True, true, I feel that.

When I rise to power, I hope you'll judge me by my awesomeness of not the moronicness of my moronic followers.

Great piece. It was the first piece I've seen/read that featured people who feel the way I do about this election and the candidates.

I like Obama. I liked him even more after his race speech. I like Hillary, too. I'm much more comfortable with her as to complicated issues like health care. I know that Obama will 99 percent likely be the nominee, and I am very happy to support him.

I voted for Hillary in California. Several of my male friends reacted in ways similar to the reactions in the posted article. (One straight male friend, who views himself as super progressive groovy, was shocked by my vote: "But you're educated! You're not someone who just votes for the woman because she's a woman!")

Now, (sometimes) I don't even want to say that I voted for Hillary, or that I support Hillary.

Like the women featured in the story, I hated the opeds by the old guard feminists, and any of the oppression olymics stuff. I hated the comment by Wright about Hillary. All of that stuff is toxic, in my opinion.

One side note, perhaps anecdotal: I live in a world with lots of gay males. There is a fair amount of support for Hillary among gay males. I don't know what this means, if anything.

"There are many unpleasant realities about Clinton: She voted for the war; she has taken hawkish stances in defense of Israel; she voted to declare Iran's revolutionary guard "a terrorist organization"; she sponsored a flag-burning amendment... But while these are all qualities that might rightly inspire political dislike, or a withdrawal of support, they don't often incite the kind of hissing fury with which her primary run has been met."

On the contrary, I think these are exactly the kinds of things which should and do incite a "hissing fury" from liberal-minded voters. Also, much of the liberal ire directed toward Clinton is the same type of ire that was directed toward Gore in 2000 -- frustration with the status quo (when she crows about "experience" she placing herself firmly within the ranks of The Establishment) -- only this time there's a viable alternative, other than just a throw-away vote for Nader.

I'm still hoping for a new direction or change out of either of them, but I'm very disappointed already.

Clinton strikes me as a hardened career politician playing the game. And Obama? About the same, at this point, but better at speeches and being diplomatic. Obama already skillfully and underhandedly sold out gays to pander to the white redneck crowd, and now he recently made a play for the hunters' votes.

Screw 'em all. Just to survive as a politician you have to be dirty. We don't need a new kind of President, we need a new system that allows for more than two parties that war on each other at the expense of getting anything done, and we need campaign finance reform that allows someone to be elected without being beholden to all of the well-organized scum of the U.S.

We need 80% or 90% of a new public, too, that actually cares about something other than trusting the system and electing someone who looks good to be a father-figure so they can go back to sleep in their comfortable work/eat/TV/sleep routines feeling comfortable and secure like little babes. As long as we have an ignorant, uninformed, apathetic and largely selfish and self-absorbed general public, the worst elements will continue to rule whomever is put into the Presidential office, as well as the Senate and House and everything else right down to your local dog catcher.

It's not a democracy when most people are uninformed and apathetic and don't keep tabs on the representatives they elect (either by voting or by not voting.)

It's a loser of a scenario any way you look at it.

Good people organized into voting blocs and PACs for good causes, playing the game like the "bad guys", are the only high point, and they're chipping away at a brick wall with Q-tips (although sometimes VERY effectively!)

'You're being ridiculous. I'm not not voting for her because she's a woman; I'm not voting for her because she's a bitch!'

That quote-within-a-quote gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. That, and the female students I hear too often saying things like "I'm not a feminist, but..." or, as the article says, apologizing for sounding "too feminist."

This recoiling from (and visceral distaste for) feminism saddens and infuriates me.

I'm not wild about HRC, but I did have to examine my viewpoint to see how much of it was tinged with sexism. That so many people are willing to label her with gender-specific insults without copping to the sexism of those insults really angers me.

The erosion of my support of Clinton is not sexism, I don't think. I have been very much in her camp for a few years. But during the campaign, it's gotten more and more apparent to me that, like her husband, she lacks a core set of values, and will do anything, take any stand, for political advantage.

With Bill, we saw them sell out a lot of people in order to survive politically (Lani Guinier, Jocelyn Elders). The way Obama has stuck by Wright, somethat, is really refreshing. And very honest.

The end result of Bill Clinton was better than if a Republican Administration were in power, but that bar is pretty low.

Shane, how did Obama sell out gays?

Danf -- I thought the very same thing about Wright and Guinier! Like, how cool is Obama compared to how Bill Clinton was with Lani Guinier.

Well the Elders thing toasted me most. .her, this woman gives maybe the best sexual advice in history and gets sacked for it!

Yeah, I describe myself as a woman of color - as an activist against both racism and sexism (as well as plenty of other injustices). This election very much feels like I'm being forced to choose between the two - do I want "first black man" or "first white woman" more?

Almost all of the progressive white women in my gender and women's studies class support Clinton, and their rationale is basically their feminism. The campus climate in general tends towards Obama, so I understand these women's in-class defensiveness and anger towards all the sexism present in the logic of Obama supporters. I still feel like I'm being forced to play oppression olympics, though, and it sucks.

Upon reading the third page of the article, this is totally what I mean:

"Opening up the discussion of sexism inevitably leads to comparative observations about racism -- a tragic, reductive byproduct of two historical barriers having been broken in the same election year. Many young women expressed their annoyance that the competition conversation needs to take place at all. [...]

"But the urge to make comparisons, and the speed with which they flame up when touched even gingerly -– consider Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama was lucky to be a black man, Gloria Steinem's reference to blacks getting the vote before women, Jeremiah Wright's observation that Hillary "ain't never been called a 'nigger'" -– remind us that drives toward equality have often been pitted against each other and have also spelled the divisive end of social movements; a reluctance to make room for racial and sexual difference contributed to the unraveling of second-wave feminism."

Huh, I went to school with one of those people.

FWIW, I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that there's been sexism in some anti-Clinton arguments.

But so what. Supporting a candidate isn't signing on for a lifestyle dictated by the candidate's other supporters.

Some people support Clinton for dumb reasons, too, as unsurprising's quote points out. I just read an article recently quoting a few PA Clinton supporters saying things like, "I don't think the country's ready for a black president, so I'll vote for her."

I prefer Obama because he (unlike me) was right about the Iraq invasion, because judging by endorsements he will have long coattails, and I agree with Atom Eyes that he wants a more practical, optimistic politics in this country. Clinton loses on those three important counts (though she does have a better health care plan). Plus, I don't like her "kitchen sink" strategy against Obama. I'll cheerfully vote for her in the general if she steals the nomination somehow, but I think Obama's the better candidate.

Robert Reich endorses Obama. He thinks Obama has a better health care plan than Clinton. I'm inclined to agree with Krugman, but maybe Reich is right.

Shane, how did Obama sell out gays?

He made what many gays see as a very calculated choice to include "reformed gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in his campaign in the South, which some feel was meant to send a message and pander to middle-American values.

I recently worked with a bunch of really cool gay dudes at a film festival and it was an issue among some of them.

Mr. McClurkin, a black preacher who sang at the Republican National Convention in 2004, has gained notoriety for his view that homosexuality is a choice and can be “cured” through prayer, a view ridiculed by gay people.

FWIW, I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that there's been sexism in some anti-Clinton arguments. But so what.

The "so what" is that sexism against woman, by its very nature, is designed to keep all women down. (Obviously, same with racism/minorities.) Sexist comments made against Clinton make it harder for *any* woman, *any* little girl, to succeed. Hearing them come out of the mouths of people I had previously considered allies, and *not* hearing them refuted by Obama, has made it fairly impossible for me to believe that Obama will give a shit about my concerns once he's in office, since he comes off as unconcerned and since very few of his supporters seem to be holding his feet to the fire.

When the religious right endorses a conservative candidate, we tend to intuitively understand that he's likely to pander to that base. To me, hearing a bunch of sexists loudly endorse Obama is disheartening in that same way.

But Obama would be insane to criticise or distance himself in any way from large numbers of his own supporters in an election campaign. I can see very few floating voters switching to supporting him based on that, and there's a huge risk of alienating his existing supporters. It also reopens the sexism/racism debate in a way that potentially hurts him, and adds to a perception that he's too academic, intellectual and slightly detached from the realities of politics.

Similarly to you, I'd prefer it if Obama's rhetoric was less lukewarm on the benefits of trade, and stopped pandering to the anti-intellectual, protectionist crowd. But I'm realistic about the fact that his first priority is, quite rightly, to win: the presidential race is hardly the time to try to single-handedly changing the population's attitudes on fundamental issues.

Women are the majority of the population. Pretending that we're a special-interest vote is getting old, and totally inappropriate coming from someone who's claiming the ability to unite the country. And if saying "I'd like to fight this out on the strength of my merits, not based on my gender or race" is alienating, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

The "so what" is that sexism against woman, by its very nature, is designed to keep all women down. (Obviously, same with racism/minorities.)

Sorry I wasn't clear, occhiblu-- my point wasn't that the sexist comments should be ignored. I meant that in determining who to support, the obnoxious actions of some Obama supporters should not be determinative.

I was responding to the way this post was set up. I wasn't reacting to, say, the comments of the Obama-supporting labor lawyer in the article who is uncomfortable with some sexist attitudes from Obama supporters.

I agree 100% with her: sexism is bad; some Obama supporters have said sexist things that should be challenged; I, too, am voting for Obama.

BTW, anyone agree with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's argument that Horton Hears a Who is sexist? I haven't seen it, but an inclined to agree with him-- at least, as a commenter there points out, that every mass-market movie seems to need a male hero.

Reich says that Obama's health care plan has a "better chance of succeeding," not that it's better (FWIW).

I meant that in determining who to support, the obnoxious actions of some Obama supporters should not be determinative.

Yeah, I actually took it that way. I still think you're wrong. :-)

Well, I agree they shouldn't be wholly determinative. But I do think it's wrong to pretend they're not a factor in any way in determining how Obama will deal with women's issues if he were elected.

They're certainly more predictive than fried chicken chains.

I think the media's collective head would explode if Obama started attacking comments made against Clinton as sexist while Clinton and the media are going after Obama for Wright, 'bitterness' and various other things.

Thanks for the link to that article, ibmcginty. I hadn't seen it, and I'm really enjoying it.

I keep up with the BBC coverage of the election, and a handful of blogs (Economist, BBC, FT, McArdle, DeLong, Volokh etc), and haven't seen any sign of popular demands for Obama to distance himself from his own supporters' sexist comments.

The media deals in simple binary concepts, not nuanced debate, so being seen as anything less than 100% a fan of your own base is incredibly risky. So yes, there's a real danger that by saying anything at all on this issue, Obama could end up alienating some of his base.

Clearly, Obama has nothing to gain and everything to lose from doing what you're suggesting, occhiblu, and I think you're being unreasonable in criticising him for not doing it.

Yes. I'm being unreasonable in asking that a man who wants to represent me start distancing himself from attacks made on me. Yet Clinton has distanced herself from Ferraro, presumably because alienating racists is ok, it's just sexists we're trying to court here.

If creating that distance alienates people, it will alienate misogynist assholes. If there are so many misogynist assholes in this country that alienating them would cause Obama to lose, then I stand behind my contention that we are worse off than I feared, and I again question the integrity of a man who, in your framing, is banking on this hatred to get him elected.

I... haven't seen any sign of popular demands for Obama to distance himself from his own supporters' sexist comments.

That is, exactly, my point.

Also, if you want to actually see such, Shakesville has had some very nice posts.

*Hugs occhiblu*

I wish I could carry you around and pull you out whenever I want to articulate my feelings. Is that possible?

You're being unreasonable in demanding that, in a world of simplistic, reductionist media commentary and playground-taunt politics, someone running for president should start criticising his own grassroots supporters.

You're right that calling out racism is quite politically safe, while calling out sexism sometimes isn't. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be the case, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for politicians on the election trail, of all people, to right this wrong.

Ferraro is a very different case, because criticising an individual — and a politician, in particular — is a whole different kettle of fish from criticising ordinary people who support you.

If by misogynist assholes, you mean people who laugh at, or sympathise with, the tired Hillary=bitch jokes, then yes I think there are large, large numbers of these people. Imagine Obama issued a nuanced critique of those supporters who call Hillary a bitch, and chided them for their sexism. That night, can't you just see late-night TV hosts making a thousand 'but she IS a bitch' jokes?

I don't think Obama is banking on hatred to get him elected at all. The integrity argument is the sort of tiresome thing that leads people to vote for Ralph Nader.

That is, exactly, my point.

Well, you seem to accept then that what you're doing is asking a politician on the campaign trail to criticise his own supporters, an easily-misconstrued exercise that more-or-less hands his opponents a pot of political gold, in return for almost no electoral gain. Of course you've every right to vote for whomever you want, but this strikes me as quite a silly reason not to vote for Obama.

Thanks for the Shakesville links, I've been vaguely meaning to add it to my RSS reader for a while.

That said, the first one I clicked takes his throwaway comment about Clinton "periodically when she’s feeling down launch[ing] attacks", distorts the quote into "periodically feeling down" and then (irony of ironies!) invokes Occam's razor and suggests this was a cunning sexist ploy. Based on this sample of one, I don't have high hopes.

It's a political code word, matthewr, "straight out of the Republican playbook", as Sen. Obama would say.

I have a feeling that debate's been done before, either on Mefi or here, so I don't feel particularly inclined to open another can of worms. Suffice it to say that, while "periodically feeling down *nudge, wink*" is clearly a sexist putdown, merely saying 'periodically' and 'feeling down' in the same sentence is the sort of thing anyone might do without a second thought. More to the point, it's so innocuous and tenuous that you have to ask if anyone would actually pick up on the 'dog whistle'. If you speak thousands of words, off-the-cuff, under pressure over a long period, it's not surprising that under the microscope someone can find some unintentional unpleasant connotations in something you say. Occam's razor.

under pressure over a long period

Ha! A subtle (and unintentional) demonstration of my own point. These things happen normally.

Oh, silly me. I'm afraid I don't know anything about American government, really. But I do love kittens. They're so soft and furry.

Sure, I'm sexist because I disagree with you.

For me, the point isn't whether or not I want Obama to "distance himself" from his sexist supporters. Rather, I want to see a campaign where I'm not forced to choose between a candidate whose supporters invoke sexism to beat down their opponent and one whose supporters invoke racism. I know that we've already "come so far," in that I have that choice at all (i.e., our Democratic candidates are not white men), but it's disheartening to see so-called progressives be so single-minded. Again, it goes back to competing oppressions. Somehow, there exists the idea that you get/have to pick just one -ism, and it's then okay to exert your privilege in other areas to win at any cost.

Sure, I'm sexist because I disagree with you.

Well, I'd distance myself from the implication, but I'm sure you must understand that doing so would alienate my grassroots support.

And it's disingenuous to suggest that supporting a presidential candidate doesn't, at some level, imply that you agree with others who support that candidate. It might not be rational or right, but once you declare a side, it affects how people perceive your politics.

Rather, I want to see a campaign where I'm not forced to choose between a candidate whose supporters invoke sexism to beat down their opponent and one whose supporters invoke racism.

Absolutely, and who wouldn't? A new political system that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator would be lovely, but in the meantime we've got to make the best of the one we've got.

And it's disingenuous to suggest that supporting a presidential candidate doesn't, at some level, imply that you agree with others who support that candidate.

Yes, but at an entirely superficial level. People support candidates for all sorts of (frequently crazy) reasons. If you said you were a McCain supporter, I'd guess your views were similar to the median McCain supporter's views, because that's a sensible guess. It doesn't really tell me anything about your views.

Is occhiblu is racist because Ferraro also supports Hillary?

Is occhiblu is racist because Ferraro also supports Hillary?

No, of course she's not, and that's kind of my point. Supporting a candidate shouldn't necessarily mean that you identify with others who support her/him, but that perception still exists.

With many Clinton supporters, the assumption is that if you support Obama, you must harbor some latent sexism. Likewise, many Obama supporters assume that if you support Clinton, you must harbor some latent racism. These assumptions arise, as far as I can tell, because racism and sexism are being used as a tool against the candidates.

It's frustrating to have to choose between being typecast as either racist or sexist, especially among other progressive-minded people, in whose company that false dichotomy shouldn't be such a problem. Both sides have succeeded in alienating me, to the point where it feels like I'm picking from the lesser of two evils, when in fact, I should be enthused about having two such well-qualified candidates.

I think I'm waffling between ideas, where I can't decide whether I should or shouldn't be influenced by the politics and rhetoric of those who support a candidate. Ideally, I suppose I shouldn't be affected by it, but I am, because I'm a part of the system as well.

It should be very low down your list of priorities. Campaigns aren't a great guide to how someone will behave as a president, and it's hard to see how grassroots campaign supporters would have any real influence over policy or tone when in power. When a hypothetical President Obama is making decisions on "women's issues" like abortion, I don't see how he would be influenced by the fact that some of his supporters made sexist comments during the primaries.

Yet Clinton has distanced herself from Ferraro, presumably because alienating racists is ok, it's just sexists we're trying to court here.

The Ferraro situation is not a good analogy here because she was involved directly in Clinton's campaign, whereas this discussion has been, I think, about misogyny at the grassroots level. Has anybody in Obama's campaign said anything as stupid as Ferraro's "[Obama] happens to be very lucky to be [black]"?

Ah, you've added some links to Shakesville. Maybe the answer to my question is there. The first one, has, says "the current Democratic frontrunner has used sexist dog whistles and language" with links to several "examples". Only one of them, however, concerns a high-profile Obama supporter: Jesse Jackson Jr commenting on Clinton's crying on ABC before the New Hampshire primary. If you feel it's sexist to suggest that Clinton staged those tears for political gain, well, we disagree there since to me it seems naive to believe she was being sincere.

The has entry also links to Obama's "periodically" comment, which you linked as posts, as well as his "claws" comment, which I pretty sure has come up here before. I'll get to them in a minute, but first regarding your other two Shakesville links, had and very: the former chastises Rev Wright for something he didn't say and the latter isn't really about Obama at all. I'm not really sure what you expect Obama to say in response to those, but I'm pretty certain that, whatever it is, matthewr is correct that it would be politically unrealistic.

As to "periodically", was it part of a prepared speech? If so, I can see how a reasonable (if completely uncharitable) parsing of it could conclude the period-bit was purposeful, but it appears to have come during a Q&A session. In that case, focusing so much bile on an impromptu adverb seems a bit paranoid to me. I mean, I like to think I have a pretty dirty mind and, now that it's been mentioned, I remember hearing about the comment back in February, but still upon seeing it again today I didn't pick up on it until I saw the word period underlined.

Now "claws" is a little more blatant in my mind, but if even it was purposeful I think it pales besides such direct Clinton attacks such as "[McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002" and Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know" That's the kind of crap Obama is responding to with "periodically" and "claws". If Clinton is gonna play dirty pool and then beanplate his responses in the most negative light possible, well, she is just playing right into the bitch mantra of the people who actually hate her for her gender (who are primarily Republicans).

On re-reading the article, I don't really think it says much. Some people say there's an undercurrent of sexism to their friends' comments-- and I am dead certain that in some cases, that's true.

But there's no actual instances of sexism in the article. And there's simply no comparison between Geraldine Ferrarro's overt bizarreness-- a former VP candidate-- and your friend's friend obnoxiousness.

Plus, the point that "no one disliked Joe Biden or Chris Dodd as much as they dislike Hillary" is nonsensical. Neither of them carried on a quixotic campaign, long after they were mathematically eliminated, based on the premise that if the vote leader was made to look really bad, the superdelegates would choose him instead.

If Biden were doing that, please be assured I'd be saying all kinds of bad stuff about his running off his mouth and his anti-consumer votes. It's not that I hate white men, it's that I hate Democrats hurting the Democratic Party.

Also, a recording has just emerged of Clinton calling out "the activist Democratic base" and falsely claiming that MoveOn.org opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. The activist liberal blogs were out in front challenging the sexist anti-Clinton commentary from the media. These comments from Clinton are simply infuriating. Disqualifying as a serious Democratic candidate, in my view.

She and her husband are also mischaracterizing the widespread critique of the moderators' performance in the debate the other day as "whining."

Dislike of Clinton's campaign is grounded almost entirely on substantive criticism of her actions. She'll quit, give concilliatory speeches, campaign hard for Obama, and all will be forgiven.

jeez, what a divisive and sensationalistic approach that article has. As a young, white, educated feminist and Obama supporter, I'm really put off by the way it kept positioning the politics of people in my demographic in relation to the men in our lives. Faugh! And this "oh, it's so puzzling to put one's finger on where the sexism against Hillary is" thing is aggravating, too. No, it isn't too difficult to sensibly and logically analyze gender politics in medias res. Such portrayals of young feminists as frustrated but inarticulate, emotionally impassioned in the struggle against our oppression but too addlebrained to direct it, rankles, to put it mildly.

So! To that point, I will comment that I think Hillary's debate demeanor is a specific factorbi the creation of a context wherein some people find it apt to call her bitchy. She talks over opponents, speeds up her speech and raises her register, and winds up seeming manic to me, especially compared with the velvety, deliberate demeanor of Obama. Now, is how she "seems" a factor in deciding my vote? No. Is it a valid reason to saddle her with slurs? Fuck no. Is it ammunition for her enemies and within her control? I say yes. I really do think her campaign could be more powerful and graceful rom a feminist perspective, and her failures there, and going back to Monica Lewinsky, have always bothered me about her. I would respect her more if she did address her gender and its role in bringing her to this point, as Obama has so compellingly done wrt biracialism. Why is she running under her first name, for example? Though I understand many people find "identity politics" distasteful, I still deeply believe that the personal is political and vice versa, and long to feel a personal authenticity from my leaders, which is, of course, why I find it easy to vote for Obama, though he is more conservative than I am on some specific issues.

In the end, policy is the substance, and personality is the style, and our crazy capitalist media makes it difficult to sustain thoughtful discussion of intricate and emotional issues like these. Metachat: 1, Salon: 0. Oh well, in the end I'm once again s little more likely to vote for Cynthia McKinney than Hillary Clinton.

``I'm with Harry Truman on this: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen. --HRC

What the hell? Are you comfy barefoot too?

"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession"--HRC, 1992