E.J. Dionne, one of my favorite bigfoot columnists, does another of these columns about the disappointment many women feel about how the Democratic primary turned out. Dionne focuses on female politicians, especially those that were the first to hold certain offices. And there are two main complaints he elicits. The first is that Barack Obama never would have been able to win this nomination with his thin resume if he were a woman. And the second is anger with how the media (particularly men in the media) has treated Clinton throughout this campaign. And, to be honest, I basically agree with their gripes. I can quibble a bit on both scores, but I basically agree.
I don’t think a woman that was a freshman U.S. Senator with only a few terms as a state senator for additional experience would have been able to win this nomination. Two imperfect examples are freshman Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. McCaskill has served in the state legislature, as a county prosecutor, and as State Auditor. Klobuchar’s only prior elected office was as Hennepin County Attorney. Neither of them could have pulled off what Obama has pulled off, even if they had his natural charisma and political skills, which they do not. But here’s my quibble. Barack does, as a man, enjoy a certain advantage when it comes to the experience required for people to take him seriously. But he has his own ‘identity’ problems and they quite dwarf those facing Hillary Clinton. He’s a product of a racially mixed marriage, he’s black in both appearance and self-identification, and his middle and last name sound ominously similar to the two greatest villains of the last eight years, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden. I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss these obstacles in Obama’s path and make it sound like he had or has it easy because he is a man.
In the end, it’s true that a woman with his experience would not find it easy to get taken seriously. But why use that against him? Ideally, shouldn’t we hope that candidates of all genders and races can get taken seriously if they have the right values and skills to be president?
The second grievance is about how the media has treated Clinton. And on this score I am very sympathetic to Clinton supporters’ argument…for the most part. I try to avoid cable news except on election and debate nights, but I’m weak and I have watched more than is healthy for the human brain. And I’ve read about a lot of what I’ve missed. There is no question that there has been some appalling sexism displayed on Cable News programs and that much of it has been directed at Clinton. It’s both disgraceful and infuriating and I didn’t write about it enough. But…
I watched cable news do two things that infuriated me as an Obama supporter. First, they ran an unending loop of Reverend Wright for…what was it…five, six straight weeks? This was primarily about whether the pastor’s more incendiary comments would, through guilt by association, render Obama unelectable. But when Clinton got caught lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, which was potentially more damaging to her electability because it was her own action, the media was done with the story in less than a week. If the media was really favoring Obama the amount of time spent on two stories would have been inversed.
Now, I understand that there is a difference between being pissed off at crappy media coverage and saying that crappy media coverage cost your candidate the election. There can be a lot of lingering resentment at the media even when your candidate wins. I’m resentful of how the media has treated Obama and I’m not happy about how they treat McCain. I’m even angry about how they treated Clinton. But that’s on two grounds. There’s the raw and unapologetic sexism, and then there is the way they have indulged the Clinton campaign’s increasingly delusional rhetoric about The Math and the real history of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The media has made the same mistake vis-a-vis the Clintons that they made with the Bush administration in the run-up to the war. Instead of debunking their bullshit, they have too often reported on it in she said/he said style.
So, I really do feel badly about how so many of Clinton’s supporters are feeling let down and frustrated about her failure to win the nomination and I largely agree with their two biggest beefs. But I just can’t sign up for these beefs being valid beyond the disappointment level. They have reasons to be angry but those reasons do not amount to excuses for why she lost.
Nonetheless, even these very pragmatic female politicians who very much want a Democrat to win the White House are looking for signs of “understanding and respect,” said [Maryland Treasurer Nancy] Kopp.
“It’s a campaign, someone wins, someone doesn’t win, that’s life,” she said. “But women don’t want to be totally dissed.”
Here is what I have to say to Nancy Kopp. I am happy about Barack Obama winning this nomination because I identify with him as someone that screwed around a little too much in my teenage and young adult years but that went on to get a good education and work as a community organizer in the inner city. I like his political style and I like his policies. I prefer his ideology to that of the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill. I support him for these reasons and not because he is a man. And, had Obama lost, I would have felt like the party was dissing progressives and activists and community organizers in favor of the powers-that-be that have not served this country well over the last eight years. But, as a man, I would not have felt dissed. Hillary Clinton deserves support from people for reasons other than her gender. But her failure is not a failure for her gender. Her loss is not really your loss. We didn’t vote and organize against her because of her gender. In some ways, we did those things in spite of her gender. Please do not feel disrespected as a woman because we did not pick a woman this time to be our nominee.
It’s an election…someone wins and someone loses. Barack Obama will be a tremendous advocate for women.
I’m not sympathetic to Hillary or her female supporters.
She ran a lousy campaign and tried to use sexism when it suited her.
Sorry. They are sore losers and I’m not in appeasement or understanding.
CNN ran a story this evening about the Obama early years in Chicago and how he challenged petition signatures of one female opponent who now supports Clinton.
Is the media now laying the ground to claim that cheating women is an Obama tactic?
I also saw the Catholic priest. Too bad he apologized.
I’m not buying. This guy is special. It isn’t his message, he has charisma. Lets leave racism and sexism out of it.
First of all, Clinton’s resume is even thinner than Obama’s. It is totally illogical to count experience that she got vicariously through her husband. So barring that, he has more experience as a legislator than she does. They both worked for NGOs, but he worked there longer. Of course, she’s older.
But more importantly, the reason Clinton lost was that she managed a very large organization–her campaign–very badly. He managed an even bigger organization–his campaign–very well. That’s the difference. Had she actually managed, rather than letting good old boys take over, she’d be the nominee right now.
And press coverage? Ask any corporate media reporter! They’ve actually bullied the cables and networks over and over again.
Mrs. Chief, my daughter and another good friend, all females, definitely do not like Senator Clinton and much prefer Senator Obama.
I view Senator Obama as the second coming of Lincoln and JFK. He is brilliant! !
My mother, who is 82 and from Oklahoma to boot, was the very first Obama supporter in my circle. At the time, we were mostly for Edwards. My wife, who is a Harvard professor, decided that she didn’t want Hillary because Clinton seemed to be another Maggie Thatcher. In 1973, I was at Univ. if Texas Law School with the first class of law students with anything approaching gender balance. A lot of my female fellow students were carrying a lot of misogyny and with cause. It’s that wave of women who are having problems with Obama. I understand it. But they need to ask themselves two questions. The first is whether, independent of her gender, Clinton was the better candidate? After the campaign she ran, I can’t see how you’d say yes. Race-baiting is inexcusable no matter what. The second question is whether it’s worthwhile to elect John MacCain, who is almost the apotheosis of the male chauvinist pig. We want a President who calls his wife a c*nt and a trollop?
On their second beef, please explain exactly which voters were driven away from her because of the slant by Chris Matthews et al? Who are these people? On the other hand, you can bet a lot of women were energized by the coverage of her campaign, so I see it as a net positive in purely voting terms. Was it fair coverage? No. Did it hurt her among primary voters? No.
Oh, and where is the footage of Democratic men saying they wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman? I know the attitude is there, but I can recall specific interviews with voters in West Virginia and Kentucky who said they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he would be a president “for the blacks.”
I always have problems with anyone in the Media reporting on how things were reported unfairly in the Media without giving the reader a little more than saying that things were reported unfairly in the media. And I don’t mean just occasional examples but examination into the structure of the Media, who owns it and what they really want out of any particular political race. It appears to me that Clinton was the status quo of the Dems and that the powers that be actually fear that Obama isn’t.
From where I sit the Media always underperform, from not discussing issues to overdiscussing crap like flag pins, etc. If I were to rate the media coverage I’d say that they were much more unfair to Obama than to H. Clinton. For ex, the Shuster “pimp” remark was far less damaging than, say, the whole “flag pin” thing. And overall, that kind of reporting was absolutely worthless in getting to real issues.
Anyone who hates women (and Hillary Clinton) because he watches Chris Matthews probably would have hated women anyway.
As for H. Clinton’s resume, I’d like to see more of it, like the things she was doing before she got to the WH. I hate springing for political autobiographies unless I researching someone, but perhaps I should hunt for a used copy of hers on Amazon.
Wow, her LIVING HISTORY is down to $.44 on Amazon.
I developed a theory in the wake of the OJ Simpson trial that big book deals were just another way of laundering money to the toilers for the corporatists, and the bigger the advance and the quicker the books end up on the remainder table the more likely the authors were in some way dirty.
Y’all will be screaming “DYNASTY!!!”
She’ll be the new Hillary.
Whadda buncha hypnocrites.
Whadda buncha maroons.
AG
Not then. See, first she’ll have to find an easy Senate seat pickup in some other state, learn the subtle art of blatant pandering, and find a way to be a victim. Oh, maybe that doesn’t work after all.
I mean c’mon, what, they took John Edwards,with his natural base of working class white men seriously? NOT SO MUCH.
The cable media suck elephant schlong. They love to play up stories that undercut progressive narratives. It’s not about the individual candidates! It’s about framing the way that stories are presented to make progressive values seem unappealing. Period. End of story.
You know, I hear what folks are saying in Dionne’s op-ed, and there is some merit to it. I mean, asking about the color of lipstick? C’mon.
But then, I become annoyed.
Dionne quoted the president of the MA Senate, the MD treasurer, three Members of Congress. All women.
Then I think about the number of women top positions: 71 women in the House, with of course, Speaker Pelosi as the first woman Speaker; 16 women in the Senate; 8 women who are governors. That it’s not nearly enough should go without saying; but it is progress.
You want to compare that with the number of people serving who are not white? Including women, since apparently we only come in one shade.
And then I’m left to think…What is going on here? Why the outrage?
She is privileged–a fact lost on her other privileged supporters. And I wonder how they get around to ignoring that.
Like Cokie Roberts’ horrible line about how Hillary, like other women like her “did everything right.” What, like marry right? Be born and bred into the right family?
Clinton was born upper middle class. She has an elite education. She was a Wal-Mart Board member. She is now very, very wealthy. As a carpetbagger in the state of New York–with all competition cleared away for her–she is the DLC standard bearer.
And as has been mentioned, her “resume” is pretty thin, too, but no matter–she’s in a privileged position. (Perhaps later, we’ll examine this whole notion of what constitutes a proper pre-presidential resume.)
So here’s the nut of their outrage: Privilege wasn’t enough. Only when her privilege was shown not to guarantee her the nomination, did sexism suddenly become a problem.
And that is DEEPLY offensive to me.
Think back to Gloria Steinem’s craptacular column. The essence of it was this: Even a Black man will get the presidency before
whitewomen (it’s an understanding that women don’t come in any other shade).That is their definition of sexism, which is why I just recoil at the empty cries of this crowd. It’s tough for me to feel sympathy for, much less be convinced of this weak tea of an excuse for her loss.
On top of all of that, she then cynically exploited the very real sexism in our society to gin up her supporters and to try to muddy the facts that brought us to this point.
And that’s the nut of my grievance: Just who are they to think that millions of people should simply be sanguine about their “right” to this deeply offensive notion?
The nerve!
She still had to do the work, and she didn’t. Damn the fact that we both have ovaries–I share that in common with Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter. WTF of it? They don’t have my interests at heart, and neither does she.
I am also both a big-D and small-d Democrat. I’d like to think I am egalitarian. I am progressive. At the beginning of this race, I was prepared to vote for her if she won, which I always considered a very real possibility because of all of her advantages. She listened to MEN who gave her bad advice; wasted tons of money; lied about her roles in Ireland and in Bosnia for little other reason than to stoke this heroic self-delusion of herself…so now Obama is supposed to just hand her the nomination so as to strike a mighty blow against sexism?
Right.
Quite unlike her supporters, I don’t mistake BS artistry for principle. They are quite different.
BTW: It is based on her privilege that she’s even still in this race, and that anyone is deferential to her at all. If she had won 12 straight contests by commanding, double digit numbers…hell, if she won 3 straight…Barack Obama would have been would have been shown the door. And without the kind use of kid gloves.
rosa brooks had an interesting column yesterday in the LAT…presented without comment:
Nice summation, Boo, as the party tries to unify for the general. I think you bent over backwards a little too far with this, thouhgh: “I don’t think a woman that was a freshman U.S. Senator with only a few terms as a state senator for additional experience would have been able to win this nomination.” C’mon — a few years ago you, and all of us, would have been (were) saying the same thing about a black man. If Hillary were an Obama I believe she would be the nominee today. She is not an Obama. She is a run-of-the-mill pol, half of a run-of-the-mill power couple. From everything I can see, the passion she inspires is not about her own qualities but simply about her gender — “it’s her time”, they keep chanting, as if the king has just died and it’s now the princess’s turn.
Obama wasn’t among my top three when the primaries started. Since then he has shown potential to be one of the great leaders in this time of crisis and (hopefully) — not because of groundbreaking policies or great ideas, but simply because he has the capacity to move America closer to where it needs to be, in a deep way. He’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity for change right at the nation’s roots.
Hillary did open a door that cannot be closed again. Partly because she almost became president, the next outstanding person who’s female will have a real shot at making it all the way. Like Obama, she will have to be more capable, more inspiring, than the men running against her. But wasn’t democracy supposed to be about finding the very best among us to lead us?
…a few years ago you, and all of us, would have been (were) saying the same thing about a black man.
Absolutely. To pretend otherwise is folly.
منتديات–شات–دردشة–دردشه–شات
كتابي–دردشة كتابية–شات
صوتي–دردشة صوتية–شات
سعودي–دردشة سعودية–شات
الغلا–منتديات الغلا–تحميل
العاب–برامج كمبيوتر–كتب
مجانية–برامج جوال–مقاطع
بلوتوث–مسجات–نغمات–ثيمات–العاب
جوال موبايل–تصاميم–هكر–صور–صور
انمي–اخبار الفن–صور
فنانين–افلام–افلام
اجنبية–اناشيد–صور
سيارات–كاس امم اوروبا–تحميل
اهداف–محمد–سياحة
وسفر–منتدى النقاش–منتديات
عامة–منتديات اسلامية–صور
كاريكاتير–منتدى تعارف–نكت–الغاز–خواطر–قصائد–شعر–قصص–اساطير–روايات–حكم
وامثال–ازياء–منتديات
عروس–المطبخ–اطفال–طب–علم
النفس–منال العالم–مركز
تحميل–دليل مواقع–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9–برق–19–p1–p2–p3–p4–78–71–20–21–59–60–58–61–67–53–56–9–a9–a1–a8–a12—a15–a16–a18–ماسنجر–صور
بنات–51–26–a–b–c–d–e–e–f–g–h–j–l–29–43–47–13–6–dd–p18–f8–12–62–65–49l–f11–f86–مسجات
حب–مسجات عتاب–مسجات
شوق–مسجات مقالب–مسجات
نكت–مسجات حلوة–صور
حب–صور بنات–شات
بنات–دردشة بنات–شات
الحب–دردشة الحب–دردشة
كويت 25–اغاني هيفاء وهبي–دردشة
بنت السعودية–عمرو خالد–ناصر
الفراعنة–صور نانسي عجرم–ياسر
القحطاني–شات بنات عوانس–نغمات
نوكيا–قصص–هشام
الراشد–تامر حسني–العاب–