Keith Olbermann's Idea For Beating Hillary: Literally Beating Hillary

There are two kinds of people in the world: People who think there's an ugly strain of misogyny running through Hillary Clinton's media coverage, and people who think she's just not very likable and deserves it for running such a mean campaign and is ruining the Democratic party and has an annoying laugh and should just shut up and get out of the race already. Regular readers of this column won't be surprised to learn that I fall into the former category, having cataloged a fair number of examples here, but I'd think that even if I agreed with the second part I'd still agree with the first, because her coverage is just that bad. I am not going to run through it now — if you're interested, there are 83 specific examples documented here — but I am going to offer up an unbelievable statement made by Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night's show as proof.

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take "some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this."

Said Olbermann: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

Watch it:

What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out. At minimum. We know this. We know this because we have all seen movies where people are invited into private places to have "discussions" and the unruly party is, um, dealt with accordingly. It's an unmistakably violent image.

Do I really think Olbermann thinks Hillary Clinton should really be violently beaten to the point of physical incapacitation, or worse? No, though some have taken that statement to its logical conclusion. But it is an unmistakably violent image — and that point seems to be undisputed by those who have written about it so far (Google "Olbermann" and "take her into a room" and you'll see results like "Keith Olbermann Advocates Violence Against Hillary" "Olbermann: Misogyny 101" "Calls To End Race Turn Violent""Olbermann: How To Snuff Out Hillary Clinton"). Even Fineman seemed taken aback by the statement - there is a distinct pause after, and it's an eternity in TV time. He's not facing the camera but you can tell that the statement was jarring. (Even so he agreed, saying, "Yes, yes exactly.")

There really seems to be only one interpretation here, and the only point of debate is on whether it's okay or not. I'm going to cut that one short: It's not. To the fellow (male) journo I wrote to about this yesterday, who waved it off as just some colorful film-noir imagery, I say: can you IMAGINE if someone had said that about Obama? That he should be taken somewhere and dealt with, so that he wouldn't come back? Can you imagine if some right-winger had talked about getting Obama out of the race "the old-fashioned way?" If that last one makes you cringe, it should, because it evokes a history of violence against black people in this country that is raw and real. Well, frankly, the same goes for women — many of whom have been taken somewhere private, and never returned.

I can already hear the outcry of those who can't believe I'd equate the gender card with the race card. Well, too bad. They're both issues, they're both factors, and in the first presidential campaign where both a woman and an African-American have a real shot at the nomination, they're both all too germane. Each of the candidates is a complex person whose appeal or lack thereof can be endlessly parsed and attributed to all sorts of factors. But sexism is one of them, and part of the problem is that too many of such comments are waved away as being just jokes or not a big deal or geez, take a chill pill. Well sure, I'd be happy to — as soon as I can no longer find articles like this one, which cites the example of "a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face."

To my mind, this is much worse than Pimp-Gate, which entailed an off-color implication resulting from David Shuster's misguided attempt to sound cool, and even worse than Chris Matthews saying that Clinton had gotten where she was because her husband had "messed around." If David Shuster can be suspended for likening Chelsea Clinton to a prostitute, then what happens when Keith Olbermann implies that the only way to stop Hillary Clinton is to inflict some sort of physical harm on her? Like I said above, I don't think that Olbermann meant it literally, but that's not the point. Words matter, and so do the images they evoke. This can't be ignored.

Update: And it wasn't — an MSNBC spokesperson sent over an apology from Olbermann, which I have reprinted in full:

It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic "he" gender could imply something untoward. It should've been "only the other comes out - from a political point of view." You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism.

It is true, I did not contact MSNBC for comment - I was reacting specifically to the on-air commentary by their top-rated anchor, as seen by me and about 950,000 other people. To be fair, Olbermann regularly does the same in his "Worst Persons" segment, which often calls out on-air personalities for their remarks. I do, however, appreciate the alacrity of Olbermann's and MSNBC's response.

Update to the Update: Olbermann apologized on the air tonight, explaining that he ought to have made the statement pronoun-neutral and specific to politics; I am once again impressed with the alacrity of Olbermann and MSNBC.

The full clip is here:

Keith, what are we talking about here exactly? [The Confluence]

Related:
Hillary Sexism Watch: Part Eighty-Three [Shakespeare's Sister]

Comments

[Daniel8168]

03:08 PM on 05/01/2008

So, this is sexist and mysogynist, but Hillary's own surrogate implying that she has the balls to get things done isn't? Why would she need balls? Or testicular fortitude, or whatever her surrogate said on camera and two feet away from her. Since when does the presence or lack of testicles indicate an ability to get things done? Could it be a metaphor? I certainly hope so or Hillary's got some 'splainin to do.

Could it be that anything that could possibly be construed as mysoginistic against Hillary Clinton will automatically be attacked as such, despite it also having been a metaphor? Of course. Keith Olbermann made a comment that at worst, could be construed as violent. Was it a bit stupid? Yep. Was it in any way mysoginistic? Only to those that choose to see it that way.

[dishwithdi]

03:42 PM on 04/28/2008

I wonder...If Mr. Olbermann thought Obama should leave the race would he suggest the DNC elders should lynch the freshman Senator from Illinois? Yeah, right! Can you even imagine? When are these dunderheads going to learn they can't say this stuff? That would be when we cry out loud enough and write letters and boycott their sponsors and turn off MSNBC and watch CNN, which for my money (literally) has had a much more professional approach. I have been out campaigning in Indiana and Kentucky for Hillary and the good news is they have no idea who Keith Olbermann except for his football gig!

[ThomasMc]

11:34 AM on 04/28/2008

Airheads for Hillary!

[dishwithdi]

03:56 PM on 04/28/2008

Airheads for Hillary? Hmmm. Would that include the one PhD, one JD, 5 Master's degree holders, 9 college graduates, the nurses, teachers, builders, realtors, psychologists, lawyers, retirees and students in my family who have read her plans on each issue and decided to donate money, walk precincts, put up yard signs, join prayer circles, make phone calls, talk to friends and vote early for her in Indiana? Or do you mean the more than 14,000,000 Americans who have already turned out and voted for her? Or do you mean the millions more who are anxiously waiting their turn to vote for her? Golly that's an awful lot of fine, patriotic, tax paying Americans you are calling Airheads, buddy. You care to rethink that snotty little comment you tossed off? Or do you plan to go with that and just keep that little chip on your shoulder, that smirk on your face, and those trembling, furious fingers dancing over the keys in a bald effort to dismiss a nasty, knotty little problem for the majority of thinking people? Just wondering as I wander Indiana preparing to deliver the state for a great lady.

[hilaritee]

11:39 PM on 04/27/2008

wouldn't it be sexist to alter the tired analogies the media uses just because clinton is a woman? does this mean no more sports metaphors because they are masculinist?

[Jamlady10]

08:23 PM on 04/27/2008

If Obama can't debate Hillary, no matter what she throws at him, I doubt he can debate other world leaders. And gee. Some of them are female world leaders. This whole idea that Obama is "so pure" and "so special" only shows why he isn't a leader. Neurotic people seek to label things as one extreme or the other. With the racial issue that equates to black or white, with the religious issue good or bad and with politics, many supporters try to apply the same formula--- Hillary's all bad and Obama is so, so good he walks on water and never says a negative thing. Gee whiz. Wonder what that giving of the finger was all about? Or the lie about how much money he got from William Ayers, terrorist, or about how William Ayers was only a "guy in his neighborhood" --even though Ayers held a fund-raiser for Obama in his own home and served for years on a board together (a paid position--Obama got $6000/yr) and on that board they gave the AAAN $75,000. This group supports PAL against Israel. But, we can say Hillary is bad and Obama is good. Delude yourselves. Obama wants .7% of the US GNP to go to Africa. Guess who will be paying for it while you don't have insurance and enough money to buy gas for your car.

[slr51]

02:04 PM on 04/27/2008

You mean is WASN'T Hillary comparing herself to Rocky and doing dumb photo ops with a guy in boxing gloves?

Oh yeah - it was.

... nevermind

[beb]

02:03 PM on 04/27/2008

You people are still talking about this? How about you just find something else to occupy your time?

Beat Hillary, beat hillary, beat hillary. We are going to Beat Hillary and Keith just said the truth.

Why should she be afraid? She's got Bill to protect her. Hahaha!!!

[Prolix]

01:21 PM on 04/27/2008

Ms. Sklar, thank you for bringing some enlightenment to the coverage and commentary during this primary cycle. In some ways, these misogynistic asides prove that some "men don't mature any older than 14, they just learn how to manage it."

I've watched MSNBC grow increasingly impatient during this primary cycle and it caused me to wonder why since politics has become their daily ala carte item. Why would they want to cut short a primary that has fed Mathews, Olbermann, Gregory's new show and Abrams for months (although I must admit that Gregory and Abrams have not been nearly as offensive as Mathews and Olbermann of late)? The simple answer is that the network is playing to their demographic, that of younger, pimarily male viewers who typically show the maturity of a 14 year old who has not yet learned to manage their wobbly venture into civilized human discourse. A quick read of the posts herein illustrate the point.

Much to the protestation of Olbermann and his playground vendetta with Fox News, I, a life-long liberal, have found Fox to be much more fair in its coverage. Prior to MSNBC's equivalence of "calling girls yucky," by their coverage and comentary regarding Sen. Clinton, I would never have thought such a thing possible. It just proves if you live long enough, all things are possible.

[PollyTics]

12:23 AM on 04/27/2008

(Part 3 of 3)
The premise that misogyny is worse than racism is another ply that is being bandied about in a very dangerous and disingenuous way. You can't compare the two, nor should you try to measure such a difference, as both are heinous! When does one begin and another end? It's a tough call and in such a tormented race as this has been, both sides are super touchy about words and phrasings used. Some times an issue is made when none exists and sometimes the issue exists but is denied by the speaker, it's an age-old situation and one that needs to be addressed but done with fairness and OBJECTIVITY.

I felt that this article is merely inciting more hate and division within the Democratic Party and this has got to STOP! Now please, can we all begin again?

[PollyTics]

12:22 AM on 04/27/2008

(Part 2 of 3)
At the very start of the article, it made me cringe, but I forced on to see if I could find some sort of point in the piece other than the blatant "Nah, nah, nah, my Hillary is better than your Obama" routine. Alas, I was vastly disappointed.

After first woefully distorting the realities as to there only being two types of people, Ms Sklar then took something that Keith Olberman had said during a discussion about the heated fight between the two and twist it to take it literally is just completely disingenuous! The commonly used phrase "Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out." was not to suggest anything lewd nor treacherous, but is used to suggest that it's time to make this thing stop as it is hurting the Democratic Party as well as those involved. The expression was NOT A LITERAL THREAT as she seems to take it but an awkwardly phrased comment about a resolution. After Keith realized how some have taken it, he immediately offered up an apology on the next night's show.

[PollyTics]

12:22 AM on 04/27/2008

(Part 1 of 3)
Oh my goodness, can you get any more biased in your initial conjecture? I am so totally sick and tired of this debate and the over simplification of the issues involved. Rachel Sklar begins her piece by stating that there are only two kinds of people in the world; 1.Those who are outraged by misogyny in the media and how it affects Hillary Clinton OR 2. Those who believe Hillary deserved all of the misogyny and hate the media is (supposedly) dishing up because she's running a "mean" campaign. Well, after reading that distorted supposition, I just wanted to scream. Cannot someone be of sound mind and body and think that Hillary Clinton is just not running a good campaign and that if and when the media comes down upon her in a woman-hating manner that maybe, just maybe none of us like that? Is it possible that the concept of misogyny (& racism) repulses many if not most of us? And is it not possible that many of us can hold many things within our heads while walking and chewing gum at the same time?

And then Ms. Sklar went on to obscenely elaborate on this Keith issue, which is dishonest at best, while being divisive & hateful at worst.

[suigeneris]

07:32 PM on 04/26/2008

Olbermann's response was far, far, far more than the ridiculous insinuations of this article deserve. Good lord, how low are Clintonites going sink in the sliming and in playing victim game?

This disgusts me as a feminist, that others who would claim the same cause would write crap like this.

[Waterbug]

05:06 PM on 04/26/2008

As the campaign days roll by, I watch the press & blogs with sadness and wonder. Considering this country's history of racism, sexism and violence against people of color and women, we should all cry foul whenever these images are invoked in the media, no matter who invokes them. Our national discourse needs to be better than this.

No matter who you support, hopefully it is plain as day that Keith Olbermann's statement is appalling and unacceptable. There is no justifying it -- no matter how passionately anyone feels about their canidate, KO, whoever/whatever. It is simply not ok to speak this way.

I was a very small child when RFK and MLK were shot. I don't remember much during those early years, except I clearly remember watching MLK's funeral and seeing my Mom break down when RFK's assisination was announced. We don't want to see this happen to any of our leaders, whether or not we agree with their perspective.

It's not only the gender implications of his "only HE comes out" pronoun -- it is the violence inciting nature of the image. "ONLY xxx comes out" says someone is incapacitated or dead. "Only xxx comes out" implies violence, even murder. I understand Keith may be tired and frustrated, but there's no excuse for this master of the English language to make a statement like that on air.

[Obamamo]

08:24 PM on 04/26/2008

What are you talking about? Sexism! huh?????????? HILLIAR is a Freaking LIAR. She is a Neo-Con, she is a warmonger, she had two thousands faces, she simply CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.... What the Fruit are you talking about? So if you don't vote for HILLIAR then you are a sexist and a hate women and if you don't like HILIAR you hate America.... This is BS...I can't believe people write and believe this shit. NOT TODAY THO... HILLIAR LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST the Nomination. Get it?

[Heika]

04:53 PM on 04/26/2008

Initially was hoping the article from Rachel Sklar was a parody because this kind of figurative language, similar to "taking someone (of any gender) to the woodshed", is so common, it's unimaginable to me that anyone could consider it sexist, trite maybe, but not sexist. Although I consider myself a feminist, Sklar's looking for signs of sexism in every casual comment in order to cry victim is nauseating . Also, it's sometimes forgotten that Hillary Clinton, from day one in the White House, went out of her way to alienate the press and they paid her back in kind, so I'm not so sure that their frequent characterizations of her as a virago aren't based more on her personality than her gender. In any case, she has been the subject of some sexist attacks, and that is unfortunate, whatever the cause, but Olberman's comment was not one of them.

[Wanjiru]

03:41 PM on 04/26/2008

...Keith Olbermann can do no wrong in my eyes...and that's all that matters to me...

...he is the only news man in the MSM today with the cajones to call out bull sh*t when he sees it...

...BRAVO Keith...you are awesome...keep speaking up and putting HRC and her shady campaign, Bill O'Really? and all those other punks out there on blast...


Obama 2008!


.