The media is once again beating its breast and howling its mea culpas after the fact. Only when we were mired in an unprovoked and unwinnable war did the press begin to question its starry-eyed acceptance of the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. Now that Hillary has finally conceded, the argument about sexism in news coverage begins, and the good news is that this time it isn't too late to do something about it.
Let me get a few things out of the way immediately:
I am and have been from the beginning an Obama supporter.
I think Hillary, whose policies I admire, made egregious errors in her campaign, not the least of which was her inability to keep Bill from stabbing her in the back every chance he got. (Does anyone still believe that this man who is supposed to be the savviest politician of his time really wants another president in the family? If he did, he had a funny way of showing it.)
Criticism of Hillary Clinton is not de facto misogyny.
Though the Clinton campaign fell short, it was canny enough to exploit the media's anti-woman bias for its own ends.
That said, I think the answer to the question of whether sexism colored the coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign is a resounding yes.
As many commentators have pointed out, sexism is the last acceptable prejudice. What has not been so generally recognized is that the method of expressing misogyny is what makes it acceptable. Ridicule is okay, or hey, guys, I was just kidding.
Take only a few of the examples of anti-Hillary comments being currently replayed:
* "Hillary looked like everyone's first wife standing outside probate court." MSNBC (The first wife joke.)
* "No matter what Hillary says, it still sounds like 'take out the garbage.'" Fox News. (The current wife joke.)
* "Hillary's face of experience is merely the visage of an old bag." Fox News (The only thing worse than an ugly woman is an old woman, or maybe it's the only thing worse than an old woman is an ugly woman.)
It's all elbow-in-the-ribs stuff, and it's not news to any woman. A century ago, Margaret Sanger started her heroic battle to make the dissemination of birth control information legal to women as well as men. (Men could get condoms "for the prevention of disease." Women did not have the same right to health.) When the U.S. Post Office barred her magazine, Woman Rebel, from the mails, The Sun ran the following headline and first paragraph. "WOMAN REBEL' BARRED FROM MAILS." Too bad. They should be barred from her and spelled differently.
Since Hillary conceded in a tardy but gracious speech, calls have gone out for Obama to give a talk on sexism similar to his sound, stirring and hopeful address on racism. Such a speech would do more than heal the wounds of Clinton supporters. It would send the message that prejudice will not be tolerated, no matter how good the punch line.
As you pave the way and trailblaze the ultimate duty to not fall into the sterotypical identities is huge. It is bigger than any one individual. The ambition and acceptance of the future dances to the tone set by those that pave the way.
Obama never really lost site of this.
When Hillary realized this, sadly it was too late.
Look at the night that Obama became the nominee and McCain made the mistake of giving a speech as well. Because both nominees were men, commentators felt free to point out (accurately) that the difference in personal impression was a gaping chasm. McCain was a terrible performer; he grimaced in a fake and creepy smile; his delivery was halting; the green backdrop was extremely unflattering; and so on. Obama was the mirror opposite. We've all accepted this comparison as an evaluation of the two candidates' relative skills in making a big speech. Even McCain supporters agree.
But imagine if that lime green monster of a speech had been given by Hillary Clinton. All of the same comments, because they related to tone, physical appearance, stage presence, and facial expression, would be instantly viewed as "sexist" and terribly unfair. More likely, the commentators would have been scared to be as frank as they were about McCain and the rest of us would have been left wondering, Was that the worst political speech ever, or is it just me? That kind of self-censorship doesn't serve any of us well.
Oh, and if it affects your opinion of this comment, I suppose I should mention that I'm a woman.
I guess what bothered me the most was the night Sen Obama recieved the nomination...Hillary was announced before her speech as "The Next President of the United States"...above everything else she pulled trying to win..that was the tackiest. At that point I was truely embarrassed to be a white female. Older one to boot.
As for Obama needing to give a speech on sexism........ NOT..............Hillary, first, needs to apologize to the nation and esp the black community for her disingeniousness toward a truely historical night...and then , if she TRUELY, believes there was sexism...then let her give the speech...period.
Frankly, enough is enough about Hillary
Would a crying man have won?
One does not get to play that game and then blame it on somebody else.
If you don't see it, you never will. It's not a game and it never has been.
Obama stepped forward and faced the uproar over Rev. Wright with his now-famous Race Speech....
Where was Hillary?
If there was sexism directed at Hillary Clinton, why is a Gender Speech required of Baracl Obama?
Barack Obama must speak on Hillary Clinton's behalf?
She can't speak for herself?
Interesting......
Quit your whining about everything and move on.
Second, if you think feminism is "the last bastion of acceptable prejudice" then we differ on the definition of "acceptable" and I think you have no clue about the prejudice fat people face.
And it wasn't the media's sexism that propelled Obama to win over Hillary, it was white guilt and the slobbering commentary of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann.
Constantly moving the goal posts got Hillary nothing. Constantly moving the goalposts gets you nothing too. The surge is not achieving any of the goals it was set out to achieve.
You and the GOP have a serious problem with reality, facts, and truth. Therefore, you have absolutely no ability to lead anyone out of a cardboard box, let alone the entire country. I think the real problem here is that people like yourself and McSame cannot bring themselves the deal with the cold hard reality that 30,000 troops are dead or injured over your lies. So you live in a state of denial.
However, if anyone opposed Barack Obama, they were immediately attacked as being racist. I am no racist, and have supported the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has done more to thwart the Klan and white supremacists in the country, but I was called a racist over and over again by Obama supporters because I supported Hillary.
I am sick of double standards. I also am sick of everything being called racism when the other person involved is African-American. That is the opposite of what Martin Luther King, Jr. said should happen, yet we see it all the time when African-Americans are truthfully being judged on their character, and not the color of their skin.
There is the simple and rather obvious fact, sexism did occur - and what is really yucky is that Fox Spew was the worst and yet she had no problem using them when needed. Good tactics.
The victim of the sexism is guilty of using racism as a political tactic. She knows and has used tactics for decades. Good tactics.
Amazingdays summed it up beautifully. McCain has been shown to be stupid, in need of improved dentition and smiling lessons, unable to choose complimentary colors to use to his advantage and in need of speech lessons and was hammered by everyone - even his own party.
Hillary was shown to be stupid in her campaign managment. Smiles ok, colors ok and speech is ok. Is this sexist? Bad tactics?
Michelle Obama is now the victim of tactics - do you call it sexism or racism...or deserved?
The only 'ism' worth pursuing is humanitarianism.