Wearing Blinders Until the Very End

Ben Smith brings us this quote from Hillary:

“It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women,” Clinton said. “I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it’s been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here.”

Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head,” she said. “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.” ‘

Without comment:

***

Look, there is no doubt Hillary has been subjected to sexism during this campaign, but if you want to know why Hillary really lost, you have to look no farther than this quote from her. Her entire campaign has been one gigantic attempt to redefine reality to how she wants to see it, ignoring the things that upset her and that don’t fit the new new narrative of the day as passed on by Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn. Hillary did not lose because she is a woman- she lost because they ran a crappy campaign. From the comments last night:

Hillary came in to this contest with a bunch of cash, the lead in super delegates, and the polls saying that she was going to steamroll the competition without problem. She had the Clinton name, donors with deep wallets, and a husband who was a popular former President who could also advise her and give her the inside scoop on campaigning.

She had it all, and she squandered it all away. Her and her campaign thought she had it sewed up, and they spent their campaign cash like there was no tomorrow. Huge salaries, huge parking bills, nice hotels for everyone and all the trimmings. After all, after sweeping up on Super Tuesday, the cash would be rolling in hand over fist. So why worry when her win was inevitable? She came in to the primary season as a powerhouse, she was going to clear the table and sweep up the winnings.

One problem. One candidate was deadly serious about winning, and he put together a team of people who he could count on to do the best they can for him. People who believe in what they are doing, and who know that if they want to win then they have to have a plan to get out there and earn it. So while Hillary was making the press rounds and drinking up all of the attention, Obama and his team rolled up their sleeves, planned and got to work.

This race is like the story about the tortoise and the hare. The hare knew the race was as sure as won, but the tortoise ignored the hare and quietly plodded along, keeping the goal line in sight the whole time. The hare got lost along the way, and now the tortoise is almost across the finish line.

How many versions of Hillary have there been this campaign? Right now we are on the gun-toting/whiskey-drinking model, but there have been numerous other incarnations of the candidate this election. You can’t blame that kind of message incompetence, that kind of demographic slicing and dicing, that transparent phoniness on sexism. You just don’t.

And more to the point- is there ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that we would have even ever seen this populist version of Hillary, trouncing around Appalachia in pick-up trucks, getting to her roots with the white man, swilling whiskey and munching on pizza, if she had not lost on Super Tuesday and if she had sealed up the election in February? Is there ANYONE who thinks Hillary would give a shit about the Florida and Michigan delegates if she had the nomination sealed up?

Of course not, and you all know it. No one reading this can honestly state that the Annie Oakley revival tour we are watching right now would have happened, because we all know it would not have. Terry McAuliffe himself stated they had a “27 state plan,” and all these other states would just have been after-thoughts had Clinton not blown it in February. Her campaign would be back in DC, plotting out there 50+1 plan for the fall, doing oppo research on McCain, all while having catered food brought to their luxury hotel rooms and with Mark Penn drawing a couple more million a month while still logging billable hours for Burston-Marsteller.

It is this kind of nonsense, this kind of willful suspension of reality, that has been the trademark of the Clinton campaign since Day One. Yes, Sen. Clinton, there has been sexism in this race. But it isn’t why you lost, and it wasn’t the only “ism” on display.

*** Update ***

BTW- I can’t be the only one who thinks this Richard Cohen piece is a dazzling display of beltway incoherence, as well as being factually inaccurate.

86 replies
  1. 1
    Wilfred says:

    reminds me of the best baseball anecdote I ever heard. 1964 and the Yankees are going through a bad spell. Players are blaming the schedule, injuries, pitching, fatigue, expectations, etc. Finally someone asks Phil Linz his opinion and he says “Maybe we just suck”.

    Clinton has to come up with a reason to explain how she fucked up – blame the voters. But maybe she..well.

  2. 2

    Boo fucking hoo. Wasn’t Clinton the tough one when this started out? New York deserves to keep her as their Senator.

  3. 3
    Zifnab says:

    And more to the point- is there ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that we would have even ever seen this populist version of Hillary, trouncing around Appalachia in pick-up trucks, getting to her roots with the white man, swilling whiskey and munching on pizza, if she had not lost on Super Tuesday and if she had sealed up the election in February?

    Yes, we’d have seen it. And we’d have been disgusted with it all the same. Hillary would have played the part of pandering folksy salt-of-the-earth lady because that’s how she plays politics – win or lose. She might have taken the high ground on the gas tax (unless it was polling well at the moment) and she might have been less vocal about sexism in the campaign, more vocal about racism in the campaign, once she had Obama safely in her pocket as VP.

    But if you think for a moment that Hillary would have campaigned like Obama just because she was winning, you missed the Clinton playbook entirely. If anything, we’d be seeing more stupid Penn-isms and more ridiculous stump speech gaffs, because the Clintons would continue to make stupid trivial mistakes in the security that they’d won and it didn’t matter.

    Is there ANYONE who thinks Hillary would give a shit about the Florida and Michigan delegates if she had the nomination sealed up?

    Here? No. To be fair, I don’t know if Obama would be singing a different tune if he was in second place. I imagine he’d have fought harder for a recount in both states, at the least, if he thought he could squeeze an edge out of it. On the flip side, I imagine Hillary would have been just as quick to squelch the idea as Obama had been.

    So, yeah. Politics.

  4. 4
    Jake says:

    The problem I have here is the following.

    Some press reports have Clinton toning down her attacks on Obama, in recognition of the importance of party unity. However, where does this recent emphasis on sexism eventually lead? Look at this quote from the WaPost:

    “I’m real tired of the pundits telling me the race is over — telling America what it should think,” said Dorinda Perkins, 63, a lab technician. “I do not want her to quit.”

    Well, the problem is, if she’s interested in party unity, SHE HAS TO FUCKING QUIT. I don’t see how this emphasis on sexism leads to a plausible exit strategy for her. More likely, it leads to more venom being directed at Obama, and more ammo to the ridiculous notion that the nomination has been “stolen”.

    This is really not productive.

  5. 5
    Mary says:

    From the Washington Post article:

    No one is quite sure when Clinton hit her stride, when she stopped caring about the polls, when she took her campaign to the people and gave voters a window into her soul.

    I’m pretty sure. I’m pretty sure that the correct answer is “never”.

  6. 6
    ThymeZone says:

    Sexism and Misogyny will now join Anti-Semitism as all purpose brute force dissent crushers in our society.

    Whoda thunk that after all these years, the crazy feminist victimists would actually win?

    Watch out for that Rampant Sexism(c), it causes you to Win the Popular Vote and yet still be a Victimized Loser.

    Evil, it is.

    Hillary’s great contributions to the political process will be with us for a long time, I fear.

  7. 7
    Jake says:

    To clarify, I don’t think she has to quit now. But I do think she can’t stay in it beyond the last primary. What I have a hard time believing is that her most ardent supporters are going to accept that, particularly if she emphasizes sexism over the last couple of weeks.

    So the “WOE IS ME”/ SEXIST PIGS! strategy at this stage seems entirely pointless.

  8. 8
    calling all toasters says:

    Women make up about 58% of the Democratic electorate, and she’s losing because of SEXISM??? I guess if there had been racist attacks on Obama, he would have lost Washington D.C…. I mean, really, WTF?

  9. 9
    cleek says:

    I don’t see how this emphasis on sexism leads to a plausible exit strategy for her.

    she’s not looking for an exit.

    the “sexism” charge cranks her supporters into McCain-voting rage. she can hold that over the heads of the remaining supers: “put me in, or my supporters will vote for McCain!”

  10. 10
    CrazyDrumGuy says:

    The worst part is that pro-choice, pro-ERA men have suddenly become chauvinist pigs by voting for Obama.

  11. 11
    bernarda says:

    I don’t dislike Obama, but I think he is not the person to fight the Rethugs. Look at their evaluations.

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    As an aside, Lieberman is just behind the candidates on liberal voting. So how does he support McCain who is at 9%? Obviously Lieberman is primarily a warmongering chickenhawk.

  12. 12
    Z says:

    Clinton’s problem with sexism is that the younger electorate isn’t sufficiently sexist. Younger women, like me, won’t vote for her just because she is a woman. We will vote for the better candidate, which obviously isn’t Clinton.

  13. 13
    zoe from pittsburgh says:

    The not-so-subtle subtext of Hillary’s campaign for some time now has been that many “white, working class voters” will not vote for Obama– even lifelong Democrats– and if he is the nominee they will stay home or vote for McCain. The truly sad part is how many of them are willing to flat out admit ON CAMERA that it’s because they don’t want to vote for a black man.

    So fuck Hillary’s sexism victimology crap and her denial that racism isn’t a HUGE factor in this campaign. She’s been trying to convince anyone who will listen that this country isn’t ready to vote for a black man, that she is the safer pick and the only one that can win, and that the “elites” are out of touch with just how much racism still exists among “working class whites.” Imagine if Obama ever made this argument about any of his supporters– that they won’t vote for her because she’s a woman. He’d be positively crucified and run out of politics FOREVER.

    IOKIYAC

    Her whole campaign is truly NAUSEATING. On top of that there is this sickening resentment among her supporters towards black voters for going from her camp to Obama’s because of “reverse racism.” It’s complete and total bullshit.

    /rant

  14. 14
    4tehlulz says:

    Sexism and Misogyny will now join Anti-Semitism as all purpose brute force dissent crushers in our society.

    We’re still cool with racism, right?

  15. 15
    Neal says:

    when she took her campaign to the people and gave voters a window into her soul.

    Soul!? What is this “soul” they speak of?

  16. 16
    John Cole says:

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    I attribute it to the never-ending stream of bullshit and lies from the Clinton campaign. I attribute it to the Clinton “kitchen sink” strategy, which started after it was clear she had already lost. If Clinton hadn’t been such a total asshole this campaign, I doubt I would have this much bile built up.

    Seriously, do you have any idea how offensive it is to just come in some place and say “You aren’t supporting Hillary because you are misogynist,” without knowing a god damned thing about anyone?

  17. 17
    Z says:

    Surely you are a spoof, Bernada. People don’t hate Clinton because she is a woman. They hate her because of the sleazy, nasty, cynical way she has run her campaign. Her campaign stopped being about why she thought she was the better candidate months ago (as did my respect for her). It started being about race bating and dishonesty in a desperate bid to tear Obama down. I hate that kind of politics. That is why I hate the Republicans and why I’m starting to hate Clinton.

  18. 18
    Neal says:

    If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    Is this where I get to say “If Hillary were a man and she pulled this sort of bullshit she’s been pulling I would fully expect Barack to punch her in the motherfucking face”?

    Because I would like to say that.

  19. 19
    buford puser says:

    Personally, as a NYer I look forward to being represented by the new populist, rootin’-tootin’-firearm-shootin’ Hillary as my Senator.
    It will be a refreshing change from her former corporatist, triangulated DLC stance & certainly the about-face on the Second Amendment should be big news in the next legislative session, as Hillary rolls back gun control nationwide.

  20. 20
    rawshark says:

    I decided not to vote for Clinton after the speech she gave in The Incredibles.

  21. 21

    Whoda thunk that after all these years, the crazy feminist victimists would actually win?

    Boy, I sure am glad that sexism hasn’t had anything to do with this primary. Because, you know, phrases like ‘crazy feminist victimists’ clearly show that we’ve moved into a gender-blind society.

    Got it. Duly noted.

  22. 22
    cleek says:

    The not-so-subtle subtext of Hillary’s campaign for some time now has been that many “white, working class voters” will not vote for Obama—even lifelong Democrats—and if he is the nominee they will stay home or vote for McCain.

    Bill Clinton won in ’92 with 39% of the white vote and 83% of the black vote.

    does that mean he wasn’t a legitimate Democratic President ?

  23. 23
    Delia says:

    Bernarda must be another concern troll from the hillary sites. Where did pencils go?

    Remember way back in the early days before Hillary gave up on the AA vote when she did that quote in the ghastly sing-song black dialect voice? I wonder how many votes that won her.

  24. 24
    rawshark says:

    If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    yes Kerry sucked.

  25. 25
    uri says:

    I like to think it was competism that did them in, this unfair mindset that people should be elevated over others on the basis of their competence.

  26. 26
    cleek says:

    Because, you know, phrases like ‘crazy feminist victimists’ clearly show that we’ve moved into a gender-blind society.

    so, any statement which refers to “feminists” in a negative way is sexist ? there’s no way a feminist can be crazy? no way a feminist can be a little too eager to claim victimhood ?

    faaaaahhgyoooo.

    and get your filthy hands off my beautiful language.

  27. 27
    Ninerdave says:

    After watching the first video all I can say is: John you have some seriously fucking stupid people in your state.

  28. 28
    Splitting Image says:

    “Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?”

    I hate Clinton because she started praising John McCain at about the same time I started realizing how sleazy a jackass he was. Doubly so because I think the main reason she was doing it was that she figured people like me (white, working class, etc.) would like her for it.

    The fact that so many of her supporters think he’s such a swell guy right now and an acceptable place to put their votes if Lady Inevitable doesn’t win comes directly from Clinton’s support of him back in March.

  29. 29
    rawshark says:

    protected static Says:

    Whoda thunk that after all these years, the crazy feminist victimists would actually win?

    Boy, I sure am glad that sexism hasn’t had anything to do with this primary

    Here’s the rule. If you acknowledge the existence of feminists and further point out that some are crazy, then Clinton can’t win because she’s a woman.

  30. 30
    cleek says:

    Remember way back in the early days before Hillary gave up on the AA vote when she did that quote in the ghastly sing-song black dialect voice?

    here’s another Classic Clinton Moment: Gandhi pumpin gas!

  31. 31
    zoe from pittsburgh says:

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    To be totally frank, as a FEMINIST woman who started off as a Hillary supporter, I am especially disgusted with her because on some level I TRULY EXPECTED BETTER FROM HER BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN. There had been a small part of me that hoped that a woman in the White House would represent a fundamental change in politics, that a woman in power would bring something different to the table. Also, if Hillary were a man she wouldn’t even be a candidate since so much of her “experience” is based on being the spouse of a former president. Which is why she’s sort of the anti-feminist candidate– if it weren’t for her marriage to Bill would she even be a contender?

    If Hillary had taken the high road, if she hadn’t parroted so many REPUBLICAN ATTACKS on a fellow Dem, I’d be much more neutral about her. Instead she has shown that Hillary is one thing– a craven, power-hungry phony.

    Many of Hillary’s die-hard supporters refuse to consider the possibility that Hillary has brought much of this ire on herself and it’s not because of sexism or hatred of women– that’s just a sad, pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that she ran a crummy, ugly campaign. She screwed this up, plain and simple.

  32. 32
    over_educated says:

    Her whole campaign is truly NAUSEATING. On top of that there is this sickening resentment among her supporters towards black voters for going from her camp to Obama’s because of “reverse racism.” It’s complete and total bullshit.

    This. So, if 95% of all women voted for Hillary, would that make her sexist?

    Every time I think to myself: “You know, I don’t like Clinton right now for the way she has run her campaign, but I am sure she will wise up and help unify the democratic party” she completely dissapoints me. She knows this thing is over but she is continuing to build up the bad blood, hoping her supporters will push McCain over the edge and she can come back for a run in 2012. Fat chance, when she loses this primary it will be a cold, cold day on the surface of the sun when a majority of the democratic party supports her for another Presidential run.

    Whether or not Clinton would be a better match against McCain, by every reasonable metrci, he has won the election. So he should be given the chance to run and supported. If you are a Democrat and do not vote for Obama because of your anger about Clinton losing the race, you are a cancer on this party and need to go elsewhere. Go vote in a Republican, I’m sure they will really stand behind the issues that are important to many women voters (abortion, health care, equal pay for equal work). When your bitterness and stupidity helps overturn Roe v. Wade have a good look in the mirror, because standing there is the person you should be blaming.

  33. 33

    so, any statement which refers to “feminists” in a negative way is sexist ? there’s no way a feminist can be crazy? no way a feminist can be a little too eager to claim victimhood ?

    No, of course they can, and of course they can. But it’s context that matters as much as content. Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope – might very well strike some as, well, sexist.

  34. 34
    SnarkyShark says:

    It’s the Blue Dogs vs The progressives. It’s the Boomers who love the status quo vs. everyone who knows the status quo is toxic.

    Obama should just keep running against MCCain like he has been doing.

    Excising the DLC dead enders is painful, but necessary.

  35. 35
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Hillary = General Weygand.
    Obama = General von Manstein.

    Sometimes when fighting the last war right isn’t the answer, fighting the next war, even if only adequately, is.

  36. 36
    SGEW says:

    If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    [From the same comment]

    As an aside, Lieberman is . . . .

    Congratulations. You have rebutted yourself.

  37. 37
    libarbarian says:

    “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

    -Barack Obama

    1 very rational response by Michelle Malkin No Quarter (a supposedly democratic blog).

    Talk about an omen of what is to come if this guy, by some freak oddity, became President. I’m just wondering which “other countries” he wants the approval of. I mean, we are talking about the Presidency of the United States here. I wasn’t aware that our food, cars or warmth was subject to another country’s ‘approval’. But that’s just me.

    ….

    You can start by telling your useless anti-Obama elderly parent or neighbor that it’s just too damned bad if she is cold all the time and needs more heat in her apartment. Tell her old people are useless to Barack Obama anyhow, so turn down that thermostat and Live With It! Those goddamned Old People are a such a burden on society anyhow.

    So bascially, if Barry decides to appoint himself President, he will just have to make all those old people crank down that thermostat to 62, let them freeze, the old farts — so “other countries” will say “Ok”. All 27 million of them! Think of the money the country will save if Obama just gets rid of all those pesky old people he doesn’t have time for. The problem is, he’s going to have to round them all up and make them feel too cold to vote in November or else it’s back to being a Chicago Thug for him. Maybe he can spring Tony Rezko and get him to cut off the heat completely. That’s the Obama-Chicago way.
    ….
    And another thing, America: When Barky Obama is President, you aren’t going to be allowed to eat as much as you want anymore either. So get with the program and stop eating now! That way Barack Obama won’t be sending the Food Police to your house later. They are going to take your food and give it to somebody else who needs it more. You want a big meal? Get an invitation to the White House. Otherwise, no arugula for you!

    You also might as well get rid of that damned SUV right now! Of course he can keep his. After all, he is the President! Oh wait, Ok, so he’s not president yet. But he will be just as soon as he figures out a way to cheat again and disenfranchise some more of the 57 states that aren’t going to vote for him. That should fix it. In the meantime, get yourself a subcompact and shove the five kids and the dog in it. If you don’t all fit, leave some kids home or something. And while you’re at it, start biking to work. So what if you commute 30 miles every day.

    I mean, this is just insane.

  38. 38
    kind of an off white says:

    But it’s context that matters as much as content.

    That’s true.

    Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope – might very well strike some as, well, sexist.

    Yes, that would be sexist. It also hasn’t happened here to a notable degree. What’s that you were saying about context?

  39. 39
    Stemler says:

    Can we cut the crap about Obama the under-dog rising up out of nowhere to defeat the giant Hillary? They both came into this thing with considerable support and a shitload of celebrity. (no one ever called Hillary a rock star before she ran… or ever).

    I figure there’s a few things: 1) Hillary’s campaign was incompetent. 2) Old models of polling and predicting outcomes emphasized old voters over new voters, and this time around the new voters are having a much larger impact, so her support was never as plural as she thought it was, and Obama’s turned out to be much larger than anyone thought it was. 3) Hillary’s campaign was really incompetent.

  40. 40

    Yes, that would be sexist. It also hasn’t happened here to a notable degree. What’s that you were saying about context?

    If you’ll look back, you’ll see that my context was TZ, who is apparently invested in belittling any mention of sexism or misogyny, and who used the phrase ‘crazy feminist victimists.’

  41. 41
    jake says:

    Nope, sorry, can’t do it. If Clinton were running against a Caucasian male I might buy the sexism charge but she isn’t and so I’d have to accept that there’s less racism than sexism in this country. Shut up. Each species of bigotry has a symbiotic relationship with every other species of bigotry and they’re all equally intense.

    What the people screaming sexism don’t want to accept is the fact that more people like Obama than they do Clinton, period. Sorry, get over it. It would be the same thing if Clinton were coming out ahead of Obama. If anyone really cares about getting HRC in the White House, write her a letter and beg her to stop running as a GOP surrogate, there might still be time.

    Well, not really but at least she can apologize.

  42. 42
    rawshark says:

    protected static Says:
    Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope – might very well strike some as, well, sexist.

    Actually its just a reason to be dismissive.

  43. 43
    Andrew says:

    Can we cut the crap about Obama the under-dog rising up out of nowhere to defeat the giant Hillary?

    No. He didn’t come out of nowhere, but I think this shows that he really did come from way behind.

    1) Hillary’s campaign was incompetent.

    I think this is one of the three key reasons she lost, with the others being: Obama’s campaign was very competent, and the war vote.

  44. 44
    dslak says:

    more people like Obama than they do Clinton, period

    Misogynist!

  45. 45
    zoe from pittsburgh says:

    Can we cut the crap about Obama the under-dog rising up out of nowhere to defeat the giant Hillary? They both came into this thing with considerable support and a shitload of celebrity. (no one ever called Hillary a rock star before she ran… or ever).

    Um, no, you’re totally wrong. Hillary Clinton has been a household name since 1992! She entered the race with all the institutional support, all the money, and the Clinton name. For pete’s sake, the speculation about her running for POTUS has been around since BEFORE Bill left office.

    To argue that they both came into this with equal celebrity or advantages is just plain silly.

  46. 46
    Fledermaus says:

    “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”

    For the umpteenth time – it is not a selling point that people are willing to say all sorts of nasty things about you and the press isn’t willing to call them on it. Tell it to Al Gore or John Kerry.

  47. 47
    uri says:

    To Stemler:

    her support was never as plural as she thought it was, and Obama’s turned out to be much larger than anyone thought it was

    Isn’t that the definition of an underdog winning?

  48. 48
    libarbarian says:

    Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope – might very well strike some as, well, sexist.

    and dismissing any and all concerns about raciism as coming from ‘crazy black victimists’ & ‘race-baiters’ – a right-wing, racist trope – might very well strike some as, well, racist.

  49. 49
    NR says:

    I think this is one of the three key reasons she lost, with the others being: Obama’s campaign was very competent, and the war vote.

    I’d say that Hillary’s vote on Kyl-Lieberman was just as much a factor as her war vote, because it showed that not only had she not apologized for her war vote, she hadn’t learned anything from it, either.

  50. 50
    kind of an off white says:

    If you’ll look back, you’ll see that my context was TZ, who is apparently invested in belittling any mention of sexism or misogyny, and who used the phrase ‘crazy feminist victimists.’

    No, I know. I’m pretty sure he was referring to a specific type of person, though, not dismissing outright any perceived instance of sexism anywhere on the planet. He does tend to be a little scattershot, though, and he seems to revel in fights that stem from minor misunderstandings, so I’m not sure why I even butted in.

  51. 51
    Billy K says:

    Well, shit. If no one else is gonna say it…

    Well, so what? What’s wrong with bein’ sexy?

  52. 52
    Blue Raven says:

    I have been a feminist for about 30 years now. I have long dreamed of the day the US would have a woman serve as President. I want and continue to want the right woman for the job. The process has to do MUCH better than a lying, backstabbing, two-faced vote whore for my dream to come true. The mainstream press is pointing out where she’s lying about her “popular vote” lead these days. She lies, lies, and lies again. I’m beginning to wonder if she’s going to say, “That depends on what your definition of truth is.”

  53. 53
    AkaDad says:

    After watching the first video all I can say is: John you have some seriously fucking stupid people in your state.

    I’ve lived in the North, the South, and have traveled to Canada a few times. I’ve encountered racism in all three places.

    The stupid can’t be contained by geographical boundaries.

  54. 54
    w vincentz says:

    Why do we see Hillary always wearing pants?
    Why not a dress or a skirt once in a while? hmmm?

  55. 55
    cleek says:

    Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope – might very well strike some as, well, sexist.

    since most of the reported examples of sexism are silly, and since the people reporting them are bat-shit crazy about that and everything else they write about, and because the repeated calls for Obama to reign-in his supporters are ludicrous…

  56. 56
    Genine says:

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    Yes. It’s not Clinton’s sex that’s the issue, its her politics. It’s the fact that Barack Obama is in the race doing something different and much needed. Clinton’s politics don’t quite measure up to his, imo.

    I swear if Obama wasn’t in the race trying to raise the level of discourse and be a better candidate, I wouldn’t think anything of what Clinton is doing. She’d just be another political scumbag and that’s just how it goes.

    But now I see something different and the thought of going back to the “old way” is grating. I’ll do i, if I have to. But I won’t like it! Heh/

  57. 57
    Delia says:

    w vincentz Says:

    Why do we see Hillary always wearing pants?
    Why not a dress or a skirt once in a while? hmmm?

    Okay, this is too much and definitely sexist. Have you ever had to wear pantyhose? Granted, she’s rich enough to afford some wardrobe counseling. That bumblebee yellow jacket with the black trim was definitely one for the fashion police.

    But what I really wanted to say was this. I think I’ve figured out what went wrong with Hillary’s campaign. Barack Obama blackmailed her into hiring and keeping Mark Penn as her chief strategist for most of the campaign. What a cunning plan. I think I’ll go over to Agent Flowbee’s Larry Johnson’s site right now to apprise him of my discovery so he can get his people busy tracking down the evidence.

  58. 58
    TR says:

    Check out the latest insanities at Hillaryis44.

    It’s a song parody mocking Obama as “unelectable,” with grainy video clips that all linger on scary black supporters of his. They linger on a middle-aged black man behind him at a speech like he’s Willie Horton.

  59. 59
    Billy K says:

    What just happened to this thread?

  60. 60
    ThymeZone says:

    I sure am glad that sexism hasn’t had anything to do with this primary

    Sure it has. According to Clinton herself, she has won the popular vote. Apparently that is what happens when you are the hapless victim of Rampant Sexism(c).

    Discuss.

  61. 61
    KXB says:

    So, despite the fact that there is little daylight between the positions of Obama and Clinton on policy issues (big exception being Iraq), these Clinton supporters will not support Obama if he is the nominee? Is it cause he’s a guy? From Chicago, and they don’t like the Bears?

    But if these people are so nervous around black folks, why don’t they get upset over Hillary being married to a black man?

  62. 62
    jrg says:

    Dismissing any and all concerns about sexism as coming from ‘crazy feminist victimists’ – a right-wing, anti-feminist trope

    “gender feminists” (as opposed to “equity feminists”) often believe that all differences between the sexes are entirely due to the way that boys and girls are raised, and all professions and fields of study should have a 50/50 ratio between men and women, even if government intervention is required to reach the (impossible) 50/50 goal.

    These assertions defy lab studies, findings in evolutionary biology, free will, and common sense. Arguments that disagree with gender feminism are not “trope”, nor are they right-wing.

    People deserve equal rights because of what we have in common, not our differences. Furthermore, if the goal of gender feminists is a 50/50 even split, then it would be acceptable to vote for a woman based on her gender alone, thus bringing us right back to where we started.

    It is possible to believe that a sizable minority of feminists are ‘crazy victimists’ without being a misogynist or right-winger.

  63. 63
    ThymeZone says:

    Women make up about 58% of the Democratic electorate, and she’s losing because of SEXISM??? I guess if there had been racist attacks on Obama, he would have lost Washington D.C…. I mean, really, WTF?

    I don’t understand. According to Clinton herself, she has won this contest.

    Taken at her word, the net effect of her cruel sexist treatment is that she got more votes.

    I asked the sexism mongers to put up data, but Clinton herself has supplied the data. The clear correlation is that Rampant Sexism(c) has delivered her a win in the vote count.

    I think it behooves her to copyright and then institutionalize this Rampant Sexism(c) thing, it is the best thing she has going.

  64. 64
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Wow, I made the front page of the blog?! /swoon

    Ok, swooning is sooo sexist, but I am a man and I can take it. ;)

    Thanks for the quote John. I wrote that this morning when things just boiled up inside and I had to let it out all at once.

    What really pisses me off is for all of the crying about misogyny and sexism coming from Hillary and her supporters, Hillary dismissed any possible racism in the campaign out of hand. That is just so much bullshit that I saw red. That she can dismiss something as obvious and easily proven as this tells me that once she got in office she would refuse to acknowledge anything that does not fit her narrative.

    I do not doubt for a second that once she got in office she would throw her own supporters overboard if she felt she had to.

    All that matters to Hillary is Hillary.

  65. 65
    Fe E says:

    I’d say that Hillary’s vote on Kyl-Lieberman was just as much a factor as her war vote, because it showed that not only had she not apologized for her war vote, she hadn’t learned anything from it, either.

    I think that was the moment I moved firmly ino the Obama camp–I mean how many times does ife give you a friggin’ mulligan–an obvious, blatant mulligan at that, and then you cut you slack for refusing to take it?

    Since then, her campaing has just reinforced my conclusion.

  66. 66
    Fe E says:

    ife=life
    camping=campaign.

    darn.

  67. 67
    Rick Taylor says:

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her.

    Based purely on the issues, I like Clinton slightly better on domestic issues (I think she has a better grasp of them), and Obama better on foreign issues (while she would be far far better than McCain, listening to Clinton talk about Iran I was hearing all the old frames and ways of categorizing the world that’s gotten us into the mess we’re in). I originally supported Clinton, for her wonkishness, while my sister supported Obama for his ability to inspire people.

    What’s driven me up the wall primarily has been her willingness to attack the legitimacy of the primary process, even to the point of suggesting that Obama will not be considered legitimate if he wins. There was even a chance to compromise on Michigan, but she made it clear she will accept nothing less that her getting hundreds of thousands of votes and Obama none, in an unsanctioned primary she agreed not to participate in and said publicly would not count. Fighting hard is one thing, but what she’s doing is destructive to the party; if the idea spreads that she was somehow cheated out of the nomination, it will divide the party. Even after all that, my feelings didn’t really harden until she and her campaign made the argument she should be the nominee because she’s the favorite of working class white voters. I honestly was shocked by that; I never thought she’d stoop that low. Add to that her remarks saying she and McCain had passed the commander-in-chief threshold but she wasn’t sure about Obama, her willingness to throw Ayers at him during the debate in Pennsylvania, her trashing of Sarah Powers, the accusations that one is a “Judas” for not supporting her, and willingness of her well-heeled supporters to attempt to use money to influence the process, and yes, by now I have a lot of ill feelings towards her and her campaign right now.

    If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    Unquestionably.

  68. 68
    Tony J says:

    It’s pretty clear to this lurker that the Hillary cheerleaders showing up here know that it’s way past all over. Their candidate has lost the Primary and has zero x infinity chance of pulling off a last-minute upset at the Convention. So all that’s left for them to do is to stamp their feet and dictate the terms under which they might – just might – be convinced to save the world from a McCain Presidency by voting for Mr Unelectable Pony.

    Put simply, Obama supporters must acknowledge that they were wrong, about everything, no matter what, and that the Hillary supporters were right, about everything, no matter what.

    And furthermore, you have to really mean it. No pussy-footing around, no saying it through clenched teeth. You have to drop the attitude of “But, our guy actually won“, look your pro-Hillary brethren in the metaphysical eye, and convince them that you’ve learned your lesson and realise now that, yes, you were blinded by misogyny and the shiny black coat of your equine cult-leader. Why else would you come so close to letting something so good slip between your fingers? You were wrong, and you’re sorry. You messed up, you were fools, but you want to make it right again. So please, please, don’t leave.

    Once that’s happened, and they have a few days of basking in the golden light of vindication, everything will be right with the world.

    Or you could just keep on telling them to grow the fuck up and vote for Obama anyway to save the world from a John McCain Presidency, because, y’know, that’s the right thing to do.

    It’s your call.

  69. 69

    @ jrg

    It is possible to believe that a sizable minority of feminists are ‘crazy victimists’ without being a misogynist or right-winger.

    I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. But that’s not the approach TZ is taking, which is what I took issue with.

  70. 70
    Adam says:

    August Pollak nail the FL/MI issue back in March:

    The argument here is that Florida and Michigan’s votes in some way “don’t count” this way. Well, yeah, they won’t. Or rather, they won’t count for Hillary. Because, you see, she lost. Howard Dean won Vermont in 2004. He lost the nomination race to Kerry. He released his delegates. They voted for Kerry at the convention. See how this works?

    Everything- everything– said about how Florida and Michigan need to be “represented” at the convention is based on the premise that they need to be represented at the convention in a contested primary to vote on the floor for Clinton. That’s the addendum that Hillary supporters aren’t saying, and it’s based on a plan to carry the entire nomination process to Denver and then fight to make the nominee the candidate who, barring a miracle at this point, will have won less states, will have won less delegates, and will have lost the popular vote in the primaries.

    That is what “maintaining the democratic process” means for the Hillary supporters pushing to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates. That is what “letting the will of Florida voters” means. It means not accepting that Hillary Clinton’s lost the race, and it means four months of this instead of attacking John McCain. Hooray for democracy, or something.

    I think that pretty much sums it up.

  71. 71
    KRK says:

    Zifnab Says:

    Is there ANYONE who thinks Hillary would give a shit about the Florida and Michigan delegates if she had the nomination sealed up?

    Here? No. To be fair, I don’t know if Obama would be singing a different tune if he was in second place. I imagine he’d have fought harder for a recount in both states, at the least, if he thought he could squeeze an edge out of it. On the flip side, I imagine Hillary would have been just as quick to squelch the idea as Obama had been*.

    [*emphasis added]

    I apologize for not following through with working out the evolution of Clinton’s stance on MI and FL, even though Rick Taylor emaild me a bunch of very helpful links. Truth is, I got slammed by work not long after getting started, and when I resurfaced I kind of hoped the moment had passed and MI/FL had become irrelevant (Obama is on track to win even under Clinton’s best case outcome).

    But Zifnab’s comment here (and both Clintons continuing even now to work their supporters into frenzies over it) suggest that it would be worth nailing down that history even now. So I’ll get back to it.

  72. 72
    Adam says:

    Oops! Double comment — sorry. And in response to the post, not the predictably-enlightening discussion of sexism in the thread.

    But Zifnab’s comment here (and both Clintons continuing even now to work their supporters into frenzies over it) suggest that it would be worth nailing down that history even now. So I’ll get back to it.

    I hadn’t seen McAuliffe’s “twenty-seven state strategy” quote that John pointed out in the post, but that’s pretty damning to my mind.

    Even more damning, I think, were the complaints from the Clinton campaign about Obama’s national ad buy that ran in Florida and thereby “broke the rules” — a tune that changed pretty radically when they realize a week later that they needed those votes, and suddenly it was the Obama campaign that wanted to ignore the poor poor Floridians.

    And of course Ickes (or was it Wolfson?) voting to strip the delegates in the first place. And the fact that the Clinton campaign never actually, you know, campaigned in either of those states (in other words — ignored them) nor raised a single word of protest until well after Iowa when they realized they might need the delegates.

    The Clinton campaign tried to have their cake and eat it too — as they’ve done with a number of other things — and now that they’ve carped about it for four freaking months it’s more or less accepted as truth that they always did, but that doesn’t change the fact that their entire story about “disenfranchisement” is a hypocritical lie (one that we should have pushed back against much harder, much earlier, though) and an after-the-fact rationalization.

    It’s not just that no one believes that they’d care about it if they weren’t losing, as John suggests — it’s that it’s an objective fact that they did not care about it until they were losing, which puts lie to their entire claim. They were complicit in abiding by these apparently grossly-unfair delegate rules just like everyone else.

  73. 73
    Adam says:

    (Or… no double comment. But at least I got to keep the version with the typo. That’s fair, I guess.)

  74. 74
    Tax Analyst says:

    And more to the point- is there ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks that we would have even ever seen this populist version of Hillary, trouncing around Appalachia in pick-up trucks, getting to her roots with the white man, swilling whiskey and munching on pizza, if she had not lost on Super Tuesday and if she had sealed up the election in February?

    But…but…but…she bought DONUTS for the media folks on the bus back in New Hampshire or Iowa or one of those places that doesn’t count anymore.

    You know, I actually remember feeling some pangs of sympathy for her when I first read about that. It seemed so, well, Human…kind of, in a way.

    Man, was I a sucker.

  75. 75
    Adam says:

    Oh, speaking of independent reasons I had to dislike Hillary before my rampant unconscious misogyny took over my brain and turned me into a sexist supervillain —

    Anyone remember when Obama was advocating “poisonous” rhetoric when he made that comment that was taken out-of-context as evidence that he supported Reagan OMG and Reagan was so divisive and racist and then a month after they had to drop that argument (because let’s face it, it was really bad), the Clinton campaign adopted almost literally every single tactic they were accusing Obama of supporting in order to win “white, working-class voters” who weren’t at all “bitter” and liked their guns just like Hillary and blah blah? It’s almost like they were targeting “Reagan Democrats.”

    Yeah, boy that was fun times.

  76. 76
    Adam says:

    Or hey, how about when they filed that lawsuit the weekend before the Nevada caucuses to shut down the at-large precincts on the Strip that were set up in advance for food-service voters who couldn’t get away from their jobs to vote, before that (you know, not being able to get away from your job to caucus) became a reason why caucuses were actually illegitimate and before Florida and Michigan taught us that every vote must be counted!?

    It’s almost like they were trying to disenfranchise a bunch of (mostly Hispanic) voters by scrapping the caucus mechanics that were set up to address the problem of those voters getting away from work, the weekend before the caucus when those precincts actually turned out OK for them and they dropped it. Wow I miss those days!

  77. 77
    uri says:

    I think it’s important not to forget why Hillary signed on to the DNC’s stripping of delegates and ban on campaigning in the first place:

    To pander to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

    The fact that her campaign is now trying to spin it as a principled stand of “every vote must count” simply turns my stomach.

  78. 78
    Doug Woodard says:

    John, I think you missed one major reason – perhaps the most significant reason – for Hillary’s downfall, and that happened before any votes were cast: her vote for the AUMF in 2002. That vote, and her stubborn defense of it, killed her with so many who might otherwise have supported her in the primaries. Also, it exposed her do-anything-to-be-president self – a core thread of her personality that has been on bright display since Super Tuesday.

  79. 79
    w vincentz says:

    Delia,
    No, I’ve never worn panty hose. Heck, I’ve never even shaved my legs. I’m guessing that Hillary and I have a lot in common.
    And, no, I don’t think I’m “sexist”. However, if Hillary wishes to use “feminism” as a wedge issue, perhaps she should become more feminine. Just a suggestion.

  80. 80
    rachel says:

    Billy K Says:

    What just happened to this thread?

    More sexism!/racism! acusation-slinging (mostly on the sexism! side). The same crap that’s been happening for weeks.

  81. 81
    rachel says:

    Augh! Why can’t the preview window show what actually gets posted?

    It’s sexism! + racism!

  82. 82
    Brachiator says:

    Jake Says:

    To clarify, I don’t think she has to quit now. But I do think she can’t stay in it beyond the last primary. What I have a hard time believing is that her most ardent supporters are going to accept that, particularly if she emphasizes sexism over the last couple of weeks.

    If Senator Clinton weren’t so intent on either providing closure for her most ardent supporters or trying to wage some last ditch effort to wrest the nomination from Obama, she, her husband, Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole could be waging a unified campaign against John McCain, which would be particularly desirable since Bush is obviously eager to expend his last bit of political capital in trying to support the GOP nominee.

    Yeah, in theory Senator Clinton can stay in to the bitter end. But at some point, when does the party and the country become more important than ego and ambition?

    Yeah, I know, foolish question.

    But the party leadership does not appear to be aware of the opportunities lost while we indulge this pointless Clinton Kabuki. Or, they are too gutless to put an end to it. And if they are not capable of keeping their eye on the bigger picture, it makes me wonder about their ability to wage an effective general election campaign.

  83. 83
    jake says:

    Or hey, how about when they filed that lawsuit the weekend before the Nevada caucuses to shut down the at-large precincts on the Strip that were set up in advance for food-service voters who couldn’t get away from their jobs to vote, before that (you know, not being able to get away from your job to caucus) became a reason why caucuses were actually illegitimate and before Florida and Michigan taught us that every vote must be counted!?

    I’d forgotten all about that. To be fair the suit was filed by a teachers union.

    Hmmm.

    Asked about it Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Mrs. Clinton said, “The courts and the state party will have to work it out.”

    I s’pose it is sexist of me to use a lady’s words against her.

  84. 84
    Kevin Hayden says:

    Working a group blog, sometimes the same topic gets covered. It happened today, when Tom Burka wrote How Hillary Can Win and before I looked at the blog this morning, I wrote Clinton wins the nomination if the votes are fairly counted

    Must be great misogynists think alike.

    Clinton is slightly better than Obama, but for some reason a lot of Obama supporters seem to hate her. I attribute this to misogyny. If Clinton were a man, would you have all this bile against the candidate?

    First, you begin with a premise not everyone agrees with. Then you narrow down all the potential reasons to one. I would point out that flame war rhetoric is part of Net culture, particularly among the young, so that alone accounts for a lot of the harsh tone. It’s not hate in many instances; it’s merely a modus operandi. And does it ever get directed at male candidates? Ever hear of a guy named Nader? Joe Bleederman or Joe Loserman? For that matter, ever hear of Bill Clinton? He got ten times as much thrown his way throughout his campaigns and terms in office.

    And those of us who fought back in his defense, who fought back especially hard against the attacks on Hillary for all those years? Yeah, we get pretty insulted hearing that our choices now can all be attributed to misogyny.

    For that matter I’ve attacked misogynistic media coverage and commenters throughout this campaign. The only bafflement I’ve had after the comments of some Hillary supporters has occurred when I’ve heard them suggest that it’s Obama’s responsibility to counter every commenter and media pundit who’s ever uttered something sexist. And the only anger I’ve felt towards some Hillary supporters has occurred when I hear them say they’ll vote for McCain.

    WTF? Hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq and someone’s going to vote to continue that because their candidate didn’t win? And hand the next two decades of Supreme Court rulings to the rightwingers?

    I’m old and tired of waiting for my primary candidate to win one. That only happened once, in 9 elections, the first one I voted in. And since I moved to Oregon in 1976, this is the only time our state mattered in choosing one, so boo-hoo Michigan and Florida, who had a say in the other 8.

    Bottom line: these are just freaking politicians. They aren’t messiahs, they’re not marrying me, and most of the ones I vote for do little or nothing to benefit me or my family. For the most part, I vote defensively (Who’s likely to not make matters worse?) So while the Hillary hate sometimes is steeped in misogyny, the Hillary love sometimes is steeped in cultish mythology (oh, things will be so magical if only a woman becomes president!)

    History repeats on that score. The same belief was strong about how things would be all better once women could vote. And the only thing that got better was women could vote.

    And part of the process requires acceptance that the people ad ballot measures we vote for often don’t win.

  85. 85
    SN says:

    You’re right, Hillary’s sloppy campaign and revolting tactics are what lost her the election. And that video featuring interviews with the vaunted poor, hard-working Americans from West Virginia reminds me of something Bill Maher said, and I paraphrase, “I don’t want the shit kickers deciding the President this time around.” I wholeheartedly agree. That Hillary has pandered to those narrow-minded racists and has positioned them as true, salt of the earth Americans is disgusting.

  86. 86
    Jess says:

    A lot of sexist crap was flung at Clinton, especially at the beginning of the campaign.

    Clinton ran an arrogant, sleazy, disingenuous, and ultimately incompetent campaign, and in the process alienated a lot of people who were considering supporting her.

    Both of these things can be true at the same time. However, it is not true that just because SOME of Clinton’s critics are misogynist jerks, then therefore ALL of her critics are. Nor is it true that just because SOME types of vitriol are more-or-less legitimate to direct at her, then therefore ALL types of vitriol, including sexist crap, are legitimate.

    Geez–I can’t believe that people are really getting that confused about this. It’s not rocket surgery, as they say…

Comments are closed.