Since bigotry carries such a strong social stigma, accusations of bigotry are morally precarious. If you call someone a bigot and you're wrong, you've done essentially the same harm to them that you just accused them of inflicting on somebody else. I regret having to say it, but this is one area where as a group we do much worse than our conservative counterparts. They"re certainly a lot more prone to excusing words and actions that hurt the disadvantaged directly, but we"re far too quick to condone casual, unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry.
The author relies on only her own unsupported suspicion to accuse Tim Russert and others of gender bias. That"s unacceptable. That she no doubt believes she"s right makes no difference. Most bigots believe what they say and do grows out of their accurate perception of reality. The only possible justification for these accusations is objectively verifiable evidence of bias. Allowing them to go unchallenged on anything less would betray the very progressive ideals they were probably intended to serve.
I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pass.
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I would like to time what each of them said about NAFTA. To me it seems like she went on and on forever and I was happy each time I thought Russert would stop her. Obama's NAFTA answer seemed concise and to the point.. Although, it could just be that what Hillery said was boring me to tears with regurgitated talking points. Sorry but if she claims first lady to Bill as experience she must also claim Bill's policies. You can't have it both ways and then call it sexist and unfair when people try and stop you..
Please! Stop saying that woman have to work twice as hard as men to get ahead. Life is a tough racket for everyone. No one gets out of it litely. Sen. Clinton has lost 11 straight races. That's not the fault of the media or "woman-haters". Clinton has a poorly run campaign and she can't close the deal. That's her fault! Honestly, peddle your bullshit some where else.
apparently you are one to see "a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner".
women are hillary's base, and they make more thna the majority of the electorate. since men are conspiring against hillary, why isn't she winning based on the female vote anyway?
I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment....
When Obama sounds ignorant and looks like a smirking, insensitive rich boy we'll talk.
Obama's voice sounds like "a voice of authority". It has absolutely nothing to do with the words he actually says.
We will have to wait until we can see his ACTIONS. And that might not even work because if we criticize a black person, it is considered racism. It is still really easy is criticize women. I think Obama will be given unbridled power without criticism and this is actually dangerous. Too much power=too much danger.
I disagree. Obama is a package deal. His speeches, for example, reflect just the tip of an iceberg of deep, long-thought-out, reservoirs of vision, ideas, and philosophies of governance, civic engagement, culture, and leadership. People who choose to reduce him to "an empty suit," or an empty "voice of authority." are just silly or ignorant or both.
That said, his "voice of authority" is part of the package. It's okay that some people find comfort in it (or discomfort in other voices). I don't advocate shallow criteria for such an important decision, but, let's face it, a big part of a president's job is to rally the masses -- otherwise nothing will get done.
There are lots of reasons Dennis Kucinich couldn't get any traction that have nothing to do with lack of ideas or lack of intelligence or lack of depth. I actually liked many of Kucinich's ideas, but I never considered supporting him for president because I never seriously thought he had the potential for rallying the country. Just not the right total package...
The problem is that Hillary, with all her $$$ and all her political connections and endorsements sewn up before she even ran, was expecting little more than a beauty contest, where she would show up and collect the prize.
Obama has forced her into a COMPETITION, and she was just not prepared to go toe-to-toe on that level.
I don't think she ever imagined that she might lose.
Hiulary's getting this treatment because she's losing: that's what happens in elections. To everyone, no matter what their gender.
When you're winning, everybody treats you mice. When you're losing, it's hard to get attention and when you do get it, it comes with a lot more scepticism.
~~
But whatever. Making these complains is just a means of airing the bitterness of a lost dream; it won't help the campaign any, because everyone who wants to vote for a loser will be voting for Ralph Nader.
What happens in debates with Obama and Hillary? Obama steals every bit of "substance" he can from her. This Obama movement is so creepy. It feels like the Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. I live in a small mountain town in the West and this is clear to me.
If you listen to Obama's stump speech, it says, "Young people unite and get rid of the old folks. Tear down the bridge to the past and follow me. I will give you the power you so deserve."
This loyal Democrat will never vote for Obama. I'm not interested in having my body snatched.
It's such a shame that this nation has been so long starved for strong, honest, transparent, dignified leadership -- that when we see it we don't recognize its potential. We fear it and demonize it.
There's nothing mysterious or cult-like about it. It's just that, after decades of political gridlock and culture wars, many of us -- an exponentially growing number of us, in fact -- are READY for it, damnitalltohell.
I agree. But I wonder what the solution is. If Hillary confronts these tactics, she's immediately labeled whiny. Just one example is her "Shame on You." Obama used exactly the same words with the Sen. from Hawaii and elicited an immediate apology....over something as stupid as his private school education there!
*blink*
By contrast, Hillary had to wring necks to get an apology over the pimping remark.
So what is our solution here?
Interesting dilemma, AnninCA. Part of the purpose of a campaign is to discern a candidate's leadership abilities -- both strategic and native.
I've been a supporter of Obama since way before he officially entered the race. But I knew the proof of whether or not his ideas and vision were realistic would lay partly in his ability to successfully navigate the campaign. Even at times when I've felt The Clintons were trying to kneecap him, I allowed myself to rest easy in the knowledge that his ability to traverse ALL the pitfalls was a pretty good mark of whether my decision to support him would be ultimately vindicated.
If he failed to rally the country in the way I'd hoped he would, it wouldn't have meant he was bad or dumb -- just that his instincts that told him he was best positioned to connect with the country and effect real change might have been somewhat off. There were times when things didn't look so good -- and I was wishing he'd do a bit more whining and complaining about injustices! But, honestly, how could I continue believing he was the best person to run the country if he couldn't sell his ideas and vision sufficiently, consistently, and honorably?
So, when you ask, "what's the solution, here?" my thought is there's not meant to be a solution. The system is working as intended. It's trial by fire, not a coronation. And that's a good thing.
I want a new Voting Rights Act, based on what has happened this year. My vote did not count for much because I live in a caucus state. Obama had lots of money, poured it into these caucus states and everyone folded to the money. I went to my site and all the signs, literature and nametags were Obama marketed. NO signs, etc for Hillary. No presence of Hillary contending for our votes. So a primary season should be a real primary and exclude caucuses.
And money should be taken out of it.
The media has definately helped decide this primary election, along with the money. I got my information from the MSM and it was clear as our water is in this small mountain town.
Obama's candidancy should be seen for what it has been - a bought election and a scam on the VOTERS.
I want someone to recognize that my vote should have counted more.
But Clinton had a huge campaign chest too. If you didn't detect her presence it is because her campaign managers have failed her, and that is not the fault of Obama, the system, or the media. It is due to gross mismanagement on the part of Clinton staffers.
I am no fan of Tim Russert, but the reason for his assault on Clinton on the NAFTA issue is that she tried to slide by on an untruth -- that she had "always" been opposed to NAFTA. And the weekend news cycles had been dominated by Clinton's two rants -- one furious, the other sarcastic. She asked for that one. It is also untrue that Obama didn't get tough questions. They may not have appeared to be tough because, unlike Clinton, he shows no sign of discomfort when faced with such questions. (The grace with which he dealt with Clinton's silly demand that he "reject" Farrakhan's words after he had already "denounced" them was a contrast to Clinton's ill-considered attempt at a "gotcha" moment.)
That said, I will confess to great discomfort with the tenor of some of the press coverage of Clinton and real sympathy for her plight. She, like most professional women, cannot win for losing. No matter what she does, it's wrong. I don't know to what extent a different woman might be able to deflect a sexist bias in the press corps so deep that its members don't even recognize it in themselves. I don't know to what extent a woman who came to the main event with less negative baggage than Clinton might be able to neutralize the bias. What is clear is that Clinton has not found an effective way of dealing with it. Complaining that the press coverage has been unfair has not been effective.
I'm curious, 1dogs2. What do you perceive to be the actual nature of the sexist bias? Not just in the media, but in general? You indicate it might be largely inadvertent. But how do you think it actually functions?
For example, do you believe that the typical litany of complaints about Hillary -- I won't list them, as I'm sure you're familiar with them, but things like her ever-shifting strategies, tactics, messages, themes, moods, calculations, etc -- do you believe these attributes many of us criticize are "female attributes"? In other words, if these are the kinds of qualities so many of us don't want in a leader -- and these are the types of reasons we don't support her (to say nothing of all the reasons we DO support Barack) -- then you must feel we are rejecting inherently feminine qualities, no? (Otherwise, how could our lack of support be inadvertently sexist?)
While I doubt you'd get much consensus on this from the feminist community, if you really believe it, I suppose we should start a national debate about why we seem so uncomfortable with such female qualities in our leaders. You'd have to spell out why you believe the country would run better with a leader who exhibits these qualities. But then we could at least have a real debate, no? Instead of just continuing the accusations of sexism. Thoughts?
I was undecided in the beginning but had a bias against Hillary because of her voting. I am a woman who knows what it is like to be in a male dominated corporate world I understand the challenge, I would like nothing better than to see a woman president. For me I want a woman who does not feel she has to be like a man to win. Hillary has made a lot of choices to prove how tough she is, tough like a man. It has to be a woman who has the courage to be who she is not who she thinks she has to be to get elected. It has to be a woman who has confidence enough in what she believes to not be handled and run by men. If George Bush can convince her to vote for war I don't see her as strong. She has listen to bad advise from men in the most important areas of her life and because of this I am not willing to support her to make critical decisions about our future. I was sickened with her whining on 60 minutes and her complaining about unfairness when she started loosing if she had a clue she would have known how that would spin. For me being a woman I was embarrassed for her. She had all the advantages going in, it was Hillary all the way and she blew it. It was not the press, they were all behind her in the beginning, they made her look unstoppable. It was not Bill, it was her thinking she couldn't do it without him and put him out there like he was the one running. It was not the bad advise it was that she listened to bad advise. Only Hillary can be blamed for the mess she is in and all the rest is just more whining. I would love a woman president but not her. Women are more that Hillary Clinton is in her little finger and one day the right woman will rise.
So given what we have I vote for Obama because he seems to have courage to be who he is.
*This country needs to be inspired.....
*This country needs a leader of many back grounds to speak to all people.......
*This country needs for the young to get involved after all they will be saddled with so many of the wrongs........
*This country needs an inclusive voice instead of divisive, knowing that we are stronger as one..........
*This country needs hope instead of words of fear..............
We need more than what Hillary has can be.
Wow. She soooo nailed it.
Thank you......
We all know that once you take a victim position you have lost ........ giving over your power to who you claim has victimized you.
What about the ridiculous Farrakahan question?
Why on earth does Obama have to "answer" for that bigot? Because he's black? Russert even went into reading some of Farrakan's infamous statements. The association was totally unfair.
I notice that Russert never asked Hillary to "Reject and denounce" Ann Coulter, a Clinton supporter who has said Jews need to be perfected and called John Edwards a "fag".
Media bias?
Hillary and her supporters are essentially partisan hypocrites, who turn a blind eye to obviously ridiculous and unfair things that don't helop her cause.
Obama belongs to a church in Chicago, the pastor of which has commended Farrakhan and given him an award for being a great leader or some such. Whether or not it was a great or interesting debate question, it is , I think, pertinent, because the GOP is really going to try to smear Obama on this, on his relationship to his pastor and his pastor's relationship to Farrakhan.
"it is , I think, pertinent, because the GOP is really going to try to smear Obama on this, on his relationship to his pastor and his pastor's relationship to Farrakhan."
Oh, so we HAVE TO play along with ugly, ill-informed GOP smears premptively?
Ok, let's start doing that to Hillary as well. Yet I haven't heard any talk from Russert about Monica Lewinsky, and you know that's gonna come up. According to your logic, we should make it a central issue now.
I think Russert was playing into the "muslim" meme and associating Obama simply because he's black. If Farrakkan is a bigot, idiot or even starts killing people, Sen. Obama is not accountable. Period.
get your facts straight. the pastor's daughter has commended farrakhan.
So what, ema.
Farrakhan has in the past made statements that offended people and put him out on the fringe. But he also arranged the Million Man March (which even some Jewish people attended). That was a good thing.
[This is a drastic example] Some killers have been known to walk little old ladies across the street and help them with their groceries. The person may be bad but the act [of helping the old lady] is still good.
People have to stop judging people in a boolean/absolute fashion as though people are either good or bad. Individuals are not monochromatic but instead diverse and dynamic. Was George Washington good? We celebrate him as though he were. And I think he was in some senses. But the man had slaves. It is almost certain that he, as did most slave owners, beat and raped his slaves. We have factual proof that Jefferson raped his slaves. And I challenge anyone to explain how sex between an 11-,12-,13-year-old female black child that was the PROPERTY of an adult white man can be characterized as anything but rape. ...before you even get started on "love affairs".
My point is not to begrudge George Washington or Jeffereson. My point is that Hillary Clinton and no-one else was made to renounce President's day due to its association with George Washington and his ownership of slaves and the treatment those slaves.
So if Farrakan was recognized by a Christian church in Chicago for all the work that he has done helping to rehabillitate young black men in Chicago and around the country that had lost their way ... and help to make them functional and law-abiding citizens, what is the big deal? That is a good thing that he did and is doing. They didn't give him an award for making negative statements about people. Is there some rule that you can only punish people's bad behavior but not reward and acknowledge their good behavior?
Attempting to tie Obama to Farrakan is what it is. And MSNBC gets a black eye for doing it. We expect this from the ROVIAN types but not from "respectable" news media.
Guess we need to start investigating everyone's pastor, milkman, accountant, lawyer, masseur, tennis coach, second cousins twice removed....to determine if they have any reprehensible delusions?
Also, the GOP smear opportunity on this one is a pimple on the butt of the elephant of opportunities that have for the Clintons, and that's just the body of scandals/bogus attacks in mothballs, waiting to be revived for the new wingnut fashion season approaching.
It will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
She may be a woman but she's a tough woman, as most women are.
No, I tell you, what I see lurking here is an increasingly-desperate effort to proclaim "normalcy." That "everything's all right, there's nothing to see here, pay no attention to the little bald man behind the curtain." We'll have elections just like we always do ... pick one, pick the other, we don't care, and please ignore the Senate and the House.
But the truth, the fact, is plain to all of us. A grand criminal enterprise is self-destructing right before our eyes, and "dammit, Jim, they've got NUKES. Thousands of 'em! And they just might be willing to use 'em."
And you know exactly who "they" must be in this case.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Afraid enough to force action. Afraid enough to impeach NOW.
"Afraid enough to impeach NOW."
Regardless of the righteousness of this proposal, the time needed to get it done has come and gone. If anything, as one insightful HuffPost member here suggested very recently, in talking about Cheney in Dubai, we'll have try work on the Pinochet solution.
Thanks for the reminder, though. The underlying message: Bush, Cheney et al - We Will Never Forget
The peculiar set of arguments in this piece are nearly mind boggling in attempting to counter, but the closing argument is really the hands-down winner. Have I got this right? In 2000 and 2004, millions of American voters, Republican and others, chose to vote for GWB because they just liked him. And now, millions of American voters, this time mainly Democrat along with others, are choosing to vote for Obama becaue they like him. Democrats and many other voters consider GWB to be a study in abject failure. Millions of Democratic and other voters are now at risk of another failure, possibly as bad or worse than GWB, because those voters like Obama. Are you suggesting that the real danger is liking the candidate you support? The hosts of other factors that were in play in 2000 and 2004, the important elements are all secondary to the fact that those voters liked GWB, and likewise for Obama voters. So the take away is simply it is dangerous to vote for a candidate one may like.
That's a novel way to approach the voting booth.
Posted February 27, 2008 | 04:46 PM (EST)