Calling "These People" Out: More On the Increasingly Tiresome -- And Dangerous -- Obama/Clinton Divide

As I do from time-to-time here on Huffington Post, I am turning over the keys to another insightful and mouthy woman. Meet Victoria

Calling "These People" Out: More on the Increasingly Tiresome -- And Dangerous -- Obama/Clinton Divide

By Victoria Marinelli

Recently at Reclusive Leftist, I cringed to read this (not only offensive, but bizarre) characterization of Obama supporters:

Every time I see one of this week's Obamabot-supplied headlines ("the stupid bitch has no chance so why doesn't she just quit?" or words to that effect) I picture the 'bots stomping around and snorting. Boo! Boo! Wooga wooga!

[emphasis added; why not use the actual words, which I'm sure were sufficiently sexist that they'd merit being criticized explicitly and specifically?]

Boo! Boo! And: wooga, wooga, indeed.

In the past, I've confronted statements like these on feminist blogs in a comparatively distanced way. But Violet, the blogger behind Reclusive Leftist, is someone I've been reading for years, and her words matter to me in a way that I can't just dismiss. So, after letting some past statements (e.g., her call for "Obamabots" to, from within their so called "padded room[s]" for the "fucking insane" to "calm down, take a Xanax, shoot some smack," etc.) go without a direct response, I finally had to leave this comment expressing my offense that "the entirety of my political consciousness [had] been reduced to cultist, robot-like utterances..." adding that I hoped after the general election, we ("whoever 'we' are at this point") would "be able to move forward in some credibly progressive fashion," following which time I hoped to be able to read her blog again, "without every other line feeling like the rhetorical equivalent of a knife twisting in my gut."

She responded, in part:

I'm sorry, Victoria, but it's kind of like we always say to the men who become irate whenever they see a post about men's propensity to commit domestic violence or rape: if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.

(So now I'm the election-year equivalent of defensive dudes saying "but I don't personally rape women"? Okay...)

And while I vowed that I wasn't going back there to read any new posts until after the general election (219 days from now! But who's counting...), I did select the option to receive follow-up comments by email. So it was that tonight I got notice of my friend Lost Clown's reply to the same thread:

I posted a link to the article [to which Violet had been responding] on my post [here], though with a long intro calling for people like you... to publicly call these people out, b/c everytime I say something about their rampant misogyny I am written off for being a Hillbot. Because you're not one of the misogynist cultish followers like those Violet mentioned.

First, I want to say a very sincere thank you to Lost Clown. For the above and for so many other reasons (for instance, this hilarious comment), I will always have her back.

Second, I have since spent hours working on a comment in response to hers, until finally I acquiesced to the necessity of yet another election-themed blog post.

So here it is. Note that in this post's title, my accentuating of "these people" in her call for "people like [me] to publicly call these people out," my point is that I'm more than a little concerned about both Obama's and Clinton's supporters' use of phrases like these in describing advocates for opposing candidates; not one of us is immune to the divisive forces that are perniciously tearing us apart.

Obama himself characterized this situation best, back in 2004, when he said:

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats.

...So too, the pundits would like to see (and, sadly, are now seeing) women tearing each other apart, in this election season, within variously productive and destructive discourses of identity politics. So I would posit that we are all, indeed, "these people" - who must confront, and be confronted about, all the varieties of hatred that unnecessarily divide us from each other.

So, while the following reads like a letter to one particular pro-Clinton feminist, I mean it also as an open letter to all of us, feminists and progressives in particular, as we confront all the thorny matters of identity and ambition that lie at the heart of the Obama/Clinton divide.

__

Dear Lost Clown,

Regarding your comment: "calling for people like you (and arbitrista) to publicly call these people out..."

For the record, I've been doing that all along. From Yes We Can (do anything): On the elections, feminism, and our future (March 17, 2008):

When this primary season is over, the feminists and progressives I'll be first to trust will be, among Obama supporters: those who explicitly, and without qualification, opposed this season's sexist bias against Clinton, and, among Clinton supporters: those who just as adamantly protested racist bias against Obama. (Not clear on the horrific amount of bias directed at both candidates? These examples were collected from only one source, and only during the month of February, but are quite illustrative.)

From Nope, nothing to do with race/ethnicity at all (March 2, 2008):

This post is intended as complementary to, and not in contradiction with, Reclusive Leftist's recent post, Nope, nothing to do with gender at all. Because the specifically racist and sexist bias, as evidenced in media coverage of both Senators Obama and Clinton respectively, has been enormous, and is seriously offensive to me, particularly given my burning desire to prevent, at all costs, the Bush-legacy-furthering travesty that would be a McCain presidency.

From On Clinton playing the "Terror Card" (January 9, 2008):

...There's been a lot of discussion in the feminist blogosphere about the media's sexist treatment of the candidate, and I'm quite glad for that. Because it is, of course, some seriously offensive bullshit, and while Clinton is not, at present, my first choice for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination, I'm damn sure not going to act like that's okay...

Later in the same post, after expressing my criticism of Clinton's invocation of an all-too-familiar Republican meme (namely, the less than subtle hint that "Al-Qaeda's gonna getcha if you don't vote for ____"), I refer to coverage of that story by Keith Olbermann:

...Who has not, alas, always been a beaming example of anti-sexist journalism (to say nothing of his asswipe colleague Chris Matthews; visit the fine folks at Tennessee Guerrilla Women for much, much more)...

And the above is, of course, just a drive-by sampling of criticisms I've made on my own blog ¹; I've been relent less in condemning the sexist attacks on Clinton not only online (on my blog and on others'), but also in my local community. And I'm hardly alone.

It seems to me that the characterization that I am more alone than not in taking this principled position, is part and parcel of the usual slander about disproportionate "cultishness" among Obama's supporters. In fact, I've seen ridiculously offensive behavior on the part of both candidates' supporters, arguably "cultish" in quality. I will neither lower myself to participate in it², nor pretend it isn't happening, on both sides.

For every fool who points to all the nakedly obvious instances of racism in the campaign, as if that were evidence that the sexism of the same campaign is somehow non-existent or inconsequential, there is another fool on the opposite side, pointing to incidents of sexism in an effort to disprove the existence or significance of the racism (here's one example; I could, of course, furnish hundreds more if I wanted to make that my full-time job). Either position is, of course, absurd; these are not mutually exclusive biases. Rather, these are systems of oppression that (obviously) serve to divide progressives from each other, in ways that break my heart more with each passing day.

Incidentally, if you know of any ardent Clinton supporters who have persistently and passionately maintained a specific awareness of the extent of the racism in this campaign -- not as something secondary to the sexism against Clinton, but as something equally pernicious -- kindly point me to them. I'm assuming such supporters do exist; when I find them, I'd like to start a joint petition of Obama and Clinton supporters "explicitly and without qualification" opposing both the sexism and the racism we have seen against both candidates. Please note that I am completely sincere in this; for all I know someone is already doing this, and I simply have yet to be connected with them.

Because I am nothing if not a hopeful feminist.

__
¹ Could I have done more? Obviously, but: (a) I am a human being with finite resources and time, and (b) I never intended that my blog should become entirely engulfed by political matters. Each post I write on the election, I die a little, which is to say that the book I am supposed to be working on right now is not getting done, and my daughters get less attention from me than is optimal, even if we do have viable teaching moments (e.g. this rally, where one of my daughters carried signs for Hillary, and the other wore her shirt in support of Obama) along the way.

² Which is not to say that I haven't had my own less-than-angelic moments during this season, in which I have, indeed, generated more heat than light.

Victoria Marinelli writes about such diverse topics as feminism, poetry and heavy metal at her blog, the peculiarly titled Anachroclysmic ("suspiciously tolerant of ambiguity"), while raising two fabulous daughters and (lesbian tattoo from 1992 notwithstanding) enjoying marriage to a perfectly lovely man in Richmond, Virginia.

Meanwhile Erin Kotecki Vest of Queen of Spain Blog is waiting for Arianna to revoke her posting privileges as she continuously hands over the keys to the shop.

Comments

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

There's many white liberal feminists who are simply racist. There's many divorced women with a grudge against men. There's plenty of old women who can't stand the idea of someone younger than them, from a different generation, becoming President. There's plenty of ignorant Clinton supporters who are simply voting for Bill's third term.

Facts are inconvenient to Clinton supporters. I don't care about the gender or color of a candidate. I am only interested in the best candidate. Clinton, to me, quite frankly, was the worst candidate out of all the Democrats. Firstly, she started with such high negatives, one has to assume that after more GOP smearing in a general election, those negatives would probably rise by 5-10%. That statistically simply makes it impossible for her to win, since her negatives are fixed on the downward end.

The reasons I don't support her as a candidate, include her neocon enabling votes, her positions on constitutional freedoms (not bothering to show up for the FISA vote and refusing to pledge to return constitutional liberties), her history of lying and political expediency and the fact that she is a member of the corporatist DLC.

There are many other political issues that I have with Senator Clinton and some more personal issues like intellect, vision, character, and genuineness.

After reading the comments made by Clinton supporters over this primary season, I am positive I have picked the correct candidate.

[JakeEasy]

Very nice post. This kind of thinking reflects more of what I encounter with my fellow Democrats as we discuss the Hillary/Barack question. Only here and on other blogs do I encounter the rabid snarkiness and downright nastiness that has become the hallmark of such sites.

I think the current race for the nomination would be much better off if we could have eliminated all the flaming on HuffPo with reasoned intellectual discussions such as this.

[JoePalooka]

Any way you slice it, both of the dem candidates are diminishing themselves more and more each day.

We republicans will have a field day when your battered and bruised candidate staggers into the ring with our guy.

[ButterflyWeed]

Perhaps your guy will have had more practice reading from a teleprompter by then.

[nazgul]

Thank you.

The fact is, we are not voting for the Woman OR Black President of the United States. We are voting for the President. Period. I for one firmly believe that the majority of Democrats realize that, and I find it disturbing when I hear people providing reasons for their choice that indicate otherwise.

[Singha]

You proved my point.
Think about how WHY you identifed yourself as a "white man."
I am a white man who would never defend the corporate white man crimes just because they are white.

BYW, thanks to the repubs, America is twisted and everyone is bitter because it does SUCK!

If you are a repub, I don't envy you.

[Singha]

the above is for my friend, RabidRightRebel .

[LawyerMama]

Thank you! I'm an Obama supporter and I've also written about the gender bias and sexism Clinton has encountered. This isn't a competition to determine which candidate faces more bias. And you're right that it serves only to divide us. McCandidate just has to stand back and watch the Democratic party implode.

[NuttyProf]

thank you thank you
i hope more people read this
the vitriol has got to end, there is too much at stake for democrats, feminists and those who oppose racism and white supremacy in this country

[GnitenGoodLk]

What a wonderful post. Thank you for inserting a little sanity into the divisive discourse. It is a rational alternative approach long overdue. You just made a fan.

[DemandTruth]

Thank you for this. I see so many vitriolic comments in these posts. I usually try to ignore them. But whenever I see a Clinton supporter (I NEVER call them any other names than "Clinton supporter") calling me a cult worshipper or an Obamabot or whatever, I sometimes have to respond.

It seems obvious to me, by the forcefulness of their own comments that these people support their candidate EQUALLY as fervently as I do mine.

I'm a feminist, and like you I decry any and all talk that is sexist OR racist, and wish to make my candidate choice based on facts and policy and the issues. But I gotta say that hypocrisy is a BIG issue for me, as we've had so much of that in the last 7 years. And I've seen a whole lot of hypocrisy coming from the Clinton campaign and their supporters. For that and for other reasons, I've made my choice - and the more people try to diminish my choice, the more resolute and determined I become. I gotta wonder - are they trying to change peoples' minds, or are they just venting their desperation and frustration?

[LostClown]

And that is how I made my choice. Now, as I pointed out at Victoria's blog, it is not a problem with Obama, per se, but with the democratic party. I read sexist sentiments everyday in the media, from the pundits and liberal male bloggers. *THIS* is what I have a problem with and *THIS* is why I will withdraw from the party. They count on my, and people like me's, support because they are better then the republicans. That's no reason.

If they can't step up and tell their vocal supporters (and the ones that get more air time and a bigger audience then vm (sorry, darling, I know you've been doing your part, but we need more people to step up)) that this is not OK, then they are NOT my party. Which has to do with Obama in as much as he is in the party and he has said nothing as well (though at this point, if the party said something I would be fine with that).

[LostClown]

And, no, this does not mean I will be voting republican.

[RabidRightRebel]

It is amazing to me how almost everybody who supports Clinton views criticism of her as based on sexist motives. Do you really think that when she says that “Obama does not have the experience to be President but McCain does”, people are upset because a woman said it?

That is not to say that there are no sexist or for that matter racist people around, but they are a small minority and mostly Republicans. In fact I would not be surprised if the majority of the sexist and racist comments posted were made by Rush listeners who are trying to create division in the Democratic ranks.

My point is this Obama supporters have justifiable criticism of Clinton which have nothing to do with gender. Just as Clinton supporters have justifiable criticism of Obama which have nothing to do with race. So stop trying to turn this into either a gender or race issue!!!

[vmarinelli]

Hmmm. I don't think that recognizing the race and gender issues that are (clearly) at play here is whatsoever in contradiction with your comment, "Obama supporters have justifiable criticism of Clinton which have nothing to do with gender. Just as Clinton supporters have justifiable criticism of Obama which have nothing to do with race." I couldn't agree more with those specific comments

Part of what has happened, I think, is that advocates for the respective candidates have, at times, recognized the specific (race-, gender-, or any other factor-based) biases against their candidate, *to the exclusion* of any bias against the other candidate. If we could all, regardless of our specific support for either candidate, recognize that both sorts of bias are rampant (and name those largely responsible for promulgating that bias, who as you point out is more likely to be from the Republican side), then the overall amount of "noise" (not the same thing as illuminating dialogue, alas) on race and gender would be greatly decreased.

[RabidRightRebel]

Call me blind but I don't recognize that both sorts of bias are rampant. Certainly with respect to race I have not seen what I would call blatent rascisim, although I will conceed that there is more evidence of isolated cases of blatent sexism. That being said I think that more often than not people are over-reacting to comments that were never intended to be either racist or sexist.

As to the clearly racist or sexist comments posted on this site I learned long ago that the best policy is to just ignore the fanatic and focus on the comments that have real substance.

[Singha]

I am humbled . What an excellent essay!

Very thought provoking.

In a very direct way you asked us to reflect and ask ourselves, very simply, why do we think the way we do.

Do we like Hillary, or not, because she's a woman? Or is it because she's white? Do we like Barack, or not, because Barack is a man? Or is it because he's black?

For me, McCain/bush represents what's wrong with corporate,white, male America.

I hope people will actually read this post twice, and think rationally about it.

And not emote.

[RabidRightRebel]

Speaking as a white male I find this comment offensive. Bush/McCain should be condemned not because they are white males but because of the incompetent and destructive policies Bush has pursued and McCain will continue to pursue. If you really feel that all white males should be condemned I have nothing but pity for you for you surely live in a bitter and twisted world that must really suck.

[rgersmrk]

Agreed, Bush and McCain do not represent the white male. I thought the point of this article was to get away from making gender/race generalizations (something I completely agree with).

[TinaFreeman]

Totally agree. McCain/Bush represent what is wrong with McCain/Bush, and to a lesser extent the Republican party (there are many moderates in the Republican party so we shouldn't assume they all back McBush...we'll see some back Obama for reasons of this war and the economy).

Such a broad generalization about white males is the kind of divisive talk we all need to try to move away from! Let's stick to what we agree about...this country is in an economic crisis and the world has a massive environmental crisis looming....time to think about the future!

[JakeEasy]

In a post above, you decried that women kept seeing sexism where you did not think it existed. Then you make Singha's reply about gender when there is nothing there that is bashing white males.

You proved his point.