Me personally, as a Democrat I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I'll admit I find her a little...off-putting, which is weird because I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton. She just reminds me of a boss, for some reason.

That's a good question, picea, and one I'd like an answer to, as well.

It's interesting, however, that you perceive her as a conservative Democrat. Is it because of her foreign policy? Her domestic policy is quite left-wing. Indeed, I think one of the reasons she is so hated by the right is because of her rather left-wing ideas for "Hillarycare," as they call it (i.e., socialized health care).

My gut perception is that there's also some messed up guilt-by-association loathing going on due to the dislike amongst conservatives of her husband's administration. Also, it's not just the conservatives who don't like Hillary, there are a LOT of people who don't seem like they'd stand for another political 'empire' being set up in this country. I have this feeling that if she DOES win the nomination, there's no way in hell she'd actually win the presidency because of the backlash against another perceived "succession" of administrations (read: the utter failure that has been the Bush succession) that's at stake here.

I don't dislike Hillary at all, in fact, I think she has a lot more substance on her platform than Obama. Sadly, I think she's got the unfortunate baggage/history of being a Former First Lady, who was extremely publicly cuckolded/embarrassed during her stay in the White House by a much younger, far more attractive woman. This sucks to admit, but unfortunately it's set her up to be a bit of a comic-book pathetic lampoonish sort of character for the small-minded ugly anti-feminists in politics (and there are a lot of those out there) (AKA: LOL LOOKIT THAT UGLY OLD HAG SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED AMIRITE!!??), and the idiots in the mainstream and the media both tend to focus on this bullshit rather than what's important.

(disclaimer: I am the last person you'd ever want to get an opinion on about politics, that said...)

Completely throwing out the few policy issues that strongly concern me, I don't like her because she's a very transparent politico. Her maneuvering is incredibly artificial and always apparent. The New York senatorial run is especially irksome in this regard, but it's certainly not an isolated event. Her speaking is terribly stilted and poorly scripted.

I dunno... Cocksure is a fitting word. She's oft-putting in that regard to a lot of people.

I don't doubt that she cares about the people and that her macro-wide view of policy seems informed. But the way that her personality/drive represents unabashed power (and drive to it) is bothersome.

On the other hand, my grandmother (a definite Democrat and Obama-supporter) has pledged not to vote for Hillary partly-based on not wanting Bill anywhere near the White House.

I always assumed it was because she didn't play the traditional role of the first lady: the accommodating house mom of the White House.

muddgirl: Sen. Clinton's domestic policy is left-wing? I was under the impression that her social policy, and her voting record in the Senate, are solidly in the mainstream of moderate, pro-business Democrats. She doesn't seem to talk much about civil liberties, minority rights, abolishing government-sponsored torture or any of the other things that I usually think of as leftist social issues.

(Admittedly, I haven't studied this very closely, because of my own--well, 'hatred' is too strong a word--because of the clear and obvious gap between Clinton's positions and my own.)

I think that it started when Limbaugh et. al. started using her as a strawwoman in their diatribes about "feminazis."

I have co workers who just hate her, for no other reason.

At this point, she is the object of derision regardless what what she does.

As I said in another thread, there was actually a town hall meeting here, the sole purpose of which was to allow the "progressive" female politicians a forum for much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing because they hated her also and wanted to support Obama or Kucinich.

She's still getting my vote based on the kind of president she would be.

If I had to predict an outcome, I would have to say that Obama will win the nomination and election, then get his ass handed to him the first couple years of his administration, due to his vast inexperience.

I was coming in here to say what DarkForest said. The fact she wasn't a traditional First Lady started it... then she became a fixation of the talk radio crowd, some of whom have built lucrative careers out of bashing her for a living.

Rather than shut up and go away, she stayed in the public eye and got into politics herself. Her drive to succeed, which probably wouldn't raise many eyebrows if she were a man, doesn't conform to what some people (esp. conservatives) think of as a woman's role.

So it's a combination of all that stuff, I think.

I read something recently (sorry, can't remember where) talking about how the lack of women in public-sphere leadership positions means there are few models for it, and due to this lack of models people tend to compare women seeking public-sphere leadership positions with the women they've known in private-sphere leadership positions -- that is, their mothers.

The Hillary Clinton hate (not the dislike, but the hatred) is generally so all over the place that it does read to me more like psychological projection than any sort of reality-based sane assessment of the issues. I think there are a lot of adults throwing temper tantrums because they don't want a mommy to be the boss of them again.

Stanley Fish had a good essay on some of this, in case you didn't see it.

(Though I do have a complaint against the Fish article, which is that I don't think he goes far enough in calling out the misogyny -- I don't think all of the rhetoric is simply anti-Clinton, I think a huge portion of it is anti-women-in-general. How dare they be ambitious! How dare they have wrinkles and yet not hide at home! How dare they have a past! How dare they not be perfect! That's not how a woman is supposed to act and she's not the boss of me, dammit!!!)

I think there are a lot of adults throwing temper tantrums because they don't want a mommy to be the boss of them again.

Haha. There are other reasons to not be a Hilary fan than misogyny, you know. For instance, as one woman said, for the past twenty years, every election has featured a Bush or a Clinton as one of the choices. It's starting to seem like a fued between two royal courts. Maybe let someone else in for a change.

I think there are a lot of adults throwing temper tantrums because they don't want a mommy to be the boss of them again.

This does read to me more like psychological projection than any sort of reality-based sane assessment of the issues.

Sen. Clinton's domestic policy is left-wing? I was under the impression that her social policy, and her voting record in the Senate, are solidly in the mainstream of moderate, pro-business Democrats. She doesn't seem to talk much about civil liberties, minority rights, abolishing government-sponsored torture or any of the other things that I usually think of as leftist social issues.

I've always read her pro-business stance as tied rather directly to her foreign policy. Basically, old-school protectionism. She doesn't talk much about equal rights for gays, but her stance on other issues seems well-defined to me. Her platform includes an overhaul to the election system that enfranchises minority and under-educated voters, a clear anti-torture stance, and strident protection of a women's right to reproductive choice. These are pretty liberal planks, it seems to me.

Thanks for the article, occhiblu.

I don't like the dynasty argument either, jon, although it's understandable. It sounds too much like people assume Sen. Clinton and Former President Clinton are the same person, with the same issues and opinions.

MuddDude is studying to enter the same general field I am in. I hope that in the future I am not judged based on his performance in leadership roles. It's a little disheartening to think that someday, I will be.

Haha. There are other reasons to not be a Hilary fan than misogyny, you know.

That's not quite the same as being one of those crazy-ass haters out there. (I'm with you on the dynasty problem- that's one reason she didn't get my vote.)

This does read to me more like psychological projection than any sort of reality-based sane assessment of the issues.

I think there's some merit to it. I've known plenty of people who hate Hillary, and for some, it doesn't seem to have basis in anything other than, OMG how dare she WANT to be president!

To be fair, Bill Clinton told voters, while campaigning, that he and Hillary represented a 'two for one' deal. Hillary Clinton had a bigger West Wing office than Al Gore did. And both she and Bill have spoken fairly candidly about the role (advisory, at minimum) that he would play in her administration. Without even considering the number of Bill-era staffers who have roles in Hillary's campaign, it already seems pretty clear that Bill Clinton is playing, and would play, a bigger role than most presidential spouses.

That's not quite the same as being one of those crazy-ass haters out there.

Oh, agreed. The guys who just stay up nights coming up with bad jokes about her have some serious issues. And muddgirl, I realize she's not the sme person as Bill, but her positions aren't that different, either, and I'm just kind of tired of the Bushes and the Clintons at this point, which is why I hope Obama gets the nod.

Haha. There are other reasons to not be a Hilary fan than misogyny, you know.

As I said (and as BP pointed out again), there's a difference between not wanting to vote for her due to actual reasons, and turning purple in apoplectic rage every time someone mentions her name. The latter seems to be happening at a rather alarming rate.

I've never understood the right-wing hatred of either Clinton. If Bill had had an 'R' next to his name, he would have been thought by the right as one of the most successful Republican president in recent history. The biggest accomplishments of the Clinton administration were: "Don't ask, don't tell"; The Defense of Marriage Act; NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Kosovo, Balanced Budgets. All of those seem much more right than left to me and as a liberal, I disagreed with him on most of them.

OMG how dare she WANT to be president!

Well, I automatically distrust anybody with the gall to think that they are fit to rulegovern, which is why it's our duty as citizens to take them down a peg, just to keep them honest.

To be fair, Bill Clinton told voters, while campaigning, that he and Hillary represented a 'two for one' deal. Hillary Clinton had a bigger West Wing office than Al Gore did.

And yet... there are many arguing that being First Lady doesn't count as "experience," that all she did was have tea parties. That's the thing with the anti-HC arguments, they go both ways in almost equal measure. Which is why I think most of it is projection.

Well, I think that there are a lot of people who will take pretty much any reason they can get to dislike her. And there are probably at least a few people who dislike her because of reasons they're not always comfortable discussing, and they've got to come up with something, y'know?

(But that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of genuine reasons.)

the scarier issue, for me, is that the combination of this knee-jerk, irrational hatred AND the feelings of the anti-successionists (I'm looking at you, jon) is setting up a very real risk: that if she does actually win the democratic nomination, another Republican will win the presidency, not by merit, but as a result of the pure malice of this anti-Hillaryism, potentially in another desperately-close, able-to-be-massaged-by-questionable-polling-tactics race.

And that, my dear bunnies, would seriously suck.

And, jon, this keeping-people-honest plan? I don't think it's working.

(I'm looking at you, jon)

lfr, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, she's just not my first choice, and as a registered Independent I couldn't vote in the New York primary anyway. My initial comment was meant as an attept at answering the OP's question about personal dislike of Hilary and I took a whack at it. On the issues, she seems more or less OK, which is why if it comes to that I'll vote for her, but I'd vote for whoever the Dems nominate.

And, jon, this keeping-people-honest plan? I don't think it's working.

Figure of speech, my friend. I just don't trust politicians on general principles.

This is a question that's perplexed me for a very long time also. Until the current election cycle, I viewed Clinton as a rather generic, establishment politician, and a rather competent one at that. I mostly ignored all the anti-Clinton vitriol because it seemed so detached from reality that it didn't merit serious consideration. Unfortunately, I have had to reconsider and weight that sentiment as a serious consideration in my voting choice for the primary. I acknowlege that this sentiment exists, and functionally, it hardly matters why it exists. Its functional consequences are the problem, and it is not in my power to change the way millions of voters think and evaluate the facts.

It is extremely unfortunate that I have to make this kind of calculation (electability versus experience and competence) but I don't see what choice I have. I think the risk of ceding three supreme court nominations is far too great to ignore, since they will effect an entire generation, not just the duration of a single presidency. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go into an election with the voters you have, not the voters you may wish you had.

For myself, I don't have particularly strong feelings regarding Hillary. She doesn't inspire me much, but I certainly don't dislike her at all. I wish she was a bit less protectionist when it comes to free trade, but I would have no qualms voting for if she were the nominee. All the issues cited above why people might not like hear really hadn't occurred to me personally in any serious way. However, as I see it, the pragmatic choice is to accept that for reasons I may not fully comprehend, enough people just don't like her and won't work with her (in Congress) that merit is irrelevant. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is. I have to support a candidate who can deliver the White House.

Hillary Clinton had a bigger West Wing office than Al Gore did.

And yet Hillary detractors say that she is unjust in claiming experience in the White House.

And both she and Bill have spoken fairly candidly about the role (advisory, at minimum) that he would play in her administration.

When Bill was in office, Hillary was a First Lady. If Hillary was in office, Bill would be anything from a "trusted advisor" to a "shadow president". Do you see the sexist assumptions inherent in this view?

Without even considering the number of Bill-era staffers who have roles in Hillary's campaign

Not to mention the Bill-era staffers who have roles in Obama's campaign. And yet, there's no mention of an intellectual dynasty there.

It already seems pretty clear that Bill Clinton is playing, and would play, a bigger role than most presidential spouses.

Really? What role do presidential spouses currently play?

An analogy: MuddDude and I often discuss my work over drinks. I help him with his homework. Should I get course credit for helping him? Should he get an acknowledgment for my work? Sure, our ideas and opinions influence each other, but in the end it's MY reputation on the line if something goes wrong. In the end, it'll be Hillary's finger on the button, not Bill's. And it's rather clear to me that Hillary has vastly different ideas of "appropriate force" than Bill does.

Some of the knuckleheads I work with give a little chuckle & wink reaction whenever Senator Clinton's name is brought up. It's like they think electing Clinton is the political equivalent of being pussywhipped by your girlfriend. Drives me nuts.

there's a difference between not wanting to vote for her due to actual reasons, and turning purple in apoplectic rage every time someone mentions her name.
Absolutely. There are strategic reasons for not supporting her candidacy (as lonefrontranger points out) and there are reasons based on leadership style and other important factors in the choice of a President. And those I understand, and they can be reasoned with.

The irrational hatred I have rarely understood, and that's a totally different thing. I think it can only be what occhiblu suggests: projection, and general resentment of female power. But even those things alone I don't think would have done it; that needed fuel in order for it to inflame and become acceptable and even enjoyable to Hillary-hate. That fuel came in the form of Fox News, right-wing talk radio, Bill O'Rielly, and others who became popular partly by channeling individual fear, frustration, and anxiety and aiming it at specific targets, enriching themselves on advertising dollars all the while.

The impact of the right-wing media empire -- during the decade when it was its most powerful, rude, and vitriolic -- was very, very successful in setting her up as a lightning rod for channeling every form of fear, anger, and personal anxiety that right-wing voters might feel. She was liberalism, she was self-righteousness, she was smarter and more successful than you, she was confident, she wasn't a caretaker, she had her husband pussywhipped, she was power-mad, she wanted to take your freedom away, she wanted to make your decisions for you. They took the mommy projection and amplified it a hundredfold. This tapped into feelings of disenfranchisement and anxiety in a society with changing values, narrowing opportunities, knee-deep debt and concern that the Other Guys were getting what you rightfully had coming to you -- and it stuck, very well. Even among people who normally make saner decisions, she was successfully characterized as the Kind of Person who is preventing your life from being better.

Really? What role do presidential spouses currently play?

Well, not much of one. They might pick an inoffensive pet issue, but mostly it's just campaigning and diplomacy. What does Laura Bush do? What did Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan, or Rosalind Carter, do? During Bill Clinton's administration, Hillary Clinton was more active, in terms of politics and policy, than the other people I just mentioned. And, if we are to take the Hillary Clinton campaign at their word, Bill Clinton would also be more active in these areas, in a Hillary Clinton administration, than seems to be typical or average.

I'm starting to worry that I'm being unclear, because it doesn't seem like I'm saying anything very controversial here.

When Bill was in office, Hillary was a First Lady.

Just out of curiosity, what will they call Bill if Hillary is elected, First Gentleman? (I posed this question to pips and she said that they'd be referred to as 'President Clinton and Former President Clinton,' which is a mouthful. Eventually we'll have a female president who's husband isn't a former president and we'll have to call him something).

Me personally, as a Democrat I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I'll admit I find her a little...off-putting, which is weird because I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton. She just reminds me of a boss, for some reason.

Bingo.

I don't like her because she's a very transparent politico. Her maneuvering is incredibly artificial and always apparent.

Same here.

I'm all for a woman president! Just not her. That's one issue my father and I can agree on (I've slowly been coming to the realisation that my father is confusingly conservative. Supported the Iraq war, blindly supports one with Iran, yet wants Bush out of the white house. Doesn't really believe in global warming, but wants to convert his truck to biodiesel)[/tangent].

The impact of the right-wing media empire -- during the decade when it was its most powerful, rude, and vitriolic -- was very, very successful in setting her up as a lightning rod for channeling every form of fear, anger, and personal anxiety that right-wing voters might feel. She was liberalism, she was self-righteousness, she was smarter and more successful than you, she was confident, she wasn't a caretaker, she had her husband pussywhipped, she was power-mad, she wanted to take your freedom away, she wanted to make your decisions for you.

We have a winner! This is, simply, the most clear, succinct and plausible explanation of this phenomenon I have ever heard. I will be quoting this everywhere I go on the internets, with your permission, Miko.

I am probably more conservative than most folks around here, but I consider myself more of a Zappa conservative, something that's not represented by the Republican party. I also don't hate Mrs. Clinton. I would never vote for her, but I certainly don't hate her. I don't understand why people get so emotional over so mundane as a politician, but then we have folks like Limbaugh and Oreilly who make their living off of irrational thinkers.

Only thing I can think of for the hate part is to paraphrase an old adage "People hate in others what they most hate in themselves."

Miko, it's at times like this I miss being able to favorite comments here in bunnyland!

That analysis really rings true. Also kudos to occhiblu, the hatred of HC is a long-time thing exacerbated by the anti-dynasty rhetoric of more recent times. One of the interesting what-ifs of recent US history is "what if her health agenda was adopted and successful".

Just saw that Fish has a follow-up essay.

You people rock. I have been wondering about this phenomenon ever since I first heard about Hillary's existence. I just. couldn't. understand. the absolutely bone-deep biblical-level hatred she always seemed to inspire, and this is pretty much the first time I've ever seen a plausible explanation. Thank you!

I tend to be very quiet and mumbly - it drives my parents crazy, and they used to tell me I should speak "slow and clear, like Hillary". I think her style just comes across as condescending (so there's another piece of parental advice ignored), but I can't see this "coldness" the media constantly harps about.

It could go way back to the very hard-line "Nixon Republicans" who remember her work as a majority counsel on the Rodino committee that ultimately impeached Richard Nixon. At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on the committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. There was contentious debate about the rules of procedure.

Neat thread. I don't really get it either. Like everyone else, I like Miko's explanation.

octothorpe makes a pretty important point, too-- that conservatives hate Bill Clinton like poison, even though, on the issues, he was a darn successful center-right president. Read Andrew Sullivan to gather data on Clinton hatred. Sullivan considers himself a critic of the Iraq invasion (after supporting it; like me on both counts), but really loves John McCain and absolutely despises Clinton. Clinton hatred is widespread among people who come to politics as a means of working out their internal psychodramas rather than something to do with what goes on in the actual world.

That said, even many Dems were frustrated with Clinton after South Carolina-- she was quite unfair to Obama on what he'd said about Reagan, and about work he'd done for Rezco. I guess people view her as a "say anything" kind of person. But she's a dedicatedly centrist politician.

From the Fish article: “you have allowed the right-wing hatemongers to decide who our candidate will be.”

Perhaps... This highlights the troubling dilemma of making decisions based on pragmatism versus idealism in a modern democracy. Perhaps an optimist will chose idealism. I am not an optimist. Of course it is tragic and unfair and I fear that this sort of compromise is inherent in a democracy as we know it. All the other systems of governance are worse though.

I have to agree with pie. Even if I chose not to "allow" it, signs are that it would inevitably still happen.

Besides which, I admire Hillary as a policy analyst, intensely hard worker, and sharp thinker. But there is another question about what sort of President (and world and domestic position) we need right now. Sometimes you need a technocrat, policy-wonk head of state, but sometimes you need a visionary head of state. There is a time for Margaret Thatchers and a time for Tony Blairs (without any reference to their policies, only to leadership style). As a nation, I'm not sure we collectively value competence as the single most important quality in a president (the current presidency is great evidence).

There's kind of an assumption built into that, however, that Obama somehow won't be attacked in the same way if he wins the nomination, that he won't become "divisive." I don't really trust the right-wing smear machine enough to believe that -- especially if they're confronted with a racial minority progressive candidate with a wife who they're portraying as just as smart, outspoken, and hard-working, and with as much (or more) influence over her husband, as Hillary Clinton.

I'm starting to worry that I'm being unclear, because it doesn't seem like I'm saying anything very controversial here.

I get what you're saying, box, but I don't see how that's a negative. Sen. Clinton was not just First Lady, she was a compentent lawyer and politician. President Clinton would not just be a First Gentleman, he is a competent politician and former head of state. It's natural that they would turn to each other for advice and councel in ways that President Bush would NOT turn to Ms. Bush,who was an educator, or Barbara Bush, who was a stay-at-home mom, or Nancy Reagan, who was an actress. Why is it a negative that Mr. and Ms. Clinton would seek each other's expertise?

Similarly, I'm convinced that Michelle Obama will advise Sen. Obama's presidency, if he is elected. Why shouldn't she? And yet her competence or qualifications have naturally not been an issue in this campaign, unlike former President Clinton's has been.

Part of the choice is exactly that sort of known vs. unknown quandary.

This is of course the old ploy of blaming the victim

That Fish essay does bother me, though. This sort of convoluted psychological analysis is exactly what keeps Democrats from succeeding. We get bogged down in our own ideas and values and end up putting candidates out there who fail to draw the support and interest of a majority of Americans. We did it with Gore. We did it with Kerry. Dukakis. Mondale. How often do we need to do this to understand that the broader public is making judgements on a more visceral level? I think we do need to recognize that we need candidates with a combination of popular appeal, authoritative leadership, and a reasonable case for being entrusted with the office. Candidates that have only some of those attributes do not succeed. Candidates that get a pass in all three categories do well. That was Bill Clinton's formula for success, it was W's formula for success (by the skin of his teeth), and I think the Democrats will do well to recognize that popular appeal is the sine qua non. The party tends to produce great policy analysts, hard workers, and people with tons of legislative experience. But if that were all we valued, Biden and Dodd would have gone farther than they did.

I often feel deeply disappointed by the Democrats' refusal to grasp that you have to win elections in order to govern. Bill Clinton needed to appeal to moderates to get elected, and so will our next President.

Here's a nice round up of Chris Mathew's long spew of anti-Hillaryisms. He's probably not the worst of the lot but since he doesn't seem to actually be all that conservative personally, his constant beating on the theme seems especially egregious and irrational. It does seem that a lot of men in the press have some serious problems with women that, consciously or not, shows up when they talk about her.

I'm not sure I see how it's a negative, either, muddgirl, except maybe in a purely pragmatic does-Bill's-presence-bring-more-voters-toward-Hillary-or-away-from-her kind of way. And, although I'm just guessing, I doubt it's even a negative in that respect.

But I've spoken with people who view Bill's potential role in a Hillary presidency negatively. Frankly, they're not the most politically-informed people I know, and they might just be parroting O'Reilly talking points, or (to paraphrase ibmcginty) working out their own internal psychodramas, or (to paraphrase Miko) making their decisions on a more visceral level.

Whatever the backstory, though, they're definitely out there.

Let me weigh in here.

There is something about her that I simply cannot trust. I wouldn't vote for Edwards or Obama, but I don't dislike them-I actually really like Obama a lot.

She seems like an automaton to me. Everything is calculated, nothing is genuine. No, not even that little tear-sorry.

For what it is worth there are Republicans who give me the creeps just as much. It isn't her politics, it's HER.

Heck, Bill Clinton made me wanna snatch myself bald but I'd still have coffee with him. Hillary I wouldn't want to get within a mile of.

Yeah, with Bill, you know he's so full of shit, but he's a joy to listen to.

I think a lot of it is misogyny, and a lot of it is that she's a Clinton, which irrationally matters to all the people who thought that she was responsible for all kinds of murders and other craziness by virtue of their "rise to power." I hate it and I think it sucks, and I think that that kind of irrationality is getting turned back against many Democrats who don't support her now for very good reasons, including reasons that are perfectly fine and well-articulated, but which raise points similar to those raised by misogynists.

And while I almost always agree with occhilbu, I think that the arguments of Hillary's supporters also seek to have it both ways. muddgirl's comments in this thread are a good example of what I'm talking about: they seem to suggest both that Bill Clinton would be akin to any other First Spouse, and that suggesting otherwise is "sexist", and that people who worked for Bill Clinton are so ideologically bound to him that we should be talking about the dangers of dynasty if Obama gets elected, just because members of his staff used to work for Bill Clinton. (Ignoring, of course, not only self-determination for staffers, but also the fact that the world of Party politics is ultimately really small.)

I think Hillary is smart, dedicated, resourceful, and talented, and I'd love to see a female President. I think she gets an unfair shake in the media, that she's the target of persistent misogyny and vitriol that's (obviously) completely unwarranted. I also think that she wouldn't have a rat's chance at a cat convention of being seriously considered a viable candidate for President were Bill Clinton not a former President. Let's be honest and serious, her conservative Democratic record as a second-term carpetbagging Senator from New York is not what's gotten her a hearing. She'd be ineligible in this election cycle based on her support for the war, and things like declaring Iran's Rev. Guard a terrorist org alone. The sexism is that Bill got the first shot. The sexism is that Barak Obama has ways to present himself as charismatic and inspiring that would be dismissed as "seductive" and "shallow" in a first term female Senator. This is why I think that Hillary's supporters, when they choose to talk about her gender instead of her policies, like Robin Morgan, are playing a double game by claiming both that her experience in the Clinton Whitehouse should count (it should!) and that she not be tethered to Bill Clinton's legacy (she should!).

She is a viable candidate this election cycle because she is Bill Clinton's wife. She had a chance to become a Senator from New York because she is Bill Clinton's wife. That's the privilege that got her in the door. It's ok to talk about that, it's appropriate to lament it as a symptom of the compromises that smart, talented women are forced to make, it's legitimate to not want to vote for her because you don't want another Clinton in the White House (among other things). If Hillary is elected we won't have a President and a First Spouse, we'll have a President and a President in the White House (both would be referred to in address as President), which would be totally fucking rad, but also totally disconcerting for all kinds of reasons, especially if you think, as I do, that the kind of establishmentarian gamesmanship and conservative selling-out in which Bill Clinton engaged were bad news.

(I hope it's clear that I'm not for a second suggesting that Hillary Clinton couldn't have been a contender on her own. I believe she could have been and would have been, but that doesn't obviate the fact that her current position is possible because of her connections to Bill, not because she independently pursued it. Nor am I suggesting that her ideas and positions are not her own, or that she hasn't done her own work in the Senate. They are and she has. But when you compare her campaign to Obama's (someone else I'm not sold on) you can see that her current standing is less about generating excitement than it is about claiming the mantle of experience, and when you look at that experience, an inordinate amount of it comes from her years working for and with her husband.)

It isn't her politics, it's HER.

Heck, Bill Clinton made me wanna snatch myself bald but I'd still have coffee with him. Hillary I wouldn't want to get within a mile of.

Hey have I got some great news for you! The candidate is not running for the office of "your buddy." I can guarantee that he or she will never come over to your house! This need to like the candidate personally is part of what OP was confused about in the first place. Like Miko, I accept that this is a reality. Never the less, it is not a position which is supportable by reason.

Meanwhile, I would like to add to Miko's observation that "the broader public is making judgments on a more visceral level," and that a technocratic leader may not always be the appropriate choice. It follows from this observation that a very productive roll for Hillary Clinton might be a left side mirror of Dick Cheney's roll in the Bush administration. Bush's 'folksy charm' seems to have appealed to voters, while Cheney was clearly playing a very direct roll in crafting and implementing policy. This kind of set up would also use Clinton's vilification by the right to our advantage, allowing Obama and Clinton to do the good cop/bad cop dance.

She creeps me out, too. (Obama does, too.) She does seem condescending. And to me she seems not so much maternal, as Orwellian big-brother like: If you don't like her policies but it's just because you don't understand- she's doing this For Your Own Good.

Also, I thought she really wimped out during the Clinton years. She started out a stong half of the Clinton team and then backed into relative obscurity when the polls showed some people didn't like that. She's just too much of a politician- she does what the polls tell her to.

Also, only when compared to the bizarro-fundie-conservativism that is today's right wing can she be considered left wing. Center is the new left wing.

I don't like Obama any better, plus he looks vaguely cyanotic or something (yes, that's my ZOMBIE-IST tendency showing) but he does have the advantage of not being so polarizing. Which is why I'd have voted for him if it hadn't turned out I'd registered Green. Oh well.

Hillary is a mainstream, establishment Democrat. She's only conservative in relation to the lefty blogs.

She does some very calculated positioning, yes, but the main problem is that she is not remotely as politically gifted as Bill. He's been a bit tarnished by events, but at his best he could sell you the moon at a profit and make you think you were getting it for free. Hillary does not have that magic (ever since the "stay home and bake cookies" moment I have cringed at her tone-deafness to how she comes across to non-supporters), although I think she has been "finding her voice" as she said after NH. Tragically, if Obama keeps surging, it might be too late for her, and I feel a bit of sympathy over that, even though I've never been a wholehearted supporter (defender, yes).

I suspect that a lot of the antipathy comes from her refusal to play traditional roles -- not just as First Lady hostess/activist, but as a wife in her marriage. Standing by Bill without playing the tragic cheated-on wife. (That alone seems calculated to some.) And some of it may be a sort of Manchurian-Candidate fear that deep down she's the most socialist politician in America, but hiding it.

The number one reason I don't want to vote for her (in one week) is the dynastic issue. It wouldn't be enough for me in the general, though.

And while I almost always agree with occhilbu, I think that the arguments of Hillary's supporters also seek to have it both ways. muddgirl's comments in this thread are a good example of what I'm talking about...

I read muddgirl's comments as more pointing out that in many cases, only one side of the argument is getting put forward as "right," even though the other side would be just as true. Many of the arguments against Clinton could be made against Obama, but they aren't being made. That doesn't mean they're bad arguments, necessarily, or that they're sexist arguments, but it does indicate that there's a sexist spin on what's being presented as "common sense analysis."

Which is part of why all of this gets so warped. We're not just reacting to the candidates and the candidates' positions, we're also reacting to the coverage of the candidates and the candidates' positions, and I feel like that's where things start to get pretty Hall of Mirrors with how Clinton is being portrayed. Partly out of vitriol, partly because we live in a patriarchal society in which we've all internalized a fair amount of sexism, and partly because the media in this country tends to suck at this sort of thing these days.

chiming in late. Great thread

My father and mother don't particularly like HC. Actually, I have witnessed a small amount of rage when my father talks about her. I would say he hates her, although he has never uttered the word hate when speaking of Hillary. He is hung up on her being "mean and nasty" to some state troopers. Info I'm sure he is getting from Rush Limbaugh and I called him on it, which I am proud of. It's hard for me to talk with him about politics, or anything that we disagree on actually. He also says that she treats her staff poorly, that she is "mean and nasty" to them too. I told my parents that I agreed with most of her views. My father asked, "like what!?" and I got nervous and couldn't express myself the way I would have liked. My father can do that to me. Anyway, I wanted to tell him that we have no idea how she treats her staff. We don't know how Rush Limbaugh treats his staff. Nobody knows except the staff and for a person to dislike someone so vehemently because of second party information, from a nutjob entertainer no-less, is bizarre to me. Later when I could get a word out my sister and I sort of nicely ganged up on him and said she is suffering from the Martha Stewart syndrome. People think she is a witch because she is an intelligent, powerful person. My father can't stand Bill Clinton and this is probably the reason why he doubly despises Hillary. He denies her being female has nothing to do with it, but puhlease! I know better. Him hating Bill Clinton is extremely amusing to me because he is guilty of many of Bill's same indiscretions.

I have a casual friend that said she would never vote for a woman that had "cankles". This mentality is shocking to me. These kind of comments are more common than I would hope.

I'm sometimes guilty of reacting to her behavior and mannerisms that are not "ladylike". It's almost a knee-jerk reaction, something that is deep-rooted. I know it is wrong. Behaviors like scowling at this debate, and she was hardly even scowling, probably wouldn't bother me in the least if it were a man. But, I kept thinking, stop scowling Hillary, stop looking at Obama with that smirk on your face. People are going to judge you for that expression.

We're not just reacting to the candidates and the candidates' positions, we're also reacting to the coverage of the candidates and the candidates' positions, and I feel like that's where things start to get pretty Hall of Mirrors with how Clinton is being portrayed.

Exactly! I'm not even really a "Clinton supporter" - I'm currently undecided about whom I'm going to vote for. BUT, I feel like I've got to constantly defend her from attacks that just don't make sense to me.

Even comments meant innocuously, like when someone here mentioned that Bill slept with a "younger, more attractive woman" make me bristle. A feminist blogger I read describes it as a *Grunch* - the feeling of being jolted firmly and uncomfortably back into awareness of her body, and other's perceptions of her body.

I agree. I take the existence of such a double standard to be axiomatic, and axiomatically deplorable. I don't, however, think that raising concerns about dynasty in re. the Clintons but not Obama, or that seriously questing Bill's possible role in a Clinton II White House but not Michelle Obama's, are examples of anything of the sort. I think suggesting that they are speciously paints these legitimate concerns as sexist, while also suggesting that there is a double standard operating the other way, in which the (unspoken) privilege Hillary enjoys because of Bills' presidency cannot be raised when it suggests problematic and as-yet unresolved issues about her candidacy. I sometimes wonder why the paparazzi don't swarm around me when I go out for coffee, and then I remember I'm not Britney Spears.

Interesting video. They all look too botoxed to do any actual scowling, Hillary included.

I'm clearly getting a really distorted view of the campaign by getting everything in print or online. (I don't have a TV and don't listen to the radio.)

So, if we're establishing that people only hate her because she's a strong woman, can we also establish that people only love her because she's a strong woman? That way we can all agree that in the end, she's a terribly dull candidate and be done with it?

I think the universal sexist argument is specious at best and ignores the multitude of other factors that make up both Hillary's public personality and the time/administration her national political identity was born out of. (Let alone the fact that a Hillary presidency has been guaranteed by supporters since the day Bill Clinton left office. This type of 'manifest destiny' nonsense creates just as much irrational hate in people as anything.) The argument also strikes me as disingenuous, a sort of "If you don't like her, you must be a misogynist" way to drum up support/sympathy... Being told that it's wrong to dislike something makes me, for one, hate it more. The Chicago Cubs learned this a long time ago. (and the Chicago Cubs are not a woman) omigosh. I've been stewing on this all day and I really meant to ask my slightly snarky question and be done, but this is cathartic... Please don't hate me. Maybe I'll hate myself in the morning.

pokermonk: no one made such claims. There are legitimate and logical reasons to dislike Hillary, or to not vote for Hillary. There are also serious and pervasive illogical reasons to dislike Hillary. I'm trying to discuss (not condemn) the second set of reasons, because the first set are easy to discuss while the second set cause sentiments like the one you expressed.

People are entitled to their own opinion, and I'm entitled to think less of them for disliking someone based on what Rush Limbaugh says.

The difficulty of the "for-or-against" question lies in just that "multitude of other factors" pokermonk brings up. It is almost impossible to separate Hillary, Hillary's background, Hillary's gender, and Hillary's personality, and consider them separately in order to determine exactly how much sexism is at work and when.

There is some sexism at work. For some people, that may be the main determinant of their crazy dislike or even their mild lack of enthusiasm.

Yet I continue to feel that many reasons for not wanting to support her as the candidate are not primarily sexist ones. Of course we all carry ingrained sexism and so on and so forth, and yet, there was no reason earlier in this election season to suspect that any ingrained sexism in me was going to prevent me from voting for her. I began this election cycle as a strong supporter of her candidacy, volunteering on her campaign before the NH primaries, rather excited if anything that I would, for the first time in my life, be able to vote for a competent and viable woman for president.

Only through continued reading and thought and evaluation have I migrated from that viewpoint. It wasn't that I became more sexist overnight. I think she roundly defeated every other male candidate in the Democratic running, and rightly so, and she would have defeated a Kerry or a Gore in a similar situation. Her main difficulty right now, I think, is that she happened to encounter an opponent who poses a serious challenge in the very areas in which she is weakest. The criticisms of her style and tactics which she has long borne, many of them very fair criticisms, are not applicable to this opponent. He benefits by being male, for sure; but also by being relatively untarnished, relatively unweighed down by public memory, and definitely gifted at establishing rapport with the public and raising the level of discourse. These are the factors that are very hard to tease apart and separate completely from sexism or irrational dislike, yet they are not all necessarily sexist.

(This wrangling with personal specifics vs. large social issues is, incidentally, the classic example of why hypothetical arguments are so specious. Would you vote for a woman for President? Well, it really depends on the woman. Elizabeth Dole? Most certainly not. Does that make me sexist, or a Democrat?)

Though Hillary has many strong supporters who are entirely comfortable and confident with her every policy stance and career strategy, she has also always had reluctant and reserved supporters who lauded her skills but were not always enthused about her tactics or her communication skills. An extremely viable option has now been presented to those who had some of those rational reservations as well as to those who, for whatever caveman reason, wouldn't vote for her if Jesus himself endorsed her. Had that viable candidate not come along in the form of Obama, the allure of the Democratic party and its historic candidate might have won the White House, perhaps on a small margin and after a tough fight. But he has come along, and that's why some of what would have been her support has drained off.

The similarity of their policies also has the effect of highlighting even very minor differences between the two, so we are very finely dicing both of them and their attributes in a way we would never have gone to without such a tight contest.

In the end, I keep coming back to this point: Democrats love plates of beans, and they've shown that they'll risk killing the golden child over issues no non-Democrat would bother with. This sort of internal party struggle has a history of hobbling the party.

Democrats love plates of beans, and they've shown that they'll risk killing the golden child over issues no non-Democrat would bother with.

Don't feed beans to golden children. Check.

*smile*

Miko, can you explain what you mean by this? I am feeling a bit dense right now.

(I loved your analysis, btw.)

I mixed metaphors! Too many allusions! I'm sorry. I'm only partly mentally present today due to a big project I'm struggling with.

Plates of beans = the MeFi shorthand for overthinking issues which might be pretty simple at their hearts.

Killing the golden child = wow, I thought that was a much more common allusion than, apparently, it is. I can't find anything useful online to explain it. I grew up with my parents using this phrase as shorthand, so it's one of those family-phrase things I thought was widespread that's not. Anyway, it refers to this idea in folklore that when you have a perfect, beautiful creature introduced early in a story (or song or poem), things are probably not going to turn out too well for that character because other characters are going to take it down.

Often as a motif in European folklore there's a "golden-haired" child and a "dark" child or some such juxtaposition, and in such stories the golden-haired child often is the one who gets kidnapped/murdered/transformed. The theory I was referring to is that these stories reflect psychological discomfort with good stuff, almost like fear of success - the worry that if you are too good, beautiful, rich, or successful, you will draw the evil eye of jealously, either earthly or demonic, and be destroyed.

I really, really wish I could find you a cite for where this "golden-haired child" interpretation comes from. It might be Bruno Bettelheim but I'm not sure.

Anyway, so what I was arguing, to say it more directly, is that Democrats too often overthink things like this, tearing down rather than supporting those who are likely to be successful (='killing the golden child'.)

Miko, have you ever considered a political career? Calling? Avocation?

The expression I've always heard was "killing the golden goose", or "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs": a farmer has a goose which lays golden eggs, until one day he foolishly kills it in an attempt to get all the gold at once.

see also, The Crane Wife (the story around which the album is loosely based)

Thanks all, for the insightful commentary (especially Miko and omiewise whose words rang particularly true). I guess my problem is that I expect people to behave at least somewhat rationally, especially when the stakes are as high as choosing the US President. Bit silly of me, really, considering the last eight years.

I'm a Canadian living in the US and I dunno, Canadian politics just don't make such a big deal about personality it seems. You've only to look at the pasty husk of a man who is the current Prime Minister to see this.

Krugman Weighs In

That Krugman article very nicely sums up the problems I've been having with the campaigns, and the coverage of the campaigns, and my worry about what will happen if the current trends continue, in a much more concise and coherent way than I've been able to. Thanks, danf!

That Krugman article very nicely sums up the problems I've been having with the campaigns, and the coverage of the campaigns

Am I the only one here who was totally unaware of these things? I had no idea what these campaigns were up to. I don't watch television, I don't read political blogs and get most of my news from BBC. I don't think I'll be changing my habits - all this business just sounds so sordid and depressing!

I think Obama's a better shot in November. I also hate the dynasticism we seem to be sliding into, much as I hated the idea of choosing between two Yale grads in the last two elections.

More importantly to me, there has to be some serious motherfucking payback for what's gone on these many years w/r/t flat-out fucking breaking the law. I mean real prosecutions, not political revenge. We let a lot of shit slide during Iran-Contra, and where are those guys today? In government. Without felony fucking convictions the Gonzales, Bradleys, Rumsfelds, Boltons, Negropontes, etc. will not learn the goddamned lesson - next time a puke takes the WH, they'll pick up right where they left off, banging away at the Constitution hammer and tongs.

And yeah, no one really knows if Barry would go after that. My hope is that he'd let Congress do it for him, and just release all the docs he could. But no one knows if Clinton would go there either. It goes against her that it'd be painted unfairly as settling a Whitewater/Starr grudge if she did, and that isn't her fault.

But this hazy cloud of neocon wack-a-doodle assholes that you find all over the place now? I want them permanently flushed from power like the bad case of convulsive diarrhea they are. I.e., messily and loudly.

And I am sorry, but I have no faith she can get that job done without losing Congress.

That Krugman article struck me as completely specious when I read it yesterday morning. It seems to me precisely the opposite of reality. If any one has any links to any high-profile Obama fueled Hillary hate pieces ala the Proud White Woman Robin Morgan piece, I'd be very interested to read them. So far I haven't seen any, and the only Clinton-rules bullshit I've seen in the Democratic camp has actually been directed at Obama. Links?

I haven't been reading Krugman for awhile, and that piece really surprised me, too. He seems to be watching an entirely different race than I'm watching. I knew he was pro-Clinton, but he really seems to be mischaracterizing the entire contest. For one thing, venom? I honestly haven't seen much venom - more like earnest, agonized conversation - between the two camps at the supporter level. Nothing like a swiftboat has appeared on the horizon - it's mostly just politics, not victimization.

Things get a little sensitive from time to time, but I think that's mostly because supporters on both sides have ventured suggestions that others are acting irrationally and for self-serving reasons. That puts people on the defensive. So we have to look inside ourselves to determine our reasons for support - to consider whether we're acting out of sexism or racism, idealism or realism, gullibility or conviction. We're all really wrestling with that when challenged, and race and gender and wealth and privilege and history all present themselves as opportunities for a quick and cheap challenge which the opposing sides have had some trouble resisting. I see people launching these experimental, identity-politics volleys, but the good thing is that they don't seem to be sticking very hard. They are meeting with a rather grounded response. I think there honestly aren't a lot of guilty consciences out there on this decision.

I don't detect the level of venom Krugman sees. And I can completely understand supporting the Clinton campaign for all the good reasons it has going. What I can't understand is defending a statement like this:

...Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

It takes a lot of work to see that as a 'reasonable remark.' What is it but an argument that the nation needs a white leader to get things done?

If we could support our candidates without carrying water for them when they act lousy, we and they would be better off. Whoever gets elected is going to need continued democratic support from the public, but also continued demand for accountability. Krugman here is the one who reads as if swayed by a cult of personality.

If any one has any links to any high-profile Obama fueled Hillary hate pieces ala the Proud White Woman Robin Morgan piece, I'd be very interested to read them.

Anecdotal account of aggressive Obama supporters

Barack Obama himself reducing Clinton's First Lady experience to having tea parties, and, when called on it, claims that "these people must really be on edge" (oh, yes, those hysterical ladeez and their quaint little notions of equality)


Barack Obama himself making an oh-so-subtle "catfight" reference to Clinton

Daily Kos readers (who seem to overwhelming support Obama) deciding that such sexism is a "non-issue"


Alternate site started because so many Clinton supporters felt run out of Daily Kos

Clinton is certainly benefiting from the country's racism, and she has explicitly called attention to his race in ways that are distasteful. But Obama and his supporters, both official and unofficial, have certainly been making nasty sexist comments, and Obama is certainly benefiting from this country's sexism.

Fighting sexism is meant to be a progressive value.

I think the LBJ remark was certainly tactless, but not unreasonable. It's not arguing for the necessity of white paternalism, it's arguing that LBJ was instrumental in bullying Congress into passing the Civil Rights Act, and that that kind of political leadership is necessary if you want to peacefully translate popular movements into real change when much of the state is opposed to change. The fact that LBJ was white doesn't have a lot to do with her argument.

I didn't like the Krugman piece, partly because it's vague, shallow and doesn't really hang together as an argument - do "Clinton rules" apply solely to the Clintons, or to every Democrat as he later suggests? But also, Krugman just generally irritates me because as a proper academic economist (ie not an economic journalist) with a prominent column in the NYT, he has an amazing opportunity to raise the level of debate on so many political issues, but he fritters this away and writes these tiresome party-political screeds instead.

Well, I do agree with you about fighting sexism, occhiblu, and Obama's tea comment and 'claws' comment (which I hadn't seen before) was definitely shitty. I wouldn't defend them, just as I don't defend Hillary's race remarks. It would be my hope that his supporters would write his campaign to object to those strategies. I would hope the same for Hillary supporters.

I guess what I've been trying to say is that there are going to be politics. Neither candidate is stainless or above trying strategies that have been effective in the past. Though the candidates and their supporters are trying a few tactics to manipulate the populace using hot-button identity issues, I think the populace still has the power to respond rationally. It's up to the supporters to demand an appropriate response when their candidate is acting lousy, and it's up to the candidates to convince us that attacks from the other side are unfounded and that they can maintain the high road. And that being said, no one has really played any hardball, in my view. They know they really can't afford to, because in this day and age, every move they make and thing they say is analyzed in just this manner.

The caucus anecdote is just that, though - a personal anecdote. There are million stories in the naked city. I was just at my town's caucus in Maine (I plan to post about it if I get time) and I see some of the flaws at work in the caucus system. It's inherently a bit chaotic. But I can't say that I would characterize the Hillary crowd as older or calmer. On average, the Obama crowd was older. The Hillary crowd was about one-third smaller and, perhaps because of that, appeared relatively empty of energy as opposed to the Obama crowd. The Edwards and Kucinich people probably saw something different from their own perspective. Even the woman sitting next to me was sitting there for a different reason than I was. The events were periodically broken up with shouts and applause from all contingents. Ultimately, most people had already made a decision by the time they arrived to caucus; the state campaign was over and the caucus itself was a time to count. Though there may have been a time in the past where a lot of people would have changed their vote mid-caucus, that seems to be history in the age of mass media. There was no point in the caucus itself where the outcome would likely have changed, and though I wasn't there, I'd wager that was true in Seattle, too. In addition, there is no reason to allow re-voting after the popular vote is counted if there would be no impact on number of delegates sent to the state convention - it was unclear in that blog, but it sounded like she was disappointed that that didn't happen without understanding why it didn't.

Thanks occhiblu. I think the tea-party comment was quite damning, and I've forwarded it around. I was initially inclined to dismiss the claws comment as a common figure of speech, but after I googled it it does seem to be reasonably gendered. That's crappy.

(The anecdote about aggressive supporters is hard to decide about, and the firedoglake link actually seems to suggest a reasonable division on the issue, among both women and men, at least in the poll and the comments I skimmed.)

I agree with you in general that it's a big problem that more in the Obama camp, including Obama, aren't speaking out about this. The difference I see, I guess specifically pace the Morgan piece (but also in the NOW statement out of NY), which as I'm sure you can tell pissed me off no end, is that Clinton supporters seem to be suggesting that not supporting Clinton is somehow sexist in and of itself. This is a very different thing from pointing out the sexism in the campaign, or lambasting Obama for playing to it or his supporters for downplaying it. Obama's bullshit is just that, and really shitty, and seems like a fine reason to not support Obama to me. But it's also divisive (if in a different way) to say that choosing to support him is predicated on sexism.

Just to clarify:

I think condemning Obama's sexism is not just necessary, but crucial. I do think it's a progressive issue. But it's the same as the Clinton race-baiting issue. I can understand why someone would not want to support either candidate based on those strategies, but it isn't what I've primarily been suggesting, which is that when criticisms of Clinton from the left (I'm happy to agree that there are no non-sexist criticisms of Clinton from the right) are dismissed as being necessarily (or primarily) sexist, it diminishes the campaign, and I haven't seen it to be true.

I can understand why someone would not want to support either candidate based on those strategies, but it isn't what I've primarily been suggesting, which is that when criticisms of Clinton from the left (I'm happy to agree that there are no non-sexist criticisms of Clinton from the right) are dismissed as being necessarily (or primarily) sexist, it diminishes the campaign, and I haven't seen it to be true.

I agree with that. I think the problem is that you made that argument in a thread about hatred of Clinton, so people were appropriately giving over-the-top examples that don't characterize the reasonable criticisms against her.

Well, "problem" in that I was getting pissed off because you weren't seeing my point, when it turns out we were arguing about different things. :-)

Also, yes, that NY-NOW statement was ridiculous. I've complained on this site before (I think) about the routine ridiculousness that comes from NOW sometimes. It's not an organization I actually like very much these days.

I think the tea-party comment was quite damning, and I've forwarded it around.

Really? If I wanted to quickly and flippantly characterise the role of the First Lady (particularly if I wanted to be dismissive about a political opponent), 'tea parties with ambassadors' would probably be the first image that sprang to mind. Of course, it's an unfair and inaccurate characterisation of what the First Lady does, but it's not inherently sexist (and Obama would hardly be a very good politician if he was fair and accurate about his opponents). It works as a mocking description of the First Lady qua ineffectual tea-sipping diplomat, not qua woman.

I'd love to be able to give examples of male presidential spouses being described in exactly the same terms, but unfortunately there haven't been any (married) female presidents yet. I suppose the closest example is Dennis Thatcher, who if he had ever had a formal role like the First Lady does, would certainly have had his work mockingly reduced to 'tea parties with ambassadors'.

I should add that I'm not some wild-eyed Obama supporter; I have no vote, and hence no dog in the presidential fight.

It works as a mocking description of the First Lady qua ineffectual tea-sipping diplomat, not qua woman.

I thought the same at first, but was swayed by the argument in one of occhiblu's links that you wouldn't describe a man in the same terms, even if he were in the same position. For instance, a male First Spouse could be dismissed for spending time on ineffective ambassadorial activities, but it probably would not be connected with 'tea' - it would be 'drinking scotch' or 'playing golf' or 'attending dinners.'

I take it you mean "(really?—he'd describe a man's experience as having "tea" with people?)" from Shakespeare's Sister.

Foreign Office diplomats are routinely imagined as white, Oxbridge-educated, middle-class men who spend their days sipping tea in high-ceilinged Georgian rooms. Maybe this is just a British thing - here, tea-drinking is not inherently feminine. I would absolutely "describe a man's experience as having "tea" with people" without a second thought, but if you're saying that that would never happen in America then I guess that's a cultural difference, and in that case the remark does have distinctly sexist overtones.

It would definitely never happen in America. Only women are described as drinking tea in America, unless you're specifically trying to imply that a man is gay or very British (in a probably gay way).

Aaaaaaand more sexism from A-list "progressive" bloggers supporting Obama...

Yeah, matthewr, diplomats in the US don't tend to get described that way, women do. One of the pro-Obama women I forwarded those two comments to said "Those are both totally lame, but the claws one is much worse." When I said I thought the opposite she said that she figured it takes a woman to be fully familiar with the dismissal inherent in the claws remark.

occhiblu, I thought about the fact that this conversation is occurring in this thread over lunch, and I wondered for a moment whether or not I'm pulling a jonmc here, but, of course, I quickly dismissed the possibility. My initial remarks here were about what I feel is the conflation of the two strains of criticism by some commentators about this. That's been demonstrated not only in this thread, but in the Krugman and Fish opeds. Not to mention the Morgan essay. I thought the conversation had extended a bit beyond the original premise. Because I, too, can't figure out why you won't just agree with me already!

I thought the conversation had extended a bit beyond the original premise.

I think it did (and right after posting my last comment about that, I realized I sounded like a thread nanny, which is not what I intended), it's just that so many things were getting conflated that it was hard to sort through, and every time I think about all this shit I start to get really pissed off and frustrated, which makes me less patient than normal about being precise.

And part of it's just the nature of many people talking on the internet, where side issues and main issues and asides and everything else all visually assume the same importance, and so you end up with conversations about three or four different things (irrational arguments, reasonable disagreements, coverage of each, conflation of all) and people are kind of picking and choosing which they're talking about without necessarily realizing that other people are talking about other aspects... I don't know. It's pretty much why I vowed to stop getting into arguments on the internet. It's too easy to get sidetracked without realizing what's going on, and pretty soon you're just arguing about arguing.

And I am a postmodernist at heart, which means discussing discussions about things almost always interests me more than discussing the things themselves, and I tend to get frustrated and whiplashy when people move from the abstract to the concrete, because it always seems much less important to me. Which, I'm finding, is also part of what makes these conversations frustrating for me. (Though that applies to real life, too.)

I don't even know where this is going any more. Sigh. Can I go back to talking about puppies? I like talking about puppies. I think I'm going to go on media blackout until this fucking election is over, because ignoring it makes me much more hopeful about this country's future.

less patient than normal about being precise.

I meant, I get less precise than I'd like to be. On re-read it looked like I was accusing others of it, and that's not what I meant.