Young Hillary Clinton

108 thoughts on Young Hillary Clinton

1. I don’t think that calling out a woman on unethical behavior is misogyny.

2. I don’t think that calling out a woman on unethical behavior is misogyny.

   I don’t think so either. And if the video was just calling Clinton out on her unethical behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But there’s more than that going on here.

3. Well, I’m a fairly hard-core Obama supporter, and I very much DO harbor feelings of ill will towards Clinton for what she’s done and is doing .. and I agree with you, tht video is neither cute, nor funny, nor particularly accurate in its criticism.

   You humorless feminest 😉

   -me

4. I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But there’s more than that going on here.

   I suppose it wasn’t in the approved ironic style of http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/02/27/book-cover-exposed/

5. Can we have some sort Godwin’s Law for people who are under the impression that bringing up Amanda is a trump card in every damned conversation? Seriously, borrowing that trick from the Wingnut Instruction Manual is lame.

6. I don’t think so either. And if the video was just calling Clinton out on her unethical behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But there’s more than that going on here.

   Jill, can you tell me what you think that is misogynist here? I’m not asking to be a smartass, I just want to understand it from your perspective.

   I can see where this youtube kind of paints a picture of a bratty, competitive girl. And lord knows, competitive girls are often stereotyped as bratty or “b*tchy”. But, I was wondering if there something else you have a problem with.

7. Yeah, it was imaging her as a bratty little girl, who was annoying because she was competitive and bitchy. And it was mocking her for “pulling the girl card” — saying that she’s calling sexism where there is none.

   And for the record, I’m an Obama supporter. I just think that if we’re going to criticize Clinton, we can do a whole lot better than this.

8. Okay, thanks Jill. I can see where that would rub you the wrong way: the whole image of the bratty, competitive girl. I kind of noticed that too.

   I think we can criticize Clinton on a variety of policy issues, and ethical issues. I pretty much voted against her, and for Obama, pretty much on the issue of the war.

   I don’t much care for bringing the baggage of gender stereotypes into the criticisms.

9. The only thing this video does fairly is represent the approximate maturity level of most people participating in Hillary-bashing. I am also an Obama supporter, but stupid little clips like this do nothing to advance real discussion regarding Obama’s superior candidacy. Besides, what kind of progressive advances his/her point by mocking and making caricatures of ambitious little girls?

   And in the first sketch, I love how little Hillary is positioned against the kickball star and his fawning pre-teen girl-groupies. Is that what we prefer? Girls who will behave like a bunch of squirming, cooing, boy-crazy ninnies? Both images of girls here are insanely reductionist. Who needs conservatives when you’ve got progressives like the makers of this trash?

10. Really? We want to get this upset about this video? I must say, my outrage is all used up for the week. I cannot for the life of me, muster any up for this trifling, little youtube number. And yes, I cracked a smile.

11. Who is getting “this” upset? Saying that I don’t think a video is cute or funny is now “upset”?

    And if you find it funny, fine. No one is demanding anyone’s outrage.

12. Thank you for summing up my problem with the treatment of Hillary Clinton. I am also an Barack Obama supporter, but I am sick of Hillary being a punching bag across the political spectrum. I have no problem with her being called out when her campaign does something unethical, but there has been rampant bashing lately, from this video to Keith Olbermann (who I normally like) to SNL. If she is being accused of breaking up the party, trashing her and her supporters is not going to create unity.

13. For my part, I just wish the “I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd would answer me a few questions, like: Don’t you think it’s possible people’s dislike of Clinton is due to her, and not to her sex?

    She’s having problems for the simple reason that she (and her surrogates) keep doing and saying things that are, at best, disturbing, at worst, indefensable. If she’s being accused of breaking up the party, it’s because that’s what it looks like to a lot of us she’s actually trying to do.

    If there’s another sensible explaination for the things she’s said and done over the past few months, I’d like to hear it. But they suggest to me that her party is less important to her than her ego. If she’s being “bashed,” that’s why.

    On the matter of “creating unity,” I would also ask people who feel she’s being “trashed”: What do you want to have happen? Seriously. What’s the way out of this bittersweet, gridlocked campaign that would be satisfactory to you?

    For me, it’s simple: I want her to stop. Stop her campaign, which everyone knows was over months ago, and stop spouting nonsense that gets her supporters all riled up about nonsense issues.

    I’m not concerned about her hurt feelings (never feel sorry for anyone who makes more than a million a year, it’s just a good rule). And she knew the “job interview” was gonna be tough when she applied.

    If I may use a metaphor–the Democratic party is music. Obama is Mozart. Clinton is Salieri.

    As for the video, it’s not “Daily Show”-caliber satire or anything, but yes, I laughed.

14. For my part, I just wish the “I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd would answer me a few questions, like: Don’t you think it’s possible people’s dislike of Clinton is due to her, and not to her sex?

    Absolutely. I know there are a lot of people who dislike Clinton because of her, not her sex. But there are a whole lot of people who bring up her sex as a way to demonstrate their dislike of her, and that’s what I object to. If they actually dislike her policies or positions, fine — then attack those. You won’t see my objecting. But the attacks don’t have to bring gender into it.

15. I think Obama is nothing but a swarmy twit with a mouth full of platitudes. An empty suit. If he weren’t a male he wouldn’t even be a city council person.

    I loved the Young Hillary standing up to the bully and his gang of boy pleaser quislings.

16. For my part, I just wish the “I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd would answer me a few questions, like: Don’t you think it’s possible people’s dislike of Clinton is due to her, and not to her sex?

    Totally. I actually think a lot of people didn’t like Clinton, or didn’t want to vote for her on a host of policy reasons: her vote for the War, NAFTA, and a host of other valid reasons. I actually don’t think there’s much difference between her and Obama policy wise.

    But, I also can’t deny that the mainstream media, and some in the electorate at large, have viewed her through the prism of gender identity. Remember those dudes who held up the “make me a sandw*ch, b*tch!”. I was an Edwards supporter, but I even remember in New Hampshire, some Edwards supporters dog piling her for her “crying” moment. Lame.

    I have plenty of problems with Clinton. I loathed the fact that she voted for the war resolution, and it took her four years to even come close to admitting it was a mistake. But, I’ve always made every effort I could to separate my concerns about her policy positions, with her gender.

17. is it perhaps because there is so much sexism jill, that whenever I say I’m a Obama supporter or that I wish the entire process was over already, a lot of people assume misogynistic intent? Its very tiring but I understand where it comes from. As far as this video…bleh, too numb to that kind of stuff to have much of a reaction anymore. I do wonder though, will the blogosphere be forever trapped in this kind of stuff, or quotes from second and third tier campaign operatives, due to the availability of all the info at once? The interwebz are great and all but that thought of that makes me even more tired.

18. I think we can criticize Clinton on a variety of policy issues, and ethical issues.

    Let’s hear it then. I would love to hear an informed, reality-based criticism of Clinton vs Obama on the issues. How refreshing that would be.

    I pretty much voted against her, and for Obama, pretty much on the issue of the war.

    Case in point. For the gazillionth time, Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq resolution was on the floor. No other Democratic candidate has been criticized as harshly for that vote as Clinton has, for some reason, despite having voted the same way. And Obama has said that he probably would have voted the same way Clinton did if he had been in the Senate at the time and that his position on Iraq is pretty much the same as Bush’s.
    So, okay. Let’s hear this criticism of policy issues – beyond how Obama supporters just have this feeling that he’s the more progressive candidate – despite the fact that he sucks up to the religious right and can’t say enough good things about Reagan – because I’ve been keeping my ear out and I haven’t heard any yet.

19. I’m a little disturbed that we seem to be reaching a point where ANY criticism of Hillary Clinton is thought to be fueled by gender bias. I am an Obama supporter who thinks that Clinton has run an absolutely abhorrent Rovian campaign. As a black woman, I have been repeatedly offended by what I perceive as racebaiting coming from her camp. I began this season a Hillary fan, but an Edwards supporter. I do not support or respect Clinton any longer.

    What I am saying is that I have reasons for my disdain for Hillary Clinton and they have nothing to do with her gender. I chuckled at this film because I think it (pretty gently) pokes at some of Clinton’s more annoying character traits, like creating an ever-moving bar for success.

    Is Hillary Clinton now above being mocked like her fellow politicians?

20. There’s a reason the character in Election is played by Reese Witherspoon, and it has to do with stereotypes.

    And I’m with Peter and Jill about Hillary. I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton as a person. But the moment people start attacking her in ways that are about her gender — in ways that even bring her gender into the picture without it strictly being necessary — they end up with egg all over their face and scoring points against their own argument. It’s a low blow (competitors in many arenas have been disqualified for less), it’s intellectually lazy, and more often than not it’s blatantly sexist. There are few reasons anyone would HAVE to get Hillary Clinton’s gender tangled up in a critique of her.

21. I got no problems bashing Hillary. At this point? Hillary doesn’t deserve respect from me, and I hope, from no one else.

    Just want to make this crystal clear:
    She is running her campaign in a way that drives up Obama’s negatives and lowers McCain’s negatives

    She is not playing to her advantages, or doing a mix of positive or negatives. Nobody would complain if she did? They didn’t when Jerry Brown or Jesse Jackson kept going in previous elections. Mike Huckabee didn’t get blasted when he was pretty much running as a protest vote.

    That video was not in the least offensive, and I certainly smiled at some of the takes (it was pretty crude production and acting values in some places). After all, it was just all of Hillary’s goofs in a kids in school context. I don’t get a sexist vibe from it. It’s hard to do that when the person you want to mock is a self-entitled woman.

22. Here are two measurements

    Did that skit *explicitly* refer to the Hillary kid as a girl (beyond the you don’t have a husband, you’re ten years old)?

    Would it have been possible to do a skit about an ambitious woman (who did adult versions of all of these things) with a boy? Or in a way that does NOT call into the overly ambitious young woman frame as depicted by Reese Witherspoon?

23. The script may be unfunny but that little girl totally made me laugh. She’s a fantastic actress.

24. See, I don’t see the character traits toyed with in that skit as being particularly related to gender. It could have easily been done with a male actor. Alex Keaton was a rabidly-ambitious know-it-all before Tracy Flick.

25. Okay, sure, but being a sore loser is something that’s criticized in both boys and girls, no? That’s the basic critique in the video, IMHO. And I think its behavior worth criticizing no matter where it comes from. Its obnoxious and annoying. Is there a way to criticize someone for being a sore loser with criticizing them for being competitive? Where does one end and the other begin?

26. Anyone care to defend this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s&eurl=http://www.americablog.com/

    Because frankly this kind of thinking seems to be what’s fueling the Clinton campaign now.

27. beyond the you don’t have a husband, you’re ten years old

    I don’t understand why that isn’t enough.

    How about the school setting? The kickball? The Connect 4?

28. For my part, I just wish the “I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd would answer me a few questions, like: Don’t you think it’s possible people’s dislike of Clinton is due to her, and not to her sex

    Do you not understand that the ‘“I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd’ are mostly people who dislike Clinton for reasons unrelated to her sex? Hence their support for Obama?

    Why is it confusing to you that people who don’t like Clinton for reasons unrelated to her sex are completely unwilling to see misogyny deployed against her?

29. Why is the little girl wearing a pantsuit throughout most of the video when the rest of the other kids are dressed like kids? I would have gotten that she was supposed to be Hillary Clinton without that. Especially when they flash “YOUNG HILLARY” every 5 seconds.

    For that matter, what is with the pantsuit when it comes to sexist attacks on Hillary? Everyone always references the pantsuit. What else are women supposed to wear in professional settings?

30. Let’s hear it then. I would love to hear an informed, reality-based criticism of Clinton vs Obama on the issues. How refreshing that would be.

    The major difference between Obama and Clinton doesn’t come from the issues. With the exception of Iran and the scope of socialized medicine they’re pretty much indistinguishable. Now, I think foreign policy is pretty important but Obama is largely an unknown quantity while Clinton is a known but negative one. For me that ends up being a wash. Healthcare because something of a wash for me as well, because the details of the plans hardly matter if you don’t believe either of them has a snowball’s chance in hell.

    Once you’ve paired through the issues it comes down to character, history, and personality. Hillary Clinton is the daughter of wealthy parents who went to the most exclusive schools then married into the good old boys network and rose to the upper echelons of high society. She is fiercely intelligent and extremely capable. Unfortunately she is also a political animal who, along with her husband, has shown a personal moral compass that is indistinguishable from the animals we’ve been stuck with for the last eight years (or, you know, sixteen/twenty/twenty-eight). There are good reasons for her to have turned out that way and there are places where those skills would be useful (she’d make a hell of a Majority Leader), but I just don’t think the white house is where she should be. Gender has nothing to do with it. As far as I’m concerned she’s just another spoiled white kid from the suburbs, smarter than Bush but sporting no less a sense of entitlement and snarling privilege. Pfleger was right, the latter half of her campaign has been a slightly less obvious version of “I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show. ”

    Obama grew up poor and black, the son of a white mother in a time when that was even more looked down upon than it is today. He is a symbol of what we like to believe America can be at its best, even if it usually isn’t. He worked hard and got further than society wanted to let him go. Even when he finally made it to the top, even when he finally had the chance to become rich, he turned his back on law that would pay and went to work for his community. That shows a level of character that I admire.

31. For my part, I just wish the “I’m an Obama supporter, BUT” crowd would answer me a few questions, like: Don’t you think it’s possible people’s dislike of Clinton is due to her, and not to her sex?

    The people who cite her Iraq war stance, her love of NAFTA, and her stated willingness to invade Iran — yes.

    The people who cite her “ambition” or “attention-seeking” or “love of power” — no. Once you start making judgments based on what you think the person might be like inside their head instead of what they actually say and do, you’re acting from prejudice, not reason.

32. i dunno, sexism aside (if you can for a second) i didn’t find that the least bit funny… in fact, it annoyed me quite a bit.

33. But guy-uy-uys, Hillary Clinton IS an overachieving power-hungry bitch! It’s not sexist if it’s true!

34. Why, women aren’t supposed to be in a professional setting, Panopticon – unless they’re serving coffee to the men whilst wearing short skirts.
    I really don’t get the anti-pantsuit bridage, either. What’s so funny about pantsuits?

35. Obama supporters are always complaining that people assume they’re sexists. Supporting Obama doesn’t makes you a sexist. BUT if you’re a sexist Democrat, you’re gonna vote for Obama (and if this primary season has taught me anything, it’s that many of my supposed “allies” are deeply sexist).
    A lot of Obama supporters ARE sexist. It’s obvious when you hear/read what some of them say about Hillary. Is it impossible to criticize her without denigrating her for her sex? If you don’t speak or write about her in a way that mocks her for gendered reasons, then we’re not talking about you!
    So many people seem to be incapable of distinguishing between sexist criticisms and valid criticisms. Because sexism is *invisible* to most people.

    Similarly, if you’re a racist Democrat, you’re gonna vote for Clinton. That doesn’t mean ALL Clinton supporters are racist.

36. Let’s hear it then. I would love to hear an informed, reality-based criticism of Clinton vs Obama on the issues. How refreshing that would be.

    I don’t think there are that many policy differences between them. My reason for voting for Obama was that he was against this war in the beginning, when far too many Democrats were enabling George Bush’s war of aggression. I think with his background as a constitutional scholar, Obama might be a little better on civil rights. And I think, broadly speaking, he might be better on foreign policy. His rhetoric towards Iran, for example, is less belligerent than Clinton’s. That’s pretty much it. I think Clinton is better on a couple domestic policy issues, but for me the bottom line is the war.

    Case in point. For the gazillionth time, Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq resolution was on the floor. No other Democratic candidate has been criticized as harshly for that vote as Clinton has, for some reason, despite having voted the same way. And Obama has said that he probably would have voted the same way Clinton did if he had been in the Senate at the time and that his position on Iraq is pretty much the same as Bush’s.

    That’s not what Obama said. He didn’t say he’d “probably” vote for the war. He said that he wasn’t in the senate at the time, and didn’t have access to all the intelligence. So, he can’t say how he would have voted. And that was in the context of the 2004 election – Obama was trying to give Kerry an assist in his election campaign. Trying to throw Kerry a life saver to excuse Kerry’s vote. That was politics. But, I’ve never once heard Obama speak in favor of this war, nor disavow his anti-war credentials, which go back to 2002.

    I heap plenty of criticisms on other Democrats for their war vote, I don’t single out Clinton. But, the other Democratic senators aren’t running for the presidency.

37. Re: Policy
    
    I wrote about the key differences in their plans to address poverty way back when Edwards was still in the race. I really like that piece because it actually shows very clearly what I feel were the key differences between the two (at the time, three) candidates. Hillary has a very lofty and removed approach to solving the problems. Lots of expansion of government programs that are not necessarily effective (which raised some warning bells for me) and tax credits. Kind of an address it at the top level and the benefits will trickle down approach. Barack’s plan was more limited, much smaller in scale, but stressed direct benefits to the community. His plans would quickly alleviate some of the roadblocks that pop up in poverty, like childcare, transportation, and access issues. It is more community focused. John E.’s plan was the most vague, but he also had the best grasp of why some communities are so impoverished and realized how HUD is public enemy number one to affordable housing initiatives. He was the only one to acknowledge that.

    And for the record, not a single Republican had a plan to address poverty.

    Also of note:

    Grassroots Mom on Daily Kos did a kick-ass job of analyzing public record as to what bills Hillary and Barack sponsored and passed over the course of one year. She just left one thing out – what was McCain doing? I would do it myself, but that kind of research is way too close to my day job right now and I am going insane with that work, so I am leaving all heavy research items alone.

    However, I must mention that I find discussions of policy as based on the candidates talking points kind of bullshit. One, they aren’t going to be able to do everything in their campaigns and way too much relies on cooperation to get passed. A President can make things difficult, or work for their top 5 issues while in office, but key players in our rights are also Congress and the Supreme Court, things that people pay a lot less attention to. A President, to me, just sets the tone of the country. And that’s what I look for the most before casting my ballot.
    
    Re: The Video

    I’m not going to comment on it, but I think at this point, people have pulled off into sides on any and all things related to race and gender. Some people are going apoplectic over the sexism shown toward HRC and each day brings a new reminder of that (with this video providing more evidence) – some people are appalled at the campaign tactics and race baiting, so they don’t want to hear anything about sexism until some one addresses the campaign tactics and race baiting with equal vigor (which this video lampoons well).

38. @ SarahMC –

    I’ve seen on you on different blogs, so I know where you’re coming from. But, ah…

    BUT if you’re a sexist Democrat, you’re gonna vote for Obama (and if this primary season has taught me anything, it’s that many of my supposed “allies” are deeply sexist).

    And I learned that a whole lot of my supposed allies are either:

    1. Blatantly racist (that was a fun day on the blog)
    2. Willing to excuse racist behavior if the beneficiary is HRC
    3. Finds the subtle employ of racism quite useful
    4. Citing people who are making blatantly racist statements as people with something smart to say
    5. Are quite willing to ante up for a round of oppression olypmics as long as it suits them

    And what is the absolute worst thing in my opinion:

    6. Express complete and utter puzzlement at why this debate suddenly cracked along racial lines as if they can’t possible figure out what string of events lead us here and why we seem to keep drifting apart.

    And for the record, many Obama supporters do recognize the sexism being lobbed against HRC. But, as I wrote in another post, it gets really hard to mount a passionate defense against sexism when the target of this behavior is straight up benefiting from racism, and hasn’t seen fit to renounce a thing.

39. /me chuckles…

    but, but, but…SarahMC…

    Isn’t it just a tad different when Clinton essentially calls out to them via certain memes and dogwhistles?

    I mean, sure, not all of Clinton’s supporters are racists, but Clinton sure as hell wants their votes. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t qualify Obama’s nonmuslimhood with an “As far as I know”. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t have attempted the general pointing out that Obama is black in the SC primary. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t say she welcomes the support of “hard working white people”. If she didn’t, she wouldn’t think that the argument that America is too racist to elect a black president would carry any weight with the superdelegates. Ya know, if she didn’t, she would have had a nice speech (which she’s actually capable of) denouncing the idea that she welcomes the votes of racist people and denouncing the pernicious influence of Geraldine Ferraro.

    So maybe not all of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are racists. However, it does seem to me that Hillary Clinton is a racist. Cynical use of race as an explanation only goes so far.

    And no, Obama’s gender faux pas and condescensions aren’t even closely relative in harm for that stupid Pox on Both Houses trick.

40. William, although it doesn’t really matter much in these instances, you have their early economic backgrounds completely WRONG.

    Hillary Clinton is the daughter of wealthy parents who went to the most exclusive schools then married into the good old boys network and rose to the upper echelons of high society.

    Wealthy? Her father managed a local textile company; her mother was a homemaker. She went to two different public high schools within her residential district. That’s a middle class setting; upper middle class perhaps considering her father’s position.

    Obama grew up poor and black, the son of a white mother in a time when that was even more looked down upon than it is today.

    Obama wasn’t poor. His mother was an anthropologist and a microcredit consultant. He lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 until he was 10 or so due to his mother’s marriage to an oil manager. He moved back to Hawaii and lived with his maternal grandparents; his grandmother was vice president of a bank, his grandfather a salesman. He went to a private school for his middle school and high school education. Therefore, middle class as well; upper middle class perhaps considering his grandmother’s position (since she was his primary guardian, along with his grandfather).

    So let’s not kid ourselves. All it took to verify was a quick online search.

41. I loved the Young Hillary standing up to the bully and his gang of boy pleaser quislings.

    Except the kickball kid wasn’t a bully at all. He had just won the game fair and square then “Young Hillary” came over and tried to say that some of his score didn’t count just because she says so (like maybe those points were scored in a caucus state or something).

    I found the video pretty funny and I don’t really see it as sexist either. It is taking this “trying to change the rules of the game after it is clear that you can’t win/have lost” that Clinton has been doing and putting it in a different context to show how rediculous it is. It isn’t the most brilliant satire I have ever seen but it isn’t bad either.

    I like both Clinton and Obama but Clinton’s constantly moving goalposts seem pretty rediculous to just about anyone who isn’t already a very passionate Clinton supporter. If the same lame arguments were coming from Obama they would be just as rediculous. If he were in her position people would be calling for him to drop out or he would have already. I just don’t see that gender has anthing to do with why lots of people find Clinton’s behavior/statements lately to be pretty frustrating.

42. That is, both frustrating and worthy of mockery.

43. To turn a popular question on its head, would you would you be willing to defend Hillary’s tactics if she weren’t a woman?

    I started out a fan of neither candidate, though somewhat excited at the prospect of a female or black president, for a change. Over the course of the primaries, Obama did not win my vote so much as Hillary lost it, due to her “ends justify the means” and “win at all costs, even if it’s a pyrrhic victory that destroys my party” attitude. As a leftist who very believes VERY much in process as much as results, I find Hillary’s campaign to be the antithesis of much of what I believe in. As I do respect her views, I am very saddened that she has chosen to run such a despicable campaign.

    Moreover, while there has been sexism in the media in general, Obama, except for a few weird statements, has refrained from exploiting it, and when put to it, has openly denounced it. By contrast, a lot of the racism in the primaries has come *from* Hillary’s campaign, and she’s used every occasion she’s gotten to bring it up and fan the flames. For the past month, almost every time she’s spoken she’s made one racist dogwhistle after another. If she’s a candidate I’m supposed to respect because she’s a woman and I’m a feminist. Then count me out.

44. I smiled at the video. Am I going to hell? I didn’t even find the cooing girls in the kickball section particularly sexist as they seemed to be congratulating a *teammate* on *their* win.

    The pantsuit thing was annoying though.

    I think that it’s okay to call out a person for being truth bending, self-entitled, whiny and obnoxious…even if that person just happens to be a woman. I agree the press and some parties have maintained misogynist slants on Hillary’s run for candidacy, and I would have greatly appreciated Obama vocally addressing these issues, but I don’t for a moment believe that’s why she isn’t winning, and I really don’t appreciate her claiming that it is.

    To do so diminishes the meaning of the term and mobilizes what seems to be a decent sized number of people who are willing to flee off and support McCain in order to show the Democratic Party…something. I’m not quite sure what though. It’s kind of an “Oh we’re pissed, watch us gnaw off our legs/rights in defiance.” Brilliant.

    I used to be a Hillary supporter. Lately I can’t stand her.

45. Britta:

    To turn a popular question on its head, would you would you be willing to defend Hillary’s tactics if she weren’t a woman?

    Who here is defending Hillary’s tactics? Pointing out that sexism is being lobbed at Clinton and that’s bad is not the same, or even remotely similar, to endorsing the way she’s run her campaign.

    If she’s a candidate I’m supposed to respect because she’s a woman and I’m a feminist.

    You’re the second person on this thread to say this, and I can’t help but see both of you saying, “It’s okay to employ sexist tactics against Hillary because I don’t respect her.” That’s bullshit. Complete, utter, sexist, anti-feminist, anti-woman bullshit.

    You don’t have to like/respect Clinton — her blatantly racist statements have lost her that privilege — but a sexist attack on Clinton isn’t just disrespecting her, it’s disrespecting all women. It’s saying that it’s okay to put us uppity bitches in our places. And that is not cool.

46. Wow, I seemed to have provoked some vitriol!
    I guess I should say that I’m not condoning the video, though to be honest, while I didn’t find it particularly funny, I didn’t find it particularly sexist either. Nor did I say that it’s alright to criticise Clinton because she’s a woman, or make sexist remarks. But too often I’ve been told that ANY critique of Clinton is inherently sexist, and I’m getting fed up. For example, someone in an earlier comment said it’s sexist to criticise Clinton’s character. Because, ya know, I guess women all have perfect characters, so any negative comment must be due to inner, anti-woman self-hatred. I criticise Bush based on character, and it has nothing to do with being a man hater. Clinton has been insisting the rules be changed after the fact in her favor by claiming they’re unfair (e.g., caucuses, seating FL and MI), AND arguing, that even though she’s lost the primary, she should be the candidate anyways, cause she’s better (wink wink). I think that’s offensive, and calling her out on that ISN”T sexism. Calling someone out for being unsportswoman-like is NOT sexism, if that’s how she is behaving.

    It’s especially ironic, because many of these SAME people who cry sexism over any criticism of Hillary are the people who’ve referred to female Obama supporters as brainwashed bimbos with jungle fever who just want to impress their frat brother boyfriends (e.g. lots of prominent second wave feminists). Well, gee, that’s not sexist at all. Many of the these SAME people are blasting vitriol at our FIRST female speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, in a way I find really offensive.

    Yes, I am excited that Hillary ran. I am excited that a woman can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. I am not happy with the level of sexism in the media, and work to point out and condemn examples when I see it. But I really don’t like how, as a woman, I somehow have to preface all my statements with an apology or some sort of feminist credential before I say why I don’t like Hillary, lest I be told that I’m spouting, “utter, sexist, anti-feminist, anti-woman bullshit.”

47. Obama, except for a few weird statements, has refrained from exploiting it

    Oh, come on! He didn’t exploit it, except for every time he did? Well, can’t argue with that!

    It’s really not necessary to puff up Obama every time you want to justifiably criticize Clinton. I think everyone here is sold on the badness of Clinton’s race-baiting tactics, but it is not helpful to pretend that Obama is so far above her on his own bias issues.

48. queenofbithynia…

    Oh, yeah? What are all the times he did exploit sexism? Be specific now…

49. I really have to get back to work, but I’ll just clarify my somewhat unclear statement. I guess what I was referring to when I said his “strange statements” was the “periodically feeling down” statement–to me, it didn’t seem particularly sexist, it just sounded, well, strange. But to others it did, and I can understand where they’re coming from. But other than that, the Obama campaign has seemed to take the high road with regards to sexism (treating it as a non issue, condemning it when asked about it.) Ultimately, I only mentioned Obama as a comparison which (for me) has set Clinton’s campaign out in starker relief.
    I don’t want to hijack a thread about Hillary Clinton and sexism and turn it into a Clinton/Obama flame war. @42, You’re absolutely right I don’t need to mention Obama in my criticisms of Hillary. They can stand on their own just fine.

50. Britta:

    But I really don’t like how, as a woman, I somehow have to preface all my statements with an apology or some sort of feminist credential before I say why I don’t like Hillary, lest I be told that I’m spouting, “utter, sexist, anti-feminist, anti-woman bullshit.”

    I’m sorry for that. I misread your comment and therefore misattributed to it an implication that wasn’t there. I was reacting to shah8’s comment and unfairly lumped what you said in with it.

51. Latoya, I completely agree with your points. I am not here to defend Clinton against charges that she benefits from racism. She does!

    Britta, if you are able to criticize Hillary without spouting sexist, anti-feminist bullshit, you won’t be accused of sexism or anti-feminism. Really, it’s not that hard to do. There is a huge difference between defending Hillary from sexism and defending Hillary’s tactics. Nobody here is doing the latter.
    Stop conflating the two!

    Shah8, you said: “I mean, sure, not all of Clinton’s supporters are racists, but Clinton sure as hell wants their votes.”

    I could just as easily point out that Obama sure as hell wants sexists’ votes. Where would he be without them?

    I notice that the Oppression Olympics are forbidden when women are the ones claiming to be the winners. But those who declare POC the winners are never chastized for playing. If feminist blogs want to outlaw the Oppression Olympics, that’s understandable. But at least referee fairly.

52. “What’s a SuperDelegate?” “No One Knows…” LOLS.

    Otherwise, eh. I liked the other one with the ball better.

53. Tekanji,
    No offense taken. This primary has really brought out strong feelings in all of us. 🙂

54. @SarahMC

    I notice that the Oppression Olympics are forbidden when women are the ones claiming to be the winners. But those who declare POC the winners are never chastized for playing.

    We must be reading different threads or different blogs as I’ve heard both white women and W/MOC called out for this.

    @LaToya. That “I learned that a whole lot of my supposed allies” listing was on point.

55. Its clear that many in the media as well as idiots in the crowd have used sexist attacks against Clinton.

    However, I really have a problem with idiot racists like Geraldine Ferrarro who insist that ANYTHING that Obama does is sexist. She went on TV a few days ago saying that when Obama brushed his shoulders after the debate, that it was a sexist attack against Clinton.

    If she had called Obama a sexist for making the “sweetie” comments then I have no problem with that. But Ferrarro (and other racists like her) are so wildly consumed with this cult of personality for Clinton that they have become totally unhinged. For the record, Obama also has a similar phenomenon of people who blindly follow him because of the cult of personality too. Both sides are so wrapped up in identity politics it clouds their judgment.

    I have a problem with Obama supporters who make stupid claims that hillary’s “as far as I know” comment was racist. I do believe Hillary’s campaign is at fault for making underhanded racist statements, but its not Clinton herself doing it, its Bill Clinton and her surrogates (namely Ferrarro).

    This was almost bound to happen in a year with 2 historic candidates. We should have seen this devolving into a cult of personality war and identity politics from day one. We need a black and a female president before it starts to decline. Once an african american president and a female president take office, voters for both sides wont be so rabid about the identity politics and the sexist/racist voters will subside into the background.

56. Obama wasn’t poor. His mother was an anthropologist and a microcredit consultant. He lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 until he was 10 or so due to his mother’s marriage to an oil manager. He moved back to Hawaii and lived with his maternal grandparents; his grandmother was vice president of a bank, his grandfather a salesman. He went to a private school for his middle school and high school education. Therefore, middle class as well; upper middle class perhaps considering his grandmother’s position (since she was his primary guardian, along with his grandfather).

    L-K,

    I assume you’ve never lived in Hawaii and perhaps have never been there…but he wasn’t middle class. He was probably lower/working class. Hawaii is an expensive place to live. I have a cousin still living there (I left as result of the lack of economic opportunity). She and her husband are lawyers and they both live in a single bedroom, government funded apartment. Obama went to Punahou on a scholarship. To be middle class in Hawaii you have to have come to the islands with money, been born to money in the islands, or be outrageously lucky in business.

57. This video is pretty bad, but I like the bit at the end where he says he doesn’t pick his nose.

58. I assume you’ve never lived in Hawaii and perhaps have never been there…but he wasn’t middle class. He was probably lower/working class. Hawaii is an expensive place to live.

    From his description in his memoir, he pretty much describes a middle-class environment; definitely not lower or working class. But that doesn’t mean the middle class isn’t without its struggles, of course not. Low-income and working class can be considered two different things (I don’t know how one can be a vice president of a bank and be deemed as part of the working class vs. someone in the service industry, since class also involves one’s position and authority, or lack of, over other employees). And yes, Obama had a partial scholarship, and his grandmother paid for part of it.

    I just don’t think it’s fair to label his early economic situation as “poor” or “lower/working class,” when others, including myself, know what “poor” and “lower/working class” actually means.

59. And by low-income in the first paragraph, I meant of low-income by the area’s standard of living, which is not to be compared with the lower class, since lower class is viewed as being at the absolute “bottom.”

60. tekanji, if you were so mad at me, then block quote MY stuff. Secondly, the cries of sexism has, since midmarch or so, evolved into a defense of Clinton, with little substance attached. You know, the usual vague Obama and his supporters are so sexist, with little evidence to back that up beyond sweetie, periodically, and claws. If that person is a little more advanced, he or she conflates media sexism with team Obama sexism and demands that Obama does something about it. Finally, the further away from civilized places like here, along the spectrum to Turkana at Left Coast and all the way to Hillaryis44, the greater the openess of racism as a motivation in attacking Obama. There is NOT a counterpart for Obama. Andrew Sullivan is already known as an asshole. Therefore, I don’t dismiss the possibility that people are better at disguising racist mentality in the more civilized areas.

    So tekanji, really, what was *truly* sexist about that video? The pantsuit? Not enough. One might as well have talked about the severe hairstyle.

    SarahMC, SarahMC, SarahMC, No, you may NOT say that Obama sure as hell wants sexist votes. Did he, ever, even once, talk about how hard working *guys* don’t get enough respect? Did he ever, even once, insinuate that Clinton was ineligible for running for president because of her sex? Did he ever, even once, ask men, specifically, to vote for him?

    Show me an example. If you can’t, shut the fxxk up! Like, say, Anon, who mistakenly believes that it was all Clinton’s campaign and supporters, and Clinton herself has never said or done anything wrong.

    I’m just here to say that the Tsar does know and consent to what her Cossacks are doing, and that one does not have to be as bad as Orville Faubus, Strom Thurmand, or Rudy Guiliani to labeled as a racist. I’m also here to say that cries of sexism is wasted on Hillary Clinton, and devalued as a result. At the very freakin’ least, do not just cry sexism, at least recount the incident!

61. I just don’t think it’s fair to label his early economic situation as “poor” or “lower/working class,” when others, including myself, know what “poor” and “lower/working class” actually means.

    L-K,

    I was homeless as a child. I know what lower/working class means. Like I said. Until you’ve lived in Hawaii, you have no idea. As a bank VP, my husband’s cousin, currently makes $55k a year in Hawaii. That may sound like a lot on the mainland, but in Hawaii, a gallon of milk can cost $8. Trying to feed three people on that much money in Hawaii is damned difficult. You live in a condo, you eat a lot of rice and very little meat, you shop at discount stores, and you cross your fingers that no one get sick.

    Not to mention, since you read both his books, isn’t it rather convenient that you’ve forgotten the time he and his mother lived on food stamps?

    Right. No bias there.

62. If that person is a little more advanced, he or she conflates media sexism with team Obama sexism and demands that Obama does something about it.

    Kind of like how people conflate the racism of Hillary’s supporters with Hillary’s racism and demand that she do something about it?

    I don’t think it’s beyond the scope of reasonableness to ask that candidates who are benefiting from racism and sexism do something. I think Obama has actually been pretty good about staying above the sexist fray (not always, obviously, but compared to everyone else he’s been good). But I don’t think that team Obama has stayed above the sexist fray, just as I don’t think team Hillary has stayed above the racist fray. From my vantage point, the Clinton campaign has been worse with the racist dog-whistles than the Obama campaign has been with the sexist dogwhistles. But if Obama supporters are going to use random Clinton supporters as evidence of why the Clinton campaign is racist, then Obama supporters can’t expect that the same tactic won’t be turned on them.

    I’m also here to say that cries of sexism is wasted on Hillary Clinton, and devalued as a result.

    “Cries of sexism” are not “wasted” on anyone. As other commenters have pointed out, sexism isn’t just about the person being targeted — it’s about all of us. And, hello, this is a feminist blog. I’m getting damn tired of people showing up and telling us that we shouldn’t be discussing sexism in a feminist space when the sexism involves they we dislike. We’ve stood up for Ann Coulter and Condi Rice when they were on the receiving end of sexist comments; don’t expect us to ignore sexism targeted at Clinton just because you dislike her. There are a whole bunch of other progressive blogs that are happy to do just that, and you’re welcome to head over there if a feminist blog covering feminist issues like sexism is giving you the vapors.

    Show me an example. If you can’t, shut the fxxk up!

    Tell one of our regular commenters to “shut the fuck up” again, and I’ll ask you to leave.

63. Not to mention, since you read both his books, isn’t it rather convenient that you’ve forgotten the time he and his mother lived on food stamps?

    Right. No bias there.

    Look, I didn’t claim to read both of his books. I just said that by his description in his 1995 memoir, he grew up in the middle class. If you want to refer to his time before he was 6, OK, I’ll acknowledge that. So, no need for bitey-ness.

    I just “integrated” into the lower middle class a year ago, as my parents are still part of the working poor. I started off in the working poor class, also, where food stamps in my case was also a necessity, as well as other forms of public assistance. We live in NYC, where single incomes of $50,000-60,000 is also viewed as “struggling,” and the going rate for a “reasonable” two-BR apartment in my area is $1600-1700, when the vast majority of the people living in my area don’t earn that in a month (thank you gentrification!). And a condo is not an option for them at all. So imagine for two people whose gross income on the income tax form was less than $30,000 in 2007.

    So no need for state wars now, because we probably have it better than people who are actually part of the lower and working class, and the Oppression Olympics and the romanticization/labeling of both candidates is tiring enough.

64. You are unbelievably rude, and barely deserve a response, shah8, but Obama sure as hell wants the sexist vote, because if his sexist supporters don’t vote he will LOSE. What part of that is so hard to understand?

65. Wealthy? Her father managed a local textile company; her mother was a homemaker. She went to two different public high schools within her residential district. That’s a middle class setting; upper middle class perhaps considering her father’s position.

    Interesting spin, but not really accurate. Ever been to Park Ridge? It’s a charming little upper class white flight suburb. Thats changed a bit over the last few years because of gentrification, but its a pretty recent change. She attended two public high schools, that is true. What you left out, however, was that they were Maine East and Maine South. Main South is consistently in the top 20 lists for Chicago area high schools (both public and private) and Maine East has better funding and facilities than a lot of private schools in the inner city. After that it was on to Wellesley and leading the Young Republicans. Sure, things changed a bit over time, but that gives you a bit of an idea of where she was coming from, don’t you think?

66. I just said that by his description in his 1995 memoir, he grew up in the middle class.

    No. What you did was imply the same bullshit story that’s been going around that Obama is one of the “elites” by misusing or misunderstanding the facts.

    FYI. A one bedroom apartment in Hawaii with roaches and non-working appliances in Honolulu right now is about $1400 (ah…those good old days). Condo’s are cheaper…but you have to have capital for them. Most people in the islands do not have capital, which drives rental prices above condo prices all things being equal.

67. I have to admit that at first blush I didn’t really see anything sexist about the video — the majority of the attributes and actions on her part that it criticized didn’t seem to be all that female-specific.

    But the more I thought about it, I realized that it’s hard for me to picture anyone making a similar video about any of the other candidates who’ve run for president over the last 10-15 years. (Well, except for Dubya — his intellect sort of lends itself to being reduced to a child-centered parody.) And it’s possible that we as a society find such satire more acceptable when the target is a woman, and yeah, that is sexist.

    Still, just because someone has a disagreement with Clinton doesn’t make him or her a sexist, and if that disagreement is an honest one over policy or political strategy, then she’s fair game to be “ripped into” — as are her supporters. Obviously if I’m one of Obama’s strategists, I don’t want to go out of my way to alienate them, but when I see people like the woman from New York who was all over YouTube over the weekend yelling that Obama was an “inadequate black man” as she was asked to leave the DNC proceedings, I find myself not particularly caring whether people like that get “alienated” or not.

68. Eh, I’m unbelievably rude because YOU, SarahMCkeeps saying that Obama wants the sexist vote, with nothing to back it up besides the fact that he will lose without it? Is it not minimally necessary to make some cause-effect chain between those two ideas? I mean, even, well, how MANY sexist voters are out there? There could be just one. Or 100 million. Don’t we have to know *that* at least? If Obama does not dogwhistle or anything else for the sexist vote, that certainly does indicate that he may not value the sexist vote at all, perhaps he’s a feminist, or perhaps he doesn’t see them as a big pool of ready voters. It just be that the sexists are all republicans! Gimme Evidence! Otherwise it’s just smears, and I think it’s justifiable to be rude to people who smear others without warrant.

    Now…@Jill…
    1) My very first statement is that Hillary Clinton, herself, has said racist statements and statements that most definitly can be construed as hostile to black people (the assasination thing). Do I have to throw “hard working white people” at you every time? Do I gotta deconstruct that to get the full eeeeewwww treatment? Or do I gotta explain in itty bitty detail (with historical background) the fucked-upness of that little addition of “As far as I know” to the Obama’s a muslim meme.

    Look, from the top…This is a situation where one side is attempting to control the conversation by controlling who gets to use metaphors and allusions, and who has to be literal. Allowing yourself to use metaphors in attack and defense in an argument while saying that your opponent has to detail *everything* out to a literal degree is not arguing in good faith. It’s why I going back and *DEMANDING* that people attach some sort of evidence or solid reasoning to what they say. It should be an equal playing ground!

    2) One person is random, Jill, but from everything I’ve heard about that demostration, she sounds like she was saying an opinion that the people around her agreed with. On the larger scale, you have all of these surrogates, from Geraldine F to Bill C to Andrew C who have said more or less the same thing–referring to Obama’s age, experience (or lack of it), and blackness. The big picture, Jill, the BIG picture. It’s not really flippable to say we can do it to Obama. Plus, Team Obama, when one member gets out of line, smacks people down. From Jesse Jackson Jr to errant preachers, they *do* smack people down for cause. Obama himself, smacks himself for making sexist comments. I don’t hear a fxxking WORD from the Clinton camp about their surrogates or Clinton herself–when it comes to apologizing to “black” people for her comments. Or maybe the media just doesn’t report that. Care to fix my perception with a link?

    3) I said it was wasted and devalued on Clinton because, well, goddamnit, she’s cultivating this atmosphere that she’s losing because of other sexist people, when that is not really the case. She lost because she ran a mediocre campaign with positions on the wrong side of litmus tests (like Iraq). In short, Clinton is being the girl who cried wolf. What do you think is going to happen when the next woman runs for president. Do you honestly think that all of this cry sexism stuff (like this video) is going to *help*? I don’t think you are a humorless feminist. I think you (even though you are a helluva lot better than most other blogging feminists) are a feminist who’s running just a little short on empathy for the situation. One really has to have standards for the vocal opposition agaisnt sexism. I have no trouble talking about pimping a daughter out, or drawing a magical tear that makes all the international baddies go soft as being very sexist.

    I do have trouble with the constant refrain of sexism with no story or evidence or logic behind it…just IT’S SEXISM, and I have trouble with the fact that people are consistently useing sexism to minimize racist conduct. I think you should too!

    Boot me if you like Jill, but I just used most of my free time before work talking to an audience that I respect. I am not somebody who thinks that going out and abusing someone for the heck of it is a good use of his time.

    Anyways, Jill, SarahMC, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to be silencing to someone who is effectively smearing people. I don’t believe that people should have the social convention that saying things that aren’t true is okay. Perhaps, I could just, say, gently correct people. I don’t know…One of the elements of white privilege is that dissent *always* has to be couched in deference. I’d say that I’m doing something necessary in removing any trace of deference in my speech.

    Just a hint…Obama supporters and black people are not Obama-bots, and they are not cultists, as many of you here *well* knows. However, when you see that over 90% of black people support Obama, given the diversity of the American Black experience, it’s really not enough to say black people love the idea of a black president so hugely. After all, if that were true, Hillary Clinton ought to get a higher percentage of women. You just might want to get a clue in that a substantial portion of us black people perceive Hillary as racist, and for good reason.

    Contrast this thread with those Amanda M threads…400 posts, lots of people screaming about giving minority women space (ghetto space, I might add). All this over burkas, credit, and savages. But when it comes to something that involves *real* power, and and *real world* consequences, so many of y’all are as silent as church mouses. So who’s the ally, and who merely wants supporters?

69. You’re right that this isn’t funny, but then 99.99% of “funny” blog-favorite youtube videos aren’t.

70. You just might want to get a clue in that a substantial portion of us black people perceive Hillary as racist, and for good reason.

    That’s a stawman. I don’t think anyone here has said that the Clinton campaign hasn’t been racist; I said in my last comment that her campaign has been racist. I put up a post before this one about Geraldine Ferraro, a former Clinton campaign member, being a racist fuckwit.

    I just think we can point out racism and sexism. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. And just as someone’s history of making sexist statements doesn’t make it ok to reply with racial slurs, a history of making racist statements doesn’t make it ok to reply with sexist slurs.

    I’m not a Clinton supporter. I voted for Obama. I really like Obama. I think Clinton has been way off base in this election, and I’ve been disgusted by a lot of things her campaign has done. But I’ve also been disgusted at the way she’s been treated by the mainstream media. It is possible to feel all of those things at once, and to call them out when and how I can. It’s possible to be disgusted at sexism, and not just because I want “supporters” for Clinton (I don’t).

    I think when Sarah says that “Obama wants the sexist vote,” she’s not saying that Obama is creating a gendered Southern Strategy of sorts. Sarah, correct me if I’m wrong, but I interpreted that statement to simply mean that Obama is benefiting from sexism in this election, just as Clinton is benefiting from racism in the election, and that it would be directly contrary to his interests to step up and say, “Sexists shouldn’t vote for me.” He likely does need the votes of sexist progressives in order to win, simply because there are a shit-ton of sexist progressives out there. Pointing that out doesn’t smear him, it’s just a political reality. It also doesn’t say that all Obama supporters are sexist, just that gendered ideas about who is fit for the presidency certainly shape the reality of this election.

71. Showing that Obama wants and needs the sexist vote in his race against Clinton requires no evidence; it requires logic.
    Racist Democrats have, or are going to, vote for Clinton in the primaries.
    Sexist Democrats have, or are going to, vote for Obama in the primaries.

    Therefore, Clinton needs racists in order to beat Obama, and Obama needs sexists in order to beat Clinton. Since they are BOTH politicians, and will not be REJECTING anyone’s votes, one can conclude that Obama wants the sexist vote.

    You are exactly right, Jill.

72. No. What you did was imply the same bullshit story that’s been going around that Obama is one of the “elites” by misusing or misunderstanding the facts.

    Excuse me? Now, you’re stepping out of line. When the hell did I say or imply that? And when the hell did I say that being part of the middle class is to be part of the elite? And since when is being part of the middle class a bad thing? There was no moment when I suggested that! And don’t try to put words in my mouth or say that I’m implying something! F**k, I would like to be part of the middle class and I pray to see that day when my parents become middle class themselves, hell, even stinking, filthy, ridiculously rich, and part of the actual damn elite. Poverty is not a batch of nobility or honor, and it was not stated as though. You think I enjoy my parents struggle the way they do? How other people of the lower/working class do? So, don’t even try to go there.

    All I freakin’ said was that he was not poor and he did not grow up as part of the working class, and to compare his previous economic background with people who are actually poor and struggling, in Hawaii, in NYC, hell even Mars, is not fair, OK? Got it?

    And prices are up everywhere, whether it’s a $1400 1-br bedroom in Honolulu or in Brooklyn, or a $2000 1-br in Manhattan or Los Angeles. So then what?

73. I have to say, I don’t really have an opinion on whether or not this is sexist because I couldn’t watch it. Stupid petty shit like this really gets up my arse and would do no matter who it was poking fun at – and yeah, I think it’s fair enough to be really irritated by yet another portrayal of Clinton as being childish/insert-character-flaw-here.

    I hate listening to our politicians yelling at each other with arguments that amount to “YOU suck! So there!” and I don’t enjoy wanky crap like this either. It wasn’t funny, it was just cringe-worthy.

    Oh, and I support neither since I’m not American 😀

74. Just watched this video and it is mind-numbingly stupid. It is as if the creators think the audience is so dense and stupid that we need their questionable message to be drummed into our heads.

    Obama went to Punahou on a scholarship. To be middle class in Hawaii you have to have come to the islands with money, been born to money in the islands, or be outrageously lucky in business.

    I will weigh in here as I have been there and have relatives who are longtime residents. I completely agree with the comment above. Things are ridiculously expensive over there. Only reason why those relatives lived well there was their parents managed to work their way into the upper-middle class.

    As for the issue of high schools, one of the reasons why so many Hawaii residents are eager to place their children into elite private schools like Punahou and Iolani is because the public school system there is atrociously bad due to severe underfunding and decades of neglect and mismanagement by the state’s ruling elite. There’s a common fear that sending their kids to the public schools would place their children so far behind compared to their mainland peers that they don’t want to take the risk of “setting their children up to fail in college”.

75. but it seems like to me that people are using that phrase to minimize the perniciousness of the racism that swirls around H Clinton in a variant of a pox on both houses strategem.

    As far as some sort of socially embodied sexism that Jill believes that SarahMC is asserting, well, one might say that McCain benefits from senior citizens who think we should have a gerontocracy. Or that Marxists luuuurrrve Obama, or any number of wierd groups of people with wierd agendas that support canidates for wierd reasons. I mean, should Obama denounce the conpiracy theorists who believes that Obama would stop the enactment of the Protocols of Zion?

    It’s sorta why one has to have a conversation with real content in it. Otherwise there’s not really any there–there. Just an empty smear that isn’t unique to sexism or anything else.

76. and funny and on point

77. Sure, things changed a bit over time, but that gives you a bit of an idea of where she was coming from, don’t you think?

    Sure, it does, as I suggested, hence the “middle class, perhaps upper middle class due to her father’s position” description. But I wouldn’t call it wealthy. And this is the part that bother me about your initial post, when you were comparing the two

    Hillary Clinton is the daughter of wealthy parents who went to the most exclusive schools then married into the good old boys network and rose to the upper echelons of high society.

    But so did Obama (although he didn’t marry into the good old boys network). Why does it seems bad, to say that, shit, financially he didn’t have it that hard, that he was part of the middle class, and that’s not a bad thing. Why should it be a bad thing? I feel as though people wanted Obama to have had that miserable upbring in order to say “see, a black man who grew up poor made it and became President of the US,” just as people want to say “see, this woman endured the misogyny and harassment of a lifetime and became President of the US.” When, quite frankly, they probably had it better than the majority of us. Their stories are not of the fairy tale variety, although they are fascinating on both ends. Yes, they had their respective struggles and I don’t think anyone is denying them that.

78. All I freakin’ said was that he was not poor and he did not grow up as part of the working class, and to compare his previous economic background with people who are actually poor and struggling, in Hawaii, in NYC, hell even Mars, is not fair, OK? Got it?

    And you are basing this opinion on what? Your misunderstanding of Hawaii’s economy. You’re wrong. I grew up there. My husband grew up there. We have better information than you do.

79. And you are basing this opinion on what? Your misunderstanding of Hawaii’s economy. You’re wrong. I grew up there. My husband grew up there. We have better information than you do.

    So, are you saying that he and his family were as poor or had it as bad, as people in Hawaii who let’s say are in the service industry, are blue-collared, do clerical jobs or have low job security overall, such as working off the books?

    It’s like people here who are struggling on $50-60K (or $70K) a year. Yes there are struggling, yes they need to have roommates to afford the rent, but it is not the same, nor fair, to compare them people who make only a fraction of their income. Again, am I saying that he had it glamorously made? No. But, come on now.

80. And you are basing this opinion on what? Your misunderstanding of Hawaii’s economy. You’re wrong. I grew up there. My husband grew up there. We have better information than you do.

    So, are you saying that he and his family were as poor or had it as bad, as people in Hawaii who let’s say are in the service industry, are blue-collared, do clerical jobs or have low job security overall, such as working off the books?

    It’s like people here who are struggling on $50-60K (or $70K) a year. Yes they are struggling, yes they need to have roommates to afford the rent, but it is not the same, nor fair, to compare them people who make only a fraction of their income. Again, am I saying that he had it glamorously made? No. But, come on now.

81. @ SarahMC –

    Naw, I’m disputing that. There is a difference between benefiting from a certain kind of vote, campaigning for a certain kind of vote, and earning a vote.

    Both candidates are trying to earn votes by playing to their respective strengths. Or were, anyway.)

    Both candidates are benefiting from the bigot vote – Obama for sexists and Hillary for racists.

    However, only one candidate is actively campaigning for a certain kind of vote. If Obama and crew are blowing sexist dogwhistles, Clinton and Co. called out the racist brass band.

    @Jill –

    You know Jill, you have some really good discussion potential here. There are two main themes I see here that would probably make a good post.

    (1) How does a feminist HRC supporter deal with the racism coming from the camp? Do you still believe that HRC is the better candidate over all, despite this? I offered to publish anyone who was willing to write a post on my site, but our audience and our strong anti-racist background would make it tough to argue and even tougher to defend. So far, no one has taken me up on the offer. However, one of my stipulations was that they had to address the race-baiting.

    (2) How does it become so easy to swap one thing for another? Now, progressives are not perfect and one should not assume that a feminist is automatically an anti-racist ally. (Or that an anti-racist activist is a feminist ally). But I find it fascinating that on both sides of the aisle, people are willing to brush one discussion to the side. Now, if we are progressives, shouldn’t we be letting both candidates know that this behavior is unacceptable? And holding them accountable for what they say? And yet, here we are, in discussion 84756264 on opposite ends of an issue.

82. sha8: I thought it was implicit in my apology that realized that I should have quoted your statement, not Britta’s. But, that aside, I have to say all of your follow-up responses prove my point. You believe that it’s okay to use sexism on Clinton because she has “lost your respect” and you don’t give a shit about the women who get hit with the collateral damage from that sexism. Just because Clinton is a racist doesn’t mean it’s okay to be a misogynist.

83. But so did Obama (although he didn’t marry into the good old boys network).

    You’re missing a key difference. Obama didn’t come from a well off family, at best he grew up middle class. He received scholarships. He faced the intrinsic oppression that African Americans face in this society and managed to survive. He worked in the trenches as a community organizer and earned his spot in the Illinois Senate. From that springboard he moved on to the US Senate and now the race for president. As of running for president he and his wife had something in the neighborhood of $1.5M in total net worth, a significant portion of which is tied up in their home.

    Clinton went to a school paid for by high property taxes, the kind of school you get to go to if you have the privilege of having parents who are able to pay higher property taxes. Then she moved on to a prestigious east coast college and married a man on his way up who served as a governor and then as president. Somewhere along that route she served on the board of Walmart. After her husband left office she used her political connections to become the Senator for a state she just moved into, at least party by using the Democratic Machine to knock out an opponent. When the race first started she used those same contacts to build a huge fund raising apparatus and generally behaved as if the nomination was due to her. During the race she fought to hide the fact that her and her husband’s net worth was over $100M.

    The stories aren’t quite the same. Clinton’s supporters need them to be because that serves to make Hillary look better while knocking some of the shine of Obama’s story. It is important to draw these distinctions because otherwise you sink into relativity and forget that this is essentially a fight between, at worst, a formerly upper middle class/currently extremely wealthy highly politically connected female WASP and a multi-racial community organizer with only regional political clout.

84. Looking at the words of the Obama supporters on this thread, I feel more and more secure as a feminist in not voting for him.

85. You’re missing a key difference. Obama didn’t come from a well off family, at best he grew up middle class. He received scholarships. He faced the intrinsic oppression that African Americans face in this society and managed to survive. He worked in the trenches as a community organizer and earned his spot in the Illinois Senate. From that springboard he moved on to the US Senate and now the race for president. As of running for president he and his wife had something in the neighborhood of $1.5M in total net worth, a significant portion of which is tied up in their home.

    I haven’t been discussing his adult life, only his upbringing/education, which was yes middle-class. We have to be realistic here and I don’t understand why it is difficult to understand. Although, yes he’s black, but he is also white, so he’s biracial (and yes I see that you put multi-racial in your last post, but it definitely was not pointed out in your previous posts). The people who raised him were/are white. To the extend that people want to leave this issue out is not only insulting to him, but to his family who raise him and contributed to his upbringing, including his education. I don’t know if this denial by people is part of the Oppression Olympics crap, or the romanticization of his persona. But to just contribute his success to just strictly hard work on his end is pushing it. Just as contributing Hillary’s success to just her upper class setting and marrying Bill is pushing it, too. Both this people worked hard to get there, both people dealt with discrimination and prejudice, both this people also had a push or advantage, whether minor or major. As to why this factor and being part of the middle class or having wealth are now deemed taboos or unattractive, I don’t know, I see nothing wrong with this; it is politics after all. All I know is that they are both better than McCain.

86. This is off topic from the video, but relates (I think) to the general theme of the thread. One thing complicating the black man/white woman dynamic is the whole Clinton/not Clinton dynamic, and I think that’s hard to separate out. Hillary Clinton has absolutely received lots of sexism because she’s a woman. Simply compare treatment of Bill to treatment of her. Yet she’s also received special treatment (negative and positive) because she’s a Clinton, and all the baggage that carries with it.

    Over all, I don’t think playing hypotheticals are that useful, but I DO think a woman who wasn’t Hillary Clinton would have been treated differently during the race. Obviously this is just my own two cents, but I think a) she’d come without a preconstructed misogynist narrative that Hillary already had from her time as first lady, but b) she’d have to work much harder than Hillary did to be taken seriously. Love her or hate her, everyone acknowledges Hillary Clinton has gravitas. Her political skills and policy knowledge were (and in terms of the latter) are widely respected (not the same thing as liked, of course). Before Iowa really it was assumed she’d be the nominee.

    I think another aspect is that Hillary and Obama are exposing fault lines in the party that have nothing to do with race or gender (though of course, that too). We’re definitely seeing a Pelosi-Dean-Obama vs. McAuliffe-Clinton split. Much of this is philosophical and a debate over where we take the party. Do we stick with tried and true strategies, or do we try something riskier, but with potentially greater gain?

    Much of the young people support for Obama has been written down as due to the younger, charismatic nature of the candidate. But I think it’s something more. Just like with investing, young people have the time and the patience to make riskier (but higher earning) investments. Our retirement is far away, and as we’re stuck with this country for the next 50 years, so we’d like to see some pretty major changes and we’re willing to try to restructure this country to do that. We may fail at first, and that failure might be spectacular. But at this stage, we’re not ready to settle for 270 +1 when we can maybe get all 50 states. We’re not ready to go into “hold the fort mode” when we can maybe still route the enemy. In contrast, many of our parents and grandparents aren’t willing to take that risk. Honestly, McCain has the potential to seriously mess up our country for the next 8 years, and they’d like to make sure that doesn’t happen. If holding down the fort is what it takes to prevent that, that’s what it takes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either position, it’s very much an honest difference between two like minded groups of people on how to accomplish our same goals.

    And honestly, I don’t think these issues are really about Obama and Clinton. Dean, now head of the DNC and Obama supporter, was the candidate of the youth in 04. He was able to generate grassroots support in the same way Obama has, yet he lost out to Kerry, the older, wiser, “establishment” candidate. At that time, plenty of young people swallowed their disappointment and indifference and put their all behind Kerry, but to no avail. Setting aside the uniqueness of the current candidates for a moment, I honestly believe we’re kind of seeing a 2004 rematch. After the defeat of 2004, young people aren’t as willing to listen to the campaign-strategy wisdom of older voices in the party. Dean II (Obama) is a stronger candidate, and besides young people was able to pick up the votes of those who would initially have their doubts decided “what the hey, Kerry didn’t win so lets try this.” Meanwhile, Kerry II (Clinton), having framed herself in the same “established wisdom” rhetoric used successfully by Kerry, is having a harder time convincing the masses. And understandably, she’s frustrated that what has worked for so long, for decades even, isn’t as effective anymore.

    Finally, I know prominent feminists (and others) have written about this a little, but in Hillary’s entitlement I see a lot of Baby Boomer entitlement. After years of waiting around, Boomers are ready for their day in the sun. 60 is the new 40, and to be pushed aside at 60 for a “younger” candidate feels insulting. It feels like boomers have been cheated. The Greatest Generation had ruled our country for decades, and the Boomers have only gotten in two presidents before hearing a clamor to move aside and stop hogging the spotlight. It’s as though they’ve waited since the 60s, being told they’ll “get their turn,” and now suddenly it’s being ripped out from underneath them by young upstarts.

    I think this narrative ESPECIALLY has a lot of power for Boomer women, who are used to being told to wait their turn: Wait for your kids go grow up, wait for your husband to finish law school, wait to pursue your dreams until everyone else has had a turn, etc. And like so many women in real life, who “wait their turn” only to find the opportunities have dried up, I think a lot of women in my mother’s generation see Hillary as “waiting” only to have it taken away from her by a younger male. While I absolutely don’t think Obama beating Hillary is sexist, and I strongly believe no one, no matter how long they’ve waited or how hard they’ve worked, is entitled to the presidency, I CAN see how lots of boomer women do. And, feel free to disagree (not that you wouldn’t 🙂 I think a lot of women crying sexism at Obama aren’t actually referencing him or his campaign itself, they’re referencing this situation in and of itself: that an older woman can work hard her whole life, and get passed over for a younger man.

87. I think a lot of women crying sexism at Obama aren’t actually referencing him or his campaign itself, they’re referencing this situation in and of itself: that an older woman can work hard her whole life, and get passed over for a younger man.

    Interesting observation Britta. Although I have thought about what you said in regards to women “waiting their turn,” this particular line of thought has not crossed my mind.

88. Looking at the words of the Obama supporters on this thread, I feel more and more secure as a feminist in not voting for him.

    Wow Synonymous, I didn’t realize that basing your presidential vote on a few anonymous message board posts made one a feminist.

89. Looking at the words of the Obama supporters on this thread, I feel more and more secure as a feminist in not voting for him.

    Well, I hope a protest vote launched against a few posters on a message board and a general sour feeling because your horse lost the race is worth four more years of war in Iraq, deficit spending, unbridled expansion of the federal government, and conservative judges.

    Tell me. What, exactly, leads you to believe that McCain would be a better president based upon the issues you care about? I mean, I can make an argument for myself that a choice between Clinton and McCain is pretty much a wash, but I’m wondering how the equation works on your end.

90. Britta @ 86: That was a pretty good analysis, and cornily enough, actually made me feel a little bit better about this whole primary.

91. tekanji, I neither hate women, nor do I hate Clinton. Moreover, I have never said that it was okay to have sexist or misogynist attitudes against Clinton. The worst I have ever said was that much of this defense of Clinton was unecessary and devalues the attitude that we should defend against sexism.

    I have *certainly* said that we, as least as actual progressive feminists* need to stop being permissive of discourse that promotes echo-chambery thought. We really shouldn’t just say someone is sexist or racist, or anything else without evidence if it isn’t clear what the charge is about. We should have people shouting sexism hoping for an aknowlegement of yeah! yeah! sexism or racism!

    It simply doesn’t lead to real progress on our issues. In fact, this stuff is flowing into a dynamic in which Obama is baited from the *right* rather than being pulled to the *left*. We should be focused on getting Obama to be more responsive to the meat and potatos stuff in feminism–ERA, better funding for family planning, more agressive defense of abortion rights. But all of that stuff requires *conversations*, not *slogans*. Which is why nationalist creeps like slogans so much.

    and @Jill
    And of course, I *would* think of this right when I got to work.
    1) People are rarely just racist, or just sexist. Many if not most are both.
    2) Men can be victims of sexism as well. Republicans traditionally try to *feminize* their male opponents so as to capture the sexist vote.
    3) A large body of racist and sexist people may well vote for Hillary, because they have every expectation that Bill will be behind the drapes, directing everything.

    It’s simply not a given that Obama has captured the sexist vote.

92. Synonymous is clearly not a feminist.

93. An article related to same:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/white_women_take_the_gloves_of.html

    Jill, how do we prevent a meltdown of the democratic party when Obama is named nominee? I think bloggers like you should head up the cause to mollify those threatening to jeopardize our future over claims of sexism on the part of another candidate’s supporters (which brings me to another question, do these people think if Hillary were running against McCain they’d find McCain less of a chauvinist than Obama *supposedly* is? and his supporters? Hogwash!)

94. Vanessa
    Thanks!
    It makes me feel better too 🙂

95. shah8: I stand by my statement, but for the sake of clarity I’ll pull from what you said to back up my assertions about your statements being sexist and anti-woman.

    I got no problems bashing Hillary. At this point? Hillary doesn’t deserve respect from me, and I hope, from no one else.

    Given that the context of this thread was that using sexism to criticize Clinton wasn’t cool, I stand by my original reading of that statement as, “It’s okay to employ sexist tactics against Hillary because I don’t respect her.”

    I’m also here to say that cries of sexism is wasted on Hillary Clinton, and devalued as a result.

    Jill already covered this one.

    In regard to your clarification:

    I said it was wasted and devalued on Clinton because, well, goddamnit, she’s cultivating this atmosphere that she’s losing because of other sexist people, when that is not really the case.

    You’re still excusing the sexism that has been lobbed her. Assuming that Clinton is citing sexism as a reason for her not doing so well these days, that is still not a reason to stop pointing out that she continues to be on the receiving end of sexism. As I’ve said multiple times, the sexism targeted at Clinton doesn’t just hurt her, it hurts all women.

    The worst I have ever said was that much of this defense of Clinton was unecessary and devalues the attitude that we should defend against sexism.

    Which is, in fact, just a nicer way of saying, “It’s okay to employ sexist tactics against Hillary because I don’t respect her.”

    Sexism doesn’t stop being sexism simply because its target is a jerk. Or a bigot. Or even someone who fights tooth and nail to uphold those self-same sexist institutions that are being used against her (Jill already mentioned Ann Coulter and Condi Rice).

    Sexism doesn’t stop being sexism simply because it’s not something obvious like, “How do we beat the bitch?” Sexism comes in many different forms. Some are obvious, while others are subtle. Some have a direct impact, while others have an indirect one. But all of them are sexism, and all of them are equally worthy of being called out.

    And, frankly, the only thing here that devalues sexism is the attitude that sexism is only sexism when it’s an obvious form that’s targeted at women who we like/respect. Separating women into “good” women, who are worthy of having the sexism directed at them acknowledged, and “bad” women, who we shouldn’t bother with, is just another iteration of the sexist virgin/whore dichotomy.

96. Sexism doesn’t stop being sexism simply because its target is a jerk. Or a bigot. Or even someone who fights tooth and nail to uphold those self-same sexist institutions that are being used against her (Jill already mentioned Ann Coulter and Condi Rice). […]
    Sexism comes in many different forms. Some are obvious, while others are subtle. Some have a direct impact, while others have an indirect one. But all of them are sexism, and all of them are equally worthy of being called out.

    @tekanji
    Well said. I might add that the same holds true for other forms of oppression.

97. @Tekanji –

    Cosign. Great breakdown, as usual.

    @Juju – and yes, we still have to stress that point as well, unfortunately.

98. After years of waiting around, Boomers are ready for their day in the sun. 60 is the new 40, and to be pushed aside at 60 for a “younger” candidate feels insulting. It feels like boomers have been cheated. The Greatest Generation had ruled our country for decades, and the Boomers have only gotten in two presidents before hearing a clamor to move aside and stop hogging the spotlight. It’s as though they’ve waited since the 60s, being told they’ll “get their turn,” and now suddenly it’s being ripped out from underneath them by young upstarts.

    While I agree there is boomer entitlement overall and that it might be a factor among some Clinton supporters, I am deeply skeptical of the Boomer vs. younguns dichotomy…..especially considering Obama’s is part of the boomer generation himself…..and many of his supporters and donors are also boomers…especially considering their huge numbers and consequent political impact in the American population. Their overall influence on this election might be offset, however….by the huge numbers of Gen Y/millennial who seem to be supporting Obama in large numbers.

    Moreover, if there is any generation who really has a right to complain about potentially/having their political voices and interests ignored/denied in this society…..it really should be those in Generation X due to our relatively small numbers and the idiotic stereotypes perpetrated by the boomer dominated MSM.

99. I think the problem is that there is a block of Hillary supporters who construe ANY ATTACK WHATSOEVER against her as sexist.

    Geraldine Ferrarro: Obama brushing off his shoulders = sexist

    Calling Hillary a bitch or telling her to “iron my shirt” are obviously sexist statements, but stuff like Obama calling her “likeable enough” is NOT a sexist attack by any stretch of the imagination. Too many people construe any “lack of respect” or “lack of show of deference” as sexist.

    I will say that the black community has the same problem with Obama. Its identity politics and the victimhood mentality which convinces these people that any slight whatsoever against thehir candidate must be racist or sexist.

100. , but stuff like Obama calling her “likeable enough” is NOT a sexist attack by any stretch of the imagination.

     False. Likeable enough . .. for what? For a woman. This ain’t rocket science. And just because you don’t want that to be sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Sorry, you’re not the center of the universe.

101. @tekanji

     Well said, I totally agree. But I think your logic is lost on the resident mole. too bad really.

102. A quick addition –if Obama is 46, that would mean he was born in 1962. I’m not sure what the technical cutoff date is for the Baby Boom, but I think that puts him at the beginning of Generation X–certainly, he missed out on most the formative elements of being a boomer: not alive during the 50s, he was 1 when Kennedy was assassinated, 6 during Woodstock, a kid during the Vietnam war (no reason to burn a draft card there), etc.
     I wouldn’t argue that Obama has Boomer support (my mother’s a big Obama fan), but looking at overall demographic breakdowns, Hillary had done better among older people, especially older women. I wouldn’t argue that Gen X has gotten a negative reputation as though!

103. Yeah, those crazy people thinking that lack of respect for women is *sexist*!

     Word, Betty.

     shah8, all your “we’s” are ringing pretty hollow, I’m afraid. A self-proclaimed “progressive” does not automatically a feminist make, particularly when you appoint yourself the arbiter of what is an *important* feminist issue (what was your phrase? “meat and potatoes,” was it?) and what is not. Seriously, if you’re looking to *belong* somewhere (Pandagon not treating you so well these days or something?), I can fully empathize, but please remember that we (we being *anyone*) are not obligated to take whatever flows out of your mouth as gospel and THE. MOST. ENLIGHTED. VIEWPOINT. EVAH!! Seriously, you read like you are trying to show women the fucking light, for fuck’s sake. Give it a rest.

     It simply doesn’t lead to real progress on our issues.

     Yeah, being treated as equal to men, as equally worthy of respect rather than mocking and vitriol, as possessing equal promise and equal capability to do any damn thing – can’t imagine why so many of us would consider that an important enough issue to discuss.

104. juju said:

     I might add that the same holds true for other forms of oppression.

     Absolutely. I was focusing on sexism for the sake of brevity in an already bloated comment, but everything I said applies to other forms of oppression. We can’t pick and choose people it’s “okay” to oppress, for whatever reason. Being a feminist means fighting oppression in all forms, not picking and choosing times, places, and/or types of oppression that it’s “okay” to let happen.

     Loosely Twisted: You’re probably right, but I figure if nothing else it will help others on this thread to see one of the more subtle ways that sexism can work.

105. A quick addition –if Obama is 46, that would mean he was born in 1962. I’m not sure what the technical cutoff date is for the Baby Boom, but I think that puts him at the beginning of Generation X–certainly, he missed out on most the formative elements of being a boomer: not alive during the 50s, he was 1 when Kennedy was assassinated, 6 during Woodstock, a kid during the Vietnam war (no reason to burn a draft card there), etc.
     I wouldn’t argue that Obama has Boomer support (my mother’s a big Obama fan), but looking at overall demographic breakdowns, Hillary had done better among older people, especially older women. I wouldn’t argue that Gen X has gotten a negative reputation as though!

     I was under the impression that the boomer generation comprised people born between 1946 – 1964…which means Obama is included…though at the tail end. I’ve seen one author argue that those years should be shifted a couple of years earlier…but even then….Obama would still be included as a boomer.

     My cousins fall into the tail end of the boomer generation….and well into the years Generation X was born…including myself. Though there are some similarities as we’re technically in the same generation as far as family is concerned…there are marked differences between us due to the fact we grew up in markedly different times. Sometimes the arguments or disconnects I’ve had with my boomer aged and even older Gen X cousins almost remind me of ones my classmates experienced with their parents.

     As with my cousins, I’ve noticed one’s age and generation does not necessarily correspond with support for the presidential candidates in this primary. I’ve seen plenty of boomers go for Obama, plenty of Gen X and Gen Y/millennials go for Hilliary and McCain. Hence, one reason why I am quite wary of the common stereotype that most older Americans go for Clinton or McCain and most younger Americans are excited to support Obama.

106. Charity, pandagon’s treating me just fine. I just haven’t decided to comment there in a while.

     I do wanna know, if this “we” is so hollow, and I shouldn’t consider myself a feminist, who gets to decide who’s a feminist and who’s not? By what metric?

     I already know that I’m not the most enlighted viewpoint around. What I am doing is *challenging* a viewpoint. If that comes off as “showing women the light”, then I’m sorry.

     There is still so much more in this world than Clinton, and so many issues that need community focus. Like I said and will say again, Clinton can take care of herself, and we should focus on other, more urgent stuff that really impacts women. After all, there is such a thing as opportunity cost.

     And juju? Not enough hours in my day to answer your points. I just have one answer. When I say bash Clinton, I mean bash Clinton, as in I attack her on the merits of her decisions and strategy.

     If you want to conflate that with saying that I advocate sexist attacks on Clinton, then we have no basis for conversation. One can make *very* harsh points on a woman, and still be completely not sexist.

     I guess I need to repeat this
     I
     Do
     Not
     Advocate
     Sexist
     Attacks
     On
     Clinton
     Never had
     Never will

     and I have *never* attacked a woman verbally with sexist tropes. And I would feel bad if I had.

     I do believe that women who are jerks or bigots, *should* be agressively checked, on the merits of that ideology. It is not sexist to call a racist woman, a racist, for example.

107. shah8: You seemed to have confused juju with me.

     I just have one more thing to say to you: it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat that you don’t advocate sexist attacks on Clinton. I already quoted where you came across as saying that, and I wasn’t the only one who read it as such. If you want to show people that you didn’t mean it, then you need to take responsibility for your words and apologize for saying sexist shit like “I’m also here to say that cries of sexism is wasted on Hillary Clinton” and “that much of this defense of Clinton was unecessary and devalues the attitude that we should defend against sexism”.

108. Here’s something pertinent from Melissa McEwan:

     And, just as a personal aside, being belligerent toward and dismissive of women who care about their inequality isn’t hopeful—and it sure ain’t change. That’s as old as humankind.

     Maybe it’s time to try something new.

     try taking some notes, shah8. and you will NEVER ever get far enough to be heard if you KEEP INSISTING YOU KNOW BETTER WHAT IS AN “IMPORTANT ENOUGH” FEMINIST ISSUE TO FOCUS ON. LEAVE. IT. ALONE.

Comments are currently closed.