One of the things that bothers me is that I get email from people that think I am part of some network of boys that are unfairly trying to push Clinton out of the race and that there is some kind of misogyny involved in this conspiracy. I know some people make obnoxious, even misogynistic, comments in the blogosphere. Whenever I have noticed them on this site I have asked people to stop. To be truthful, there have been very few examples here. Certainly no one has posted anything even remotely critical of Clinton’s gender on the front-page of this site. I can’t say I have the time to read every diary, so I can’t vouch for them.
Throughout this campaign I have always said that Clinton’s gender was, for me, her most attractive feature as a candidate. I have argued that she is so talented that she might well have become a senator and run for president even without being married to Bill Clinton. I have never argued that being First Lady isn’t excellent experience for a would-be president. I haven’t nitpicked her on every little negative story that comes down the pike. I have generally (but not always) ignored stories that might hurt her in the general, but not in the primary. Today there are two stories that are perfect examples of what I have not criticized Clinton on.
It turns out that the little girl that read a poem to Hillary on the tarmac in Tuzla is shocked that Clinton would lie about her trip there. And it turns out that Clinton isn’t paying the health insurance premiums for her employees. Both stories make Clinton look terrible (and less electable in the general), but I don’t really give a crap about stories like that. I would oppose any serious DLC candidate for the presidency with the same vigor as I oppose Clinton. If Lieberman or Roemer or Carper or Vilsack or Bayh were the last candidate in the race against Obama, I would fight the same way. It is possible to oppose a faction within the Democratic Party without it being personal.
I am aware, even if I have trouble understanding, that some women are personally invested in the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that there is a certain lack of the ‘personal’ involved in this, too. The investment seems to be less in Hillary Clinton as an individual and more in her as a symbol. I get reactions from friends as if I have insulted them personally by being dismissive of Clinton’s campaign. They tell me that I am acting as if they are stupid, or that I set up moral absolutes that they can’t live up to, or that cut only one way.
It’s baffling, although I am trying to listen to these objections rather than simply dismiss them. But that effort isn’t helped when I get lumped in with misogynists or told that I am just trying to push the woman out.
It’s my political analysis that Clinton can’t win the nomination without going really negative and splintering the party. Obama is an acceptable nominee to me. I do not want to see him damaged by Democrats; I want to see him defended. It’s true that I oppose Clinton politically, but I also want what is best for the party. And at this point, I think the interests of Obama and the interests of the party dovetail.
I do know that some people are feeling a sense of loss and sadness or even frustration with the failure of Clinton’s campaign, and I do not mean to disrespect those feelings. I find them odd in people that otherwise agree with me politically. They have fought against the DLC appeaseniks, railed against the Peter Beinerts and Michael O’Hanlons, blasted the anti-50 staters Emanuel, Carville, and Begala, etc. They would normally cry foul at race-baiting or wedge politics. Yet, they don’t see Clinton as the leader of a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-triangulation, anti-progressive, anti-netroots faction. They seem disconcertingly incapable of seeing (or, in some cases, able to rationalize) racial attacks. Instead, they see her as a woman, and a woman whose success or failure is somehow a success or failure for them personally.
I hear you. But I am so far from thinking that way that any offense is purely inadvertent. I want Obama because I oppose Clintonism, not women. I am being harsh in my criticisms because I am extremely sensitive to racial politics. I’d love to see a woman president, or vice-president. I just want one that I agree with politically. And I want to get behind our nominee now and start the fight. I don’t want our nominee weakened and I don’t want his time and resources diverted from the main event.
It’s not personal. It never was.
BooMan,
No apologies needed. That’s little people pulling the gender card because they’re out of straws.
It has always been about character.
Examples are a mile long.
I am not so dismissive of their feelings or their motives.
good of you to be polite. but there’s just too much whining from those fanning the flames and throwing dirt.
Did … whoever these mysterious e-mail critics are … demand public groveling? Sackcloth and ashes? Walking around the town square with some kind of sign admitting your guilt?
Because if they didn’t … why didn’t you just respond to them by e-mail?
partly because they haven’t limited themselves to email.
You don’t say that in your first sentence.
I’m completely against publishing private e-mails. So I’m not at all suggesting that you do that.
But for those of us who read this blog – there is no context to this post. We can’t tell if you actually responded to their concerns because we don’t really know what their concerns are. (And don’t get me wrong, I believe every word you just wrote. I just have no idea if you are really being responsive to whatever it is you claim to be responding to.)
And – at least you said you were responding to e-mails. As opposed to other bloggers who write explanatory or angry (or sometimes but not often contrite) pieces that seem to come out of nowhere and don’t make a whole lot of sense unless the reader realizes that they aren’t a party to the real conversation that’s going on.
But in general I dislike these kind of kewl kid, I have friends I e-mail with and it aint’ you the readers, now I’m going to talk in code that only people on select listservs understand because those people are my real audience anyway kind of posts.
Many editorial writers refer to comments they receive by mail or email. It’s how they discuss other channels of communication but still respecting privacy.
Booman isn’t doing anything different. And isn’t worthy of that type of criticism IMO.
not because I agree with you but because I like when people defend BooMan.
BooMan, If those e-mailers weren’t reading and understanding your previous well-reasoned posts, it’s unlikely that they will do so here. You need not give them more.
Since this is a blog, it seems to me counterproductive to respond to, or maybe even read, emails from people who choose the closed path to making editorial comments. If they can’t make their points in public they have no standing to even be acknowledged, seems to me.
I agree with the previous poster in suspecting these emails are more about trying to manipulate this site than honest feelings. To anyone who has spent any time here, the idea that you are a closet misogynist is as absurd as it is dishonest.
Booman, your tame compared to Hillary supporters. Below is a link to one of the works. But thanks for the heads-up about Hillary not paying her health Ins. for her employees.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/29/the-wrong-nigga-to-fuck-wit-dilemma-for-barack/#more-1982
should say “one of the worst”
Booman already addressed that POS entry from Johnson. 🙂
I guess I should learn to scroll down..
Let it go Boo.
There’s a certain pointlessness in being a white male and criticizing either Dem candidate. If you’re against Clinton, it’s because you’re a sexist. If you’re against Obama, it’s because you’re racist. (Or perhaps worse, if you’re for either one, you’re just trying to shake off your white male guilt or sucking up to someone.)
You could argue that white men as a class deserve being in that uncomfortable position, but that’s missing the point altogether. “White men” is just a collective label for a diverse group of individuals, just like “women” or “African Americans”.
There is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty in trying to discredit a position by conflating it with some generally-despised other position. Whether it’s labeling Obama supporters as sexists or Clinton supporters as racists or critics of Israel as anti-semites, it’s all bullshit, and it should raise red flags. It’s a sign that the person or group doing the criticizing has run out of rational arguments and feels obliged to resort to smears to hide that fact.
Individuals — as opposed to the carefully calculated propaganda of political organizations — can be forgiven the occasional lapse when they become upset and say things that they will later regret — if they do in fact later regret them. Better still, unless we have a compelling reason to do otherwise, we can give our fellows the benefit of the doubt and not escalate things when someone loses their cool, and also accept that there is room for reasonable people to disagree. It is far more important that we the people get along with each other in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation than that any particular candidate win an election. A democracy is, after all, about us, not about politicians.
The tendency of people to overgeneralize in ‘isms’ is unfortunate. We’ve even heard the argument recently that Trinity church is racist, which is loosely based on Jeremiah Wright’s comments against institutional racism and racism in US foreign policy.
While it seems unquestionable that Wright’s words were somewhat insensitive, the charge of racism against him reminds me of the argument that affirmative action is itself racism, which was made in the context of the Michigan decision.
And, despite that bit of specious logic, it’s important to understand that there actually are instances in which white males are the victim of an ‘ism’ — classism (as well as sexism and ageism).
Although I’ve cluttered the landscape with isms, I wanted to unclutter it by pointing out that it’s only a belief in one’s superiority because of membership in a group that counts as a pejorative ism. We seem to have lost that distinction in our political discourse.
It may have something to do with Hillary’s gender for some people, but for most I believe it’s her vicious campaigning style and her DLC connections.
It’s not because she’s a woman, it’s because of the kind of person she is. I get embarrassed when people say criticism of her is gender based. If you want to play on the A Team, then don’t pull the “Poor Pitiful Pearl” act and don’t be a crybaby.
Women have suffered and do suffer inequities in this society. Hillary is not one of them.
“Women have suffered and do suffer inequities in this society. Hillary is not one of them.”
Bullshit. Do you think if she’d been president and cheated on Bill with an intern, the reaction would have been the same? Do you think the public would have lauded him for standing by her?
I hate the Clintons & the DLC, but I am loathe to be so dismissive of Hillary’s own experiences as a person.
As Boo said: this isn’t personal.
I think she’s referring to Hillary in the context of this presidential campaign – Hillary hasn’t endured anything foreign to every other presidential candidate in 2008, and she has flung more than her share of manure as well.
Hillary has run a horrible, dirty campaign. Does that justify sexist language against her? No. Booman’s been great about keeping that shite out of the frogpond, but it’s been all over the internets. Has Hillary’s campaign and candidacy suffered because of sexism? Overall, I’d say no, not at all. However, I have been appalled by the sexist language coming out during these primaries.
It’s possible to simultaneously believe that Hillary Clinton is horrible and that she’s being mistreated somewhat because of her gender.
It is indeed possible to simultaneously believe that Hillary Clinton is horrible and that she’s being mistreated somewhat because of her gender, just like it is possible to simultaneously believe that we are affected by the gravitational pull of Earth and the gravitational pull of the moon…
I, too, have been appalled by a lot of the language over at places like dKos against. That said, did you ever consider that it might be a reaction to the way the actual Clinton campaign has attacked Obama based upon his race? Or perhaps also misogynistic reactions to misandric language (alebit more subtle) from Clinton supporters?
Let’s not pretend the sexist language is only traveling towards one candidate in the blogosphere.
Why briefly?
Because my recent piece here BLOGSTRIKE!!! (Why not? It’s now just the media writ small.) just about sums up what I am seeing and I have resolved not to waste much time on the tidal wave of anti-Hillary hysteria that I see building not just on the leftiness blogs but in the media as well.
But a small addendum or two. I can do no better (nor waste less time) regarding the “misogyny” thing than reprint my recent response to a close friend of yours here, Booman,
And regarding the so-called “racism” of Ms. Clinton and her campaign…
I know it is an unlikely scenario, but just say that she was running against John Edwards now or some other white candidate, and the pastor of that candidate had made EXACTLY the same references in his sermons as did Rev. Wright. (The “unlikely part isn’t that a white candidate might be attending a church whose pastor was saying those thiung, by the way. Even if it was a white pastor. I am white and I wholeheartedly agree with what was said By Rev. Wright. Every goddamned word.)
Would you expect her campaign to NOT call out the candidate AND the pastor?
How “racist” would that be, Booman?
“Politicist”?
YTou bet your ass.
That’s how it’s played.
But racist?
I think not.
There go TWO of your arguments.
As Ol’ Blue Eyes was wont to sing:
Later…
AG
Nothing will ever make me disrespect the women’s movement or the civil rights movement.
Hillary is not the spokeswoman for the women’s movement nor is Barack the spokesman for civil rights.
We the People are the spokesmen & women.
The spirit of both movements gives all of us the freedom and the responsibility to seek out the best for this country, plain and simple.
It’s time to respect the issues.
It really seems odd to me that claim “misogynist” at every turn, are themselves downplaying Hillary’s skills and abilities.
She is a brilliant, powerful, opinionated woman, therefore she has done a lot of things for people to like, and also dislike.
My reasons for supporting Obama are different than Booman’s. In fact, some of the reasons Booman dislikes her are some reasons I was considering voting for her. But that doesn’t invalidate his opinion, it validates it. There are issues other than Hillary’s gender involved here, and grown people can disagree about them.
What broke it for me, was an issue that I’ve never seen addressed by either Booman or any of Hillary’s supporters, and that is the Clinton’s close relationship with Monsanto, their efforts to push GMO food on other countries and on their own people who don’t want them. This is an extremely important issue to me, no matter what the gender of the candidate, so I would be very interested in hearing how a Hillary supporter can twist that issue around to being one of gender.
As a woman and a feminist, I share your bewilderment about progressive women seeing Clintonism as some sort of positive phenomenon. Just as Margaret Thatcher did nothing to advance feminist values, Hillary Clinton, the DLC, pro-war, corporationist candidate does not either. What are feminist values if not honesty, peace and respect for others? It seems to me that Clinton’s Machiavellian political campaign directly contradicts all of these.
There are progressive women that I would be thrilled to see in the white house. Hillary Clinton, with her overweening ambition, dysfunctional marriage and Rovian political strategies is hardly inspiring.
Obama is running a more ethical campaign, making the case for his own candidacy, instead of tearing down his opponent with lies and smears. He is a candidate I can respect and be proud to support. The contrast between the two campaigns is the contrast between the politics of personal destruction and the politics of true community. As a progressive, I’ll take community any time.
I keep reading that the division in the Democratic Party is between Clinton and Obama. Race and Gender. But (as BooMan has discussed previously), this contest highlights an underlying struggle to redistribute political power. I think the best response to a president who has increased executive power is people-powered politics. Only one candidate fully embraces this strategy. IMHO, the moment that any presidential candidate is elected to office with a fifty state strategy… that is change.
It says here
It’s nice to crash the glass ceiling, but I don’t think that’s the real motivator here (maybe it’s just a nice big fat cherry on top a mountain of people-powered whipped cream), nor does it describe what is really happening. Because if we’re dealing with a crashing the gate scenario then I guess BooMan needs to start explaining what happens next.
Once there is enough distance for a realistic postmortem on the Clinton campaign the progressives for Clinton phenomenon needs to be figured out. I get the “centrist” Democrats since Clinton’s been their woman from the start. I understand the low information voters who have made the connection of Clinton=Good times Bush=bad times and want to turn the clock back to good. I also understand older women (my Grandmother comes to mind) who see this as the only chance they will have in their lifetime to see a woman as president. Movement progressives for Clinton though? That I don’t understand at all.
Hillary Clinton or any other DLCer is the kind of candidate we settle for as a last resort against the Republicans. She’s not just a part of the DLC problem that so many of us have been fighting against, she’s one of it’s freaking leaders. I’ve seen way too many people who were involved in the Dean campaign, support the 50 state strategy, helped oust Lieberman, etc, etc who got behind Clinton early and stayed there. It’s just odd.
I understand not seeing Obama as the ideal candidate. He was far from my first choice as well. Still, he isn’t hostile to progressive ideas. For me it’s the difference between Obama allowing the movement to grow vs. Clinton killing it in the crib.
I guess I am one of those people who have been angry with the Clinton candidacy before day one. And I have but one reason for that.
W Jefferson Clinton strongly supported a sanctions policy that resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five. H Rodham Clinton never opposed that policy of genocide.
How can one support a candidate who was so close to the levers of power, her claim, and did nothing to stop the policy of sanctions? I know plenty of others might have been in a similar position. They are not running for the office of President of the United States of America.
I will continue to bring this issue to the eyes of those that may have forgotten or not known. I will continue to oppose H Rodham Clinton and her husband at every opportunity.
Malcolm
Much of it, I think, is a matter of the Clinton campaign pushing the narrative of “Big Mean Negro and His Big White Friends Pushing Little Woman Out”. Many of her supporters see this, and, whether because they agree with it or because of their own opportunistic tendencies, carry it forward.
My biggest problem with the charges of sexism against those who oppose Clinton is with what I see as Hillary Clinton attempting to exploit feminism and some of the sexist tendencies among women — it’s not a Males-Only club, after all — that can go along with it. The repeated crying that just happens to come before crucial primaries, the narrative I mentioned above, the constant reminder that Having a woman president would mean real change!, and so on. (I appreciate that the Obama campaign doesn’t constantly remind me that he’s black. Being, you know, not an idiot, I know he’s black, and he doesn’t need to guilt me into voting for him. So leave it at that. The historic nature of it is just icing on an already pretty damned good cake to me.)
Here’s what I don’t get – why do you think Obama is the more progressive candidate? He’s not. I am not the most well-read voter out there but I have watched all the Dem debates. His positions are virtually indistinguishable from hers. How many times did he say “what she said?” A little bit of difference on health care (no mandates) and he was not in the Senate at the time to vote for or against granting the president authorization to use force in the War on Terra. So what is it that makes him the anti-DLC candidate? Republicans in the cabinet? That can’t be it…
My spouse is a died-in-the-wool Clinton supporter. I think it is going to be tough to bring them along if Clinton is seen as having been “pushed out” by the Democratic party establishment. Politics is sometimes pretty ugly. Democracy is messy (you should have seen the chaos at the caucuses here where I live). You have to detatch yourself a little bit or the whole thing starts looking rotten.
I have no problem voting for whoever the Dems nominate. They are both flawed, but they are both better than McCain. But Senator Clinton represents about 50% of the dems, and those dems need to be granted some respect. We are not all low-information, 90s = good voters. I think Obama himself recognizes this but I do not think his campaign or his supporters on the net do.
Booman I enjoy your blog from time to time, and I appreciate this post. But I do think there is something beyond Senator Clinton’s politics that is getting people riled up.
Regards.