Why Democrats lose

Our most reliable witness Bob Somerby explained. Go read his entire post, "WHY YOUR PARTY LOSES! We won’t take it, the GOP said. Dems and libs constantly do," to comprehend the situation. The gist:

Press corps inanity to the side, has the media greeted Palin’s selection with sexism and elite condescension? Yes, there has been some of each–and there has been some exaggeration of same by major Republican honchos. But in all the events of the past few days, the major difference between the two parties has been made abundantly clear. It’s captured in this Politico piece by John Harris (for the record, the headline is grossly deceptive). If you want to know why your party loses, consider the highlighted passage:

HARRIS (9/4/08): As the controversy over her qualifications and McCain’s vetting process overwhelmed events here, hypocritical rhetoric was flowing at full tide on all sides of the debate.

Many conservatives, who spent a generation ridiculing the politics of victimhood and group identity, are now zealously invoking both in the Twin Cities. A common GOP talking point here is that Palin’s gender and experiences as a mother should be counted as an asset among her qualifications. At the news conference, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift condemned “an outrageous smear campaign” against Palin, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.”

Let’s repeat what Fiorina said: “The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks.” Remove the limiting term there–“sexist.” Thus adjusted, Fiorina’s statement explains our electoral politics over the past twenty years.

The Republican Party will not stand by while its candidates get attacked. The Democratic Party, and its major affiliates, have done just that. For years.

Fast forward to Somerby's conclusion (after he exposed the Democratic non-response to 1999 smears that President Bill Clinton was a murderer):

Now! Go back and reread Fiorina’s statement, and consider the conduct of the past several days. If you still don’t understand why your party loses, then let’s face it–you never will.

By the way, what else transpired as these Dem/liberal elements kept their traps shut in August 1999? On Fox, a gang of male pundits went on the air and mocked the way Hillary Clinton looked back in the 1970s. (They had a photograph, and it looked very funny. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/6/08.) And of course, all across the political landscape, the RNC and the MSM kept inventing new, bogus tales about the vile Candidate Gore. The Democratic Party never said boo about those matters either. Neither did those liberal journals. Nor those liberal columnists.

How does your political world work? Here’s how:

Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd played the fool about Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard. They’ve played the fool about Big Dems for years–and the Democratic Party said nothing.

Yep! There was some sexism in the coverage of Palin–and the Republican Party fought back hard, exaggerating as it did. But then, during this same campaign, a major Democratic woman was gender-trashed from December 2006 on. Eighteen months later, Howard Dean explained why he didn’t speak up. I don’t watch that much cable, he said.

As recently as last evening, some of our fools continued to say that they feel “insulted” by Palin’s selection. If they had an ounce of sense, they’d instead feel insulted by Dean.

Insulted by Howard Dean? Yeah, he thinks we're dumb sweeties. Point taken.

What should have been a Democratic cakewalk into the WH this year now rests on convincing swing voters in the upcoming debates.

The best debater the Democrats had was Sen. Hillary Clinton. She could have beaten McCain handily during the debates and in November because no one--no one--articulates the Democratic brand with more strength and persuasive conviction than Clinton.

No matter how much Obama turns to Hillary and female surrogates "to undercut Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain," the problem is...

Hillary Clinton is not on the ticket.

Sexist attacks on Sarah Palin help McCain

Just when I didn't think the SCLB could not sink any lower, up pops John Aravosis, king of tabloid trash-blogging, to vilify Gov. Sarah Palin's private life:

The 'progressive' men are actually counting the months of the woman's pregnancies! That's right folks. The formerly progressive netroots is trying to bring Sarah Palin down by proving that she is a slut! The menz over at Americablog (and followers) fervently hope to prove that one of Sarah Palin's children was conceived "out of wedlock!"

This story is not to be confused with the ongoing netroots effort to shame the Palin family by proving that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is a slut.

A woman enters the presidential race and suddenly the progressive mission is to shame and mortify Sarah Palin, her children, her husband, and every woman who has ever found herself in a similar situation. And then no one will ever vote for Sarah Palin again because she's a slut!?!?

John Aravosis imagines that we are still living in the Victorian Era when women were so devastated by public shaming that they committed suicide. Way to go John Aravosis! And we thought you already held the record for alienating women voters with your vile misogynistic posts about Hillary Rodham Clinton. There's just something about ambitious women that brings out the inner misogynistic creep.

Employers would shun a potential employee like Aravosis because his unseemly conduct would put them at risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit... well, with exceptions like MSNBC and Faux News. Aspiring to work for Don Imus or the National Enquirer, eh? Why do I get the feeling that John and his buds have a Bro's before Ho's T-shirt in the closet?

Argue against Palin's policies, her record, and her ideology. But the despicable tactics of Aravosis and his reptilian-brained fellows prove fauxgressives don't have a lick of sense or decency.

The "she's a slut" line of attack will fuel the classic persecution complex of conservatives (Palin married, sweetie darthlings) plus mobilize Independents and Republicans lukewarm to McCain, giving them enough reason--the least of which, the hypocrisy of unity-schumunity, the double standard and sexism of the Left--to defend Sarah Palin... to ferociously GOTV.

Leave it to fauxgressives dumber than a box of lug nuts to "[do] Karl Rove's work for him." Go read Zuzu's entire post at Shakesville with updates for the scoop. The lesson (with emphasis in bold):

Let's look at how McCain's selection of Palin fits in to the Rovian playbook. Already, feminists on the left are asking whether McCain thinks that women vote with their vaginas -- but that only allows the GOP to turn that back on the Dems and ask why feminists think that Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. Same with all the "what kind of mother" talk -- aren't Democrats the ones who are supposed to be all for working mothers?

Then there's all the "Governor Barbie," bimbo, golddigger, VPILF, CUNTRY, etc. crap. Oh, the Republicans will undoubtedly say, look how much the Democrats value women. All that unity business was a steaming pile of bullshit; they don't value you when the chips are down.

And what the Republicans will do that the Democrats will not is call out the misogyny against their candidate. I've said it before -- the Republicans would never, in a million years, stand by and let the media and the party rank-and-file treat one of their female candidates the way that Clinton got treated during the primary.

Thus, they turn a Democratic strength into a weakness. Or, rather, expose it as a weakness.

Now, as to why I don't think that McCain actually thinks that disaffected Democratic women will flock to him just because he picked a wingnut gun-nut creationist woman with some ethical problems as a running mate: because he doesn't have to get them to vote for him. He has to get them to stay home in swing states.

And what better way to get them to stay home than pick a running mate who not only helps him with his own base, but whose very physical presence he knows will bring out the misogynist bully boys who made Hillary's life (and those of her supporters) such hell? The ones who never tire of making it perfectly clear that women who want attention paid to their issues in this election are not welcome in the Democratic Party?

Making it all the more perfect is the fact that Obama is boxed in -- if he fails to rein in the football hooligans who comprise his rabid fan base, he will be (rightly) accused of supporting the misogynistic attacks against Palin, but if he publicly reins them in, he will be (rightly) accused of failing to do the same when those attacks were directed against Clinton, which will allow the Republicans to question the legitimacy of the process that put him over the top on the delegate count.

That genie isn't going back into the bottle, not now.

And all those football hooligan fanboys who've turned their unleashed ids onto Palin now that Hillary's out of the race and in the fold? They're doing Karl Rove's work for him. And so are the astroturfers and concern trolls.

Somewhere Matt Drudge is smiling.

Comments captured below:

Howard Dean thinks we're dumb sweeties

How stupid does Howard Dean think we are? This stupid:

SEELYE: Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who says he was slow to pick up on charges of sexism because he is not a regular viewer of cable television, is taking up the cause after hearing an outcry from what he described as a cross-section of women, from individual voters to powerful politicians and chief executives.

“The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview.

“It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism.

Truly, that’s pathetic. For the past sixteen years, journalists could say any damn thing they pleased about major Democrats—especially Clinton, Gore and Clinton—safe in the knowledge that Dem Party figures would never care enough to complain. Now we learn why this long roll-over occurred: Party leaders like Howard Dean weren’t regular viewers of cable! How were they supposed to know about the vile things being said? None of us are geniuses out here, but that “explanation” is even insulting to us. Dean would have been much better off if he’d simply said nothing.

He’s calling for a discussion now! Just in time for it not to matter!

Convenient timing. After Hillary suspended her campaign, after years of abuse. Thanks for insulting the intelligence of millions of Clinton Democrats, women, and men who love women with a blockheaded, cockapootie, lame to the 10th power, contemptuous excuse. Between the Democratic party and the GOP, voters have a choice between stealthy corruption and in-your-face corruption. What a world!

Just when we need the Democratic party to act like adults, they morph into vindictive teenyboppers spieling CDS fibs and a lust for kewl, cold cha-ching.

And it gets worse. Organizations like NOW that should have been on the front line when the sexist puke first started to hurl at Sen. Hillary Clinton have finally decided to act on the issue. NOW (irony alert!) and Emily's List will launch email campaigns aimed at "cable channels when they see sexism." Plus, NOW, says its president Kim Gandy, will create a "Media Hall of Shame" on the Internet to raise awareness of "sexist language" in the news.

NOW is starting a campaign! Just in time! Seventeen months later! And by the way, could Gandy possibly have less of a clue? Almost surely, Michelle Obama will not “be the recipient of the same kind of attacks that Hillary was”—at least, not from the media players named in this article. (Good!) The fact that Gandy doesn’t understand this fact means that she’s been snoring soundly for the past many years.

Or that she’s playing it dumb.

La-dee-dah! As a lapsed member of NOW--I didn't see the benefit of, you know, actual results--I have to wonder what's in the water that has made women's orgs so complacent, so out of touch with women?

I can appreciate a woman's right to choose as important turf to protect. But you know what grinds women down to dust every working day of the week? Unfair, stagnant wages and loss of benefits, discrimination, and underground sexism in the workplace. Get a clue, people. Get out of your offices and go talk to women on the street, in grocery stores, at doctor offices if they are lucky to have insurance.

And...

If Obama losing in November means Howard Dean and the new--we don't need no steenking working class--coalition pushers will exit the DNC, the incentive to reject the party's Anointed One just multiplied.

Hat tip to Bob Somerby.

POSTSCRIPT: Thanks, Joseph! My eyes were opened wide during this campaign season.

Media and misogyny

I happened upon this May 26 YouTube video of CNN's Howard Kurtz asking a panel of three women in media what they thought of Hillary Clinton's "sexist treatment by the press." They didn't hold back from citing the media, Internet sites, politicians, Obama supporters, and women who had attacked Hillary.

A transcribed quote from Marie Cocco, syndicated columnist for the WashPo:

But if you ever saw the language, the vulgarity, the vitriol that is hurled at Hillary Clinton by liberal Democrats, by the liberal blogs, largely by frankly Obama supporters, um, you'd be appalled. I mean you would punish your children for this.

What do you think about what the women said?

Apologies due to Hillary plus

Via Taylor Marsh, at U.S. News & World Report, Bonnie Erbe wrote that Hillary and her supporters deserve an apology from Obama, the DNC, and party leaders for their sexism.

The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable.

According to most polls, something in the range of 20 to 25 percent of her 18 million supporters say they'll vote for Senator McCain in November. That's 4.5 million votes—too many to take for granted. Yet taking them for granted is just what the party and Obama are doing. When CNN's Candy Crowley asked Obama how he would appeal to disaffected Clinton voters, he missed the mark entirely, giving a standard set of policy proposals.

I appeared on one of the cable news networks over the weekend, paired with a political reporter from a major newspaper. We were asked whether her supporters would kiss and make up with the Obama camp and end up throwing their support to the Illinois senator in the general election. He said, dismissively, "yes." I responded that with all due respect I thought he was quite wrong. But his laissez-faire attitude typifies that of the bulk of the MSM, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign.

M'yeah. The "highest, hardest glass ceiling" appears to have constructed a brick wall in front of it. Just try talking to it.

Meanwhile, Sapphocrat reported on how the denizens of DU expect Hillary Clinton to “self-immolate on the steps of the Capitol.”

With anti-Hillary attitudes still in force, pardon-moi if I don't participate in the June 21 Unity Day. It's a joke, n'est-ce pas?

My answer: PUMA!

We're not buying

Saw this some time ago at Shakesville, which led me to the Women's Media Center, a worthy enterprise if you haven't visited their website.

Now is as good a time as any to post the video, Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!

WMC president Carol Jenkins wrote in a press release:

“As our new video shows, the media’s sexism is not specific to a candidate or campaign. But the presence of a woman, front and center at last on the national political stage, has sent shockwaves through a media grappling with ongoing problems of diversity. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has cast a spotlight on the institutionalized sexism that The Women’s Media Center was founded in 2005 to combat, providing us with a unique moment to examine ourselves and the media we consume. This is about the inherent and unnecessary obstacles that women face every day in speaking out and participating in the national dialogue.”

The WMC is working in partnership with Media Matters. You can sign the petition to protest the sexism of national broadcast news here.

Question of the day

From The Daily Howler, Lisa Caputo on last night's Verdict with Dan Abrams. Abrams hyperventilated about why Hillary didn't concede and endorse Obama on Tuesday evening:

ABRAMS (6/4/08): I mean, there were people on our air today, Charlie Rangel was on our air today, talking about this, saying–but expressing–and look, whether you agree with them or not, they felt that [Hillary] should have been, said different things last night.

CAPUTO: But you know what, Dan? With all due respect, let’s just put this in a historical context, if you would. Bill Bradley got out of the race in March and didn’t endorse Al Gore until July. Jesse Jackson took it to the convention. Ted Kennedy took it to the convention–

ABRAMS: But that’s an explanation of why they–

CAPUTO: No. But hold on! Why is there a different standard for Senator Clinton?

Excellent question.

And why did it take John Edwards sooooo long to endorse Obama?

Hillary-bashing wingnut style

I wouldn't have been surprised to have found this odorous piece of Hillary-bashing caca in the Obamasphere or on MSNBC. Disrespectful, sexist, offensive, and crass delinquent humor from the right-wing gangsta boyz at RedState. Using photography enhances the intimidation factor, n'est-ce pas? Typical chest-thumping patriarchal BS.

Why does RedState hate democracy? Why do they hate women? They seem to be saying men need to manhandle strong-willed women to control them, to force them to do what they want even if it requires kidnapping, violence, usurping a woman's autonomy, coercing her submission--like an FLDS cult creep--and in Hillary's particular case, discriminating against her when male contenders have taken their nomination fights (with less votes) all the way to the convention in the past.

Not funny in the least.

If one is a spouse, girlfriend, or female associate of one of the RedState creators, snap a screen shot of the image quick. Could come in handy.

Keith Olbermann would be so proud of his violence-evoking, misogynistic prodigy.

Cretin scale: 10+.

Revolt of the Clintonistas

We will not go calmly without dissent. We are women who honor those like Hillary who have paved the way for other women, for us. We will not be satisfied with a under-qualified male taking the place of a highly-qualified female candidate.

The Democratic Party has abandoned us and so we shall leave it with this message.

You will have to earn our votes and Obama is an obstacle, sweeties. You cannot rectify the division caused by your sexist, homophobic Precious.

We will not be moved. We will not vote for Obama.

He represents all that is wrong with the nominating process in the Democratic Party: DNC favoritism, a thin résumé propped up by stagecraft, the delegate sham, the disenfranchising of voters via caucuses, the silence against sexism and misogyny, race-baiting by the Obama camp, weasel tactics gaming the press to smear Hillary, and the dirtiest campaign ever perpetrated against a leading female presidential candidate. Obama has lied promising a new kind of politics but we have not been deceived by his unity talk, talk, talk.

We will not tolerate an Obama candidacy. We refuse to follow the call for faux unity when it is a capitulation to sexism and we will never surrender to such terms.

We stand with Hillary more resolutely than ever. No matter what she says or what she decides, we have crossed over to standing on the principle that sexism is never tolerated, never to go unanswered, never to be excused from any Democrat.

Why do we need the Democratic Party? Since the midterm elections, congressional Democrats have compromised with Republicans to set us back on fair wages, to keep funding the war, to refuse to impeach a renegade executive, to fail to filibuster Alito enabling the SCOTUS with its 5-4 vote to potentially overturn Roe v. Wade, to legalize warrantless spying on Americans, to provide amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, to succumb to Bush's every demand. Just as alarming, telecoms are attempting to buy amnesty through the enticement of millions from lobbyists. Democrats have failed to unify against a disastrous presidency and the shredding of the Constitution so I find it laughable and hypocritical to summon the electorate to unite behind Obama.

Why should voters do what Democrats have not?

As a crowning blow to the presidential race, the high shenanigans at the un-Democratic May 31 RBC meeting proved the Democratic Party does not deserve our votes. The Democratic Party is no longer democratic. It is an oligarchy.

Until the votes are cast in Denver, the nomination isn't cinched. November looks more and more like a loss with Obama as the standard-bearer. Sadly, the party will have to learn this lesson the hard way. Until they honor, respect, and treat women as equals, they have lost a large chunk of us. Hillary was savaged, called racist, and threatened. So were her supporters. Not a peep was uttered by Democratic leaders including Obama who benefitted from and or instigated the smears. By their silence, they colluded with the sexist media. We will not reward sexism, the old boys congressional club, or the politics of divisiveness.

We're saying no to sexism and yes to the best qualified candidate: Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In November, I'm voting for a woman who has earned my vote.

Hillary is free to do what she must but it is not up to her to win her coalition over to the Democratic Party.

That is a job for the alleged leadership of Obama and the party for they are the culprits who owe us apologies, who must make amends. Hillary cannot erase what Obama and the Democrats have done. Only they can make the peace and they are too arrogant to recognize the damage done. Many election cycles will be needed for Democrats to prove worthy enough to have earned our votes.

Hillary didn't do anything to us but inspire and win our hearts and minds with her policies, experience under fire, and tenacity.

In the meantime, we will boycott, protest, and not lift a finger or spend a cent to help elect Obama. The party has communicated to Hillary and to her supporters, YOYO. They have a new coalition, new voters. And so the party can move on without us with our retort, YOYO, sweeties. Good riddance!

I have used "we" because I am sure from reading other pro-Hillary bloggers and their comments that I am not alone in taking this stand.

Consider me an Independent with no loyalty to any party. Candidates get my vote.

Sexists on sexism

Ah, wonderful harp music is playing as my news media boycott continues. Speaking of...

How does a news network further undermine its credibility? By asking two punditheads who have made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton to evaluate whether sexism has played a role in the presidential campaign. I kid you not! Who orchestrated the nonsense? MSNBC, of course!

During the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle, "[D]o you think we'll be looking back on the coverage and on the conversations pertaining to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's run for the White House and will sexism play a key role in what went wrong?" Barnicle responded: "No, I think the further we get from this election cycle, I think reality will play a much larger role in what has happened in this election than reality is playing a part now." Later, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan stated: "[T]here's resistance to a woman being the nominee, but by and large, I think the fact that she's a woman has helped her here." But as Media Matters for America has noted, on the February 26 edition of Morning Joe, Buchanan made the admittedly "sexist" comment that when Clinton "raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it's -- as I say -- it reaches a point ... where every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another." Additionally, on the January 23 edition of the program, Barnicle had said of Clinton: "[W]hen she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? Looking at him that way, all I could think of ... was this fall, if it's [Sen. John] McCain that she's facing, McCain is likable. She's not."

After Buchanan criticized Clinton's voice on the February 26 Morning Joe, Brzezinski responded: "Oh, Pat, you're lucky you're not in the studio, I'm telling you." Buchanan said: "I know that's a sexist comment ... but there's truth to it! ... There's truth to it." He continued: "It's very difficult for women to reach those kinds of levels effectively, as it is to make them sort of a rally speech. They're not good at that." Brzezinski replied: "There is something so wrong with what you're saying, and what I fear is that the effect may be exactly what you're saying because of this double standard that people can't hear strength from a woman without using the B-word, and quite frankly, if that is what people are going to take away from this, it just seems to me as, well, everything that the Clinton campaign is arguing then." Buchanan had stated earlier: "[I]t's very tough for a woman. You see two men going back and forth at each other, you say, 'Boy, they're really going at it.' ... And you see two women or something, and say, 'Boy, what a catfight this is.' " During the April 23 edition of the show, Buchanan said of Clinton's speech following the Pennsylvania primary the day before: "[O]nly once or twice did that voice start rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard. You know, where it starts going up."

Barnicle made his January 23 comment during discussion of the January 21 Democratic presidential debate, among an all-male panel that included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and correspondent David Shuster. [Emphasis added.]

They also talked as if Hillary is out of the race by refraining NBC Tim Russert's edict that Obama is the nominee and "no one’s going to dispute it." Bah!

Watch the Barnicle & Buchanan circus show in living color at Media Matters, a lot more including an noxious reference to President Billary.

Honestly, can news programming get any dumber and more clueless about its sexism?

Boycott TV news

Enough of the sexist, misogynistic speech of the media.

Since when is it acceptable to call Hillary a white b*tch?!

I can live without TV and radio. In fact, I turned off radio in 1990 and I haven't missed it. Not once. That is for certain. I have the Internet to pick and choose news and information from reliable sources and bloggers.

Egalia offers the background so go read and learn.

Republican pundit Alex Castellanos who called Hillary the B-word needs to go. Pronto!

CNN has capitulated "to pleas from the Obama campaign to suspend pro Hillary pundits Paul Begala, James Carville and Robert Zimmerman in the interests of being fair and balanced." Can you believe it? Screw CNN. Off with news networks. They offer hype, propaganda, and anti-female narratives.

I'm expressing my dissent by boycotting the media and it has been 24 hours. I do. Not. Miss. It. At. All.

No more BS. No more misogyny. No more junk allowed in my home.

Watch the YouTube courtesy egalia.



The boycott is on! Will you join me?

We've Come a Long Way, Baby!

By HRCin08



Via Susie.

No, never Obama

Obama demonstrates again why I will never vote for him. Ever.

A reporter asks Obama a question, and he tells her to hold on a second there, sweetie. [video.]

...Better still, it's not the first time.

While flirting with female factory workers in Allentown, he called one "sweetie," a paternalistic way to address a woman if there ever was one. It might have worked had he been trying to do his best imitation of Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, the telephone operator, but this was no spoof. This was Obama trying to relate to working-class women in a way that went directly south.

Huh. It sure doesn't sound to me like it's the women he's trying to relate to in that video.

Obama is the best the Democratic party can do?!! No, Hillary is the best candidate but the Dem establishment is determined to leap off the cliff.

I'm voting for Hillary in November whether her name is on the ballot for president or not. End of story.

Sexist spiel on display

A screen grab of a story about Hillary Clinton at the Alaska Report

Ah, someone's warped mind at the Alaska Report must think it's clever to depict Hillary as "the best man for the job." Typically sexist, the image implies that only a woman portrayed as a man is made of the right stuff and inherently discounts that women are just as capable, tough, and smart to lead our nation as women.

Such depictions minimize the power of women and reinforce male dominance. The patriarchy demeans women by making such comparisons in a futile attempt to reiterate that men are superior, the paradigm to emulate, the archetype that embodies leadership. Forget Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir. In America, sexism flourishes under such misbegotten attitudes.

I won't generalize about Alaska. The facts speak for themselves. The state is a Republican stronghold, not exactly a paragon of gender equality. Alaska also "has long suffered the highest sexual assault rate in the nation... 89% of the victims were female," according to USA Today, indicating that the state foretells of extremely hostile turf for females.

Looking at the predominantly male staff of the Alaska Report, it's easy to understand how the image was selected. Dumb but predictable. Of course, the picture is inexcusably sexist spiel on display.

Saying no to Obama and sexism

Brilliance from the Reclusive Leftist: "Why I will not vote for Obama even if he’s the nominee — and why you shouldn’t either"

Far too much good stuff to do justice with a snippet here and there so go read the entire essay.

Clipped some grafs to drive the point of how damaging sexism has been and is; the complicity of so-called "hope-change-unity, yes, we can" supporters who enable, deny, and refuse for whatever reason to speak out against it, or worse, utilize misogynistic speech degrading Hillary and women in general.

The Obamabots are under the delusion that if Obama wins the nomination (which he hasn’t yet, by the way), all of us in the Hillary camp will forget about the misogyny and come over to their side. Make nice for the sake of party unity. Forgive all the abuse.

Nope.

Several of us have tried over the past couple of months to explain why that won’t happen, but the Obamabots don’t seem to understand. And I know why: it’s because they don’t take sexism seriously. When women say we will not reward misogyny, we’re laughed off. The Obamabots just tell more jokes and hurl more insults and write more crass articles about how the little lay-dees have their little pan-tees in a twist.

They understand how vile racism is--and it is disgustingly immoral--but they're clueless about how despicable sexism is. Now pretend the roles are reversed. Sexism is vehemently denounced, which favors the female presidential candidate, but racial innuendoes and discrimination used to smear her African-American opponent gets a pass:

...Obama, not Hillary, is the punching bag of the media — a media that is blatantly and unapologetically racist. And I do mean blatant. Jokes every night on the cable news shows about Obama’s hair and his fondness for fried chicken. Pundits laughing about what a problem uppity Negroes are.

Across the country, racists openly ridicule Obama and his candidacy. In mainstream stores there are gag gifts playing on racist themes: maybe a (water)Melon Baller with Obama’s head on the handle, maybe a Barack Obama Shoeshine Set — you get the picture. 501c groups invoke the most grotesque racist slurs with their advertising; T-shirts say “Quit Running for President and Shine My Shoes!” Anybody who protests is branded a fool and a spoilsport.

Online, Hillary’s supporters constantly refer to Obama and his supporters as n—–s and c— -s and all the other epithets I refuse to type out. Blogger Boyz blog about those stupid lazy Negroes who are still wallowing in memories of the Civil Rights era, too dumb to get with the program and vote for Hillary.

And the lies: Obama is constantly lied about, belittled, demeaned. His record is distorted, his character impugned. Every day the pundits and the Blogger Boyz urge him to drop out of the race, to remember his place, to give up his seat to the white woman. All in the interest of “party unity.”

And nary a word of reproach from Hillary herself. No denunciation at all of the relentless racism. In fact, she actually cracks a few racist remarks herself, albeit subtle ones. She jokes and nods with the media about “letting” Obama run as long as he wants to. And when she makes speeches about American values, she talks a lot about women’s rights but never mentions civil rights. She’s strikingly silent on the subject. Even when she delivers a major address on the importance of rooting out bigotry, she neglects to mention racism at all.

Fast forward to:

If you’re an adult American with even half a lick of sense, you know damn well that there is no way black folks would stand for that crap. There is no way any self-respecting African-Americans in this day and age would take that from the Democrats. It’s inconceivable that anybody would expect them to.

Because dig it: if the Democrats carried on like that, they wouldn’t be any better than the Republicans. And they sure as hell wouldn’t deserve the African-American vote.

Why should it be any different with women?

If Barack Obama and his supporters become the new Democratic party, then the Democratic party will no longer be the party of women’s rights. There will still be women in the party, naturally, but basic respect for women as citizens will be a dead letter. It will be the party of John Roberts and anti-choicers and the most virulent outbreak of public misogyny I’ve ever seen. All the sexism of this campaign will be rewarded instead of repudiated.

And that Democratic party will not deserve my vote.

A call for help

Melissa McEwan asked for help in finding examples of sexism specifically...

Hillary Clinton in the left blogosphere, a la Josh Marshall's gelded at TPM or Stephen Kaus' misogynist tirade at HuffPo. What other examples have you seen on lefty blogs, of either overt sexism (slurs, doctored images) or oblique sexism (criticisms of Clinton wrapped in misogynist frames, e.g. "Billary" or "cackling" or "too ambitious")?

Also welcome: Any comments threads that were completely out of control with misogynist swill and left unmoderated.

Please provide links, as only specific examples will be helpful.

So if you can help out with examples and links, head over to Shakesville and leave your contribution in comments. Obvious from what's already recorded, the A-List bloggers have serious issues with women, e.g., Hillary. A sample: "7 Reasons why I hate the bitch."

Still sexist after all these years

A larger image of the cartoon available at Cornell University Library.

Egalia of Tennessee Guerilla Women stopped by to comment on Olberman's misogynistic hate speech against Hillary. So I popped over to TGW and found this:

Who is Keith Olbermann? With the aid of the in-your-face caption: A Slut and Battery, Keith Olbermann reports in the video clip (2006) below that Paris Hilton was "punched in the face." To the laughter of the boys in the background, Olbermann opines that Paris Hilton has "had worse things happen to her face." Taking vicious shots at young celebrities is a routine feature on Olbermann's show. But there is one rule, Keith's shots are always fired at women. Cuz, just like in the 1950s, girls are sleazy sluts and boys are honorable studs.

Egalia has the KO video clip. She also quoted Sandi Burtseva from 2007. The grafs that jumped to my attention via Burtseva were her insights into KO's denigration of Paris Hilton:

Regardless of how astute his political criticism is, I am no longer willing to tolerate Keith Olbermann’s misogyny. Olbermann has a nasty habit of making sexist, derogatory statements about female celebrities. The things he’s said are shameful and should never have been uttered, let alone on television. While he is certainly not alone in his reprehensible treatment of women, Olbermann is widely admired by progressives; unlike other trashy gossip commentators, he must be held to progressive standards....

...Bloggers pointed out that he kept [“A Slut and Battery" regarding Paris Hilton] on the screen for 20 seconds of a 32-second clip, but I don’t see the relevance. Even if he’d only thrown it up long enough to read, this caption (coupled with the vitriol he spewed) tells us everything we need to know about Olbermann’s attitude toward women:

• He thinks it is acceptable to judge women for their sexual choices.
• He thinks women who make particular sexual choices are to be taken less seriously when they claim to have been assaulted.
• He thinks it’s amusing to, um “cleverly” invert a phrase often associated with domestic violence and use it to belittle women.

My former admiration notwithstanding, I dismissed Olbermann then and there, but it seems many others have been willing to give him a second chance. It is my unfortunate duty to note that Olbermann persists in his misogyny.

On Monday, Olbermann devoted some airtime to that most important of world events: Britney Spears’ hairstyle choice. (Story number two, for anyone keeping track, was a similarly distasteful, if slightly more reserved, bashing of the late Anna Nicole Smith. He began his coverage by calling Spears a “pop tart and went on to opine that “… the question now turns to what was she thinking, if not what was she on…”

In the eyes of Olbermann and his ilk, Spears made two mistakes: She dared to be overtly sexual and she dared to shed one of the defining markers of her femininity. I neither know nor care how much sex Spears has and with whom, or why she shaved her head, but I have this radical proposition: In spite of the fact that she’s made sexy music videos, Spears’ body is her own and should not be subjected to Olbermann’s disgusting views.

Both Burtseva and egalia alerted me to something I did not know, not being a KO or MSNBC viewer: Olbermann's pattern of misogyny.

More disturbing, the SCLB's A-List Blog Boyz have watched KO's sexist inclinations and either didn't notice or shrugged indifferent. Misogyny on display? Where? Last, year, Jessica Valenti at Feministing exhumed the Orange Sippy Cup™ King's brain-dead denial:

Markos on Kathy Sierra and female bloggers being harassed and getting death threats:

Look, if you blog, and blog about controversial shit, you'll get idiotic emails. Most of the time, said "death threats" don't even exist -- evidenced by the fact that the crying bloggers and journalists always fail to produce said "death threats".

So let me get this straight: blogging about the oh-so-controversial world of software development means you should expect to get death threats. After all, nothing brings out the crazies like tech-talk. And besides, she probably made it all up anyway.

...Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work.

I mean come on, if you can't handle your address and social security number being published along with threats of rape, hanging, suffocation and death--you're a fucking lightweight.

Seriously though, it's one thing to argue--as Markos does--that a blogger code of conduct would be ineffective. Fine. But dismissing online misogyny and Sierra's experience (without even bothering to do any research on the subject, to boot) is reprehensible. Though predictable given the source.

I unplug when I paint as I did last year for an art exhibition and I missed, as we headed into the primary season, a key understanding: misogyny has been festering amongst the fauxgressive patriarchs of the SCLB. Unleashing it like a volcanic eruption, they targeted Hillary Clinton with a vengeance.

Why is it mostly up to female bloggers to call out sexism? Is anti-feminism so entrenched that fauxgressive men can't shake the legacy of patriarchy to invade, subvert, colonize, and oppress? Is it what Jeff Fecke of Shakesville reiterated in the blindness of privilege?

It takes work to see evidence of oppression when one is not the one being oppressed. It is far easier to simply ignore it, even when one knows one shouldn't.

Also at Shakesville, Melissa McEwan blogged about "a very common misperception that sexism is subjective." Go read her essay. I couldn't do it justice with a fragment.

Some progressive men get it. A few male bloggers I read regularly--Tom Watson, Joseph Cannon, Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, and Jeff Fecke--do (and certainly more than I follow). Why can Watson, Cannon, Somerby, and Fecke identify and criticize sexism but WKJM and the Orange Sippy Cup™ King don't? Keith Olbermann doesn't but he's an imperious cog in a media machine that rewards ratings, ad revenue, and corporate profits more than truth and justice. I expect better from the liberal blogosphere. The best explanation that I've read recently came from Anglachel:

...why are so many middle and upper-middle class men, typified by the A-List Blogger Boyz, who claim to be progressives such virulent anti-feminists? My answer is rational self-interest, also known as weeding out the competition.

Another way of putting it is why, if white racism is so persistent in this nation, why does this slender sliver of America appear immune to its siren call? Why does Hillary Clinton scare the crap out of the guy who kidnapped Josh Marshall, but he feels no anxiety (that he'll admit to) around The Precious? We can go into analysis of oedipal fantasies and the pervasive influence of patriarchy, yadda yadda, but my point is that this cohort of dudz is exactly the one that claims to be "post-" all those nasty -isms.

The answer is surprisingly simple. They face a lot of competition from white women for their social and economic successes, but not very much from black men. They get a lot more payoff from bashing, dominating, and fucking over women than they do from doing that to men of any color. They can get solidarity from the guyz against the hos. This cannot fully explain the anti-feminist behavior of self-identified liberal men, but it's one hell of a contributing factor.

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, survival trumps self-actualization. Elbows starting flying when the watering hole gets crowded. All the talk about post-partisan unity gets lost in the mud because vision doesn't address the reality of the oppressed; one must design solutions with a commitment to execute them. When those solutions undermine the privileged class that's fighting to control the watering hole, commitment evaporates. Poof!

Until women and men who love women commit to solving "all those nasty -isms," sexism will to continue to thrive. So who's ready?

CREDITS: Fauxgressive, a term I picked up from Melissa McEwan of Shakesville, where one can also read Jeff Fecke.

Voices in their heads

From the annals of WWTSBQ, senior editor Michelle Cottle at The New Republic published an attack-Hillary campaign column, "Voices in Her Head, Inside Hillaryland's fatal psychodrama."

Can the faux press present themselves more obnoxiously and with more blatant bias? Note the side order of misogyny. Wooo! Hillary is not in control of Team Clinton and not suitable for the Oval Office. And yet, voters keep voting for Hillary Clinton. Oh, the enigma!

Cottle leads off her column:

By the time Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle finally packed up her lovely corner office ... [blah, blah, blah...] ...Penn had attended a March 31 meeting with the Colombian ambassador... [blah, blah, blah...] ...resembles an unruly rock band plagued by dysfunction and public infighting... [blah, blah, blah...] ...insiders acknowledge that the former president has never been wholly manageable... [blah, blah, blah...] ...has publicly admitted his wife gave him a talking-to about keeping his yap shut on the matter.... [blah, blah, blah...] ...it's a wonder Hillary could keep a grip on her message at all.... [blah, blah, blah...] ...even as Hillary's chances of capturing the nomination grow ever more remote... [blah, blah, blah...] ...Whether driven on by dedication, desperation, or delusion, some of Hillary's not-so-happy warriors find themselves unable to give up the fight--not just against Barack Obama, but also against each other.

See? I saved you from wasting your time with mind-numbing, yawn-inducing piffle. And why should you waste your time reading TNR? As the General summed up:

It's not easy to market yourself as a magazine for progressives when you consistently offer yourself up to the neocons like a gaggle of strapping young Republican men at a Patrick McHenry "greek night' party, but somehow you've managed to pull it off.

...it's much harder to see why your right-leaning Democratic subscriber base would continue to support you when you attack their candidates. And that's exactly what you did when you skewered both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in your latest issue.

But then again, it's not really their politics that bothers you, is it. It's more than that. Looking at the Clinton piece, it's obvious why you went after her. The cover, article, and photos were a celebration of misogyny. All of the best old stereotypes were there. She's hysterical. She's a slave to her hormones. One is left wondering whether you believe that she should be forced to prove she's post-menopausal, lest she nukes Kansas while under the spell of a menstrual rage?

'Nuff said.

TNR nausea scale: 10.

Nora Ephron's white people

The white people of Nora Ephron's movies.

Joseph alerted me to Nora Ephron's insipid column on "White Men." The Ephron excerpts that he quoted:

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can.

Oh, gawd. Go read Joseph for his political viewpoints and to get the link to Ephron's column. He's absolutely right about Ephron's implied threat, Vote as I tell you to vote, or I'll call you a racist or a sexist.

What nauseates me about Ephron? Her blindness to her projection onto Hillary of the very criticism of which she's made a career: white woman meets white man, relationship unfolds toward commitment. M'yeah. Meg Ryan, who played the romantic lead in Ephron's movies, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, represents a white female who isn't happy without the white man of her dreams played by actor Tom Hanks. Has Ephron considered how she's contributing to the sexist, racist storyline she now decries? She depicts a world in which her main characters are all white. Have Pennsylvania voters become influenced by all the Hollywood movies that reinforce white racial hegemony? Has Ephron considered the underlying racist narratives in her films? Silly idea, isn't it?

Of course, it ridiculous in Nora's mind to entertain the possibility that PA voters prefer Clinton's policy positions over Obama's. Or maybe PA's white male voters have been repulsed by Barry's negative and dubious campaign attack ads against Clinton. I dunno. But I can say with confidence that skin color doesn't qualify a candidate to solve the economic worries that voters say are their top concern. I support Hillary because she offers solutions I prefer. Perhaps Obama hasn't convincingly persuaded PA voters on the issues more than Clinton. But to Nora, those white men in PA are racists and so is Hillary. Disregard that their voting preferences may be predicated on their wallets and who can best fill them with job income and better economic conditions.

I'll set aside the anti-feminist argument that a woman needs a man for her self-fulfillment because humans do crave companionship. How Nora represents these human yearnings irk me as a feminist. Simply, she infers sexist stereotypes. Funny that Nora hasn't discovered the log in her eye.

There's another reason to discount Nora Ephron's ramblings: she mishandles facts. In her column she stated (with emphasis):

Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.

Edwards dropped out of the presidential race before Super Tuesday on Jan. 30, 2008, when he declared, "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze it's path." Ohio's primary date was March 4. Hello! Earth to Nora. Edwards was not in the race "around the time of Ohio."

So pardon moi if I open a can of bwahahaha when Ephron makes an fallacious, inflammatory assertion without any proof that Hillary is saying although very carefully that "she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can." Proof, Nora, present your evidence if you can without mangling the facts. When a pundit undertakes the serious allegation to smear a candidate implying racism, it's her job to present evidence. Subjective propaganda and opinion isn't acceptable. Show me the proof to substantiate the claim or to my thinking, the accuser is an unmitigated slanderer or a hopelessly irresponsible ninny.

Historically, white racists vote Republican (see the Southern Strategy). Why would they turn out for a Democratic primary? I can think of a reason: vote for the unelectable candidate, the one they think their GOP candidate can beat in the fall. I could speculate that spoilers are crossing over in open primaries to help Obama beat Clinton so they can vote against him in November since Clinton is more likely to defeat McCain.

Secondly, Ephron evidently lacks a depth of political knowledge to realize that playing the race card isn't a new invention used against a Democratic presidential opponent. Bill Bradley maligned Al Gore in 2000 when he "ripped the vice president for injecting racism into the 1988 campaign by raising the Willie Horton case against Michael Dukakis.” It wasn't true--Gore is not a racist--but our mindless press corps picked up the racial theme against Gore and spread it, just as our biased media have painted the Clintons as slobbering racists in this campaign. [Ed. note: Al Gore never mentioned Willie Horton in case you don't click the The Daily Howler link. H/t to Joseph Cannon in comments.]

Why liberals fall for this specious propaganda, one can only speculate, but none of the answers are good when allegedly intelligent people follow the plot lines our morally-bankrupt news media concoct. If the Clintons are such super-smart politicians, why the hell would they commit electoral suicide undermining Hillary's chances of winning? It defies logic, but don't expect to find sound reasoning in Ephron's column (or from rubes who swallow such drool).

Based on Nora's own "insights," how has Ephron exempted herself from the fact that she devises a world on film that is predominantly white-skinned? Are we to assume, based on Nora's suppositions, that she is saying she can attract more racist white movie-goers than Spike Lee can (and has been saying, although very carefully)? Goose, gander, sauce, Nora.

Ephron bemoans, "after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are. . . after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power." You know what's ironic? The swooning of Nora's female characters into the arms of men in her cinematic works. In You've Got Mail, the Hanks character owns a bookstore chain that eventually puts our struggling heroine's independent bookstore out of business. The female lead played by Ryan can't stand the powerful businessman who precipitates her company's demise. Yet, in the end, they fall in love. Cue soundtrack, Over The Rainbow. Can you believe it? Maybe it's time to start boycotting her sexist movies where men "turn out (surprise!) to have all the power."

Why Nora continues to churn out intellectually-shallow polemics is a mystery. In her "White Men" column, I wonder if she's attempting to assuage her white guilt for having been racially insensitive in casting and writing screenplays that tell stories about white people. Just a guess. I have no proof other than her filmography, which relegates African-American actors to bit parts. To foster such an argument is as overly-simplistic as Ephron saying that Hillary can "attract more racist white male voters than Obama can."

Maybe Nora hasn't paid attention. Obama is attracting more African American voters than Hillary, but I wouldn't particularly assign a racial component to Barry's voting bloc. History-making and enthusiasm? Yes. Racist? No. Sexist? Maybe. Of course, there are racists, sexists, and homophobes. But are we to blame the candidates for how bigots vote? Not if they don't pander to them. What's also troubling is Ephron's judgment that "white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them." Ahem. Making judgmental generalizations isn't helpful in healing whatever divides men, women, ethnic groups, or any segment of our society.

I don't have time today--aren't you lucky--to analyze why women like Nora dislike Hillary enough to slime her. But there's something deeply pathological and psychologically disturbing going on. Using racial smears is ugly business. Doing so without facts is libelous.

One thing you can bet: Winged Tasmanian wombats will fly out my bum before I waste one dollar on any Nora Ephron enterprise past or future.

POSTSCRIPT: One key observation from Joseph that I failed to mention: "People like Nora Ephron do the Republican Party's work so expertly that I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a covert GOP pay-off."

IMAGE: Cropped from a movie poster of Sleepless in Seattle. Poll graphic from Yahoo! News.

UPDATE: Edited for clarity.

Clinton, Obama and the P-word

Don Imus is hopelessly sexist. And, hey. Misogyny isn't just for women anymore. The uncouth, ever-offensive Imus aims his seething piehole to spit at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with one sexist shot:

During the April 17 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than" Sen. Hillary Clinton. While discussing the April 16 Democratic debate, Imus said he thought that co-moderator George Stephanopoulos was "great" and that the debate was "fine," adding: "I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other." News anchor Charles McCord interjected, "But then," and Imus continued: "And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asserted that Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, guest and Fox News host Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: " 'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."

Despite his being fired by MSNBC and CBS in April 2007 -- his show is now syndicated by ABC Radio Networks and simulcast on RFD-TV -- Imus continues to attract prominent guests. From April 1 to April 17, Imus hosted Sen. John McCain, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, Washington Post media critic and host of CNN's Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford. [Emphasis added.]

The morally bankrupt media continues to deem the blatantly sexist and reprobate behavior of Imus as acceptable in the marketplace of ideas. Look at who's still patronizing this unrepentant sexist dinosaur: a presidential candidate and leading media personalities. What's their excuse? Gotta email, express my disapproval, and ask what are their reasons for appearing on Don Imus' show. I want to know. What are they up to?

It's bad enough to hear the B-word thrown around as if it's a normal term for people to use--and it's not--but the P-word rates up there with the ugly group of demeaning epithets that dare not be spoken aloud, not in civilized circles or in the public arena. In Imus' cesspool of imagination, it's OK to use the P-word. In fact, it's fun, completely spot on. Never does he think of the denigration of femininity inherent in the P-word or its power crudely hewn to dismiss and devalue men and women.

Don't you wonder what advertisers are sponsoring Imus? I do 'cause I will cease to buy or recommend whatever service or product they offer in my sphere of influence.

I may be a Hillary supporter, but it is not ever OK to use misogyny against anyone. Ever.

The contacts to complain via Media Matters:

ABC Radio Networks
customerservice@abc.com
ABC Radio Networks

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

While I'm thinking 'bout it, send Media Matters some love. They provide an incredible service keeping the media in their sights and holding them accountable. God(dess) love 'em for the heavy-lifting they do regularly.

NOTE: You can watch it on video at the link.