The Sexist Media Lynching 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.

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.

[Andre]

Thank you for your post. I absolutely agree, the sheer and utter sexism on display in the systematic dismissal of Hillary is staggering. Although I typically vote Democrat, I too am not beholden to the party and will not vote for either Obama nor Edwards. It's ironic to hear other candidates talk of change, when the greatest change which would not only benefit all Americans, but women and minorities worldwide would be having Hillary Clinton as President of the U.S. For anyone who is aware of the of objectification of women, leading to a culture demanding females be passive, submissive, and and worst of all victims of violence, the media attack on Hillary is not only part of the societal continuation of "women's roles." It's amazing to see democratic men and women fall into group think, spewing the same rhetoric often repeated as reasons to not like Hillary. Clearly, Hillary is in a no win situation. She's either too liberal or not liberal enough. Show emotions, and she's too fragile. Show no emotion and she's a "bitch."

Hillary is obviously liberal and would certainly place the national agenda on due course. She's intelligent, intellectual, has experience (yes having a husband as a two term president would certainly be an enormous knowledge base), and would most likely place competent people in place as president. Perhaps Edwards and Obama are intelligent and perhaps competent, but I believe what people are missing is the residual cultural affect of having a female as leader of the free world. That my friends would be the biggest change, as the cultural Zeitgeist is at stake. I'm really saddened by the blatant sexism, yes even among women, who have been assimilated as well. Who is exposing all of Obama's or Edward's weaknesses? No one. Where has the artillery been aimed? Hillary.

Bye, Democratic Party

[Nick L.]

I don't disagree that Hillary is getting a bum deal, but what did you expect? This is America. Anyway, it's hard enough work running for President without being expected to police the MSM echo chamber. Most voting Americans have well-formed views on gender issues (one way or the other) and are unlikely to be swayed by some pundit's perspective.

[Tom K]

Boo, hoo. As Eleanor Clift would say (usually in defense of WJC tactics) -- "politics ain't beanbag."

HRC hadn't dried her tears when she was back to disparaging Obama as "not ready" and not having "thought through what he'd do." While those are points she's entitled to make, a better politican would make them less obtrustively. More to the point, it's a little crazy to suggest that he's obliged to defend her from the attacks of others while she's attacking him directly.

Obama isn't responsible for judging the discriminatory or non-discriminatory nature of every comment everyone makes about HRC. There's a wide spectrum, and just where the line is crossed is subjective. He should refrain from such attacks himself, but what the heck is he supposed to do or say about Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews or Free Republic? The idea that a black man must be place himself in service to the white woman he is competing with is fraught with its own set of perils.

Bottom line: HRC is not failing because she is a woman. She is failing because she is not a good politican. Sexist attacks hit her campaign, to the extent they do, like opportunistic infections. If she were healthy, they'd be fought off with little notice, as the nonsense that they are.

[Tom K]

BTW, "likeable enough" was a huge mistake by Obama, in my view. It's possible that he meant it more graciously than it came across, but it came across terribly.

Terribly for both of them, actually. Though it may be part of a series of events creating a little room for her to maneuver, she looked like the kid no-one wants to sit with at lunch begging to be acknowledged as "not that bad", and he looked like the BMOC taking the opportunity to taunt that kid.

Hate to reduce national politics to the HS lunchroom analogy, but when you'r talking "likeability", that a useful common reference point. And who wants either of the types HRC and Obama were playing, in that exchange, running the show?

[Andre]

"Sexist attacks hit her campaign like opportunist infections"? The depth of sexism is much more subversive than an "opportunist infection." She's aware she has to present herself to a much higher standard than do the male opponents. Ok, we can discuss the intellectualized politics of the process in cold calculating terms, but I don't see her as failing so much as I see what these attacks say about our culture. So I assume she should what, attack subtly? Not to vigorously as to seem cold and bitchy and not be too nice, nor show emotion, as or else we get "boo hoo" comments.

[James]

Hillary made some serious mistakes in her campaign. Counting on old time politicians to make a case for her presidency. If she would stand up on her own early on in the race he would have had made a better impact. She had President Clinton master politician and former president working on her behalf. Then her campaign begin to fall apart after the entire media up tell around December called her a shoe in. I can't believe I'm hearing this utter tripe on your blog. Immediately call it sexism rather than looking at the actual facts regarding her campaign.

[jeanh]

Great article. You hit the nail on the head.
(I did think that Obama was only making a friendly joke when he quipped "You're likeable enough." For me, it relieved the tension from their earlier sparring.)
But Obama seems content reaping the benefits of sexism (in some American women as well as some American men)

[Bob In Pacifica]

This sudden meme that Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of all that is feminine and that everything else is no choice at all is so much crap. Everyone I know who isn't voting for Clinton in the primaries tells me that they don't like her voting record and they don't like her proximity to the status quo. You know, that status quo that's got its boot on woman's neck.

That Gloria Steinem is stirring this pot (visit TalkLeft and then read the comments there) suggests to me that we've got several layers of provocation going on here, one being the man v. woman card. Let's all get real. ANY Democrat would be better than ANY Republican on a variety of progressive topics, including women's rights. Criticizing Hillary's opponents for not putting their coats across puddles when the media hurls mud is a bit too much. This sudden burst of outrage against male Democratic candidates on the eve of Clinton's second defeat strikes me as just another ploy by the oligarchy to maintain the status quo. Sometimes it feels like a constant spinning of "Who's Next." "Behind Blue Eyes" v. "Won't Get Fooled Again" v. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Slappy]

Sexism or not, if this is responsible for tanking Clinton now, she would be dead meat against the GOP. This is NOTHING compared to what we will see, real or not, if she wins nomination.

The polls are telling us everyone wants change. Obama certainly represents change far more than Clinton does and he's been able to convince the young to vote. If sexism is more responsible for Clinton's misfortunes (which are still very premature) than what the polls are telling us, this speaks more about our society than anything Obama or Edwards has done and it is doubtful she ever stood a chance from the beginning.

[Bob In Pacifica]

What public stand did Clinton take when Anne Coulter said John Edwards was a faggot? Sorry, I don't remember her saying a word about that. How come? Was she silently allowing that attack to stand? Sexism is only sexism when it hurts her, not when terms of oppression against gays are used in political discourse?

What public stand did Clinton take when Anne Coulter said Edwards has a bumper sticker saying, "Ask me about my dead son"? Was Clinton's silence a verification of her approval of using gay-bashing terms in order to defeat a political enemy? Was she silently reveling in the pain of Edwards' loss of a child?

Bottom line: There is so much strawman building with the latest "Don't cry for me, Hillary" meme that we're going to run out of switchgrass before we get a Dem back in the White House.

[jen]

BO showed the same amount of disregard to the rights of the gay community when he invited McClurken to appear at his rally. I am not at all confident he speaks for civil rights at all - especially gay and woman's rights.

[jen]

BO showed the same amount of disregard to the rights of the gay community when he invited McClurken to appear at his rally. I am not at all confident he speaks for civil rights at all - especially gay and woman's rights.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

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.

Your language on so many things has been "over the top" and sensationalistic. What about calling Edwards's soul "an empty room"?

What about accusing Obama of pursuing the moral equivalent of Reagan's "race baiting Southern strategy"?

And so on... I don't want to go on. It isn't limited to this posting.

It is odd that someone who in person is so polite, even-tempered, and measured in all of his reactions becomes, with a keyboard in his hand, the blogging equivalent of Hulk Hogan.

[Aarthi]

i need help understanding the Obam-enon. seems if you like obama, there are very few reasons not to vote for hillary clinton (but i know i'm incredibly biased).

i understand the desire not to have a clinton or a bush being the only people to occupy the white house since 1988. i do think it's damaging, especially for young people, to perceive our democracy as being run by just a few political families. (i guess i don't think "likability," whatever that means, is a good reason to vote for someone.)

on almost every other point, she trumps obama. their voting records in the senate are 90% similar, but she has proven her competence at promoting progressive causes for 35 years and has also done a far better job in the senate. he might very well be able to prove the same and display a great record one day, but shouldn't we let him be tested before trusting him with the highest office?

the repeat player game also tends to advantage past players in negotiation. and a nuclear, unstable pakistan is really what the next president will inherit.

the mayor of LA was in NH when i was canvassing, too, and he spoke to all of us before we went out, and he said, "hillary clinton is more seasoned and a better decision-maker now than bill clinton was in 1992." and i believe that. i see it as a unique opportunity for us to get someone who is maybe more ready than anyone in our lifetimes has been to do that job. and to get someone the republicans have already thrown everything they possibly can at. it's going to be an ugly general election.

as for change, obama has a lot of the same people, too. one of his campaign managers worked for ira magaziner. a lot of them worked for kerry. another was a pharma lobbyist. maybe 25 out of 1000 jobs in any new administration go to people who proved themselves via the campaign; the rest will go to a lot of the same people they would go to if hillary won. part of the reason washington is immune to change is the same people shuffle in and out all the time, and they change over a much longer cycle than 4-8 years, regardless of who's occupying the highest office.

the presidency is the one job where having experience can be counted against you. it's very odd. someone explain the excitement to me, please! because if he wins the nomination, i'm definitely going to be out there making sure dems take the white house back, and i'd like to be enthusiastic.

[Tom K]

*Your language on so many things has been "over the top" and sensationalistic. What about calling Edwards's soul "an empty room"?

What about accusing Obama of pursuing the moral equivalent of Reagan's "race baiting Southern strategy"?*

Yeah, and what about suggesting that Reagan had a "race baiting Southern strategy"? Since when is appealing to a majority of voters in a democracy improper?

[Ophelia]

It's heartening that this phenomenon is - at last - getting some notice. I hold no brief for the Clintons, but I am disgusted by this spectacle, disgusted enough to withhold my vote from the Democratic presidential candidate if same is not Hillary, for what it's worth.

Regarding Obama's 'you're likable enough' remark during the debate -- I don't think it matters much that he didn't mean it that way, if indeed that is so. He's running for the Presidency, for heaven's sake, and he was up there smirking like a teenager. Didn't look presidential to this viewer.

[Slappy]

"Waaaaaahhhh. Politician X didn't reply in a manner I feel is most appropriate and I think he/she sounds sexist even though I don't think he really is sexist so I am going to bow out of the Democratic party altogether and withhold my vote. Not saying I'm going to vote Republican, I just wont vote Democrat because they sound sexist. Maybe not as sexist as the GOP but I have principles."

Do you want to win the White House or what?

[Alex]

If Hillary Clinton wants to be President, she's going to have to deal with the media and her opponents, just like everyone else who has ever sought the office.

She's not being lynched because she's a woman. She is running for office in the dirtiest game in town.

People aren't going to vote for her because she is or is not a woman, or because the US needs a woman president, or its time to let a woman have a turn. People are going to vote for her because her message is one that rings true with most people, and if she is successful in being able to define her message in an arena full of hecklers.

Most people don't pay attention to the minutiae of who her donors are, or in most case, even what her policies are. Can she get up there and live under the limelight and make people believe what she's saying?

Bill could do it. So could Reagan. For a certain segment of the country, W was able to do it for a while.

It only takes one misstep, one gaffe, one soundbite to derail the message--and the presidential chances--of a perfectly qualified candidate. Ask Howard "the scream" Dean. Al "sigh" Gore. John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry.

It's not Barack Obama's job to rescue Hillary from the media, or open her door or pull out her chair for her. In case you haven't noticed, he's dealing with a noise machine of Barack HUSSEIN Obamas, and he went to a madrassa, and he's black, or not black enough.

Hillary knows damn well what her limitations are. She has correctly pointed out that no one else in the democratic field has been so thoroughly tested by the right wing attack machine. Whatever you want to say about Hillary, it is unlikely we will learn anything new about her if she gets the nomination.

Obama's doing well now because his message of change is resonating with a country that wants change. Republicans in Iowa would have chewed their own arms off before voting for Hillary caucused for Obama. The same thing is happening in New Hampshire.

Hillary may yet win... the real race is just starting. But she's going to have earn every single goddamn convention delegate and every single electoral vote on her own, not because anyone else said "ladies first."

[TK7]

This is pathetic. Desperate. Complete crap. I just sneezed and someone said "God Bless You". What a glimpse into the Man's soul. What a sexist that person was.

[Tom W.]

Hey Bruce, it's a blog! Don't you know we're all sensationalists? Unhinged, bomb-throwers?

Sure the language is a bit hot, but it points to something I believe is entirely true - that the mainstream American media has a vicious sexist bent to it, and there are (shocking!) many left-wing misogynists as well.

None of these whiny "it's the Presidency, damnit" comments even make a slight dent with me (because I'm unhinged), just piss-poor arguments - like, "the sky is blue so that tree is a rock." Sure, running for president is tough - it should be. But while I expected Clinton be quite fairly attacked on Iraq, her perceived centrist views on foreign policy, and even the failure of national health care 15 years ago, I actually didn't think she'd be attacked for her gender - by the media or so-called liberals. So call me naive.

And man, was that a clear glimpse into that empty room.

[Ralph]

It's very true that sexism is much more acceptable and tolerated than racism in our society. Why is this a surprise to anyone?

[bruce b.]

TW says:

Hey Bruce, it's a blog! Don't you know we're all sensationalists? Unhinged, bomb-throwers?

Sure the language is a bit hot, but it points to something I believe is entirely true - that the mainstream American media has a vicious sexist bent to it, and there are (shocking!) many left-wing misogynists as well.

I wasn't just referring to your language on this posting. Your language in general can tend towards sensationalistic or "over the top" arguments. I think I pointed out to you another one recently -- you said that if McCain wins, Huckabee has "a lock" on Vice President. Not "the early front runner", or "a real contender", or even "my personal bet", but "a lock." You do that quite a bit. I think it diminishes your arguments.

I had a personal beef with your claim in June that "the inevitability train" (i.e. the Clinton campaign) was "about to leave the station." But there are numerous other instances.

In addition to, obviously, being a really top-notch writer, you have a knack for the biting tabloid headline. For example, your recent posting titled "Likeable Enough." Brilliant, and clearly within bounds. But often, imho, this skill moves you OUT of bounds.

I know you were half-joking when you said, "it's a blog, we're all sensationalists." But that idea is out of date. Blogs are a form of personal journalism, and should be held to the same standards (with some practical exceptions) as old media. (Obviously, you don't have fact-checkers and editors.) I read plenty of online media where the language is serious and rational. And then there are other online sources where the language is sensationalistic and immature.

I haven't read Jason Calacanis for years, but I recall how much his sensationalist journalistic style, with a random fact thrown in here and there, used to rankle me. He had huge success with it. But it set such a childish tone for an entire industry.

I think the best bloggers (I count you as one of them, otherwise I wouldn't come here) should be held by their readers to high standards.

Sorry for the rant. I am concerned that, with a long hard campaign in front of us, things will get totally out of control.

[Hakim]

There really is something troubling about your using the word "lynching" in this post to describe media coverage -- it's rather too much akin to Clarence Thomas's attempt to define his own supposed victimhood, and so far from what *real* lynching actually is. I might agree with you that some of the coverage of Hillary Clinton has been sexist to some greater or lesser extent, but it is offensive and deeply insensitive to the memories of the many African Americans who have actually been murdered -- that is, killed -- to call that a "lynching," and that much worse to do so in the context of leveling accusations against an African American political candidate. Whatever else Hillary Clinton has experienced, she hasn't experienced that and will never be at risk of experiencing that in her life.

[Tom W.]

Bruce - yeah it's personal journalism, but the emphasis is still on the "personal" for me. I'm not aiming for objective analysis in this little corner of the world. I'd say some of my opinions here are quite considered, and others are angry rants - but that's kind of what i'm aiming for. And I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who think I've been sensationalistic and irrational when it comes to George Bush and other conservatives. That said, I have no problem with anyone calling "bullshit" on me - it's basically the point.

Hakim, all I can say is this is one of those rants and I'm sorry if i offended you and others. I agree Clinton has never faced the risk of a physical lynching and that you have an excellent point on the language of the headline.

[bruce b.]

TW --

So you're telling me I shouldn't treat this as an influential political/cultural/media blog?

It was my impression that this indeed is what it is. Thus, my standards.

[Shelly]

"Racism not be politically correct but demeaning women never went out of fashion."

This sums it up for me. The problem is, I don't support Hillary for president, but the sexist treatment of her is worse than my desire to support another candidate for president. She is the most qualified woman for presidennt that we've ever had and will probably have for a long time. Men have told me, "Hillary is not the right candidate. You can wait for the right woman candidate." The deep sexism of that statement is astounding to me. I mourn for a country that can't get over it's most shameful prejudice, the sexism, the mysogony and the objectification and demeaning treatment of half of its population. Hillary's treatment embodies that. I'm not too far from supporting her as a result of it.

[Tom K]

*"Hillary is not the right candidate. You can wait for the right woman candidate." The deep sexism of that statement is astounding to me.*

Could you please explain why that statement is sexist?

Is it from some context you haven't supplied, or in the essence of the statement?

Cause it would seem that, if it is sexist to say HRC isn't the right person to be the first woman president but someone else will be, then it is, necessarily, sexist not to support HRC for president.

Thing is, you say "I don't support Hillary for president". ?????????

[bruce b.]

TK, there is something patronizing in the statement that Shelly quoted.

[Tom K]

It seems to me a statement generally, or at least this statement in particular, can only in patronizing in context. It depends who is saying it to whom, and under what cirucmstances.

I can imagine situations in which that statement could be patronizing, and have no reason to doubt Shelly that is was used that way to her. But, not knowing her, neither do I have any basis to believe her: she is withholding what appears to be critical information (if she's depending on context) and, if she is not depending on context she is overbroad in arguing that the statement itself is illustrative of "deep sexism".

BTW, in case you haven't guessed, it happens to be my opinon that Hillary is not the right candidate, and we should all wait for the right woman candidate. The second proposition follows from the first, unless you think there should never be a woman president.

Admit it, Ann Coulter would shake up the debates, eh?

[Grace Depp]

It's finally clear and getting clearer. The only that trumps racism in this country is sexism.

[Andre]

Hi,

This is a wonderful op-ed in the NY-Times which properly conveys how sexism has shaped the cultural landscape and how and why it is incredibly important a symbolic message of having a female to be the leader of the our nation. perhaps we know all this already, but I thought this was particularly well written.

Politics and Misogyny

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 15, 2008

"With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, gender issues are suddenly in the news. Where has everybody been?

If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.

Little attention is being paid to the toll that misogyny takes on society in general, and women and girls in particular.

Its forms are limitless. Hard-core pornography is a multibillion-dollar business, having spread far beyond the stereotyped raincoat crowd to anyone with a laptop and a password. Crowds of crazed photographers risk life and limb to get shots of Paris Hilton or Britney Spears without their underwear. At New York Jets home games, men regularly gather at Gate D to urge female fans to expose themselves.

In its grimmest aspects, misogyny manifests itself in hideous violence — from brutal beatings and rape to outright torture and murder. Fifteen months ago, a gunman invaded an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania, separated the girls from the boys, and then shot 10 of the girls, killing five.

The cable news channels revel in stories about women (almost always young and attractive) who come to a gruesome end at the hands of violent men. The stories seldom, if ever, raise the issue of misogyny, which permeates not just the crimes themselves, but the coverage as well.

The latest of these obsessively covered stories concerned a pregnant marine, Maria Frances Lauterbach, who had complained to authorities that she had been raped by a fellow marine. Her body was found last week buried in a backyard fire pit in North Carolina.

It just so happens that the Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning this week in the misogyny capital of America: Nevada. It’s a perfect place to bring up the way women are viewed and treated in this society, but don’t hold your breath. Presidential wannabes are hardly in the habit of insulting the locals.

Prostitution is legal in much of Nevada and heavily promoted even where it’s not. In Las Vegas, where prostitution is illegal but flourishes nevertheless, Mayor Oscar Goodman has said that creating a series of legal, “magnificent” brothels would be a great development tool for his city.

The fundamental problem in all of this is that women and girls are dehumanized, opening the floodgates to every kind of mistreatment. “Once you dehumanize somebody, everything else is possible,” said Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of the women’s advocacy group Equality Now.

A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri’s Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by.

If you don’t think this is an issue worthy of a presidential campaign, consider the scandalous way that women are treated in the military and the fact that the winner of this election will become the commander in chief.

The sexual mistreatment of women in the military is widespread. The Defense Department financed a study in 2003 of female veterans seeking health assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly a third of those surveyed said they had been the victim of a rape or attempted rape during their service.

The Associated Press reported in 2006 that more than 80 military recruiters had been disciplined over the course of a year because of sexual misconduct with young women and girls who had considered joining the military.

There continue to be widespread complaints from women about rape and other forms of sexual attacks in the military, and about a culture that tends to protect the attackers.

To what extent are the candidates of either party concerned about these matters? Do they have any sense of how extensive and debilitating the mistreatment of women and girls really is?

We’ve become so used to the disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous and even violent treatment of women that we hardly notice it. Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed against women and girls every day. Fashionable ads in mainstream publications play off of that violence, exploiting themes of death and dismemberment, female submissiveness and child pornography.

If we’ve opened the door to the issue of sexism in the presidential campaign, then let’s have at it. It’s a big and important issue that deserves much more than lip service."

[Delahunty]

This doesn't surprise me at all. There is a long history of sexism in the civil rights movement. Most of the time women have not spoken up about this in order to be supportive (which we are) and to avoid being labeled racist for daring to criticize a black male leader. Race still trumps gender.

[Delahunty]

This doesn't surprise me at all. There is a long history of sexism in the civil rights movement. Most of the time women have not spoken up about this in order to be supportive (which we are) and to avoid being labeled racist for daring to criticize a black male leader. Race still trumps gender.

[Ciccina]

I just found this post.... what a comfort. You're a good man, Tom.

[LIsa]

I appreciate your comments very much. I have been sickened by the attacks on Senator Clinton, but I did expect it, and I expect it to get much worse. It is very hard to take. It's hard to keep up hope.

[gtrd]

Thank You for writing this article. What is most unfortunate is that the misogyny in the media although now toned down alot has done it's damage. I do think Senator Hillary Clinton can recover and expect her to win, but she should not have had to go through this.

To me this shows her toughness and ability to handle adverse circumstances.

[Brenda]

Up until the New Hampshire debate, I was fairly neutral. After this debate I began listening to various people in the media covering the campaign. It did not matter which station I tuned into, the message was the same,
"lets bash Hillary Clinton" I began to search the internet, listen to stations for any negative coverage whatsoever on Obama and surprise, there really isn't any. It has become increasingly clear to me, this is about gender. I wanted so badly to not draw this conclusion, but all the facts are pointing in that direction. I also wanted to believe as a nation we had gotten beyond this, but wow! the hatered directed at this woman is staggering. Obviously the woman is not perfect, but dear God, the way the media presents Obama you would think the man is flawless. If Hillary Clinton can get through the beating she's taken from the media, I think she can handle being president. Give her a break already.

[k. Barker]

I don't see sexism being used. I see and hear Hillary and just don't buy all her ideas. I do think she will say anything, and bring up every ill, injustice, every handicap, every sad story and use the sad and depressing stories to get votes, use people of all races, use even children to work the system to get votes. I think she uses people to gather power, control, and it is all about her and her legacy. I see more than just a person wanting the job. It is not about female, but her attitude about entitlement to the job. I do see many good things, but many flawed character traits.

[Anna]

Excellent post. My fury at the misogyny and the sexism has reached cyclonic proportions and seriously, if Obama wins without acknowledging it, there is no freakin' way I would work for him in the general election. I'm so bitter at this point, my vote would actually be in doubt too - something I never imagined could happen.

[Kane]

As a foreign observer of the US nomination process, I am frankly astounded by the attitude of the media towards Hillary. I've seen her words get twisted too many times, and I saw the moment in NH where she, in fact, did not cry. After the commotion made by the media I was at least expecting a tear. Why wasn't there a fuss made after those idiots held up signs saying 'Iron my shirt' at her rally? If the tables were turned and someone turned up at a Obama rally with a rasict comment, imagine the media storm that would ensue.
Rasicm is rightfully treated with outrage, so why isn't sexism treated in the same manner? It is just as ignorant, baseless and hurtful.
When you compare their resumes who would you hire? The one that has spent 8 years in the US Senate and who was re-elected with 68% after the terrific job she did in her first term, and who has 35 years of leglislative experience? That's who I would chose. Putting aside race and gender I would chose Hillary based on her level of experience. I've watched the debates and she is incredibly well-informed and intelligent, and she's not afraid of giving the details about her plans either.

Charisma and being a gifted speaker should not make a difference. I've seen the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, be re-elected for her THIRD term as leader, and I can't say enough good things about her. But if you have ever seen her speak, it's clear she wasn't born with charisma or signifcant speech skills, but it doesn't hinder her from being a strong and well-liked leader.

[Tom K]

*who has 35 years of leglislative experience?*

Who's that?

[Christine]

If you don't see "sexism being used," well, frankly, you're blind.

Thank you for this article.

Really.

I don't even need to comment. But you are so right.

The media has been disgraceful throughout this.

[Pat]

Hillary's lynching in the media looks much like the revenge of slavery for all those lynched for insults to white women.

It is rather ironic - that her symbolic lynching has evoked little criticism from Obama, his campaign, or the public - who seemingly is quite willing to pile on, not to mention the delegates, super delegate, and current members of Congress.

It is rather like a sexist gang bang, symbolically, that the public seems all too willing to enjoy.

[jamie]

As a woman, I feel hurt by what men and women in the media have done. I will never look at Americans the same way again.

[jamie]

I have felt so much anger toward the media, especially women, and toward Barack Obama. How can he say he is for civil rights and not be for women's rights? It's an oxymoron. I always thought American women were more advanced than in other less developed nations, but I can see that, in fact, this is not true.

[jamie]

I'd like to add one more comment: How can women smile and not notice or care about their own while all this has gone on? I would feel ashamed.

[Patricia Mendoza]

It is sad to say , but the media and others are being so unfair because she is a woman. If the remarks were turned they would have called it racism.

[Andre N]

Christine, Pat, Jamie, Patricia, you are all correct. What is being done to Hillary disgusting and unforgivable. I expect the behavior from the group think republicans, but to see it so pervasive among democrats and on ugly display by most media is shameful. Still most people don't really know why they attack Hillary. You hear the catch phrases, but digging just below the surface is something much more telling about those who dislike her so. All those Obama supporters who claim they don't need Hillary supporters because Obama will pull in independent and conservatives are in for an extremely rude awakening. People who are overconfident tend to be wrong much more often. I have a 3 year old daughter. I have never been so proud to vote for a candidate as when I voted for Hillary in the primary and I will be even more proud to vote for Hillary in the general election.

[linda butcher]

coul not agree more. the dnc is done. we are out of the democratic party forever.the hatred of women is despicable and calls into question the leveal of masculinity of american males but explains the ever present need for viagra and cialis.

[linda butcher]

WOMAN IS THE NIGGER OF THE WORLD

[RAFREE]

What is so disturbing about the sexist bash fest being given a pass and condoned is that we live in a world where it's women who are still being sold into sexual slavery. Where they are set of fire because their partner wants another woman or because she doesn't have enough money. A world where the leading cause of death for women around the world between the age of 18 and 44 is violence in their own homes.

These issues of abuse are STILL alive and well in the United States and other countries around the world. The signal we send countries who see us as more progressive is that a harmful double standard exists to the extent that it has in this sham of a campaign.

Had she been going to lose fair and square to someone who did not ride in on this wave of sexism this would be a VERY different issue.

As it is many, many women are not going to vote with the democrats in this part of the election. I for the first time in my life won't. Not unless the DNC comes out and stands up for what the say they stand for. For anyone telling me after all these hard won battles for the right thing that I am not a good little democrat because I will cast a protest vote, I suggest you are not the target of this debacle or abuse. I suggest that perhaps you have not been in this party as long and perhaps do not realize the grave implications of what has happened here.

Obama could stand up and speak against these sorts of comments without being pro Hillary on policy. Instead he stays silent, Dean is gleeful at the attention this race has garnered the party. The backlash isn't taken seriously but, I assure you he is in for a very rude awakening.

I will go independent from here on out and I will withdraw from this party if Dean does not say anything as he would do if Obama were the target of such an onslaught.

Sexism is harmful to every woman and the men who care about them. This has to be talked about honestly or we will never get any further than we are. Certainly Senator Obama isn't going to do a damned thing about it.

[Lynn]

Thanks so much for writing this. Yes, many of us have been thinking this for a long time. There are many older women who are longtime democrats (I've been a democrat -- in an all republican family -- since I was 10...and I'm well into my 50's now), longtime large financial supporters of the party...But, make no mistake, I agree with many here, I'll sit out or even vote for McCain I'm so annoyed at Obama's not speaking out against the obvious sexism and the democratic party not speaking out for her...For those who give Obama excuses here...they don't work for me...many of us knew sexism (and know sexism) for what it is -- upclose...kind of hard to avoid if you're a strong woman. Obama supporters on various comment websites have called Hillary a bitch, a witch, and worse... If Obama wins the nomination, what you Obama supporters don't get is that you will have turned off people who have been longterm members of the backbone of support...Why? Because, many of us who thought the worse of sexism was behind us have had in thrown in our faces again...and we're ANGRY....Very ANGRY..

[No Longer a Democrat]

BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK. --Tina Fey (Saturday Night Live)

P.S. Can we borrow your letter, Fern? I would love to be able to send it to every single elected Democrat. They need to realize this is serious, to the utmost. Every man and woman I've spoken to recognizes this and even people you just meet on the street. It is disgusting and needs to be addressed and STOPPED.

[Molly]

I am leaving the Democratic party. They are a party of hypocrites. They never did accept women except as tokens. Women in this party who made it had to work twice as hard as mediocre men to get anywhere, just like in real life. Give me a public Male Chauvinist Pig any day. In Corporate America, at least I know where they are and can deal with them accordingly. But this closet hatred of women that has risen to the surface in this race by the leaders of what I thought was my party can never be fixed in my mind. The Democrats can never recover my loyalty nor the loyalty of so many women I know who are also horrifed and are leaving the party. This party is holding up a mediocre man and abandoning a superior mind in a woman. It doesn't get any more sexist than that.

Next time, Democrats, you can just suck up to me as an Independent and worry about which way I am going. For now, I will make it easy for you: I am NOT voting for Barack Obama if he's the nominee.

[sandra]

I was glad to come across this I am amazed at what is happening with the Hilary situation it is a bunch of men who don't want a woman in the white house including her own party. So along comes wonderboy Obama which makes me laugh. Then you have Pelosi who needs to in my opinion shut her mouth up she needs to start doing her job if she can and quite pandering to the big wig men she feels she needs to please. What does it say when today it is politically OK for blacks to choose a black man but how dare women vote for a woman that gets jumped all over. I am sickened by the media and there attempts to destroy her she does not deserve this in any way shape or form big deal if Bill was with another woman. What is something that should be looked into is the corruption in the present whitehouse and it is alot worse than Monica Lewinsky. Then you have Pelosi also saying no to impeachment why is that? Hilary needs to start saying it as it is. And Now you have the drip Leahy telling her to step aside why can't he do America a favor and step down. It is not about racism against blacks it is clearly racism against women. Barack is playing into it big time if he thinks he is so wonderful think again he is only ahead slightly because Men bigger than him prefer him to her not they want him compared to anyone else. The democrats are showing there true selves and it is a shame. Mind you the republicans would be teh same it is the old boys club the very ones who have been feeding of the public trough now for years and taking there bribes and accomplishing nothing what does that say for them?

[ginwolff]

Thank you Tom. You are a man with deep insight.

[Mary OK]

No question. The media and the democratic establishment has shown they can't handle a woman in the job. I too can not conceive of voting for Obama in the fall if he is the nominee. The sexism by the Democratic party and the media is just too much

[Katherine]

Thank you for writing this insightful piece. I really have felt so demoralized and depressed over the media coverage and, yes, Obama's silence on the real sexism in this campaign. I went searching for some media with similar feelings and found your post. It made me feel a little hopeful that someone out there feels the same way and was able to nail it on the head. Thank you.

[sakel]

THANKS, TOM! This was a succint commentary that I will be sure to treasure for years to come. And if the OBAMYOPIA affliction leads to His nomination, expect McCain to tear up his anorexic resume. Obama Himself said back in Nov. 2008 when he was elected to the Senate and asked if he'd run for President in '08:

"Well, I don't think this would be the right time in 4 years...I should wait; I don't think that my Resume can support me at this time and I need to develop my JUDGMENT!"...

One of the huge reasons he cannot win is the anger felt by many American 'typical white women' with his arrogant and condescending remarks: "Hillary can continue on the race if she wants..." Does Hillary need his manly and, by implication, authoritative permission to keep running in a race that is her democratic right to do so? And why belittle her that way? Is she not "likeable enough" for this "precious"(Dobbs) Media Messiah? His co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. said in Iowa that "It's a natural O.J.Simpson kind of thing..why(Obama) would knock down a white woman..." Imagine comparing his boss's knocking down of Hillary as the natural O.J.Simpson constrining force kind of 'thing'! The analogy even itself was inappropriately sexist. Yet no media picked up, except YouTube!

The 'bullying boys' of DNC and the OBAMYOPICS ware trying to elbow Hillary out of the ring so she throws in the towel before the fight's over thus allowing His Hopeness to rule. Why are they allergic to the democratic ideals to which they subscribe? In 1980 Kennedy carried his run against Carter all the way to the Convention even tho it was clear he'd been routed. And in l976 Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Geral Ford all the way to the Convention--and no one criticized Reagan for not stepping aside and letting Ford grab the Prize!

The misogyny of DNC and Obamyopia will ensure yet another 4 years of repugnant rule. Why don't these guys listen to an old and incredibly non-sexist oldtimer's good judgment:

"I am sure....I have no doubt that Sen Hillary Clinton will be a good Presdient"---

Those are the words of Sen. John McCain (!) back in Baghdad 2005, responding to questions by his interviewer, Tim Russert of Meet the Press!

And DNC Chair Howard Dean had said that "Hillary would make a great President". But when push comes to shove, sexism overrules sound judgment. Anything to keep a female out of the White House.

But what's 'progressive' Obama's excuse? Why doesn't listen to the judgment of two men more qualified to express sound judgment then he is?..before it's too late!

[sakel]

Tom, I just posted on this site. But I can't resist this.

Obama phoned Condi Rice from Iowa and she permitted him to write a (what else?) a Speech for the people of Kenya--one that was ignored by President Kikuyi. In November/Dec. pre-election, Obama took Dick Morris with him and went to Kenya to campaign for his cousin, Raila Odinga, marxist-islamist Opposition Leader. Post-election, with Odinga complaining that he lost unfairly, riots ensued with dozens Christian Churches burned to the ground and hundres raped and injured. The population of Kenya is 90% christian. Mr. Odinga, BO's cousin, had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Islamist national groups promising to make SHARIA LAW (mandating full cover for women head to toe and 'women's chastity laws') the law of the land.

The President of Kenya has not only ignored Obama's 'Speech' and message, but registered his objections in a democratic presidential candidate DIRECTLY INTERFERING in a sovereign African country's affairs by supporting his cousin (Luo tribeman) Odinga's opposition leadership.

To support anti-woman Sharia Law in his father's distant land and work behind the scenes with his anti-Hillary friend Dick Morris to support his islamist-marxist cousin shows just how lacking in Judgment Obamyopia really is and just how out of tune with women's reality across the globe...

[Geno]

God bless you for writing about this! I believe also that sexism is truly the Elephant standing squarely in the dead center of the American living room. Rev. Wright talked about the "white" race needing to atone for the past sins of our fore-people and the ongoing sins of our society against African Americans. I agree. And just as we bury the remaing sharp chards of racism out of site, even more so do we bury sexism. As a male, I must come to grips with my own inner sexist and its guilt and shame. We men must come to a place where we tell women we are sorry for the pain, suffering and oppression they have endured because of our sexism. We must also call each other to task and open their eyes to what is so hard to face. We must finally come to repent and ask women for foregiveness. This is a big task for this new millenium. I pray that it will come much much sooner. Remember that women were the very latest "ethnicity" to have even the right to vote. To women, "I am truly sorry for what I and my brothers have perpetrated upon you. I beg your foregiveness as I struggle to rid my soul of my still remaining sins to come. Even if God forbid, she does not win this race with all the odds stacked against her, Hillary Clinton is truly the greatest hero of our time. Looking back on this period in history, I believe we will see that Hillary Clinton will go down as one of the greatest heros of the millenium. We should honor her now for what she is selflessly doing for Chelsie and all women and all people of all sexes and ethnicities. Gender issues are at the core, more than oil, of much of the strife in our world today. I pray and pray for Hillary to become our next President. I light a candle in my heart for her every night.

[Kendall Johnson]

Women are the true niggers of the world. And no there is not gender equality here in the U.S.. Thank you Hillary for fighting so hard for for us, when the rest of the party has sold us down the river!!!Taking this beating is clearly the most selfless thing anyone could do. You are such a hero!!!!!!!! I can't stop crying because this hurts so badly. I am so proud of you Hillary and I pray that win or lose you keep fighting. You are truley an american hero above most if not all others!!!!!!!