The Sexist Media Mugging of Hillary Clinton

What kind of progressive American leader would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party, a political foe perhaps, but a national Democratic leader?

Barack Obama - so far.

Make no mistake, Obama's breakthrough says something wonderful about the state of racial politics in our nation - or perhaps the lack of racial politics - and the involvement of young people in politics. But his silence in the case of the cynical media lynching of Hillary Clinton by a national press corps obsessed with her gender is telling. And unless Barack Obama speaks out, his campaign's chilling acceptance of the gender bias stirred by our national media will also remind many of Ronald Reagan's acceptance of the race-baiting southern strategy - because if Obama accepts the presidency, at least in part, because of abject sexism, a brutal gender attack on a female rival - the most famous female Democrat in history - he will set feminism in our country back a generation.

There is no hope for John Edwards, of course. His cruel, stony reaction to the news that Senator Clinton got a little emotional during a New Hampshire diner visit was a window on the man's soul, a window into an empty room.

But Obama claims a mightier throne, one forged in liberal ideals of justice and equality and hope. He is the secular messiah of the Democratic Party, ordained by Oprah Winfrey as the chosen one and given to preaching about transcending petty politics. Yet there he was at the New Hampshire debate, throwing a scornful "compliment" at his rival when asked about Senator Clinton's "likability," one of the many sexist code words deployed against her in this race. "She's likable enough," he smirked, looking downward.

I think every woman reading this post knows exactly how Hillary Clinton felt in that moment.

Obama has benefited mightily from sexism in this campaign, and has remained silent. And that sexism is starting to be noticed, and commented on - even in places you don't expect it. John Cole, to say the least, is no Hillary Clinton fan but the gender-based attacks have gotten to him:

Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

I don’t want Hillary as President, but it sure looks to me like she isn’t getting a fair shake and is being subjected to a double standard. It’s bullshit.

Then there was Clinton's flash of anger in the same debate as the two men teamed up to bash her - she showed her anger, something male candidates (think McCain) do every debate, and was promptly accused of having a "meltdown." More people are beginning the see this media lynching as a negative story for Democrats of truly historic; here's Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:

Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose — I can live with that pretty easily — but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill.

Nor is it all men, on the attack, sadly. At TalkLeft, blogger Jeralyn shares an email from a reader:

I have a question that I don't see anyone talking about right now and that is the disturbing behavior I see from women toward Hillary Clinton.

I belong to other on-line forums -- Democratic forums -- and I see women referring to Hillary as "bitchy", "catty", "shrill", "ugly" and some too bad to mention. Most of these come from women supporting Obama. The idol worship and willingness to throw their gender under the bus in order to elect Obama is disturbing.

My question is, what happens when the campaign is over and women realize that they have set themselves back ....Will they be surprised?

It's ugly, the MoDo Syndrome - not something lefties believe exists on our side. But it's there.  Taylor Marsh is right - the reaction to a little emotion, a little fire from the leading  woman in American political history may be too much. Maybe we're not ready for a female president.

Hillary quite simply let them have it. Women everywhere know how she feels. There isn't one person   in business or any level of professional life, even college, who hasn't had   it happen to them. But having a woman show it in public? It's an emotional cleavage   moment inspired by a flash in time when weaker men joined together to take   their more formidable female adversary down through a round robin rough up.

You could see it in the fire and flash in her eyes.

This is a defining moment in American history. To see if we can grow up from   "bitch" to "strength," while appreciating that an infuriated   woman standing up for herself and her record is a sign of real heart, passion   of conviction and determination. It all depends if America likes the look of   feminine power when it's released through a flash of fire in a potential commander   in chief's eye.

Has America grown out of their June Clever syndrome, finally ready for our Golda Meir moment?  We don't   know the answer to this question yet. But from the signs I'm seeing today, I wouldn't take the bet.

Me either. At the start of the campaign, I didn't think the national media could possibly be successful in an anti-woman campaign against a Democrat. I thought surely that the left wouldn't allow it, that the rest of the Democratic field - avowed feminists all - would object, and object loudly. I may be proved wrong. And Barack Obama is silent.

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher's all over it: feel the misogyny. And Matt Stoller fries "the cynical, nasty, and misogynistic press corps."

UPDATE II: Well, the headline's not popular and perhaps I should have proceeded more carefully with my own language in a post about loaded language. But I didn't. So I'll take the lumps. My main argument stands, though Mannion disagrees. Over at Shakeville, however, Liss is with me: "When a female public figure is demonized with sexist swill, and such tactics go unchecked, we collectively give our tacit assent to sexism being wielded against any woman in any situation." And, no Gloria Steinem did not time her Times Op-ed to coincide with this blog or with Senator Clinton's "shocking" show of emotion yesterday, but it's an elegant essay on the sad hit feminism is taking in this race.

UPDATE III: Well, the first candidate to speak kindly of Senator Clinton during this firestorm has made his views clear. Yep, it's Mike Huckabee.

FINAL UPDATE: I have closed the comments on this post for fairly obvious reasons. And I'm taking the rare step of changing the headline. My original headline was, in retrospect, inflammatory and I regret the use of the word "lynching." Its use had two inherent problems: poor writing (the word did not accurately describe what I intended it to) and an unfortunate tendency to discount its historic - and literal - meaning in American history. I'm taking this action because this post continues to draw significant traffic from search engines, and I'd like to correct my error in judgment, however tardy it may be. That said, my overall argument stands uncorrected.

Comments

[fem]

Thanks for speaking up. Your post was heartening to read. I feel particularly depressed at not only the misogyny evident in the media "testicle lock box" etc. language used even by mainstream pundits without so much as peep of criticism from anywhere. If Imus had left it at "hos" no one would have given a damn. It was when he used the expression "nappy" that people realized something was horribly wrong. Racism not be politically correct but demeaning women never went out of fashion. It's so sad.

[fem]

Thanks for speaking up. Your post was heartening to read. I feel particularly depressed at not only the misogyny evident in the media "testicle lock box" etc. language used even by mainstream pundits without so much as peep of criticism from anywhere. If Imus had left it at "hos" no one would have given a damn. It was when he used the expression "nappy" that people realized something was horribly wrong. Racism not be politically correct but demeaning women never went out of fashion. It's so sad.

[WMCB]

Thank you so much, Tom. My letter to the DNC today follows:

Dear Dr. Dean,

I am furious. A lot of Democratic women are furious. We have stood by and watched as our party has been silent at the blatant sexism rampant in this primary campaign.

John Edwards comments today regarding Senator Clinton's mild display of emotion were the last straw for many of us. No more. If my party does not stand up to this and decry it AS LOUDLY as they would racism, it is no longer my party.

I will not stay with my party for this madness. Not even in the general. I will not vote for any Democrat who panders to sexist caricatures. The Party gets not another dime of my money or my time - ever, unless they stand for women better than this.

Talk about splitting and tearing the heart out of the party? How about the country. Women are half the country, and the Democratic Party this year has ridden along with the press posse on sexist metaphorical lynching of a good Democratic woman. The coverage of the shrill emotionally-out-of-control, angry, emasculating, harpy woman candidate has made me ill. My party would not tolerate this stereotypical treatment of a black man, but "woman is the nigger of the world", to quote Yoko Ono.

My party does not care about me as a woman - why should I care about them any longer?

The Democratic party will be getting angry blowback from me for years and years over this. And in speaking with many of my woman friends, I am not the only one. This is a serious rift.

This is not about my candidate potentially losing (been there, done that, always bucked up and voted for the nominee, every time.) This is about my shock and deep hurt at suddenly finding that I live in a country where a big penis-shaped cross can be burned on the national lawn, and no one bats an eye. Not even the Democrats.

If Chris Matthews were on national television speaking of Obama as a shoe shuffling finger-popping jive-talking minstrel boy, I think that Democrats would be speaking of that in VERY militant terms indeed, and outraged. I myself would be outraged, and would be screaming bloody murder, whether I planned to vote for the man or not. Because that's what Democrats do. Or rather, what we did.

But Democrats, including our presidential candidates, have stood by and even applauded while the media craps all over women with degrading stereotype after stereotype. And Obama's and Edwards supporters cheer it on.

This is not politics for me now. This is very very personal. I have been on the phone with several women this morning, and there is a slow burn growing under the surface that is going to have consequences for the Democratic party for years to come. You may be seeing an exodus of very faithful and activist women from your party base. I've talked to several women who have campaigned and voted Democratic their entire lives, and they are so spitting mad they say they will go vote for McCain before they will vote for a party that has allowed this travesty.

This needs to stop. NOW.

[LC]

Thank you. I've been getting angrier & angrier for months as the sexist, misogynistic, vulgar, and often despicable attacks on Hillary have proceeded - not just supplied by the right wing's nuts, but by "respected" bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, almost every TV pundit (I actually can't think of a single one who has been fair), and - worst of all- the so-called liberal left blogs &, I am sad to say, too many women (like Arianna Huffington).

There are lots of legitimate reasons for opposing Hillary - but, as one ex., her decision to marry & stay with Bill is NOT one of them.

During this long campaign season, I have switched often among the top 3 plus Biden & Richardson. But during the past few weeks, Obama's incredibly misogynistic & dismissive attitude toward Hillary (she's "too old"; he'll hire her as an adviser", and the last straw "likable enough") has knocked him off my potential list completely.

And, after today, goodbye Edwards. I don't care where she is in the polls when the Calif. primary rolls around. She's got my protest vote.

[Jack]

"speaking of Obama as a shoe shuffling finger-popping jive-talking minstrel boy, I think that"

WMCB, you are a racist.

[bruce b.]

I expressed my opinion in an earlier comment on your posting "The Fierce Urgency of Now." The media is carrying out a witch-hunt, almost literally. I wouldn't use TW's strong language, but I was greatly disappointed in Edwards's remark. However, the Clinton campaign has done some dirty things to Edwards in the last couple of days. These people are not angels, you might recall.

I want to be fair to Obama on one point: in an interview with Diane Sawyer today, he said that he expressed himself in a bad way when he said "you're likable enough." He told Sawyer that better words would have been, "you're PLENTY likable." He said he was meaning to be gracious. Also, Tom, I didn't detect anything like a smirk when he said that.

The media will try to pour fat on the fire, and encourage divisions between "women" and "blacks". This is the oldest trick in the book. Democrats should unite in rebuking Chris Matthews and his ilk. The man today made one of the most demeaning gestures, pinching a leading Presidential candidate on the cheek.

And I do agree with the previous poster that Howard Dean and other "non-partisan" Democratic leaders should say something. And it would be a very smart and gracious move by Obama -- and would go a long way towards an eventual victory -- if he did the same.

[WMCB]

No. LC, I am not. My point was that those words WOULD be a nasty horrible example of racism and ought to be called out if a media talking head dared used them. But shrill shrewish emasculating harpie and the eunuchs who support her HAS been said on air - and no one cared.

The insults leveled at gender have been just as insulting as those racial stereotypes would be.

[Sally]

Tom, Taylor Marsh has done so much to try to make the case that women are being severely damaged by the Democratic male candidates, as is the Democratic party, and I am grateful to her. Taylor has helped me retain what sanity I have left.

I have respected Senator Clinton since she came on the scene and watched, and cried, as she was cruelly treated time after time by people who could not hold a candle to her.

And now I thank you for speaking out.

I feel exactly as WMCB does. Today General Clark e-mailed a request for donations for Democratic Congressional races and I told him what WMCB is saying--no way. Many Democratic women will not vote for Obama (or Edwards, in my case). Would that not be a reward for his treachery if we did vote for him? My vote will go to a Republican by default but at least I do not expect anything honorable from a Republican.

Wizard Rove recently said he is doing political work beneath the radar so my guess is he's working for Obama. Will our Democratic Obama supporters think that's a good one on the Clintons or a good one on them?

Former Vice President Gore could help by going on record about what is going on in this campaign and the mockery and deceit that was used against him to defeat him in his presidential campaign. He need not endorse a candidate but speak out so that historians can refer to his words when they write or speak about this sorry episode in our country's history.

Our white male establishment is bending their rules to let Obama in to stamp out the most viable female candidate in our history knowing another one may not be along for a long, long time. Once he's done their dirty work for them, he'll get no respect from them and find their doors closed to him.

Thanks to people like you and Taylor and a (very) few more, we can say not everyone joined in the lynching of a good woman.

[abiodun]

I have been shouting at the top of my lungs for a year about the misogyny, sexism in the traditional media directed at Clinton. I have often been surprised at some women's reactions and comments over the year, a typical example being the lady at the Mccain's rally.I have written to Chris Matthews, commented on blogs about this repeatedly. I am glad we are begining to take notice more! Thank you.

[Mark Kraft]

If Hillary Clinton had her cronies smeared me for teenage drug use and for being a five year old who dared to dream of being president, I would be silent too.

It's not so much that she's being loud or aggressive. Rather, it's that she's being meanspirited, personal, dismissive, and somewhat unfair, with a sense of entitlement a mile deep.

I keep hearing her campaign refer to Obama as a "stuffed shirt", with empty promises, though he has served as an elected official for longer than Hillary Clinton. If she stuck strongly to the issues, she'd do better.

Really, what amazes me is that she can claim to be "the most innocent" candidate without people bringing up all the verifiably wrong and corrupt things she has done over the years. Really, I think she's getting a free pass on these issues.

[mkolb]

Unless Sen. Clinton can hang tough and ride this out, I'm left with no one to vote for. Edwards has certainly lost my support after his behavior today and Obama not only has lost my potential vote with his attitude but also will be the lamb to Republican slaughter in the GE and, good grief, I can't imagine voting for any of the Republican canidates. I guess it's count me out.

I can hardly believe this is happening. I hope that women younger than I will understand what my generation fought for and thought we had conquered at least to a degree. I can't tell you how discouraged I am.

[blue girl]

What I don't get, Tom is why anyone would think Obama would speak out and defend Hillary or why Edwards would refrain from making that remark.

As the song says, This ain't no party, this ain't no disco...

You give your enemy an opening and they'll use it. This is the highest stakes game going!

Come. On.

Hillary Clinton does NOT need Obama to stick up for her, nor does she need a pass from Edwards. She needs to get her act together. She's made a ton of mistakes over the last few months and she's paying for them now.

And from what I watched this evening, Matthews, Russert and Brokaw were giving her a free pass.

It was Olbermann who was sticking it to her. For weeping one minute then using an Al Qaeda scare tactic the next.

I am pulling for Hillary, but I won't defend her simply because she's a woman. And although it's very noble of you, you shouldn't either.

Doesn't help.

[Chuck]

I'm somewhat less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton as a candidate than you are, but I am similarly troubled by Hillary's treatment in most major news outlets (Chris Cilizza, among a small number of others, called BS on today's Hillary-bashfest).

I haven't seen Edwards or Obama's responses to today's non-event (I'll check them out ASAP), so I'm not in a position to judge their responses, but it is troubling that so many gender-based insults have been thrown at Clinton.

[Cm Sinclair]

Tom...
This is a deeply embarassing post on a topic that, as a progressive Hilary supporter, you should have crushed.
You undermine any useful observations on the sexist narratives that have dominated Hilary's coverage by using (rather amazingly) the term "lynching" in a post that is too much a (completely absurd) attack on Obama--ostensibly for saying he hadn't seen the clip of Hilary's interview?!? How do you justify focusing your outrage on Obama over Edwards--who has indeed seen the clip and sadly engages in the revoltingly sexist rhetoric you seek to disparage. Could you define your idea of what "lynching" means for a (formally) semi-loyal reader? Was it an accident or an ill-advised joke that you used it in a post that attacked Barack Obama?
Cheers
CM

[Tom W.]

CM - I think Obama should speak out on this subject. I really do, if he wants to unite the country, as he said he will. This race is leaving many progressive women out (the Hillary supporters) and angering many who don't even support her.

Yes, lynching is a strong term even used as a metaphor, but I feel strongly that an entire gender is under attack here, along with a very specific woman (whatever her faults) - that it's a true mob mentality based on pure prejudice. It was meant to describe the cowardly attitude of the media, as I think it's pretty clear. Hopefully, you won't desert this little blogging ship.

BG - sure she doesn't need Obama to stick up for her, and yeah her campaign's made huge mistakes. That's not what this is about. Indeed, it's not a defense of Hillary. It's a counterattack on the mob. I don't think Obama will speak out - too much ambition. But he should.

[Kathleen M]

My daughter recently quoted Timothy Leary (who'd guess?) as saying that if a woman behaved like a man she'd be considered crazy.
Personally, I've felt the onus against a woman showing anger in public runs so strong, if subliminally, that she risks imprisonment in a psychiatric facility.
If Hilary Clinton's campaign reveals this glaring inequality to anyone who wouldn't otherwise recognize it, she's done us a great service.

[Mike P]

Well, Obama did at least acknowledge the grind of the campaign and said he wouldn't comment on the Hillary situation. Edwards, as has been noted, took the low road.

I guess the serious question is...what should Obama say? I mean, he can say some fairly banal things about Hillary being a champion for women's rights, etc. but I actually wonder how SHE would respond to Obama playing her white knight.

[blue girl]

yeah her campaign's made huge mistakes. That's not what this is about.

It's a ton of what it's about.

And if the media's calling her on every single solitary stupid thing they can think of (while they'renot thinking -- because they're so lazy) -- she needs to outplay them.

It's not fair, but I would figure that if anyone would know that, it would be Hillary Clinton. And I'm pretty sure she figured the whole fair thing out a long time ago.

[little nemo]

What a tonic this post and comment thread have been. I have never loathed a Democratic candidate in my life until Obama came along, and I will vote for neither him nor Edwards for president should should either of them get the nomination. I despise to my very soul the way those two have ganged up on Hillary.

And I hate the women posters over at Daily Kos who brag about how much they hate Hillary, as if hating a Democratic candidate for president is somehow or the other a badge of courage. There was one joker who explained that she and her friends were all lawyers and everyone of her girlfriends had done everything that Hillary did before she married Bill, so did that mean they were qualified to be president? These women are so stupid, and so thoughtless and so mean-spirited that they engage in a level of sexism that they would never tolerate from men.

Blue Girl - go ahead and give us an example of a Democratic candidate who was attacked as hillary was and managed to outplay them. Wouldn't your energy be more appropriately used by demanding that the press begin to rise to more responsible standards? Or are you willing to allow the media to dictate who it is gets the Democratic nomination - because by the standards you're proposing, that's what's going to happen. It's that kind of stupid thinking that makes it incredibly difficult for good candidates to get elected.

Oh, the press will let the sleazy candidates like Obama by because exploring his mob ties is going to be great fun for him once he gets the nomination, but someone squeaky clean like Clinton? Nope, can't have that.

[Esoth]

TW, respectfuly, you are becoming unhinged in your increasing calls that Obama bend over backwards to rescue Hillary's campaign. You do women no favor by being selectively sensitive to slights against Hillary, as if she were the first person to be picked apart by the craven press. Every time Al Gore blinked or exhaled he was accused in the press of throwing a fit, and Howard Dean was hooted off the stage as a madman. Were you as hysterical then? Those in the press not smitten by McCain frequently note his anger, and then there's Rudy. Getting weepy didn't play for Muskie either.

Hillary is free to make veiled hints about Obama, and her aides are free to "spontaneously" spout off about his past, and yet Obama's first obligation is to ensure that Hillary is afforded an artficially courtly treatment by the press?

[Linda]

Great post, Tom. I'm glad that a few bloggers are actually writing about this, because I've been infuriated for months as I've watched it get worse and worse. Some have asked why Obama should say anything about this, and it really baffles me that they would even have to ask.

Obviously he should say something about it because half this country is female! That's a huge number of people he is trying to reach with his own campaign. Does he really want us all to think that he doesn't give a sh*t about women's rights? What does that say about someone who is supposedly going to bring equality about? Or is he only talking about equality and hope for MEN? Democrats are supposedly for equal rights for women. That shouldn't be only when it's convenient. It should be all the time. And that shouldn't be a tactical campaign consideration. If he can only win the nomination by throwing all women under the bus, how are you going to feel about him? Personally, it will stink pretty bad from where I'm sitting. And I'll have a very hard time voting for him in the general.

[Jack]

The insults leveled at gender have been just as insulting as those racial stereotypes would be.

No, WMCB, you are just a racist. Those nasty racist stereotype in your comment? You used them. And they're in your head. And you think using them to make a point is okay in public discourse. You think playing "women" and "blacks" against each other is okay -- as well as doable, so you obviously aren't a black woman. But you are a racist. No one who sincerely cared about equality would make the comments you did. Frankly, get the fuck out of the Democratic Party. I don't want you in it.

[Jack]

The insults leveled at gender have been just as insulting as those racial stereotypes would be.

No, WMCB, you are just a racist. Those nasty racist stereotype in your comment? You used them. And they're in your head. And you think using them to make a point is okay in public discourse. You think playing "women" and "blacks" against each other is okay -- as well as doable, so you obviously aren't a black woman. But you are a racist. No one who sincerely cared about equality would make the comments you did. Frankly, get the fuck out of the Democratic Party. I don't want you in it.

[Nathaniel Hook]

Thanks for this post, I agree whole-heartedly. As a British male living across the pond I have watched with cool horror as Hillary has slowly been eviscerated by a biased and partisan press. I watched the debate on Saturday. Hillary had every right to be a little angry as Edwards and Obama mercilessly pilloried her record. Why did the media comment only on the fact that she showed a flicker of emotion rather than focusing on the fact that what she said was hugely valid - she has brought about actual change, she is the agent of a new tomorrow that the US apparently wants. I think that the media scruitiny has been woefully one-sided and it saddens me to the core that more in the US have not been up in arms about what has happened. What I find so frustrating about the criticism levied towards Hillary is that invariably it focuses not on her legislative track record, her consistent commitment to human rights, so obviously the cornerstone of her legal and political career, and her unquestioned gravitas and leadership, but rather on personal, petty and subjective evaluations focused on character. I would argue that, quite apart from the fact that, in my view, Hillary's character has always been beyond reproach, questions of character must by conjoined to an objective evaluation of political judgment and, on this basis, Hillary emerges through her legislative track record in the Senate as a unifying and consistent voice. There is undoubtedly a double-standard at play here since the criticisms that are directed towards Hillary, her supposed 'calculating' nature and 'ruthless ambition' seem to be indelibly linked to her gender and frankly are moot anyway - I defy anyone to identify a successful politician lacking in ambition and/or a certain degree of calculation, since both are symbiotically linked with the job! I am happy for the media to evaluate in an objective fashion what Hillary has said, and, by extension, what she politically represents, but invariably this is not the focus - I wonder, if perhaps this is because Hillary emerges consistently so strongly on any evaluation of this kind.

Shame on the American electorate, the Democratic party and most importantly the media for your behaviour. I remind all women in the US, if you fail to annoint the most able and impassioned Democrat as your Presidential nominee in a generation, the ramifactions will have an impact on you all in the long term.

[Brighid]

The worst part--for me, as a woman--is not so much the pricks in the press, but the women at DailyKos. I've never seen such scorn and derision directed at a woman, from other women, in my life. It's depressing to watch the madness of the group-think- thuggery against her on "progressive" blogs. They should be ashamed, but they have little insight into their own gender negation. It's akin to watching blacks lynching blacks in a zealous, crazed attempt to prove their loyalty to the local white sheriff. It's utterly vile, and incredibly degrading.