Hmm, this seems to me to be wrong,
I get what she’s trying to say, but here’s Hillary Clinton: “I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through: Would the same thing be said about a man in a similar position and the answer 99 times out of 100 is no. I think it’s been a long time since anybody covered what Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain wear or their hairstyle or any other personal characteristic like that.”
Yes, you have to go all the way back to 2007, when the press spent a month talking about John Edwards’ $400 haircut.
… Wait, no, you don’t have to go that far back. On September 1st, a network news reporter told Barack Obama that he doesn’t like beer.
… Whoops not even that far. This Monday, Jon Decker said Joe Biden does not “help[] his case when he’s making the argument on economic issues wearing French cuffs and dressed to the nines.”
… Okay then.
I will explain how Beaudrot is wrong… hey wait a second, who’s that in comments?
I’m not sure why nobody’s writing about how the Clintons have been, at best, neutral parties in this campaign. Their proxies and surrogates keep saying crappy things about Obama, and Senator and President Clinton haven’t been that much better. Yes, they were both great at the convention, where, had they been less than great, it would have hurt them personally. But since then, my sense is that they’ve done next to nothing useful for the Obama campaign and lots that has been, as I said above, somewhere on the spectrum between neutral and counterproductive.
Hi ari! [waves]You’re wrong! (I say this with a lot of respect.)
Why? In short, because I see this line as somewhere between neutral and productive. Here’s the rest of the quote from Madame Clinton:
I think that a lot of people were excited to see the Republicans have a woman on their ticket. We had a woman vice presidential candidate in 1984; the Republicans have one this year. I think that is something to be excited about because it is a change. But that’s not reason enough to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.
It’s hard to describe the reaction of most of my friends to some of the sexist charges slung at Palin. We’re a fairly liberal bunch, and most of us are leaning Obama, but there’s something unsettling about the relentless attacks on Palin’s appearance and children. And I think part of it is that we’ve heard much of the same said about ourselves. Among my friends, among different careers and walks of life, all of the following is true:
- Was told by a classmate, when dressed in a conservative suit, that she looked like a porn star librarian.
- Was told by an advisor, in a department where it is common for the men to wear ballcaps and t-shirt when teaching (often without having showered), that she wasn’t dressing professionally enough during class when she was wearing a shirt and slacks and sandals.
- Has watched all of the male advisees of her advisor go out to lunch to discuss their work. This has never happened to her.
- Have been groped by handsy academics at conferences.
- Have had passes made at them by superiors.
- Has been told that she’s a bad mother for returning to work after the birth of her first child.
- Has been told that she’s a bad mother for quitting her job after her first child.
I’m not doing justice to it (especially to the mothers, because, like, pick something a mom does, and there will be created ex nihilo people criticizing her as a bad mom), but you get the idea. Now, most of these women would not describe their lives as beat down by sexism. Their careers are fine, their families are fine, the incidents did not overwhelm what by and large have been positive experiences. But it’s recognizable, even if it’s mostly a minor annoyance. And it’s continual. And there seems to be little that the woman could do to avoid being the target of this nonsense.
And after a while, it sits in the back of her head. Imagine going on the job market, nervous, hoping you make a good impression, having had someone tell you, as a compliment, that in that outfit you remind him of a porn star.
So now here’s Palin, and here’s a lot of sexist attacks**. And I am not kidding, literally as I write this, Michelle Obama* is on my TV with Paula Deen on the Food Network***. She is making fried shrimp, and the conversation keeps drifting towards her family where Michelle is very subtly, but very firmly pointing out:
- That even as busy as she is on the campaign trail, she loves cooking;
- That even as busy as she is, she makes sure she’s only out of town a couple days a week so Sasha and Malia have their mom home so their routine isn’t interrupted;
- How wonderful it is that her mom lives near by (the implication being, Michelle’s not leaving her children to be raised by a stranger);
- How much she loves cooking with her girls. Sasha deveins the shrimp! Malia isn’t too interested, apparently, but home cooking is so important; and,
- How much she loves to eat good food, and how she works out to maintain that slender figure.
It’s a little fluff piece, necessary for the spouse of the candidate, but the subtext is a very loud I’magoodmomI’magoodmomnotscaryatallI’magoodmom.
So, being mostly liberal women, we all recognize that just because Governor Palin has been the victim of sexist attacks doesn’t actually make up for her complete lack of good-for-the-countryness. But the sexist attacks resonate a little bit, even if we don’t all agree what attacks are sexist, and even if we think the Republicans are about the world’s biggest hypocrites for whining about this.
So what does Clinton do here? She acknowledges that a) Palin’s nomination is sorta historic b) there’s been a lot of sexist attacks, and c) says that’s not a reason to vote for her.
Acknowledging that women’s appearance gets judged more doesn’t reinforce anything or create sympathy for Palin where none existed. We women kinda noticed the attacks all on our own. It gives her a way to respond by saying, hey, we over here hear the noise, too, and we think it’s crap, and you think it’s crap, and we’re all going to move past that anyway.
I don’t see this as undermining Obama at all. I see Clinton saying something that’s good to acknowledge****, about as innocuous as saying “Senator McCain’s military service to his country has been honorable, and we thank him for that, but [hammer hammer hammer 600 years old likely to bomb Tehran if bowels act up.]”
*And man, do we love Michelle Obama. Barack, man, you are overchicked.
**Note, this doesn’t apply to all attacks on Palin. She’s underqualified, made of pure extract of wingnut, confuses foreign policy experience with geographic proximity to Alaska — fine!
***What’s funny is that I don’t even normally watch Paula Deen because her mannerisms make me want to hurt people. I had just turned on the TV to watch a movie, thinking about this post, and there was Michelle Obama! Proof from God that you are wrong, ari.
****Obama uses this sort of move all over the place: acknowledge what you think people are feeling, make them feel worthy of attention, then argue that no matter what they’re feeling, they’ll do the right thing.
The Edge of the American West 
43 comments
September 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm
dana
***** I give up. WordPress seems to be doing whatever it wants with the footnotes.
September 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Linkmeister
Section 8 (The “he can do what he wants with no review” section) makes this a no-brainer on the DO NOT WANT side for me.
September 20, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Nate
How are attacks on Palin’s family different than attacks on any politician’s family? Seems to me–with the National Enquirer Press crowd–family’s will be scrutinized, and it’s wildly ridiculous to blame this on sexism.
September 20, 2008 at 7:43 pm
dana
How are attacks on Palin’s family different than attacks on any politician’s family?
Mostly the focus, and the reading of the tea leaves to determine whether Palin’s a good mother. I’ve heard suggestions that she was irresponsible for accepting the nomination knowing that Bristol was pregnant, that somehow this (as opposed to everything else that she’s not good at, like, governance, or knowing what the Bush doctrine is) proves she’s not fit to lead. In contrast, I have no idea if Biden has kids, or if they’ve turned out to be outstanding citizens, or screwups, or whatever.
And it may be “wildly ridiculous”, though I don’t think it is; I’m just saying how people are hearing it, and why Clinton’s remarks don’t strike me as backstabbing Obama.
September 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm
urbino
I have no idea if Biden has kids, or if they’ve turned out to be outstanding citizens, or screwups, or whatever.
Is that not largely because Biden hasn’t been running on his “family values?”
Even if it’s not, even if much of the discussion of Palin’s family is motivated by sexism, I’m not sure it’s inappropriate. She and McCain made her family central to her candidacy; one of her prime qualifications. The Dems don’t have — never have had — the chops to critique the political use of “family values” without seeming to critique the thing itself. Rhetorically, that means the only move they can really make is, “Family values are great, but hers ain’t all they’re cracked up to be,” right?
September 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm
urbino
Even if it’s not, even if much of the discussion of Palin’s family is motivated by sexism, I’m not sure it’s inappropriate.
Just to be clear, the antecedent to that last “it’s” is “the discussion of Palin’s family,” not “motivated by sexism.”
September 20, 2008 at 8:02 pm
ari
Who’s asking these questions, dana? Do you have links? I don’t doubt they exist, mind you, as many of the attacks on Palin have been quite sexist — just as the attacks on Clinton were. I’m just curious about the ones you’re describing above. Surely nobody in the Obama camp raised any of these questions, right? So was it other elected Democrats? Their surrogates? Journalists? Bloggers? Blog commenters? It would really help me to understand the nature and impact of the problem if I had a sense of who, exactly, was launching these attacks.
And really, you have no idea that Biden has kids? You have no idea that his wife and daughter were killed right after he was elected to the Senate when he was, um, thirty (I think)? You have no idea that his son, who’s not a screw-up, introduced him at the convention in Denver? You have no idea that he often commutes, via train, home from Washington to Delaware to be with his family?
As for Obama, you have no idea that he’s young, that he’s handsome, that he’s black, that he used to wear a shirt without a tie under his jacket, that he often didn’t wear a flag pin, that he has two young daughters, that he’s (apparently) happily married?
I ask all that because it seems possible that we, meaning the members of the electorate, pay attention to very different things depending on our identity.
Finally, none of the above suggests that there hasn’t been horrible sexism on display throughout this race. There has. Sexist attacks have been directed at Senator Clinton, at Governor Palin, and, I would suggest, at John Edwards. My point, in the comment you’ve cut into your post, is not that there’s no sexism. My point is that the Clintons don’t seem to be working very hard to get Senator Obama elected. And if I’m right, it surprises me that people aren’t writing about that.
September 20, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Marichiweu
Sure, all families will be scrutinized. The press has torn into Michelle Obama for her lack of patriotism, her career moves, etc. But no-one’s suggested Barack’s a bad daddy for not being home every night, or that it even matters what kind of daddy he is. With Palin on the other hand, the press has acted as though the quality of her mothering is at least as important as her lack of experience, her nutjob ideology, or her history of corruption. That means something.
September 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm
ari
With Palin on the other hand, the press has acted as though the quality of her mothering is at least as important as her lack of experience, her nutjob ideology, or her history of corruption.
Really? If this is true, I just haven’t seen it. I think you’re hearing a Republican talking point so often that it’s starting to seem true. Which isn’t to say that there haven’t been sexist attacks on Palin. Again, I know that there have. And those attacks are contemptible. I just wish that I had some sense of the scale of this problem, and also of who’s contributing to it.
September 20, 2008 at 8:10 pm
SomeCallMeTim
I’m with dana on this one, bitches. No one is saying that you shouldn’t attack her. Rather, as I understand it, she’s saying that where Palin-side complaints seem valid, Dems (inc. Dem women, and inc. HRC) should acknowledge them. (Remember the Thomas hearings when Senators effectively failed to do this?) And then point out that voting for a Republican is basically unAmerican right now.
HRC was fine. That useless lump of fat she married, on the other hand….
September 20, 2008 at 8:14 pm
ari
I don’t recall saying that anything that you’ve written above is wrong, Tim. Except the part about Senator Clinton, who really could have, in my view, just said a bit less about the plight of Governor Palin.
September 20, 2008 at 8:32 pm
dana
My point is that the Clintons don’t seem to be working very hard to get Senator Obama elected. And if I’m right, it surprises me that people aren’t writing about that.
What would you have had her say here instead? Serious question; your claim that she isn’t working very hard to get Senator Obama elected, and presumably you thought it had something to do with what she said. But here she’s saying essentially, ‘yes, Palin’s candidacy is historic (it is — even if it’s a token) and there’s been a lot of stuff slung at her (you don’t seem to dispute that) and that’s not a reason to vote for McCain-Palin.
I mean, what do you want here?
I ask all that because it seems possible that we, meaning the members of the electorate, pay attention to very different things depending on our identity
And that’s true. Which is why it might be important for someone affiliated with the campaign, however loosely, to acknowledge what a lot of women inclined to vote for Obama are seeing, and to dismiss it as a reason to vote for Palin. It’s good to have it out there as something Democrats are saying.
You have no idea that his son, who’s not a screw-up, introduced him at the convention in Denver? You have no idea that he often commutes, via train, home from Washington to Delaware to be with his family?
Did not know either of these two, no. My mom, who is about as politically aware as a potato, knows that Bristol Palin is seventeen, unmarried, pregnant, and chose to keep her baby and is marrying a boy named Levi. And seriously, look around the blogs; the immediate reaction to Biden looked a lot different.
It would really help me to understand the nature and impact of the problem if I had a sense of who, exactly, was launching these attacks.
It’s not the Obama campaign, generally. (Which Clinton counts as part of now, I guess. Huh.) Quite a lot of it is the media more than the blogs; the women I know aren’t really into blogs. And the media saying ‘cross out Hillary write in Sarah’ annoyed them. Things like the insane focus on her daughter’s pregnancy to the exclusion of John McCain’s policies (which now include failing to realize Spain is an ally. thankfully we’re getting back to that.)
You can check out Shakesville; I figure I don’t agree with all of it, but they’ve got a good round-up of the sort of stuff that’s been annoying. But you know what this is: you’re saying there have been contemptible attacks, so you’re not denying the existence of it, so whatever you think is contemptible, chances are the people I know are hearing it as contemptible, too. It doesn’t have to be every attack in order for there to be an effect.
And some of it, undoubtedly, is influenced by Republican spin. It’s also Republican spin that there are red states and blue states, but that didn’t make it any less smart for Obama to describe people in red states as having gay friends and people in blue states going to church or whatever it was.
I guess I see Clinton here as saying ‘there are contemptible attacks, but that’s no reason to vote for McCain’, which is a sentiment that most Dems agree with, and people getting outraged that… well, I’m not sure what she was supposed to say. I don’t even like the Clintons all that much.
September 20, 2008 at 8:34 pm
SomeCallMeTim
You certainly implied that y’all weren’t my bitches, ari. And we might disagree about HRC–I don’t know, both because I’m thinking of a specific set of comments she made rather than her general behavior, and because I think she’s an awful politician and am perhaps too willing to believe that the minimum acceptable behavior is all she actually capable of pulling off.
September 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm
dana
See, in part, I think Clinton has to do that. The narrative that seems to be completely false and yet that came out of the primary is that she lost due to sexism and that her supporters are PUMAs. Having it out there that Clinton thinks that a) sexism is sexism even if it isn’t directed against her and b) screw a bunch a moose, it’s still not a reason to vote for McCain? I think that needs to be out there. Said by her.
I’m sure Obama would have said it better, but I also don’t think it’s his story to shape at this point. Obama saying ‘sure, the media’s sexist, vote for me, though’ isn’t nearly as powerful as the woman who many thought lost due to sexism saying ‘sure, they’re sexist, still not a reason to vote for her.’
September 20, 2008 at 9:00 pm
ari
What would you have had her say here instead?
Noting at all would have been fine, I suppose, though I take your point about the need to have an Obama surrogate address the sexism (even though Obama explicitly said that Palin’s family should be off limits). So, if Clinton was going to say something about sexism, which would have been fine (or better than fine), why not talk about how the coverage of the campaign generally has sucked, how we need to hear much more about substance and policy differences between McCain and Obama. Or, better still, why not hit McCain and Palin much, much, much harder after making that comment. Something along the lines of, “The sexist attacks we’ve seen on Governor Palin are deplorable. There is no place for these kinds of things in our discussions. That said, Senator McCain demonstrated his willingness to do anything to be elected president when he chose someone as manifestly unqualified for the vice presidency as Sarah Palin for his running mate. That has nothing to do with her gender, mind you, so much as the fact that she can’t be trusted to run a small town in Alaska, much less the United States.”
Did not know either of these two, no. My mom, who is about as politically aware as a potato, knows that Bristol Palin is seventeen, unmarried, pregnant, and chose to keep her baby and is marrying a boy named Levi. And seriously, look around the blogs; the immediate reaction to Biden looked a lot different.
I think this speaks to the point that we, the electorate, see different things when we consume news stories.
It’s not the Obama campaign, generally. (Which Clinton counts as part of now, I guess. Huh.)
Here, I think, is the root of our disagreement. Certainly the Clintons’ lukewarm support for Obama was the point of my original comment at Cogitamus. I was not and am not saying that there hasn’t been sexism during the campaign.
But you know what this is: you’re saying there have been contemptible attacks, so you’re not denying the existence of it, so whatever you think is contemptible, chances are the people I know are hearing it as contemptible, too. It doesn’t have to be every attack in order for there to be an effect.
I do. I have. Okay. Yes.
But two questions to ask might be: Are the attacks as severe or frequent as the Republican talking points would have us believe? And are your colleagues’ perceptions of the attacks shaped more by the nature and quantity of the attacks or by those Republican talking points?
September 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Nate
Sexism has been a part of this campaign. So has racism. I just don’t think she’s helping Obama by making a stink about the press’ treatment of Sarah Palin.
Here’s a hypothetical: Clinton won the nomination, and McCain chose Palin. The press reacted just as it did. . . do you honestly believe candidate Clinton would have been so deferential to opponent Palin?
Doubtful.
September 20, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Ben Alpers
A lot of separate (or at least separable) issues are getting muddled together in this thread.
The first involves the way that Clinton framed her comment on Palin. Quite aside from the particular issue of sexist attacks on Palin (of which there have been quite a few), there was, until the recent collapse of Palin’s favorability scores, a pretty good argument to made that Democrats might do well to construct an argument against McCain that didn’t involve bashing Palin. See, for example, Sean Quinn’s September 15 post on FiveThirtyEight.com entitled Dems Must Give Voters Explicit Permission to Like Palin: “To defuse the Sarah Palin Phenomenon, Democrats need to explicitly give voters permission to both like her as a person and then also not vote for her.” Now I happen to disagree with Quinn’s argument here. And I think Palin’s poll numbers in the last six days significantly weaken his case. Nevertheless, Quinn makes a sensible case for exactly the kind of argument that Clinton made…and that case does not directly depend on any evaluation of the sexism of attacks on Palin.
The second issue is the existence of sexist attacks on Palin. I don’t think there’s any disagreement about whether such attacks have occurred. There are, however, disagreements regarding a number of aspects of these attacks: a) are only women politicians subject to intrusive questions about their clothing, bodies, and/or family?; b) how pervasive are the sexist attacks aimed at Palin and who is responsible for them?; c) does the sexism of certain attacks on Palin account for Clinton’s statement and/or overall support for Obama?; d) do (or should) sexist attacks on a politician build sympathy for that politician? A to C have been discussed above at some length. I don’t think D has been discussed as much. In fact, I think that one can denounce sexist attacks without feeling any sympathy whatsoever for the person being attacked if there are sufficient other reasons to detest the victim. Two classic examples are Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, both of whom are the victims of endless sexist “jokes” from the “progressive” blogosphere. It’s entirely appropriate–and necessary–to denounce such attacks whenever they crop up. But in doing so, there’s no need to say anything kind about either Coulter or Malkin, both of whom are scourges on our political discourse of whom nothing good can be honestly said.
The final issue in this thread is the adequacy of Clinton’s efforts on behalf of Obama. Everyone seems to be basing their arguments about this on an evaluation of this single statement about Palin. This makes no sense to me. I think there’s a very good case to be made that Clinton’s support for Obama has been unfortunately halfhearted (though why anyone might have expected her to behave otherwise escapes me). But that case should be based on the entire record of her behavior since June, not on this one statement, which, taken by itself, would not necessarily indicate that Clinton is not doing her best to promote Obama.
September 20, 2008 at 9:48 pm
ari
Thanks for the excellent comment, Ben. But please note that my original thoughts, as posted at Cogitamus and cut and pasted into dana’s post, specifically noted that the Clintons (plural) have been consistently lukewarm in their support of Obama. The exception, to my mind, was the convention, where the Clintons had to offer full-throated praise for Obama or lose face publicly. That said, I agree, there’s every reason to think that the Clintons are acting as nearly any politician would, which is to say in a self-interested fashion.
September 20, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Stephen
As ari said, Obama hasn’t launched any sexist attacks against Palin. Nor have any members of his campaign, nor any of the various politicians and “strategists” who tend to count as surrogates. I’ve yet to see a single Democratic politician launch a sexist attack against Sarah Palin.
Various TV talking heads have been pretty sexist, but why should they count as Democrats? The tabloid media – not just the Enquirer, but even more respectable fluff magazines in supermarkets – have been sexist, but no more so than they usually are about every woman in the world.
I’ve gone after Palin’s family, in a way, as have other liberal bloggers. But it really does matter that Palin was the first to make her family a campaign issue, one that undergirds her very reason to exist on the GOP ticket. We’re supposed to vote for Sarah Palin because she’s Super Mommy. Well, her family is, to coin a phrase, seriously fucked up. Her pregnant teenaged daughter is marrying a 17-year-old high school dropout. That’s not a sign of good parenting. Palin went back to work 3 days after giving birth to a special-needs child. That’s not being Super Mommy.
Bush’s daughters recieved far rougher treatment from the blogosphere than anything Palin’s family has, for the same reason: Bush made his awesome family-ness part of his reason to be put in charge of the country. When his daughters stopped being such public fuck-ups, people left them alone. The same can happen with the Palins just as soon as they get their acts together.
No one is attacking Palin’s family. What’s happening is people are attacking one of her campaign props. We’re attacking one of the big reasons she’s given for people to support her candidacy.
The real sexism, as always, is that of the right wing, because they obviously think that no woman is qualified to be a VP, so they might as well pick some half-wit religious extremist simply because she looks good. Oh, and women of all political views are so stupid they’ll vote for McCain/Palin out of genital solidarity.
September 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm
urbino
What’s happening is people are attacking one of her campaign props. We’re attacking one of the big reasons she’s given for people to support her candidacy.
My point, exactly.
September 21, 2008 at 12:22 am
andrew
More context of Clinton’s remarks are in the videos linked in this story. The Politico report only gives a small part of what she said.
Or, better still, why not hit McCain and Palin much, much, much harder after making that comment.
More than once she says that it’s “abundantly clear” that the McCain-Palin ticket doesn’t offer the kind of leadership the country needs. She also talks about the economy and choice.
September 21, 2008 at 12:27 am
andrew
Meant to add: of the three links at the link in my previous comment, the one labeled RAW VIDEO is the most extensive. The write-ups I’ve seen don’t do justice to what she said.
September 21, 2008 at 1:32 am
ari
Stephen, I’m going to take one more shot at this before passing out for the night. As Ben said, there are a bunch of points getting mashed up here. On my end, the following seem important:
1) There have been lots of sexist attacks directed at Gov. Palin during the campaign. And I do think her family has been the subject of some pretty nasty speculation, ranging from whether Trig is really her baby, to people talking about Bristol and what’s his name. to absurd discussions of Palin’s amniotic fluid. None of those things matter to me, even if Palin wants to drag her kids with her out on the stump. Every politician does that. And I don’t care if she’s a good mom or wife, any more than I cared if Bill Clinton, serial liar and philanderer was a good dad or husband, even though he made a big deal about how great and well adjusted a kid Chelsea was/is.
2) But it still matters to me a great deal that not only has Sen. Obama not engaged in these kinds of attacks, but he’s very clearly stated that they’re bad business. What more do we want from him? A staunch defense of Palin’s privacy on an ongoing basis? I don’t think that’s reasonable.
3) Much of the nastiest stuff that I’ve seen has issued forth from the comments sections of blogs I read, and, less often, from the bloggers themselves. The msm I know much less about, as I’ve basically tuned out cable news, newspapers other than the Times (yes, I’m a true coastal elite), and NPR. So maybe there’s a lot of toxic sludge oozing around in these venues; I just don’t know. But what I’ve seen has been ugly but found largely on the margins. And again, that seems important to me.
4) That raises the question of whether dana and her friends are perhaps unwittingly buying into Republican talking points. That’s not to say that they’re dupes, by the way. I’m one of those people who thinks that Al Gore sighed a bunch of times when he debated George Bush in 2000. And I think those sighs were really annoying. But Eric Alterman and others have raised real questions about my memory of that event, suggesting, not for the first time, that the media is a powerful beast, able to shape individual perceptions simply be repeating a spurious story over and over again. Is this happening with the Democrats-are-mistreating-Sarah-Palin story? I honestly have no idea.
5) No matter what, there are some feminists, broadly defined, who believe that their allies on the left are selling them out. And no matter what, whether my sense of the issues above is correct or not, that’s a problem. The Democratic Party needs white women to stay in the tent. Without white women, we’re pretty much out of luck. Now, I don’t think most women are likely to bolt for the Republican Party any time soon, at least not so long as the GOP is an expressly anti-choice party. But still.
6) And then there’s the Clintons. Honestly, I wish I hadn’t left that comment at Cogitamus. I was, truth be told, interested in what Nick Beaudrot would have to say about my theory, if, in short, he shared my sense that there’s a story out there. But now I’m wishing that I had left well enough alone. Further, by the end of the primary I had lost all respect for both Sen. and President Clinton. And so I’m probably not the right person to judge whether they’re doing right by Obama or not.
And now, to bed.
September 21, 2008 at 4:56 am
Fence
Off-topic, but related to your footnote issue, I use Jeremy Curry’s linknotes on my blog. But I’m not totally sure that they are being supported anymore, there is the Link Footnotes plugin that looks useful as well.
September 21, 2008 at 6:26 am
Ben Alpers
The Democratic Party needs white women to stay in the tent. Without white women, we’re pretty much out of luck.
I know you probably know this, but white women have already left the tent. In 2004, 55% of white women voted for Bush over Kerry.
I do think that the Democrats need to do better than that to win elections. But I don’t actually think they need to win a majority of white, female votes to win elections. And, as the 2004 results suggest, winning a majority of white, female votes is not entirely–or even primarily–a matter of focusing on issues of concern to feminists, though I would certainly like the Democrats to do more of that!
September 21, 2008 at 6:56 am
dana
Various TV talking heads have been pretty sexist, but why should they count as Democrats?
Where did Clinton pin it on the Democrats? Where did I? Looks to me like she was acknowledging the general atmosphere, which includes TV talking heads.
We’re supposed to vote for Sarah Palin because she’s Super Mommy. Well, her family is, to coin a phrase, seriously fucked up. Her pregnant teenaged daughter is marrying a 17-year-old high school dropout. That’s not a sign of good parenting. Palin went back to work 3 days after giving birth to a special-needs child. That’s not being Super Mommy.
This is exactly the thing I’m saying isn’t playing well. Even if it’s well-intentioned. Let me explain, and then ari can tell me how I’ve absorbed talking points.
On the daughter thing, it’s not playing well because there’s not really any hypocrisy here. She didn’t sneak off Bristol to have an abortion; she’s living exactly what she says people should live. (Bristol’s situation is not exactly uncommon. And she’s handling it pretty much how it would usually go for a religious kid.) So you’re not going to be undermining her appeal with the religious right. So who’s the target? Women who already think that Palin’s policies are crap? It just comes across as “If you have kids, and one of them gets knocked up, you’re a bad mom and unfit for a job.”
Same thing for going back to work. What is it about Downs syndrome that makes her a bad mom for going back to work? The dad’s at home, right? Would we be having this conversation if the Palin were male and Toddette had just delivered a special needs kid? What about all the women who were told they were a bad mom for any number of decisions they made while pregnant or post-childbirth? Google “mommy drive-by.” You see it as saying something interesting, and I’m saying that’s exactly the sort of thing that makes women think “here we go again.”
All politicians have to make their families look good, but you can point out you did the same to Bush (I don’t remember anyone saying he was a bad father, just a lot more poking fun at the twins, probably because they were of age, but maybe you did), and I’m pointing out there’s a broader social context here that makes the remarks come across differently. That’s why I mentioned just some of the stuff my friends have experienced; it makes it a lot harder to think that people are just honestly discussing Palin’s suit or glasses or seriously pondering the difficulties of raising a special-needs child.
Just like you’re not going to praise Obama for being clean and articulate. You understand that no matter how well-intentioned you might mean that, it’s not going to come off well.
As ari keeps saying, and you guys keep insisting is important, Obama’s not the one initiating these attacks and keeps saying they’re bad for business. I think he’s right! They’re bad for business! Do you believe the guy or not? (And note, I did not say once that Obama should be saying anything more.)
That raises the question of whether dana and her friends are perhaps unwittingly buying into Republican talking points. That’s not to say that they’re dupes, by the way.
Wow. Yeah, it is.
But let’s leave that aside for the moment: so what if it Republican talking points, and none of the discussions we have are based in reality?
It’s also largely a fantasy that the white dudes resenting affirmative action are working in dead end office jobs would all have gotten into Harvard if it weren’t for a black woman who was unqualified who took their spot. That doesn’t mean that Obama should have pretended that white resentment didn’t exist in his race speech, or should have carefully argued that they had no reason to resent anything. Or that liberals should have decried him for acknowledging it because that made conservatives seem sympathetic.
I don’t Clinton as doing anything different here, and given the primaries, I think complete silence from her on this issue would ring a little weird.
September 21, 2008 at 7:09 am
dana
Now, I don’t think most women are likely to bolt for the Republican Party any time soon, at least not so long as the GOP is an expressly anti-choice party.
Eh. Ben just pointed out that white women are already leaving the tent, but let’s play pretend a second.
Whatever happens this election, the Supreme Court’s up for grabs, and whoever gets elected gets to replace some justices. Due to the long tenure of justices, chances are one way or another, this is going to be settled for a while.
If Obama wins, we get a favorable Court and a lot of the anti-choice issues are suddenly less of an issue; they’re settled for a few election cycles. Especially since if McCain loses, he’ll have lost while kissing up to the rightwing by nominating Palin. It could blow up that coalitiion.
If McCain wins, we’re probably hosed. But his Court will be anti-choice, which means they’re not going to have to campaign as against abortion for a while; they can tempt women on other issues.
So while I certainly agree that women’s issues are still front and center, and that the Democrats are more attractive to a feminist woman now, I also don’t expect that this situation will hold forever.
September 21, 2008 at 7:28 am
Neil the Ethical Werewolf
I’m wondering to what extent we want to include the whole system of attacks on Kerry as part of sexism. (We need a real man to lead us into battle, Kerry’s an effete indecisive metrosexual and not a real man.) Obviously, disentangling regionalism and sexism is not easy here. The Edwards hair attacks are a clearer case — that ‘I feel pretty’ video relied primarily on gender expectations for its punch.
This web of evil is being spun around male candidates too. It’s certainly not as thick as it is around female candidates. But it’s not like the men are just gliding along freely.
September 21, 2008 at 7:32 am
dana
I’m wondering to what extent we want to include the whole system of attacks on Kerry as part of sexism.
I thought about it, but the post was long enough. It does seem significant that their appearances are criticized for being effeminate.
September 21, 2008 at 7:35 am
silbey
Let’s separate a couple of things. First, I think dana’s right with a lot of her points about the way Palin gets treated. I think what amplified that is that Palin was so entirely new to the scene that there was a feeding frenzy about her at the start, and _everything_ about her got splashed on the front page in the most hurried way possible.
Having said that, McCain’s campaign has clearly adopted a “noun, verb, woman” approach to responding to attacks on Palin, just as they’ve adopted a “noun, verb, POW” response to attacks on McCain. So that’s muddled things even further.
Finally, I think Clinton’s statement about the way to handle is entirely appropriate to reach out to exactly the women likely to be disaffected by situation. And generally, I think the Clintons have done well by Obama since HRC ended her campaign. They spoke effectively and movingly at the convention and since then, they seem to have campaigned for both Obama and the Democrats. I googled Clinton + appearance in google news and she’s had events in Florida and Kentucky recently. Bill Clinton is going to be on the Daily Show and The View soon. Is some of this for their own personal gain? Probably, but I’d suggest that they are genuinely interested in getting Obama elected.
September 21, 2008 at 8:28 am
Josh Carrollhach
I know that if Sarah Palin dressed like a whore and shimmied around a pole during he debates she would hand Biden his ass. She could do it at the United Nations, too. The only thing these political creatures like more than money and power is to get all sexed up by treating a woman like dirt.
How about this: McCain and Obama in an arena with nothing but loincloths, short swords and bucklers. Biden can juggle and tell jokes and Palin can crawl around in her altogethers while feeding Jim Lehrer grapes. The rest of us will stand by and inhale the smoke of burning Rome.
Maybe McCain should have the net, now that I think about it. He can’t raise his arms and it would be a short fight otherwise.
September 21, 2008 at 10:01 am
Susan Hated Literature » links for 2008-09-21
[…] Backwards in high heels (which make her look like a porn star!) « The Edge of the American West "Imagine going on the job market, nervous, hoping you make a good impression, having had someone tell you, as a compliment, that in that outfit you remind him of a porn star." (tags: feminism sexism american.politics Sarah.Palin Michelle.Obama) Sphere: Related Content […]
September 21, 2008 at 10:32 am
ari
dana, I really didn’t mean to be dismissive. But it’s easy for me, upon re-reading the thread, to understand how you’d read me that way. I’m really sorry. I shouldn’t have said anything at all. What you and your friends perceive, obviously, is a matter of individual perception. And it’s not for me to weigh in on that at all. Again, sorry.
September 21, 2008 at 10:59 am
dana
Dude, no apology necessary.
September 21, 2008 at 11:14 am
politicalfootball
ari, you seem to have made an a priori decision that no matter what Hillary does, she’s failing to support Obama. She gives a great Obama-boosting convention speech? That’s not because she supports Obama. She follows the Obama campaign line and doesn’t beat up on Palin? That’s not because she supports Obama.
If Hillary had chosen to reject Obama’s guidance and directly, strongly attack Palin, the media would have painted the confrontation as Hillary vs. Palin (and no doubt reported the Obama campaign’s objections to that approach). In fact, even without Hillary doing that, there’s been a pretty universal effort to put Hillary in the spotlight as the anti-Palin. If Hillary had been more aggressive, the Hillary-haters would be saying: Look at Hillary, trying to draw all the attention to herself, no matter how much damage she is doing to the Obama campaign.
The difference is, if she had done that, the Hillary-haters would have been right. As they would have been if Hillary and her husband had failed to go all-out for Obama in their convention speeches.
When diametrically opposed facts can support the same narrative, one has to wonder about the validity of that narrative.
September 21, 2008 at 11:26 am
politicalfootball
Here’s the WaPo, on Hillary’s strategy regarding Palin. Note this line:
Happily, it’s looking as though Hillary and the Obama campaign were right.
September 21, 2008 at 11:39 am
politicalfootball
Hmm, I wonder why Hillary is doing this. Must be part of a subtle plot to undermine Obama.
September 21, 2008 at 11:56 am
SomeCallMeTim
She gives a great Obama-boosting convention speech?
What else happens in that world, because few others saw that happen in this one? Is Obama crushing McCain over there?
There have been repeated reports of Clinton-side bitching about Obama after the nomination, and we’ve seen any number of Fox News Dems spring from that same faction. If you’re willing to believe Clinton still feels she would be a better President, and thinks her chance is better in 2012 after a McCain term than in 2016 after at least one Obama term, well, then, it’s not such a stretch to fit those reports into a pattern. Obviously, there are other possibilities, and data about clouds made of cotton candy, etc., are extremely valuable. So preach on, brother.
September 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm
politicalfootball
Are you kidding me? Campaign aides in the losing campaign gripe about the winner after a hard-fought election? When has that not happened?
And yes, it’s a stretch to fit those facts into your pattern, for the reasons I stated and that you failed to engage. Ted Kennedy in ’80, Reagan in ’76 – that’s what a sore loser looks like. Hillary looks nothing like that.
September 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm
SomeCallMeTim
Ted Kennedy in ‘80, Reagan in ‘76
To be fair, Clinton couldn’t challenge a sitting President; Bush is a Republican. Wait till 2012.
You’re the kind of guy who reads a David Brooks column that praises the Democrats and criticizes the Republicans and thinks, “Wow, Brooks really is non-partisan,” aren’t you, pf? Some of us lack the courage to believe in your beautiful world; we think people have agendas that they pursue despite their words claiming the contrary.
September 21, 2008 at 12:50 pm
politicalfootball
I’m not talking about “words,” I’m talking about actions – very specific ones whose existence you can’t even seem to acknowledge.
You, on the other hand, have given me some gripes from campaign aides.
If I understand your reference to incumbency, you seem to be saying that upstart candidates like Obama are naturally given more deference by challengers than sitting presidents. This is not the universe I live in.
If that’s all you’ve got, stacked against what I’ve provided in this thread, I’m not impressed.
September 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The Patriots didn’t actually get “a lot of points”, relatively speaking, but still. « The Edge of the American West
[…] dana noted earlier this week, I wrote a comment at Cogitamus wondering: I’m not sure why nobody’s writing about how […]
January 13, 2009 at 6:45 pm
MO from OH
As a man it can be hard to compliment a women without being sexist. We are terrible at it. My wife is a wonderful mother and school teacher. She has recently lost her pregnacy weight and ironically, had her cut like Sarah’s shortly before any of us knew who Sarah was. My wife has never been more stunning than she is now. However, she is 12 years into her teaching career and very close to getting her Masters plus 15. As her husband, it is hard to know when to let her know that she is sexy, and when to acknowledge her acedemia. A public figure would be wise only to acknowledge the latter, but what is wrong with telling any women that she is georgeous.