MyDD :: Howard Dean and sexism

Howard Dean and sexism

by dbrown04, Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:10:55 AM EST

There are a lot of people on Mydd who have been trying to argue that the sexism in this primary season was no worse than the racism, that Hillary Clinton's problems were solely of her own making.

Yet, Howard Dean was asked about this very issue on ABC's This week and here's what he had to say:

There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media. We'll leave present company excepted, because I think that's true. But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired.

So that's a big issue. And there are a lot of women in this country who -- there's two issues here. One is one candidate is ahead and one is not. That happens all the time in primaries, and you get over that. What you don't get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States.

Here's the link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt on/2008/06/howard-dean-on.html

In our earnest desire to move own, unite the Party and win in November, some think that we can just sweep the sexism of this campaign under the rug. But its a festering wound. Even at sites where the Admins have come down decisively in supporting Hillary Clinton's call to support Barack Obama, readers are in rebellion.

Engaging in denial isn't going to work. Too many women know in their hearts that if any sexist remark made this year had been replaced by a racist remark the effect would have been nuclear. News outlets would have been google bombed, diarists excoriated and banned.

Yet much of the sexism went unchallenged and still does. Keith Olbermann's recent attack on Katie Couric is just the most recent example. The women finally says something of substance and she gets slammed as the "worst person in the world."

Denial isn't going to work. If Howard Dean can admit it, then so should everyone on Mydd. We need to take off the bandage and start draining the wound. Many mea culpas need to be spoke.

Tags: Howard Dean, sexism, racism, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 75 Comments :: Post a Comment

I don't think anyone's denying there was (2.00 / 4)

sexism this season. There was also racism. But neither was why Clinton lost, nor why Obama won. And to insist on intimating otherwise seems more a way of attempting to undermine Obama than it does to, well, do anything else.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:13:16 AM EST

Thank you. (1.33 / 6)

Pointing out the fact that Obama won not only fairly, but in fact against overwhelming odds at the outset, doesn't make anyone sexist. Nor is it fair to hang sexist comments made by pundits on the shoulders of the Obama campaign.

Hillary was a strong candidate who ran a deeply flawed campaign. She did not lose because of a tide of sexism sweeping the country.

It's tempting to salve hurt feelings by portraying the world as fundamentally unfair. But it's regressive and counterproductive.

Move on.

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to read (2.00 / 6)

Dean isn't arguing that Clinton lost because of sexism, nor have I. Dean didn't pin the sexism on Obama, nor have I.

Dean's argument, like mine, is that the sexism was really bad, it was worse than the racism and we can't just move on. We have to deal with it.

Better to get busy than to pretend this didn't happen and try to impugn my motives.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You need to read (1.00 / 4)

Dean's argument, like mine, is that the sexism was really bad, it was worse than the racism and we can't just move on.

You should also try reading your own diary. Dean didn't for a moment suggest that the "sexism was... worse than the racism." That was your suggestion, and it indicates that you weren't paying attention during the primaries. The slurs hurled at the Obama campaign were reprehensible. Many of them came from the Clinton campaign itself (the "madrassa" lie, the turban photo, "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina," "He's not a muslim as far as I know," etc.).

Obama won depsite disgusting attacks like these.

Clinton has moved on. She knows the best hope we have, today, for advancing women's causes is getting Obama elected in the Fall.

Diaries like this promote navel-gazing. They are regressive and counter-productive. Move on.

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We can talk about racism too, (2.00 / 4)

I'm all for it. You can come up with a list of attempts to use racism in this campaign. In fact, I think it should be done. The problem is that, people who tried to use racism got filleted for it. But a lot of sexism slipped through without meaningful challenge. In fact, those making sexist allegations were critiqued and humiliated by people who should have simply acknowledged the criticism, changed their behavior and moved on.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:55:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can talk about racism too, (2.00 / 2)

I actually agree that a lot of the sexism got through without being condemned. Not that it needed to be condemned by Obama if it came from random people not associated with his campaign, but the media did not always condemn it.

I think the problem is that there was a backlash against non-sexist comments that were sometimes portrayed as sexist. Think of fingergate and "periodically." I think there was a huge blowback against that type of faux outrage. The bigger problem (and I support Obama) is that there was not that blowback against non-racist comments portrayed as racism (like the "fairy tale" comment). The reason there was not the blowback about faux racism is because people have learned to walk on eggshells when it comes to race. Whether that is a good or bad thing, it ought to be the same for sex/gender. Either we walk on eggshells for both, or we walk on eggshells for neither.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You need to read (2.00 / 1)

some think that we can just sweep the sexism of this campaign under the rug

The wounds might heal faster if those of you complaining about the sexism would try to separate your criticism of the media from your criticism of "the campaign," which is a vague phrase and implies--to some--that you mean "the Obama campaign."

If your gripe is about the media, then I don't really know if this is the place for the diary, but why not. But you appear to be asking (the media?) for mea culpas, which is odd to do here. If you are asking people to help you start a letter-writing campaign to MSNBC or to start a boycott that would be one thing. Otherwise, it seems like you are not so much uncovering the wound to let it heal, but rather to pick at it and cause it to inflame.

by NeverNude on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you. (none / 0)

Denial much?

by emmasaint on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i couldn't agree more. (2.00 / 5)

see my diary 2 below on couric! oh and rec'd.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:17:16 AM EST

Rec'd in return :) (2.00 / 3)

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Read what Howard Dean had to say (2.00 / 2)

Losing because one candidate is ahead and one is behind we can get over. Getting over losing when one candidate is disproportionately targeted for her identity is another matter altogether. If Dean isn't afraid to speak the truth, why not us?

Saying there was also racism doesn't help. We all know there was racism, but it just wasn't in the same class as the sexism.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:22:41 AM EST

Re: Read what Howard Dean had to say (1.00 / 2)

We all know there was racism, but it just wasn't in the same class as the sexism.

If you believe this, you clearly weren't paying attention.

by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was paying very close attention (1.33 / 3)

Dean was also paying close attention and he was either uncommitted or on Obama's side. If he can see that the sexism was more than garden-variety damaging, then you can too.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would think that this rampant sexism would (2.00 / 2)

make you all the more hard-core committed to beating John McCain.

"At least I don't plaster on make-up like a trollop, you cunt"

(In response to "How you gonna beat the bitch?") "Excellent question"

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:51 AM EST

Speaking of denial, though ... (2.00 / 2)

Look what MyDD's former rec list star had to say a few hours ago

A friend sent me news of Obama's latest power grab and I thought he was joking. This just had to be snark but no... it's true folks. He's not even our party's nominee (and hopefully won't be) but he's wasting no time consolidating power in the lead-up to our convention this summer. Hollywood couldn't write stranger scripts than this folks...

Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign. The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said. But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub. The DNC's key role in coordinating political operations with state parties is expected to largely be taken over and overseen by Obama's senior staff in Chicago, state party officials said.

All I can say is, won't they look like jerks when Hillary comes to the rescue of our sorry-@ss party in August? (emphasis mine)

by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess I don't see the connection (2.00 / 1)

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess I don't see the connection (none / 0)

well both are whether thinly disguised rants for starters

and both are people against our nominee regardless of the consequences.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't speak for Alegre (2.00 / 3)

But I don't know where you get the idea that I'm against our nominee regardless of the consequences. All I've asked for is a dialog, a reconciliation of the facts with the narrative, an acknowledgment that some progressives cared more about winning than their self-proclaimed values.

As for the rant, I don't get that either. If Howard Dean is willing to acknowledge that the sexism of this campaign left unusually deep wounds that need addressing, why would you refer to my diary as a rant?

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't speak for Alegre (none / 0)

let's assume that all you want is honest dialogue, then that being the case I would apologize for how that comment was written because it was more 'in your face' then it should have been

that said, I respectfully disagree with you and Dean; Clinton didn't lose because of sexism she lost because her advisors convinced her CA was winner take all, because her advisors told her to ignore the cacuses, because she started to believe her own hype about being ineveitable, because she had no post Super Tuesday plan, because she her husband and her campaign started playing dirty and people recognized it for what it is was.

That's why Clinton lost.

And Katie Couric got frankly what she deserved when she completely and utterly ripped teh context out of what she quoted, again other things.

I'm tired of people using sexism as some weapon to bludegon people with simply because they have the audicity to disagree with you. And frankly that's what this feels like, yet another attempt to lay it all on the doorstep of sexism.

Now I'm not saying sexism is not real, I've seen some very sexist people, comments and actions and like racism it still exists (to our shame today) but it isn't the only reason things happen and people need to stop acting like it is.

Finally let's not play the outrage game shall we? Obama had at least one place vandalized because of his skin color and who knows how many racist threats he or his wife have recived let alone the names his volunteers have been called either though the phone or to thier face (or sometimes when people think they can't hear).

I am not going to sit here and go tic for tack with you on outrage and hate; both sides faced more then they should and both sides dealt with it.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:02:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've said it before and I'll say it again (2.00 / 2)

I have not claimed that sexism was the principle cause of Clinton's defeat. I have not argued that there was no racism. I have not argued that the racism that occurred won't leave deep wounds.

That said, whether you are tired of it or not, it is a reality that many women are enraged by the treatment the Clinton received on the blogs and by the talking heads. Sexism as a political strategy was legitimized. We can't just walk away from that fact.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again (none / 0)

Yes but the blogs anjd the media are not Barack Obama.

No matter how much or how little I support Barack Obama for President the words I speak are not his.

Thus if you're mad at something blogger X said, then take it up with blogger X, if you think talking head A said something out of line then your beef is with talking head A.

But to hold Obama for it is just not fair and dishonest intellectually. It's this stupid game people play of guilt by association.

And frankly I disagree with your conclusion, no sexism as a strategy was not legitimized; no more then racism was.

Sen. Clinton ran as a women, but lost for the same reasons Edwards, Biden, Richardson and so on lost; because there were out thinked (is that a word?), out strategized and because Obama ran the surperior campaign.

Like I said people are letting thier anger blind them to this and frankly I think it hurts those that are doing this more then others.

But please contruct an agruement showing exactly how, when and where sexism played a critical role and how it was employed by Obama.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't speak for Alegre (2.00 / 1)

OK fine. Don't admit anything, continue to deny, continue to tell people who are screaming that this is real to them that they are just simply wrong and that how they feel is completely invalid.

Yep - that will work great. Good luck with all that.

by emmasaint on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't speak for Alegre (none / 0)

<sigh>

I don't deny that it is real to them I never have. But just because it's real to them doesn't mean objectively it's real.

What I do not agree with is this outrage game people want to seem to have where it's acceptable for supporters to go over again and again all the sexism that was faced and yet trivialize what Obama went though.

To me that's just not only unfair but it's dishonest.

Nevermind that some of the more famous cases of sexism have been shown to be staged (like the people with iron our shirt posters).

Frankly I'm insulted because I'm trying to have a reasonable calm discussion here and you come screaming in and misrepresent everything I've said.

I don't think how any one feels about thier candidate is simply wrong or invalid, I don't think there is anything wrong with being defensive of and for a candidate.

But I do think there's something very wrong about subjectively bringing up the intolerance one candidate faced while ignoring the intolerance another candidate faced. Especially when that other candidate for example has an office completely vandalized.

All I really want is a reasonable, mature discussion, if you want a screaming match, or an outrage game you're going to have to find someone else.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain has nothing to do with it (2.00 / 2)

This is an intra-party discussion we have to have. To say nothing of the fact that we'll be a stronger party both from an intellectual perspective and a coalition perspective if we make a genuine attempt to address the fact that sexism was legitimized in this race.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (2.00 / 3)

What the hell does Howard Dean know.

If he thought there was that much sexism then you would have to wonder why he didn't speak up against it while it was going on , he only waited until it was over to speak out against his " sexism claim ".

As far as I am concerned if I give credence to what he said I would just be livid at his silence.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:29:02 AM EST

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (2.00 / 1)

I'm guessing that he didn't want to appear to be favoring one candidate over the other during the primary season.

by Gene In PA on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The silence perturbs me (2.00 / 5)

It wasn't just Dean's silence. True progressives should have had the intellectual integrity to call out both the racism and the sexism. But many progressives seemed to have one eye shut and eye covered.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:42:55 AM EST

Re: The silence perturbs me (none / 0)

That's right. The silence on sexism worked in the creative classes' favor and so they just kept quiet. Some of them are such hypocrites that they can't admit it even to themselves.

Whatever. Women are not the least bit surprised.

And btw the fact that McCain called his wife a nasty name in front of other people just puts him in the company of almost every married couple I have ever known..May be just the white trash hillbilly company I keep though.

by emmasaint on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Olbermann... (2.00 / 2)

....disputed Couric's claims of inadequacy of an NBC reporter who was covering the Obama Campaign....He's entitled to defend said reporter, and just because Couric's a woman does not mean every time a male disputes her accusations that it results in sexism.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:00:30 AM EST

he said the sexism charge was nonsense.... (2.00 / 2)

selective hearing it seems.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he said the sexism charge was nonsense.... (none / 0)

Maybe, but hillary herself didn't address the issues head on either. In fact as bad as it was it actually helped her stay in the race longer. If it hadn't started in N.H. with the media piling on when she teared up, women might not have come out to defend her in such large numbers.

by venician on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're right. (2.00 / 2)

she should have addressed it- but it would have backfired in a different way. and im sorry - i dont think that sexism helped her. sorry.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right. (none / 0)

You don't think that in some ways it helped motivate people to work even harder for her? I mena alot of people were PISSED and I think anger can be a great motivator.

by venician on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Its really neither here nor there (2.00 / 2)

whether it helped or hurt Hillary's candidacy. The problem is that it happened and it left a lot of us deep wounds. Sexism was legitimized in this race. I saw behavior on the part of Democrats that I have not seen since the 1960s. I saw behavior by the press that I have not seen since the 1970s.

The fact that some women were motivated to vote because of the perception of sexism should tell you that it was and is a serious problem for our Party. We simply cannot allow it to stand and continue to pretend that we embrace progressive goals.

I just don't understand why that is such a difficult point to grasp.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:49:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

An alternative interpretation. (none / 0)

We can argue til we turn red about whether there was sexism in this race. Of course there was. This is a 'first' race for a female candidate and in such 'first' races, all the available sociological crap harbored by a society looking at the first of her kind is going to come out in some form, small and large and everything in between. Ugly and unmediated. I hate to say that it could have been worse, but . . it could have been a lot worse.

What did you expect? That is what happens to 'first's. And why they get extra mojo for being the first one to draw that fire, so that it is out and everyone can look at it. Entirely in addition to the reasons they actually ran or whatever their policy positions were. In this respect, Obama was a semi-first, since Jesse had run and he got the worst of the very first blast, not a single syllable of which would pass muster on this site without being hidden like lightning and the poster banned, as would be only proper.

The point, though, is not to assess guilt or relative damage of this one versus that one, for every syllable here, but to recognize that the problem is now out, and we can see where it ran and sort of how it did. And now can work on making sure that next time it will have a lot less scope and cost the doers a whole lot more. And to develop some priorities, so that intentional and blatant acts get more punishment than the odd slip, until we get to the place in the future where the odd slip is the worst out there, and then bash it. We got bigger baddies to hunt than parsing the odd word at this point. People badgering others here when the sins they cite are principally outside the circle of the posters is only going to frustrate everybody without fixing anything, though.

A first suggestion is to go after MSM, who put the outrageous stuff on loops and run it over and over again, cluck clucking a bit when they do, but running it and running it, and to call them to task for the commentatiors like, IMO, Tucker that they pick precisely for saying outrageous things. The "iron my shirt" thing wouldn't have done so much damage if MSM had sworn off it - silence punishes the attention-seekers better than anything else. What we want now is to shut down that sort of stuff for the balance of this campaign, so that HRC doesn't get it if she goes out stumping, and Michelle doesn't get it either. Nor Donna Brazile, who drew a good bit of it, although other talking heads generally did not (I never heard any about Claire McCaskill, for example although we saw a lot of her). And that the race stuff, Muslim and all that, stops as dead as we can stop it. That effort would be constructive.

by Christy1947 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right. (2.00 / 2)

yes - it did piss people off. but by then it was too late.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he said the sexism charge was nonsense.... (2.00 / 1)

That was not the reason she was listed as the WPITW and you know it. If you wanna hate Keith Olbermann have at it...but expect some people to call you on your misleading story. She was on the list because she attacked another NBC reporter and said "he wasn't doing his job" and he should find another job if he can't do his job. KO stuck up for the reporter and took exception with Couric's claims that this reporter wasn't capable of doing his job..

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how about reading and listening for yourself? (2.00 / 2)

instead of relying on what another commenter says? i am in the midst of changing the diary so that IT IS CLEARER to those who aim to change the topic of what the diary was about. KO said exactly what i quoted him saying. period.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how about reading and listening for yourself? (2.00 / 1)

I have and came up with my own findings....You know what strikes me about you? You always "pounce" on any media controversy pertaining to sexism and Hillary Clinton, and I agree sexism is a problem.

But when the subtitle of "Obama's Baby Mama" came out yesterday, which is sexism, you were soooo quiet about it...I think you made two comments in a diary and one was about a female VP choice of McGaffe and the other was to say there was sexism against HRC too.

If you are going to make this your agenda, it would be wise to attack it whether it is aimed at your candidate or your opponent.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wasn't quit about it (2.00 / 2)

I made it pretty clear that I earnestly intend to battle any attacks on Michelle Obama.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:42:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wasn't quit about it (none / 0)

That comment wasn't intended for you...I saw what you said in the aforementioned thread, thank you..

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:48:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well not everyone can respond to every thread (2.00 / 1)

Calling people out for what they didn't say is a tough argument to make.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well not everyone can respond to every thread (2.00 / 1)

No it's not when a person's cause is to call out sexism whenever and where ever they see it in the MSM...It's subjective to the cause when you only report it and criticize it only when it applies to HRC.

If you are only adamant about it when it is associated with only one person (or people you have a positive opinion about) and you ignore it or "blow it off" when it is aimed at another woman (not of your liking) it certainly says something about your intent.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, but that's the core problem isn't it (2.00 / 1)

Racist attacks when they occurred were met with a furious response by our progressive community (as they should have been) but sexists attacks were not. Many on dKos insisted on their right to make constant use of language that was demeaning to women generally and Clinton in particular. When Kos was finally forced to do something about it on his site it was begrudging. He called Alegre's strike "silly." No one one dKos, or much any where else for that matter, every called a strike against NBC for their sexist narrative. The only place that has consistently pointed out the sexism is Media Matters.

So to borrow your own words:

If you are only adamant about it when it is associated with only one person (or people you have a positive opinion about) and you ignore it or "blow it off" when it is aimed at another woman (not of your liking) it certainly says something about your intent.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, but that's the core problem isn't it (none / 0)

If you wanna change the talking point let me know in advance. The discussion was concerning a diarist who writes solely on sexism in the media. I have challenged her last diary and her lack of coverage and outrage when it concerns women who he/she does not have a favorable opinion of.

If you take on a platform, you defend that platform no matter the opinion you have of the people it affects.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct, but what's good for the goose ... (2.00 / 2)

You expect CG to be consistent on the issue of sexism. If you are against sexism, it applies to all women whether you like them or not. Agreed.

So now, if we're all progressives then we deplore the exclusion and denigration of all groups. Just as feminists should be expected to defend the rights of all women, those fighting racism should apply equal attention to sexism.

My point is that didn't happen. Most people on the progressive blogs thought they could pick and choose. Defend the rights of blacks and guys but then spew forth with all kinds of derogatory references to women. Some people call this a double standard.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correct, but what's good for the goose ... (none / 0)

I understand what you're saying but it goes beyond what we are discussing. I am talking about a singular person who touts being the anti-sexism-in-the-media of this community. I applaud her efforts and she has made me become more aware of the problem. However, I think her writings and her cause would go much further if she didn't selectively choose examples of sexism that only apply to HRC.

When BO supporters constantly see her writings and how the MSM and sexism may have cost HRC the election, or were a reason why, they sort of lose the core message of sexism and only see a HRC supporter "blaming" something or someone for her loss.

I feel her message is not being conveyed as strongly as it could be because of the select examples she uses.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:23:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correct, but what's good for the goose ... (none / 0)

And I agree with you on your points, that is why I do not visit Kos much...I like it here much better.

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well we agree on something.. (2.00 / 1)

That's a start.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

really? (2.00 / 3)

check again. this was diaried at least twice yesterday of which i commented several times in at least 2 of them. but you know what - i think i have established my reputation here fairly nicely even though you're trying to do otherwise. good day.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

My rep isn't so bad either, but for the heck of it I will post what you said from the Obama's Baby Mama thread if you want...

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (2.00 / 1)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/11/2 24310/964/8#8

and

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/11/2 34118/364/10#10

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah I know...It is as powerful as your diaries... (none / 0)

trust me - they did. (2.00 / 1)

Re: Sorry (none / 0)
actually i heard that sarah is on the vp shortlist for JM - is this true?

i agree - this is ludicrous. (2.00 / 4)
and hopefully those naysayers that have been denying the sexism in the media when it was directed towards HRC now realize the follies of their past words.

EXACTLY! (2.00 / 2)

this is what happens when MSM tries to use slang. (2.00 / 1)
<Embedded Cartoon>

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:05:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lol - i wasnt powerful enough in my admonishment? (none / 0)

you're ridiculous - and i dont like you anymore. and again - good day.

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg

by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol - i wasnt powerful enough in my admonishme (none / 0)

Truth hurts

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think any one said he did (none / 0)

His characterization of Couric as "worst person in the world" is over the top. Denying that there was sexism in the press coverage when a very large fraction of observers saw it could be, well, sexist.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think any one said he did (none / 0)

I don't watch Olbermann much, but his "worst person in the world" award is a regular segment (next week it will be someone else). This is what he said:

And our winner, Katie Couric. Speaking at a Washington luncheon in her honor, the CBS anchor saying, "However you feel about politics," or her politics, rather, "I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair hostile coverage I`ve ever seen." She added that sexism "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat."

A little Kool-Aid-ish, but her opinion and she`s entitled to it. What followed she was not entitled to. Couric referred to one, quote, "prominent member of the commentariat" who had said he found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama. "That's your job," she says. Then she suggested he "find another line of work."

She didn't name him, maybe because she didn't bother to look it up. But the supposed member of the "commentariat" who said that was not, in fact, a commentator. It was NBC News correspondent Lee Cowan, who covered the Obama campaign throughout the primaries, and who, as Ms. Couric would have found out had she bothered to examine the context of his remark, was speaking with refreshing honesty, acknowledging that the environment of that campaign and the ferocity of the candidate`s supporters in the primaries challenged a reporter to be especially professional and vigilant in separating the hype from the news.

I probably saw literally 90 percent of Lee Cowan`s reporting in this campaign, and it was utterly objective and accurate. It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated him and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism. And as to her advice that a reporter like Lee Cowan, who was her colleague at CBS for nearly a year, should find another line of work, it is sadly obvious that in leaving NBC and the Today Show, Ms. Couric already has. Katie Couric, today's "Worst Person in the World."

A lot of this is inside baseball (have no idea whether he's characterizing Cowan's work accurately, but if he's a beat reporter he's probably right that his work didn't cross any lines).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense, indeed (2.00 / 2)

What is really bizarre for me about this whole campaign season is hearing people like Kos and Olbermann resurrect the same old lines that middle-aged white males (like my dad) used to use on young feminists (like me) back in the 1960s and 1970s. I can't tell you how many times he called me "silly" or referred to Gloria Steinem as spouting nonsense. I feel like I'm in a time warp.

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:01:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BINGO (2.00 / 2)

The condescension from some of the most visible progressives toward women, at first stunned me, and then angered me. It's like reliving my childhood. Every time I questioned why the status quo, the unfairness of male privilege, I was given this pat on the head, send her away 'tude of "isn't that cute...she thinks she can play with, compete with the boys."

I expected it from the right; I never expected it from progressive blogs, from those feigning to be progressives in the media.

Olberman makes me sick.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (1.50 / 4)

Howard Dean can go Cheney himself. It was far too little, far too late.

You can show clip after clip of the sexist commentary from the MSM media and an Obama supporter will come along and say there was racism. No one said there wasn't.

You can try to discuss this topic and someone will come along and say well Obama faced racism and he still won. You did not bring up sexism as a reason for Clinton losing, yet someone shifts the discussion in that direction.

Personally I hope the rebellion grows.

I think some women will support the party in November, but for others it is too late. No matter how difficult the alternative of not voting or voting for McCain may be some women feel they must take a stand.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:30:29 AM EST

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (none / 0)

Obama got 70% of his support from African Americans and white women. Hillary Clinton won a majority of the ballots cast by white male voters. People like Chris Matthews are assholes, but they didn't cost Clinton the election.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (2.00 / 2)

Wow....I never said it did cost her the election.

And thank you for proving my point that no one has brought up that Hillary lost because of sexism yet it still creeps into the discussion.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (none / 0)

Katie Couric said that she thought sexism was partly responsible for Hillary Clinton's defeat in tne election.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't and neither did Dean (2.00 / 1)

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your premise is unprovable (2.00 / 2)

We will never know one way or the other the influence of sexist media, including sexist blogs (even the one claiming to be progressive) had on some voters. I still have to hear some young women stupid enough, naive enough to say that sexism is "old" and no longer exists. Their swooning for Obama has blinded them in a way I thought was impossible.

And your attitude confirms so much of what many women have seen, heard and are sick of.

by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (2.00 / 5)

The problem is that Dean and the rest of the party were totally silent on the issue of sexism throughout most of the campaign.

Dean spoke on This Week but it was far too little, far too late.

Sexism was permitted to flourish by the very people that should have been speaking up loudly and forcefully against it.

They stood by and let it happen.

Dean and the Party gave it a pass -- why? That's a question that will linger for a long time. They have no good answer.

They went against everything I thought the Party stood for when they allowed such virulent sexism to go unchecked.

It is something I will never forget.

by cuppajoe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:39:11 AM EST

Exactally (2.00 / 1)

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean and sexism (2.00 / 1)

People made a bigger deal of racism than sexism because exist polls consistently showed that Obama's race was a bigger factor with voters than Hillary's sex. Pretty simple.

by Angry White Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:55:54 AM EST

exist polls = exit polls (none / 0)

by Angry White Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:57:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sounds like ex post reasoning to me (none / 0)

Maybe that was the case for some people. But I guess I kind of doubt it was a general phenomenon. Do you have any evidence?

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:15:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the point of this diary? (2.00 / 1)

Seriously.

We don't run the MSM. Many of us use blogs because we specifically don't like the talking heads, their message or their biases. But, we also don't control their content.

You might also have to contend with the fact that some people, particularly on the blogs, didn't like Clinton for entirely different reasons than her gender. Some people didn't like her war votes and hawkishness. Some people didn't like her pandering and triangulation. Some people didn't like the cast of assholes she assembled around herself. Some didn't like the DLC connections. Some people didn't like the way she tried to cast Obama as the "black" candidate. Enough of those "somes" decided the election no matter how juvenile and pernicious Chris Matthews was.

by zadura on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:22:20 AM EST

Maybe we need a new word (2.00 / 3)

What is it called when someone uses sexual messaging to defeat a female candidate with whom you have a principled disagreement?

by dbrown04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:00:57 AM EST

great diary, hideous denial in responses (none / 0)

disclaimer:
i support Obama, i can't stand Clinton, and i don't think she lost because of sexism.

that said...

the denial of sexism that is still going on in the responses here is fucking disgusting. will everyone who wants to deny sexism SHUT THE FUCK UP! you are hurting our candidate!

there was OBVIOUS sexism in the media. it is a MAJOR problem for anyone who calls themselves progressives, actually for anyone who isn't a slimey sexist piece of shit (as far too many so-called progressive men have revealed themselves to be). this is a progressive blog, sexism in the media is a progressive issue. we should ALL thank DBrown for the post.

this diary didn't say a fucking word about Clinton losing because of sexism. so everyone who came here and talked about that is full of shit, and is guilty of changing the subject from an important one that all progressives should care about to a non-existant one.

FIGHTING SEXISM - WHEREVER IT EXISTS - IS A PROGRESSIVE ISSUE. don't want to fight real, obvious sexism? then fuck off. this is a PROGRESSIVE movement, and you can't have a progressive movement that doesn't fight sexism.

again, i will ask anyone who supports Barack Obama to either get on the right side of this issue, that is, FIGHTING AGAINST sexism rather than excusing or denying it,
OR:
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
when you deny obvious sexism in the name of suporting Obama YOU HURT OBAMA.

it will be VERY nice when ALL progressives fight sexism AND racism, instead of Obama supporters lying about sexism and Clinton supporters lying about racism. complete bullshit, on BOTH sides. fucking stop with the ReThug "see no evil" bullshit. sexism and racism are both major problems, in the media and in society, and ALL progressives need to fight against BOTH.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST

kudos to Howard Dean (none / 0)

i left that out. he would have been a great president. and he's done the right thing here. let him know you support what he's done.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.