactions every day.  “The Patriarchy” isn’t a secret cabal of Old White Rich Dudes - it’s deeply ingrained cultural values and prejudices that often take a lot of conscious work to overcome.

Catnik- With you on that.  I think we’re basically in agreement about the size and nature of the problem.

And I certainly don’t doubt Ms McEwans’ sincerity.  I just didn’t understand the vehemence of it, or why it was being cited.  That said, I might be a bit more sympathetic if Clinton didn’t seem to be holding her support hostage for concessions from Obama right this minute.

I used to be a moderately regular reader, before they rehomed.

After my favorite, Edwards, dropped out I became an irregular reader, mostly of pure politics blogs.

I figured I’d let the true believers bruise and bleed each other and come back for the Kumbayahs after.  Still waiting for my damn Kumbayahs.

In general, I just want to say that as a long-time reader/lurker of Pandagon (and as an Obama voter), I’m appalled by the low quality of the thought in the comment threads these days. Squashed and others have really driven the level of discourse way down in here. Half the time, you really wouldn’t know that this is a feminist blog at all. I hope that the moderators start to take a firmer hand rebuking some of the drivel being spouted in here. Cheers to Incertus and Auguste for their efforts.

If I debunk shakes entry item by item. Can several people admit Shake’s entry is nothing but giant whining?

I just didn’t understand the vehemence of it, or why it was being cited.

You don’t understand why tonight, of all nights, a reasonable Clinton supporter (of whom Ms. McEwan is certainly one) would write a sort of “last look” post? I’m not saying Melissa’s planning to never write about sexism aimed at Clinton again, but certainly tonight makes as much sense as any to wrap things up.

Certainly that’s the main reason I cited it. It’ll (hopefully) be the last post I make about Clinton’s campaign as a going concern. I don’t see it as vehement or whiny in the slightest (obviously, or I wouldn’t have posted it.)

If I debunk shakes entry item by item. Can several people admit Shake’s entry is nothing but giant whining?

Make sure you send us a link to your blog when you do. Given that Melissa’s post builds on 100+ previous posts (not all of which I agree with, by the way), you’ve got a lot of items to go through.

but not everyone who calls Clinton a b**** is a dyed in the wool misogynist, just as not everyone who calls something they don’t like ‘gay’ is a particular homophobe.  The language and thinking behind it changes slowly.

Yeah, buddy?  Maybe not, but everyone who defends such acts, who says “sexism has been around like a really long time, so deal all ready”, and generally goes along with such crap IS a dyed in the wool misogynist. An ignorant person can be excused her ignorance, but someone who knows what is going on, and still accepts it… Nah. He can’t be excused.

Hillary Clinton got screwed over because she was female.  I am not particularly crazy about her politically,  I think she made some poor decisions worthy of critique with her campaign, but let’s not kid ourselves.  The main things she was attacked for, and she was attacked viciously from both ends of the spectrum had everything to do with her sex, and not her politics. That’s what I am lamenting tonight, and I believe that was the point of the post Melissa put up, too.

I have a big problem with her underlying premise, the idea that yeah, there was racism and sexism all over the place, but now the black people have their nominee and the wimmens ain’t got nothin’.

Since when is politics about you?

I really have a problem with this approach. People who vote third party in purple states because “I need to feel my vote meeeeans something!”

Grow the fuck up.

Political involvement is not a medium for your own validation; it’s a way of giving back to your community, your country, and the world. It’s something you do for your children, or your nieces and nephews, your neighbors who are hurtin’; for the hurtin’ people all over the world, because you live in the 800-fucking-pound gorilla of the fucking globe.

And if you don’t think like I do, you’re a narcissistic pig-bastard.

a reasonable Clinton supporter (of whom Ms. McEwan is certainly one)

Let me point out, however, that Melissa is not in fact a “Clinton supporter.”  She was an Edwards supporter, and has never openly stated a preference for either Clinton or Obama; she has in fact defended and criticized both of them at various times.

“...these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don’t have a “despite it all.” “

God forbid something like “hey, despite it all a black man got elected!”

It does kind of give lie to the shared struggle rhetoric.

Neko,

Take a chill pill, friend.

I’m not anti-woman at all.  And I would have been happy to have had a woman as a nominee for the presidency.  Perhaps less happy to have a Clinton, but that’s more about policies and tactics.

I live in a deep blue state.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t hear people who probably know better but still mean nothing by it refer to things that I would call lame as ‘gay’.  They’re not going to go out and beat up gay people.  They don’t even oppose equal rights for gays.  But the language issue is one where being a fucking purist just makes you come off as a prick to people who aren’t face deep in the ‘cause’.

Similarly, I’m pretty sure that if I took all my female friends to task for using ‘bitch’ or the verb ‘bitching’, I’d have a lot fewer female friends.  The fact is that sexism exists, and the fact that it permeates our language means that inoffensive or hardly offensive things will be expressed in sexist or racist, or homophobic language or quasi- all of the above.  You can rail against frames and against sexist constructions, but these are the people I live in the world with, and I’m not going to make any friends or change any minds by turning myself into King Nag.

And if you think pointing out the obvious means I’m ‘the Enemy’, then I guess you’re not really interested in forming coalitions.  I know you encounter countless trolls railing against PCism, or nastily criticising whatever.  That’s not me.  And I’m sorry if you think it is.

There have been times, hell, even earlier today, when I thought some of the folks at shakesville were exaggerating the extent to which Clinton supporters needed some sort of outreach or had been marginalized within the party, but then I come here and read a bunch of people who don’t even want to give them a moment to grieve the loss of what might have been. It’s called compassion. It’s called sportsmanship. It’s called civility. It’s called putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Try it sometime.

And Michael, perhaps you should return to shakesville and avail yourself of Melissa’s Feminism 101 primer. It could do you some good.

Let me point out, however, that Melissa is not in fact a “Clinton supporter.” She was an Edwards supporter, and has never openly stated a preference for either Clinton or Obama; she has in fact defended and criticized both of them at various times.

You’re right, my mistake.

(I think I may have heard something somewhere about her initial support for Edwards. It’s all on the tip of my tongue…)

you know, i’ve enjoyed reading this blog for quite some time, defended it’s editor through the “harsh times,” bought the book, etc.  it used to be in my top five.  lately, tho, i don’t see the feminism.  no more pandagon for me.  too many dudes basically saying “what sexism” over and over again.  no point.

(I think I may have heard something somewhere about her initial support for Edwards. It’s all on the tip of my tongue…)

Heh.  Yeah, that would be a familiar story around these parts.

Well, the problem is that Hillary, by her actions and speech tonight, STILL hasn’t conceded and is still throwing out threats to take this to the Convention while at the same time making noises about being “willing” to be VP.

Oh thank you, thank you very much, your Highness.

THAT is what did Hillary in—her sense of entitlement, her arrogance, her lack of having a Plan B when Super Tuesday didn’t magically drop the nomination in her lap.  The sense that she’s far too willing to reneg on promises made (notice how she didn’t have any complaints about the decisions made about Florida and Michigan—in fact, signed off with the rest of the candidates—until it looked like she would need those votes?)

Look, you can call it a symbol of Patriarchy or whatever you want, but there are certain EXPECTATIONS in politics and in political campaigns.  Hillary, by her actions, is fearfully close to being shifted from the “tough fighter” box to “sore loser” box.  At some point, in politics, just as in games, it’s expected that the loser will throw in the towel, compliment the winner, and walk off stage.  Yeah, I know, Kennedy took the fight all the way to the convention back in whenever, blah blah blah. (The Democratic Party lost that election, may I remind you—maybe not such a great strategy to repeat.)  Also, Kennedy was a white male and yeah, could get away with more slop.  The fact is, how Hillary conducts herself in the ending of this campaign and segues into a position of supporting Obama is going to have a great effect on how FUTURE women running for the Democratic nomination will be considered.  If women don’t show that they “know how to play by the rules of the game”, they’re not going to be let into the clubhouse in the first place.

Michael you are being somewhat obtuse. The use of words like “gay” are generational and situational to some degree, but calling a woman a bitch in a public forum is pretty obvious sexism. And even if the writer doesn’t mean anything by it basic consideration for a wide audience should be enough to stop them.

but then I come here and read a bunch of people who don’t even want to give them a moment to grieve the loss of what might have been.

What might have been?

She lost an election, she’s not dead. She’s still a multi-millionaire. She’s still married to one of the world’s most public ex-presidents. She’s still a US Senator. Odds are she’s going to wind up in a cabinet position, or even the Supreme Court. In many ways she remains one of the most public and powerful women in the world. And there’s always 2016.

Exactly how much grieving are you saying needs to be done, here? You need to stop thinking of the Democratic nomination as something rightfully hers but wrongfully taken. She lost. It’s not a huge deal; in fact, her loss happened so long ago you’ve had plenty of time to get used to it.

And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.

I’m not sure who is being called out for pushing here. The media? Bloggers? Obama fans? Plus she’s refusing to leave the stage gracefully, like a failed contestant at Showtime at the Apollo demanding to be let continue to perform. The last messages she sent were that she was going to continue the fight to the convention floor, and she did nothing to contradict them tonight. Acknowledging defeat is a precondition to receiving graciousness.

Even had she conceded, forgiveness comes slowly. The memories of how she and her surrogates behaved during most of the primary season are too fresh.

There have been times, hell, even earlier today, when I thought some of the folks at shakesville were exaggerating the extent to which Clinton supporters needed some sort of outreach or had been marginalized within the party, but then I come here and read a bunch of people who don’t even want to give them a moment to grieve the loss of what might have been. It’s called compassion. It’s called sportsmanship. It’s called civility. It’s called putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Try it sometime.

While sexism was a major problem for Clinton, I think it could have been overcome by a team that was competent, well prepared, valued ability over loyalty, and had contingency plans in place when major strategies proved to be inadequate. That she didn’t have that team is something to be mourned indeed.

Melissa McEwan wrote:

And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.

Maybe this has changed since I went to school, but I always saw pacifism as a feminist principle — a principle that I’d hate to see a leader throw to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.

I understand how a Clinton presidency would be a boon for many women in America. But it wouldn’t be a boon for Iranian women considering Clinton’s aggressive, militaristic stance towards Iran. And her vote for AUMF was a tragedy for the women, men, and children of Iraq.

chingona:

There have been times, hell, even earlier today, when I thought some of the folks at shakesville were exaggerating the extent to which Clinton supporters needed some sort of outreach or had been marginalized within the party, but then I come here and read a bunch of people who don’t even want to give them a moment to grieve the loss of what might have been. It’s called compassion. It’s called sportsmanship. It’s called civility. It’s called putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Try it sometime.

Well, to be fair, there have been times when I thought some of the folks around here were exaggerating the extent to which there really was an air of entitlement that surrounded Clinton, her campaign, and her core supporters, but then I see comments like yours that essentially demand I drop everything and run to console you now that it’s become glaringly obvious (instead of just regular obvious, like it has been for the last two months or so) that you’ve backed the wrong horse. Sorry, but that’s right about the time that my empathy and compassion start to dry up.

If I debunk shakes entry item by item. Can several people admit Shake’s entry is nothing but giant whining?

Make sure you send us a link to your blog when you do. Given that Melissa’s post builds on 100+ previous posts (not all of which I agree with, by the way), you’ve got a lot of items to go through.
Auguste on 06/04 at 01:18 AM

how about you make sure not making irrelevant standard. So what if she has 200 posts about feminism issue, does that mean her particular observation can’t be wrong?

I give you my point of view. Her “Obliterate Iran”, AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman act. Let’s just say talking about if people like how Hillary dress, calling her a bitch, or whatever personal hurt she has is pretty downright irrelevant. She might as well talk about puppies and moon pie.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF05Ak02.html

The first and core scenario of the report involves a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, some time between 2010 and 2020. It is speculated that during this period, the Iranians would have about 50, mostly minimum-yield, nuclear weapons at their disposal. Thirty would be in the form of missile warheads to be emplaced on their Shahab 3 and 4 intermediate range ballistic missiles, 20 in the form of bombs that would be carried on the now antique F-14 Tomcats bought from the US by the Shah of Iran in the 1970s, along with a few on the old Russian SU-24s, and the more modern SU-37s, that Iran has recently purchased during shopping trips to the world’s global arms swap meet.

The lower yield and less accurate Iranian volley, sparing Jerusalem due to its centrality to the Moslem faith, would inflict between 200,000 to 800,000 Israeli fatalities along the coastal plain in the first 21 days. These are called “prompt” casualties; it’s who dies before people start dropping from longer-term radiation exposure. Any surviving residents of the central core of urban Tel Aviv would still be exposed to 300 REM (roentgen equivalent man) of radiation 96 hours after the blasts, as opposed to an exposure during an average dental X-ray of about .010 REM.
The more accurate and bigger Israeli nukes, the report speculates, would inflict a far greater toll on Iranian cities - in between 16 million and 28 million in just “prompt” fatalities. The report says that that an Israeli recovery from its damage would be “theoretically possible in population and economic terms”, whereas ...

It’s called compassion. It’s called sportsmanship. It’s called civility. It’s called putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. Try it sometime.
chingona on 06/04 at 02:10 AM

Hillary herself has no problem screaming “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHTdONeRmEA

the problem is not lack of compassion, but the continuation of logic why Hillary should stay in the race. It deligitimize Obama’s number and of course lost of momentum. More importantly, the race is extended until the convention and THAT is a real problem.

It is opportunity cost between fighting McCain, patching up the party, and Hillary’s dead end race. The poll is close.

Nobody cries when Edwards gets out. Everybody knows he doesn’t have the number and if he hangs around the 3 ways split will definitely give status quo win. Everybody from edward team quickly re-org and move to next battle.

Hillary on the other hand is dragging the party down and a lot of her supporters are screwing up talking point and campaign strategy. It’s definitely not a smooth transition. Consistently supporting Hillary’s flawed logic and destructive talking point DO HAVE negative effect on General Election. This election is not over and all poll still say the race is close…!

do you see that now?

Um, y’know, I’m not following the logic here.  Obama built a campaign machine separate from the DLC machine that managed to outperform it in every area - fundraising, message discipline, organisation.  Obama didn’t employ Mark Penn.  Obama didn’t swing to the right or say things about Hillary’s pastor or about “hardworking Americans, male Americans” or do everything he possibly could to put across the idea that if he wasn’t going to get the nomination that he’d be down with McCain getting it.  Nobody says that it has to be the case that a long and fraught primary will damage the party, but one played the way Clinton played it, where she in some cases took McCain’s side against Obama (and, frankly, she still is whether she likes it or not) can’t help.

You can call me a sexist bastard.  You can call John Rogers a sexist bastard.  But the greater point in that post stands: this isn’t about you and your need for validation.  If a male politician had run the campaign Clinton had the bloggers on these feminist blogs would have torn him a new asshole so big you could drive a Chevy through it.  That sexism and racism exist, have played a role and will continue to play a role is undeniable.  But to be sad that Obama won because a female candidate who ran a frankly schitzophrenic, mismanaged campaign still managed to take it all the way to the end, and threw everything from the GOP playbook at a black man while she did it, is to lose sight of the fact that the patriarchy doesn’t mean that all powerful liberal women are incapable of being assholes.

Personally, I picked Obama over Clinton because Clinton represents much more the entrenched power base in Washington, the status quo, and the powerful people who look at the last 8 years and go “well, it wasn’t that bad.”

It’s not that I didn’t feel immense sympathy for Clinton for being exposed to the intolerable misogynistic bullshit that got spewed out in the sorry excuse for a news media, and it’s not that I think American culture has demonstrated any great depths of maturity over the last half-year, but come on people, Obama was more gracious to her in victory than she was in defeat, and there are still people acting like she’s entitled to something else.  Fuck entitlement.  Entitlement is how we’ve got here.  She ran a bad campaign and she lost, she could have ran a losing campaign that would have ultimately strengthened the party but she didn’t.  There’s only so much you can blame the patriarchy for when your candidate is the one courting the Reagan Democrat vote against the black guy.

Surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time. 

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge all of the following:

1) Hillary Clinton has been the victim of a constant barrage of sexism and misogyny that is simply inexcusable and that this sexism and misogyny had a negative impact on her candidacy.

2) Hillary Clinton has run an incredibly divisive and cynical campaign.

3) Being the victim of either sexism or racism or any other form of prejudice says little about your values or qualities, other than your membership in an oppressed group. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are both also frequently victims of outrageous sexism.

Sexism towards Hillary does not only negatively impact Hillary; it negatively impacts all women. 
It does not matter how much you hate her alleged entitlement, her policies, her campaign, etc. - attacking her with sexism is still wrong!  Her faults and flaws do not justify sexism.  If you are willing to excuse the misogyny she’s faced because “She’s HILLARY CLINTON and therefore evil!!1!” you are a sexist.
Whether the media’s sexism, or some Obama supporters’ sexism, cost her votes is irrelevant.  Sexism is still wrong!

“I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why this is such an open wound.”

That’s because you’re blinded by your male privilege, Michael.  God.  I don’t expect you to be as personally affected by misogyny as I am, as a woman.  At least recognize that and examine it.

Hey Squashed, how much is McCain paying you?

Hey Squashed, how much is McCain paying you?
SarahMC on 06/04 at 09:44 AM

as much as you get. how much did you get?

———

It does not matter how much you hate her alleged entitlement, her policies, her campaign, etc. - attacking her with sexism is still wrong!  Her faults and flaws do not justify sexism.  If you are willing to excuse the misogyny she’s faced because “She’s HILLARY CLINTON and therefore evil!!1!” you are a sexist.

It perpetuates the idea that Hillary is being robbed of her chance, instead of bungling her campaign. It feed the idiots wing of democrats to keep screwing up post-primary move. It slows down effort to consolidate party base.

Just remember Hillary’s crew consistently undermine primary process and lies about number. CONSISTENTLY.

That’s because you’re blinded by your male privilege, Michael.  God.  I don’t expect you to be as personally affected by misogyny as I am, as a woman.  At least recognize that and examine it.

I’ve been poking around in response to this thread to get a sense of the complaint against Obama as insufficiently feminist.  And the thing I’m seeing on both sides of the firefights is a rather distressing unwillingness on the part of either side to attribute honest motives to the other.

For example, I’m totally willing to believe that Clinton’s RFK invocation wasn’t some chilling death threat, like it was made out to be.  On the other side, I don’t think that Obama’s team using some memo to charge the Clinton campaign with racism was necessarily the result of disingenuous operatives.  It’s quite plausible that people on his team really saw racism there.

I guess my ‘concern trollism’ of choice is that I wish people who not jump to assuming their crtiics are arguing insincerely.  I remember that was the go to spot of the long ago blogfight over the pie fight on Kos.  And I was pissed that Kos treated his critics as if they were manufacturing outrage.

Also, Margalis’s point that saying ‘that was bitchy’ and very publicly calling someone a bitch are two totally different acts is one that persuades me.

I don’t know if I have anything to add here.  I avoided the blogs in large part because I didn’t want to see partisans cutting on each other, and had hoped it was time for reconciliation.  But perhaps not quite yet.

This is a feminist blog still? Coulda fooled me. Squashed sure hates that bitch Hillary.

  Another one delinking.

Definitely. every fucking war criminal and enabler should be tossed out of the office.

Seriously, auguste, what do we have to do to get squashed banned?  He’s disruptive and takes over every goddamn thread.  He floods every thread with his comments, which are only legible when he cuts and pastes from other people.  He’s a bully if anyone dares point out that he’s not 100 percent right 100 percent of the time. 

We try to ignore him as much as humanly possible, but he’s giving the whole blog a bad reputation.  In the previous kerfuffle about the book, I was going to other blogs and seeing his words quoted as proof positive that commenters at Pandagon are racist, sexist jerks.  And, frankly, I can’t blame them for thinking that, because he posts three or four or five times in a row and gives the impression of there being far more people who think like he does than there actually are.

”...the complaint against Obama as insufficiently feminist…”

You don’t get it.  We are not hurt, deflated, or disappointed because Obama is insufficiently feminist.  At least, that’s not the whole story.

I was going to other blogs and seeing his words quoted as proof positive that commenters at Pandagon are racist, sexist jerks.  Mnemosyne on 06/04 at 11:21 AM

Is there anything that is not racist or sexist to most blog that you visit? That’s all the type of analysis that is being produced (by 3-4 blogs that quote me. technorati count) It’s nothing but chorus of jingoistic and kneejerk soundbites. (everything is about rehashing 3-4 keys idea, regardless if they are make sone or not.)

Anyway, I can do your game too. I am waiting for your comment :

ginmar   Yesterday 09:28 PM 1 point
Fuck Obama and his sexist minions. He needs to do some serious shoveling before November.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/for-record.html

and on average I think you post much more and in more thread than I do in the past month.

I completely endorse Mnemosyne’s plea to ban squashed.

And squashed: this is much more about your behavior and the way you present your views than the content of your views.

Squashed sure hates that bitch Hillary.

It’s surprising how much of the sexism directed at Hilary comes from her supporters, but is credited to others.

This is from Ginmar LJ entry,
the exact person who says I am a hater….

yeah, I sure feel lots of loving from her writing. (don’t miss her commenter)

——————————

Big shock: the one with the penis got picked
So why is Obama the Golden communicator? I’m watching Hillary and she’s eloquent and approachable and down to earth.

Meanwhile, Obama don’t have anything to say to anybody with a vagina.

Fuck him. Unless he starts kissing womens’ asses, he’s not getting my votes. Lots of men pushing Hillary aside and they’ve been doing that since the beginning. People blinded by male bullshit may think Hillary is conniving and cuntish, but they need to examine their own sexism. Obama is a sexist jerk who might talk about racism but women don’t exist to him.

Here’s hoping you get what you deserve in November. If McCain wins, you can thank your frat boy candidate.

http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1431619.html

So, was the election of Margaret Thatcher an empowering moment for British feminism? Or was Kim Campbell an inspiration to Canadian women? Or were they both bad politicians who just happened to be women?
It’s a good thing to break down barriers, but it isn’t the only thing, and there’s four years of governing that has to go along with the broken barrier. If you’ll excuse the interference from a foreigner, feminism won’t be helped by electing a woman who would make a bad president.

If you’ll excuse the interference from a foreigner, feminism won’t be helped by electing a woman who would make a bad president.

Amen.

I think that there are legitimate disagreements among those of us who’d fervently want to see a woman as president whether or not Clinton would make a good president. I very much do not think she would.

What happened to the practice of bunny-ing the trolls. I was rather fond of that method.

I would endorse banning squashed as well given that ze’s taken to making ad hominem arguments against other commentors and posting at ungodly hours when no one can argue against hir.

Not delinking, but fairly concerned.

Maybe a Misogyny 103 (Anti-Hillary) post would make it clear to some of the guys who just don’t get it. (And the thought that “It’s OK to call a bitch a bitch” is particularly appalling.)

I think negative reactions to Mrs. Clinton can be divided up as follows.
1. Legitimate criticisms of HRC.
2. Misogynistic reflexive reactions (free from any thought process) to HRC.
3. Criticisms of HRC expressed misogynistically so that whatever truth they might have is drowned out by the misogyny.

Yeah, the problem is, a lot of people keep linking 2 with 1. The fact is, Hillary ran a horrible, horrible campaign. She did not do horribly because she was a woman, she did horribly because she misread the electorate and she relied on Mark Penn as her Chieft Stratagist and Pollster… talk about putting all your eggs in one empty basket.

We all started this campaign so unified… honored that our party were on the cusp of selecting either a black man or a woman to the candidacy for President of the United States. Now look at us… I guess it just shows that the democratic party is a shallow and pedantic as the Republican one. Frankly, I feel nothing but shame for what my party has become.

Well, to be fair, there have been times when I thought some of the folks around here were exaggerating the extent to which there really was an air of entitlement that surrounded Clinton, her campaign, and her core supporters, but then I see comments like yours that essentially demand I drop everything and run to console you now that it’s become glaringly obvious (instead of just regular obvious, like it has been for the last two months or so) that you’ve backed the wrong horse.

I am not a Clinton supporter. I voted for Obama in the primary. I think Clinton should concede now. I even think sexism is not the primary reason she lost. I think her Iraq war vote and a whole series of campaign blunders are the main reasons she lost. I’m not demanding that you console me. I’m asking that you (and others here) not be gloating assholes. It’s unbecoming.

I’m asking that you (and others here) not be gloating assholes. It’s unbecoming.

For God’s sake, Clinton’s supporters have had since March to get over the fact that she lost. How much time do they need?

Two months later, can we please oh please acknowledge the historic and well-run Obama campaign without hurting their little fee-fees? How much time do they need, exactly, before they’re ready to grapple with reality?

After two decades of the center-right, corporate teat sucking, DLC wing of the party consistently giving the finger to the left-wing of the party, it is tough not to gloat now.

It should be pretty easy, given the fact that the race boiled down to two candidates from the center-right, corporate teat sucking, DLC wing of the party.  There are differences between Obama and Clinton, but they don’t involve core, ideological commitments. These remain very, very similar candidates on the issues.  Are Kucinich supporters gloating today, ‘cause they’re the only ones from the party’s left wing who put their money (and votes) behind their supposed principles.  Or does it make such a big difference that, in ignoring the concerns and policy suggestions of the left-wing of the party, Obama is more likely to smile, and less likely to give the finger, than the Clintons are?

After two decades of the center-right, corporate teat sucking, DLC wing of the party consistently giving the finger to the left-wing of the party, it is tough not to gloat now.

I hear you on this. It’s one of the main reasons I decided very, very early on that I would never support Clinton. But I think it’s pretty telling that most people who read my original comment just assumed I was a Clinton supporter and didn’t think I could have any sympathy whatsoever with what Melissa wrote unless I was a Clinton supporter. I’m not asking people not to celebrate the historic and well-run Obama campaign. But I was kind of appalled that Auguste links to something written by someone who feels kind of sad to see Clinton lose for some not unreasonable reasons, and the attitude here is just sneering and demeaning and calling them whiners and crybabies, which, by the way, are sexist frames.

Will it help at all if I share something personal? I was an early and enthusiastic Obama supporter. I was thrilled to see him come from behind and wrap up victory after victory. I was distressed to see him not do better in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. But the more it became clear that Clinton was going to lose, the more glee you heard from cable nitwits and Liberal Dudes. And the glee in her downfall made it hard for me to enjoy Obama’s success, because the things people say about her are the same sort of things they say about me and most women who are outspoken and successful, that we are bitches and we are cold and calculating and we are not real women and we need to be put in our place. A lot of the beefs I have with her politically and tactically are also beefs I have with her husband, but you never see that sort of vitriol directed at him. People think now he’s kind of gone of the deep end, but most people regard him with a certain affection. The absolute delight people take in her downfall really makes me feel like women are truly other, truly not fully human in most people’s eyes. That’s why I can sympathize with what Melissa wrote and many of her other posts, without agreeing with every sentence or every point. And where we differ, I think we can make those points without demeaning and mocking someone who should be seen as an ally.

Interestingly Mark Penn, Hillary’s strategist, started his day at aipac.

“What you need to know about Mark Penn is that he started out in Israeli politics working for Begin. He is the Voice of AIPAC.

Former top strategist Mark Penn, reviled by many on Hillary’s staff but still an important voice in the candidate’s ear, has emerged (to no one’s surprise) as the strongest advocate of her remaining in the race regardless of what happens in the next 24 hours, according to sources inside the campaign.

In contrast to the “realist faction” (which reportedly includes Penn’s replacement Geoff Garin, communications chief Howard Wolfson and others), Penn is advising the Clintons to remain in the race through the convention—just in case another Rev. Wright-type scuffle breaks out.”
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/06/a-visit-to-the.html#comments

the attitude here is just sneering and demeaning and calling them whiners and crybabies, which, by the way, are sexist frames.

Those two words - “whiners” and “crybabies” - don’t appear in this thread until you used them, in your post. Neither words appear in the thread over at Shakes, and the word “whining” doesn’t appear there until it’s used as a straw-man “translation” of someone else’s innocuous comment.

I don’t deny that those are sexist frames, but they’re not the frames that were used, and it is possible to express ridicule towards someone’s self-indulgent, self-pitying, melodramatic grousing without it being sexist. I wonder how much of the sexism perceived by Hillary’s most ardent defenders was an artifact of their own imagination. 20%, maybe? Certainly not most, but when people are making up language and frames that weren’t even used, it’s impossible to deny that there was some.

They are feeling “we wuz robbed” but not analyzing who robbed them and how. You can’t reason with that gut-level conviction.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/151832/5092#here

but you never see that sort of vitriol directed at him.

In the immortal words of M.I.A., “where where you in ‘92?”

Maybe this is just because I spent the entire Clinton Administration in the Bible Belt, but I don’t remember a moment, from his ascendance as Democratic candidate in the ‘92 election to his final days in office , that was not filled with vitriol from the right.  I think his legacy is a litle brighter these past few years because of how shitty the Bush administration is in comparison, and certain humanitarian things he’s done during that time, but all in all the idea that people just LURVE them some Bill Clinton and yet absoltuetely hate and deplore Hillary with the white hot misogynist passion of a thousand suns is just stupid.

People think now he’s kind of gone of the deep end, but most people regard him with a certain affection.

Funny, because that’s exactly my reaction to Hillary.  During the Clinton administration, I was pretty psyched to have a relatively strong first lady who was someone I could actually look up to (Yale law, political and legal career in her own right, health care, advocate for childrens rights, etc. etc.).  I’ve been proud to haver her as my senator, and was proud to get to vote for her in 2006/  I was totally psyched when she announced her plans to run for president, and also very happy that she didn’t get knocked out of the running early on.  Until the last few weeks I’ve felt embarrassed for choice and happy that we finally have so many great candidates to choose from. 

But now?  Now I think she’s gone off the deep end.

1. Hillary will remain vague and pull the Tanya Harding option.

Whining = throwing tantrum.

then I see comments like yours that essentially demand I drop everything and run to console you now

this isn’t about you and your need for validation

If I debunk shakes entry item by item. Can several people admit Shake’s entry is nothing but giant whining?

Two months later, can we please oh please acknowledge the historic and well-run Obama campaign without hurting their little fee-fees?

Or is it cheating if I quote squashed? And you? No, you didn’t use the word “whining” but I don’t really know how to read the tone as anything except indicating whining. If you think I’m demanding that you, personally, you Chet, drop everything and console me (which I am not, as I have made very clear), then you’re calling me a crybaby.

I went ahead and banned squashed. (The eye rebels against that sentence, doesn’t it?)

Thank you.  Sorry to get all ranty about it, but that’s been building for a while.  And it’s not even close to being a problem only with this thread—it’s more that this was the final straw that made me speak up.

but you never see that sort of vitriol directed at him.

I’m talking about this primary season.

Or is it cheating if I quote squashed? And you? No, you didn’t use the word “whining” but I don’t really know how to read the tone as anything except indicating whining. If you think I’m demanding <i>that you, personally, you Chet, drop everything and console me (which I am not, as I have made very clear), then you’re calling me a crybaby.
chingona on 06/04 at 05:00 PM

that’s not whining. That’s anticipating Hillary’s next move based on her previous actions.
(for eg. she will seek to change the delegates number while maintaining open window as long as possible. She will also see the possibility of character assassination done by McCain as possibility of SD moving toward her. All those quality is consistent with her previous behavior.)

Afterward anticipatory move is made: eg. various strategy to cut Hilalry’s funding. alter the landscape of her supporter. Close the window fast. You notice her surrogate already demanding Hillary to be seated as OB’s veep.

All this is basic politics.

Fair enough, though he’s not the one running so, while a lot of his behavior has been deplorable (I have a lot less respect for him now than I did prior to this primary season), he’s not nearly as visible as she is in this campaign.

all in all the idea that people just LURVE them some Bill Clinton and yet absoltuetely hate and deplore Hillary with the white hot misogynist passion of a thousand suns is just stupid.

I guess just to clarify my original point, I’m mostly talking about people on the left, Liberal Dudes, and the like. In 2004, so many people were saying they wished they could vote for Bill Clinton again. Some of the cable talking heads that have employed some of the most sexist language against Hillary Clinton are nominally liberal. People on the right have hated both the Clintons with a fiery hate for a long time. I never hated either of them but have been disappointed too many times to support them any more.

No, you didn’t use the word “whining” but I don’t really know how to read the tone as anything except indicating whining.

If that’s the only word that comes to mind for you, who’s the sexist here, precisely? Nobody else is to blame if sexist frames are the only ones you’re capable of using. I provided a number of other frames, none of which had sexist connotation.

If you think I’m demanding that you, personally, you Chet, drop everything and console me (which I am not, as I have made very clear), then you’re calling me a crybaby.

Maybe you’re not, but some are, and it’s not necessary to call anyone a “crybaby” to describe how that behavior is objectionable. Again, that word only entered the conversation when you used it. How else to describe that but mistakenly apprehended sexism?

Stop citing Kyl -Lieberman.
Obama didn’t have the courage to vote against it