Would Sebelius or Napolitano garner as many sexist comments as Hillary?

Whether you are a Clinton supporter or not (I'm not), it is clear that the level of sexist comments in this campaign from media personnel and others has been off the charts at times. Clearly there have also been times where sexism charges have been raised more as a political weapon, but I think we can all agree that there were clearly many times people went over the line, with even democrats calling her a big fucking whore, and celebrating "white bitch month" for her..

My question is whether this is just a common fact towards all women candidates, or whether Hillary holds a "special place" in our hearts. Hillary has been such a polarizing figure for years. In the 90s, it was hardly unusual for the right wing to call her everything in the book, including a murderer, so the use of sexist slander was probably considered minor compared to some of the slams.

But is this really just endemic to all women candidates, as many commentators have recently suggested? Or is this more a case of a long running history of attacks on Hillary re-emerging in its latest guise? And again, yes, she had some horrid campaign tactics, but that isn't the point - everyone could have easily used other words to describe her tactics (slimy, sleezebag tactics, etc.).

If Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano is selected as the VP, do we expect the Republicans to use the same verbiage on these two? I don't think we will. Personally, I think the history we as a nation have with Hillary almost allowed the intenseness of the terminology to rise. Because there is has been an ongoing history of polarization and slander regarding Hillary, it was not too much of a leap to take her campaign's questionable tactics and apply the same language used in the 90s.

Maybe its just me, but I don't this the MSM, the bloggers and talk show hosts would unload in the same way on Sebelius or Napolitano the way they have with Hillary.

Thoughts?

we as a society don't necessarily think that sexist attacks on women are OK. We just think they're OK on Hillary.

...racist insults on Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are OK but not on any other African-Americans. It's hosed up logic no matter how you look at it.

She has played the poor-pity-me victim for any reason she can think of, including being a woman, but I don't think her complaints are valid.

Beyond the unfair pantsuit jokes...

They are oft talked about but never enumerated.

I'm as fervent an Obama supporter as one can be, but it would be rather impossible not to notice the sexism directed toward Hillary. You would almost have to have a negative filter to remove awareness of it. here's a few links, but literally, the blogosphere and OP-ED pages are littered with them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/14/sexism___stoked_by_the_media/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

The question I'm asking is whether, as many OP-EDs suggest, that we as a country just accept this for all women or whether Hillary is a special case?

Penn Gillette is a Libertarian.

You're second article only lists the "cackle"/pantsuit while alluding to others which it fails to list.

The Youtube relies heavily on the likes of Tucker, Cavuto, Cafferty, Tweety, and Beck. :think:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After wading through those three pieces I've come up with:

Pantsuit(already agreed to)
Cackle
Wife jokes (totally inappropriate)


Most of it propagated by the right!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the right wing is sexist. That's a given. But in the context of the Democratic intraparty fight, it is almost nonexistent. No quotes from Obama. No quotes from Dean. No quotes from Congressional Dems. On the contrary, Hillary was given the utmost respect as the frontrunner for the nomination; born out by the disproportionate amount of time she was given in the early debates and her overwhelming press coverage- much of it noting the overpowering machine that she had built to launch her presidential bid.

I want to be clear(something that I wasn't in the post that you responded to): I'm not saying Hillary hasn't been the victim of vicious gender-based smears, I'm saying that virtually all of it is generated by the right. Placing those attacks at the feet of Obama, or his supporters, or the Democratic party, is misplaced. As for DU, the attacks are either trolls or a few knuckleheads.

That being said, lets get into the numbers. The pantsuit jokes are ubiquitous. The wife jokes were relatively low in number and, again, mostly by the knuckleheads at Faux. The cackle cracks have been pretty heavily played upon. Is there a better descriptor for her laugh? Cackle can be construed as sexist because of it's reference to a hen but men can cackle, too. Also, it must be pointed out that the other candidates have received their share of shots, too. Obama on race. McCrazy on age and, well, crazy. Edwards on appearance. Kucinich as an elf. Etc... All of this isn't happening in a vacuum.

My point is that the sexism charges are too broadbrushed. They come almost completely from the rightwing smear machine and a few misogynist talking heads. Brushing the Democratic party with that same brush is misplaced. As a matter of fact, had she won, the Democratic party would have been proud to have Hillary as its standard bearer.

He told us probably far more than he intended about his personal life.

That was mentioned.

I want to clarify that I'm talking about misogyny within the Democratic party and not a few talking head hacks.

was talking about "sexist comments in this campaign from media personnel and others".

Retracting and denouncing.

I think other candidates would not be subject to the "She's a fucking whore" type dialogue. I just don't see that in any local women candidates, for instance.

potential president of the United States?

We won't know what the reason for the sexist attacks are until another woman gets this close to the office of president.Local woman candidates don't fit that bill.

Hillary was the polarizing figure of the 90s. The right wingers rallied around excoriating her for everything possible. This history is still a part of her public persona. It wasn't too much of a stretch for some of this language to come back when her campaign tactics got rough.

And the Obama followers who claim "I've never seen any sexism" are being disingenuous.

I still see the sexism. I posit that its fairly impossible not to.

When it comes down to it, elections have become marketing events.

Candidates are the Brand. They use PR firms and focus groups, Marketing gurus and pollsters. They package their product in exactly what they wish us to see. Rarely do we see the real candidate.

The campaigns not only have to convince you why their brand is better, but they also need to convince you why the other brand is "bad".

This is especially evident this primary where you have two brands that are VERY similar, most ingredients (issues) are the same, they have different names, different packaging. The PR groups (campaigns) have convinced us they complete opposites. Each side sees the other as "bad" and their own as "good". They use whatever means necessary to outsell their competitor.

That there was almost a decade of attacks on her, many way over the top, had no impact on people using similar over the top attacks on her? You really think Napolitano would have potentially been called a "Big Fucking Whore" if she had run a similar campaign?

Yes, I think she would have potentially been called that.

Or if they offered one of their three balls to Obama so he would have one. In other words, a great deal of the blame lies with Hillary's loud mouthed surrogates.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the response allows us to use severe sexist language. Nor would most everyone tolerate in in most cases. At least I don't think so. I think the fact that they tolerated this with Hillary in the past allowed folks to use this against her recently.

false charges of sexism thrown in for good measure. But just because they have used this as a weapon does not mean there haven't been real instances. Similar to how the Obama campaign has used the faux racist charges as a weapon - there have still been real cases of racist comments. I think both cases have truly muddied the dialogue.

So again, just because some faux outrage has been in play does not mean real instances don't exist. In fact I find it hard to believe that people don't see them.

Is it more sexist to call a woman a "bitch" than to call a male a "son of a bitch" or a "bastard" or a prick?

None of these words is exactly elevated. But there are insults that are gender-specific but might not necessarily be sexist.

Regarding Hillary, I think the sexist aspect gets exagerated because she is an exagerated personality.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, for example, has often been the target or ire by DU, when she has sided with Bush on important issues. But would you call those attacks sexist?

but the various false charges of sexism and racism, and the faux outrages that were used as campaign tactics on both sides. This leaves the boundary lines for fair discourse completely blurred. Bottom line, sometimes bitch is sexist and sometimes its not. Same with Bastard or prick. But its clear that EVERY time it was used in this campaign, it was highlighted as being sexist. Same with potential racist code words.

She and her supporters accept the word when it is used in that Tina Fey manner, but reject it when it comes from a woman against them.

Look, I have no idea whether gender-specific language which disparages men is less awful than gender-specific language which disparages women. The insult is meant to demean either way you go about it.

I really don't think you can say to a man I will call you a son of a b*tch implying his mother is a b*tch and think his anger should be less just because it may not be as bad as getting in his mother's face and calling her a b*tch. It is insulting either way.


As a merely philosophical exercise, I think it misses the mark too. There is an environment to each insult.

Barbara McCulsky in Maryland didn't get anywhere near this level of treatment, for instance. In fact, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that this treatment is normal.

For this reason though, I'd LOVE for Obama to pick Napolitano or Sebelius. It would be an interesting counter-point I think.

by a fellow democrat.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/25/945361.aspx

She won by the way.

Where is the sexism there?

A man would be legitimately attacked for deciding for less harsh treatment for the KKK too. The racially tinged argument the GOP makes in NC is spot on too. Democrats through HC has given up the moral high ground on race baiting.





Now Democrats have a relative argument at best. Well, HC didn't mean it that way. AAs didn't loudly protest because it's friendly bait.

I'd say it is offensive and divisive no matter who throws the race bait out there.

because people inclined to attack Clinton like that would be much more comfortable with a woman in the second-place, more subservient role of VP. Plus, Sebeleius or whomever wouldn't RUN for the job, which some find objectionable in Clinton - not just having power, but actually trying to GET it. They hate that.

All the successful women CEOs now? They aren't getting this treatment. Nor are governors as a group.

can prompt sexist responses. If it's sexist, it's sexist.

There really aren't that many successful women CEOs, but they certainly HAVE faced sexism, and continue to do so.

But, my point is that choosing someone for VP will not expose that woman to the same kind of attacks that running for President will. Do you disagree?

I disagree with your point that a person's history does not impact how people treat them today. This makes no sense to me. If the attacks were able to get ramped up over 8 years in the 90s and people didn't stop them, the jump towards using the same attacks on this person is rather small.

I do agree with the glass ceiling argument though. That the first time a serious woman CEO or senator or Governor runs, they WILL gets lots more of these things than the second and third woman. So yeah, I would agree that whoever the first serious woman candidate for President was (Hillary in this case), that she would get some of this stuff. I would augment that with the history argument though - that because the first person was Hillary, the avenues were already in place to make insane comments about her.

And I do think the VP choice, if its Sebelius (my choice!) or Napolitano, will get some of this for the same reason, but nowhere near as much as Hillary would. But I would agree with you that it would be less than if they were in Hillary's place in the campaign this year. I just think if they were, they would have not gotten to the level of "fucking whore" type comments.

that Senator Clinton did not hold out a sign saying "please attack me in everyway possible and include pointing out how I am unwomanly or too female or whatever."

If you think that the primary campaign has been drenched with sexist comments -- and I do not -- just wait for the GE. Regardless who gets the nomination or who is VP, it is going to get ugly.

campaign. And yeah, I think its a fair statement that the last few months have been fairly drenched.

It will get worse.

quite lacking in the kinds of experience that governors get.

Hmm...not sure I buy this.

Women aren't welcome, nor their input valued.


(Unless they're naked on their computer screens, of course.)

Women are definitely there, both in running the conference (in the case of Web 2.0) and as speakers. There was a greater percentage of woman speakers than woman attendees, incidentally. I see this as a good thing.

Or are you talking about political conferences?

That's why the news media doesn't attack other women elected officials.

The first woman Democrat to run a serious campaign for president is getting attacked, no big surprise. Any woman who has been a pioneer in the world of business, academia or other professions knows how it works. The "pushback" is even greater in this situation because there is so much money and power at stake. Corporate America and their media lackeys have amassed a great deal of power under GOP rule and they're at risk of losing it. They want to buy the next Dem candidate and they don't trust Clinton, a woman, to do the job for them.

They're also concerned at the growing influence of women voters in this election. They're doing everything possible to neutralize or manipulate the public discussion women voters are having about the candidates and issues in this race.

they are using sexist languages? So Hillary accepting PAC money and having huge pork totals and the like shows she cannot be bought, while Barack can? Forgive me, but I don't buy your logic there if this is what you're implying.

Now the whole glass ceiling thing has some merit. If you're arguing the "first time" women do something new in a position of leadership they'll get these attacks regardless, I think that's pretty defensible. This would also explain why we now have very successful CEOs and Governors who don't get these attacks. I still think Hillary as the messenger brings a history that perhaps others would not, and that this impacts the discourse.

Its obvious Hillary is not their choice as the corporate money has shifted from Clinton's campaign to Obama's. You don't really think they switched their donations for any other reason, do you?

Face it - Obama has 1.5 million contributors, with the average contribution at $90. Hillary's profile looks RADICALLY different from this. She does the old style corporate bundling. Your argument doesn't hold water here...at all.

Hillary was CLEARLY the choice of both the democratic luminaries AND corporate america. She was the inevitable candidate - everyone knew it, and her staff was the first to clarify this if you had any doubts. After February, after 11 straight wins, most people had figured out that Obama had an insurmountable lead (this has been borne out by events), so those looking to influence the next president would of course start contributing.

:thumbsup:

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

Neither is Hillary for hers. Can we all grow up and move on here?

hillary or no one

If it comes to being a heart beat away from the presidency, I think this country WILL attack the woman.

The language used from the media has been unacceptable.

Even that General's statement about a woman finding her voice at 60 years of age was funny (to me) but I thought the criticism in itself was over the top. I thought her statement had to do with finding the right political cord to strike, I didn't think it related to who she was at 60.

divisive campaign she's run. And Clinton supporters need to stop crying sexism all the damn time...that's getting annoying. People don't like Hillary because she's acting divisive and her campaign race-baited. Not because she's a woman...damn, I support the idea of Sebelius being VP. I think she would bring lots to the ticket. I'd be more open to Hillary if she didn't mock and throw half the damn Party under the bus!