Daily Kos

This Is What Democracy Looks Like?

Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM PDT

Wow.

Just...wow.

There is a diary on this page right now making fun of Hillary supporters protesting media bias.

It's full of snark and glee.  Look at those stupid protesters.  Look at them whining.  Look at their silly signs.  Their lame slogans.  

Ha ha fucking ha.

What is wrong with this picture?

It was a less than two weeks ago that I made the rec list for the first time.  My diary was called An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes, Finally).

You may remember it.

A lot of you commented.  You said you liked it.  A lot of you apologized for some of the more egregious comments you've made in this primary battle.  You promised you'd try to do better.

A lot of you tried to put yourselves in the shoes of the Hillary supporters.  A lot of you tried to understand their anger, their frustration, their sadness -- and their excitement about a candidate in whom they believe.

What a difference two weeks make, huh?

It's back to the bashing.  It's back to hating the hell out of Hillary.  And her supporters.  And whatever complaints they make -- because none of them, apparently, are valid.

Forget media bias.  Forget sexism.  Forget just plain cruelty.  

Forget Tucker Carlson, and his repeated insistence that men should cross their legs when Hillary is near, for fear she will literally bust their balls.

Forget Chris Matthews, and his repeated insistence that no one wants to listen to Hillary's grating voice.  Like nails on a chalkboard.

Forget the fact that it is a hard struggle for a woman, any woman, even the former First Lady, to make it to the White House.  Forget than no woman -- from Victoria Woodhull in 1872 to Shirley Chisholm a hundred years later -- has made it there yet.

Forget attempts at reconciliation.  Forget promises to reach out to Hillary supporters, to make it easier for them to embrace the likely nominee.

Forget the peacemaking.  Forget mature political discourse.

I've been working on a diary about sexism.  The problem is, I don't even know where to start.  We can have diary after diary about race in America, and how it's time to have an open, frank conversation about how racism -- even today -- is a real problem we have yet to solve.

But sexism?  That's just Hillary supporters being sore losers, apparently.  

Let's laugh at them.  Let's mock them.  Let's shame them.

Stupid, whiny white women.  What do they even have to complain about, anyway?

We used to take this seriously.  Or so I thought.  I seem to remember people expressing outrage at the New York Times article about a year ago that tried to analyze the Clinton marriage.  

Or the Washington Post article that analyzed Hillary's cleavage.  I seem to remember at least a few people finding that somewhat inappropriate.

But now?  None of that matters.  Because if it's about Hillary, then who cares, right?  

I thought we were getting better.  I thought we were starting to see a change here on DailyKos, in the blogosphere, in our local bars and coffee shops.  The Obama supporters were realizing that they were going to win, and that they needed the Hillary supporters in November.  

They were extending olive branches.  Remember?

I thought the Hillary supporters (like myself) were trying to come to terms with the reality that their preferred candidate will not get the nomination.  And that it is time to start learning how to support Obama.

But I guess I was wrong.  Because we're back to the same old shit.  Diary after diary about how much Hillary sucks.  How much Bill sucks.  How we never really liked them anyway.  Good riddance.

Is this what we want our democracy to look like?  Is this what we want the Democratic party to look like?

So-called progressive radio personalities calling women "fucking whores."  Is that what we want?

What about the next woman who runs for president?  Will we bother to hold the media accountable for how it talks about her, like she's running for student body president, like the color of her pantsuits matter?

I thought we were better than this.  Or at least, I thought we were trying to better than this.

Guess I was wrong.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, protest, sexism (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 219 comments

    •  Want to post a link to the diary? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      gchaucer2, Shhs

      I've been paying more attention to John McCain and Bush's torture memo.

      John McCain goes to bed every night after servicing by Joe Lieberman.

      by bhagamu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you, AM. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MBNYC, Angry Mouse

          Ignore my other comment.

        •  And that hack is not on the rec list. (6+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          barath, oscarsmom, Shhs, DemocraticOz, redtex, soms

          You know how this goes.  Everyone have something to say about all the candidates.  Look at what mydd turned out to be, and Jerome HAD to clean it up, primarily for money reasons.  You can't have a democratic, progressive site and allow rec diary after rec diary filled with racist hate.  That is what he let mydd come to and he was forced to reality and banned most from posting there.  IN other words, that site became a laughing stock, it did.  Who do you know in the MSM is using ANY narrative from mydd?  They would not dare.

        •  I don't think that type of diary even (4+ / 0-)

          deserves a response from you. It's annoying that some people still think cherry picking examples of another group is license to paint with a broad brush. I skimmed the diary, it was honestly not worth my time to read.

          John McCain goes to bed every night after servicing by Joe Lieberman.

          by bhagamu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:11:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not just that diary though. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Caoilainn

            There seems to be increased traffic in the past week or so (maybe it started with the Randi Rhodes thing) that is grossly sexist.

            And I'm pissed off about it.

            •  It's true that there is sexism. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              soms

              But you can count on most of us to point it out and fight it when we see it. But if there's one thing that we've learned about the primary season, it's that primal freeperism seems to be embedded in human nature.  So we'll do our best to handle it.

              John McCain goes to bed every night after servicing by Joe Lieberman.

              by bhagamu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I can't count on you. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Caoilainn

                (I don't mean you personally.)

                I mean, this whole community.  The defense of Randi Rhodes's comments has turned my stomach.

                The way all media criticism about Hillary is now met with total glee because it's about Hillary.

                Even the comments that try to start by acknowleding sexism end up having a big "yes, but" in them.

                •  A lot of people also took issue (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Angry Mouse, soms, cachola

                  vociferously with Randi's comments.

                  Try to keep that in mind as well.

                  Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

                  by boadicea on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I do. And I appreciate it. (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    boadicea, RisingTide, Caoilainn, fernan47

                    I'm pissed.  And I'm not nearly as eloquent when I'm pissed.  

                    I feel like we've been having this argument all week, and it's getting uglier and uglier.

                    We need to stop it.  Those of us in this community who try to be careful and considerate in how we converse -- even in how we disagree -- need to step up and squash this ugliness before it gets any worse.

                    •  Actually, I disagree there as well. (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      soms

                      Clearly, we still need to have this argument-I remember well the pie fights of yore, and they were exhausting.

                      Yet, I still hat to tee off the other day on a diarist who tried to beard his misogyny by paraphrasing feminists of another era and calling Hillary's supporters "a feminist army".

                      There is real sexism, and real racism just under the surface of our polical discourse.

                      The only way out of this morass is through-through more speech, not less.

                      Through jokes that will sometimes miss the mark.

                      And sometime through anger that seeks a target-any target-on which to spend itself.

                      I look forward to the diary you wrote of developing.

                      Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

                      by boadicea on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Get out some steel boots (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      SingularExistence, Angry Mouse

                      and get ready to stamp your feet.

                      You call people on their bullshit, and you expect to be called on your own.

                      Here, some folks are saying you're over reacting to a particular diary. Well, maybe you are. But i can certainly understand it, when you've had a long hard mush through some of these craptastic diaries.

                      Don't let them get to you -- there are Hillary assholes and Barack assholes, and they won't matter one whit once the election is over.

                      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

                      by RisingTide on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But it will matter. (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        RisingTide, fernan47

                        Because what happens the next time a woman runs for president (you know, in 2072)?

                        If we give the media a pass on how it talks about female candidates now, we're going to be having these same arguments later.

                        And I'll tell you something else.  Although I am usually a registered a Democrat, and almost always vote Democrat, I'm feeling pretty fucking disappointed by my party at the moment.  Because I don't see a lot of outrage on this subject.

                        And I don't mean outrage about Hillary.  I mean outrage about the language we use, the standards we apply, to women.

                        Right now, I'm feeling pretty taken for granted, actually.  Because I can can "cry" and "whine" and "stamp my feet", but where am I gonna go?  McCain?  So he can call me a cunt?  I don't think so.

                        As I've said, this isn't about Hillary anymore.

                        It's about us.

                •  I have to agree (6+ / 0-)

                  There have been many, many sexist comments made here about Hillary by people who probably don't even realize how sexist they sound. The problem is, when you call them on it you run into a huge wall of defensiveness and denial, usually beginning with, "Lighten up! It was just a joke!" or "How can I possibly be sexist? I have a daughter!"

                  Press it a little further and it becomes, "I'm so sick of all the whining about sexism; that's not why Hillary's not winning!" Which is true - but it also doesn't make the sexist comments okay.

                  I'll be honest; at first, I didn't think a lot of the Clinton campaign comments Obama supporters took issue with were racist on their face. But when I actually took the time to understand why they were so offensive, and how they came across to people, I got it. I just wish people would try to do the same with the Hillary mockery.

                  "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

                  by SingularExistence on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Would you consider doing a post on this? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Caoilainn

              I admit that most of the time, I peek at candidate diaries and pass on without reading many of the comments. A few months ago I posted about shark feeding frenzies, as they seemed to be happening more, but I now tend to read positive diaries and just click out of the more heated discussions because they tend to be rehashes of old talking points. So I don't pay as much attention to the flame wars.

              But

              If there is a rise in sexist diaries, that is important and should not pass. I haven't seen it, but I may be out of that loop.

              Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Marx (no not that one, Groucho)

              by marketgeek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Hi Angry Mouse, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse

      I have noticed it getting worse around here again.

      But I missed the diary you are talking about. Could you link it?

    •  Love you Mouse, but (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      barath, Punditcrat, redtex, soms

      When Bill comes to my hometown and lies to mother about things, it pisses me off, and I diary about it.  

    •  A very small number of very vocal and (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Wufacta, Angry Mouse

      organized Obama supporters play out emotional games on blogs in which Barack Obama is perfectly good and Hillary Clinton is perfectly bad.  

      I find these folks to have little political consciousness.  Progressivism is whatever Obama says at the moment, if they even bother to listen.  Thus, for some of this small number, sexism is acceptable.  indeed, based on some comments, a few male voices seem to fear women, perhaps becuase they are young and inexperienced romantically.    

      It is important to remember, though, that these very few Obama supporters who are jerks are a small, small minority.  They do not represent Barack Obama or the vast majority of his supporters.  But they are loud and sometimes promote real garbage to the Rec list or write real garbage.

      It is important that the true supporters of Obama who actually understand his message stand up for decency and confront bad actors.

      I also think many should re-read the Audacity of Hope.  The conduct you describe is alien to philosophy expressed by Barack Obama in that book.

      For every jerk, there are far more decent people who support Obama or support Clinton.

      For example, the labor federation Change to Win endorsed Obama.

      Americans believe that irresponsible corporate conduct—from shipping jobs overseas to breaking promises to workers on health care and pensions—is the primary threat to the American Dream.

      In the latest installment of our American Dream survey series, voters saw Senator Obama as being least influenced by big corporations and CEOs. In head-to-head rankings, 39 percent of voters saw John McCain as being influenced by big corporations while the percentage naming Obama was only 19 percent.

      Most importantly, Barack Obama has instilled a new enthusiasm in the political process. In a time of economic anxiety, we see hope rather than despair. Americans believe that they can restore the American Dream.

      As in our past surveys, our recent survey confirms that for Americans the dream is realized or lost at work. Low paying jobs with no benefits and no opportunity are robbing Americans of the dream for a better future for their children. For working America, this election is about the jobs of the future. It’s about whether the new global economy will produce jobs in the U.S. that can support the dream for the next generation of workers.

      We in Change to Win believe that we can transform the jobs of the new economy into the good jobs of the future. We need a President in the White House who shares our vision and will support an agenda to make that dream a reality. We believe Barack Obama will be that President.

      Better to work with the vast majority of Obama supporters who reject the tactics of hate and division to unify the party behind whoever wins: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

      "The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08

      by TomP on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diary wasn't recc'd, Angry... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Caoilainn

      When you posted your reconciliation diary I knew that sadly, the only reason it got recc'd was because of the title misleadingly implying that you "went over to Obama." I said as much over at MyDD because it is that sad a good sentiment such as reconciliation can be cynically twisted by the Obama supporters to generate spin for their candidate, by having a Clinton mea culpa diary on the rec list.

      It is not about 'reconciliation' or media bias or sexism... all it is, is about the candidates. It's about who wins, and who loses. That's it.

      So the other side of the coin is, I wouldn't take insulting diaries such as the one you mentioned personally. It did not make the rec list, it only got a few recs. And it is true that over at MyDD they complain a lot louder at sexism directed at Clinton by the media or (perceived) sexism by people associated with Obama than the sexist rant by McSame against his wife. Hope08 posted a diary abut McCain's rant over at MyDD and it only got a few recc's... including MBNYC here. I do not buy the enormous amount of faux outrage here that has happened over the Clintons, but I also recognize that some of the outrage over at MyDD may also be faux. That diary against the protest was only posted because of the primary war.

      I do think there is a significant segment of the progressive community that just does not care about sexism, even though the Left is supposed to be collectively opposed to it. I also think those people are a small minority within the progressive movement and the Democratic party whose influence has been maximized by the exact dynamics of what has happened in the last 4 months. All issues have been subordinated to the candidate wars.

      What is most disturbing about all of this is that people have formed such strong opinions over the candidates that ideals such as reconciliation, enfranchisement, anti-racism/anti-sexism, universal health care (come on, do you seriously think that mandates would be rejected on the Rec List if Edwards was the nominee or still in contention) even our priorities as a party in the General Election... have gotten lost. The longer it goes, the more extreme is becomes. This is truly sad. If Obama came out and said he would keep troops in Iraq until 2012 tommorrow, there would be diaries defending keeping troops in Iraq until 2012 on the rec list the same day, or trying to twist his words so that he was saying something else. Or some other apologia. That is what this site has come to.

      I guess that is why they call primary season silly season. But it is also a great eye opener on political behavior.

      •  Well said. Damn well said. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Wufacta, Caoilainn

        And you are so very right (sadly).

        It's amazing how eager people are to praise something when they agree with it.  And how quick they are to be dismissive when they don't.

        With my prior diary (you know, the big one), I think it's true that a lot of people liked it because it was what they wanted to hear.  I could have made a lot of those same points without saying that I was ready to support Obama, and I really do wonder if it would have received the same response.

        It's harder for all of us -- and yes, that includes me -- to appreciate (and recommend) something we disagree with.

        I'd like to think that when the primaries are over, we will all come together again.

        But were we ever really together to begin with?  I think part of why Democrats have such a hard time winning elections is precisely because they have a hard time coming together -- on a lot of things.

        I'd like to think that once Hillary is no longer in the spotlight, we Dems can take a good hard look at sexism -- not just as it applies to powerful, famous women, but as it applies to all of us -- to me.  But I somehow doubt it.  Which means we will have this fight again.

        There is so much work to be done within our party.  There are so many problems to address -- the war, healthcare, the environment, to name a few.

        But we become so invested in being right, and in proving others are wrong.  We make it harder and harder to work toward the same goal.  

        And yes, I know Obama talks about that, about wanting to change it.  But I don't put faith in politicians.  He may prove to be a great president, but what we need to do as a party extends far beyond electing any one person.

  •   I agree with the diarist. (8+ / 0-)

    We should bash Hillary for who she is, and what she has done, and it should have nothing to do with gender.

  •  I'm going to have to differ with you (12+ / 0-)

    on this item.

    Mainly because the quotes that generated the snark I saw had to do with calls to bring in Faux News and Bill O'Reilly to cover their extremely small turnout protest.

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

    by boadicea on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM PDT

  •  Angry Mouse, (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary need to leave the race.

    You know that, I know that.

    Yes, this primary has been full of racist and sexist tones, period.  But you must remember, that it was Hillary Clinton that said Barack Obama was not vetted, and once she is vetted, thanks to her, it was monumental to back up with videotape.  Which goes back to the premise that the Clintons are not in tune to the internet, blogging or youtube.  i.e., Bill Clinton bringing Bosnia back up?  Why?

    There were good things about the Clintons in the 90s and alot of bad.  Many don't want to go through it again and the Bosnia "falsehood" is a reminder to many of the 90s Clinton.

    I am a woman, want to vote for a woman, and a woman will be POTUS one day, not just Hillary Clinton.

    •  "Vetting" (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, Caoilainn

      doesn't mean subjecting a candidate to ugly, brutal, sexist mockery.

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All of that can be true... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MBNYC

      but does it negate the fact -- yes, the fact -- that there is sexism in the media.  

      And maybe the protestors do support Hillary, and that is why they're outraged?

      So what?  Does that make the underlying argument somehow less valid?

      Is it really necessary to shame them?

      •  No, it's not. (8+ / 0-)

        Quite the contrary.

        It's the glee of some of them of being on Fox Noise that deserves censure, I think.

        Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

        by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. But I left mydd for the proprietor (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Chris in West Seattle

        allowing continued racist diaries, day after day.  Some so far flung, the sourcing was a mockery.  Why do you think the MSM don't quote that site anymore?  It is a laughing stock and Jerome allowed it to be.  Here at DKos diaries are weighed by being recommended and that one is not.  So, fight with the MSM to make it better and get more changes.

      •  Angry Mouse (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        boadicea, hn, Chris in West Seattle

        The line that made me laugh (I don't think I commented in the diary, but I did laugh out loud) was the one where it seemed like someone watching the event and tv coverage not of the event was trying to say that two women discussing Katie Couric were failing to say that sexism has to do with why she's going to be let go.

        Instead of the fact that she has been trying to sell fluff instead of news for the past couple of years.

        Yeah, there's sexism in this world, and yes there's sexism in the US.  But cripes.  Not everything that doesn't go right for every woman is caused by sexism, and pretending like it is turns it into a wacky tinfoil hat issue.

        It was a funny diary - not because they are Hillary supporters.  But because they are MORONS, and they are weakening their own reasoning.

        "2009" The end of an error

        by sheddhead on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If that was the REAL concern, Angry Mouse (2+ / 0-)

        then why restrict a protest about sexism in the media to just one candidate, in just one city?  Why not arrange for some protests in, say, New Hampshire on behalf of Jeanne Shaheen?  Isn't it a little selfish of Clinton supporters to take sole property of sexism in the media on behalf of only their candidate?

        This protest was stupid, self-serving, and delusional.  Let the mockery continue until Hillary gets out.

        Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

        by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In a word, no. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Caoilainn

          What pushes you over the edge?  What is your final straw?  I'd dare say it's different for everyone.

          But I don't see a lot of attempts at reaching out to those Hillary supporters to say: I don't like your candidate, but I agree with your complaint about the media.  Let's have a protest about that.

          All I see is mocking.

          •  hmm... pro-Obama supporters at the (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Caoilainn, Angry Mouse

            anti-sexism rally.

            That might get more coverage, right?

            well, i can hope!

            Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

            by RisingTide on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The particular supporters (5+ / 0-)

            behind this protest are not ones likely to want to join with Obama supporters in protesting sexism.  I'm not sure reaching out to them would help.

            For example, on Hillaryis44 and hilllaryclintonforum I've seen posters describing Donna Brazile in horrendously sexist and racist terms and not get called out for it.  Commenting on Brazile's appearance, picking apart her outfits and describing her as fat.  Calling her "brillohead".  If these are the same women protesting media sexism, shame on them.

            •  You may be right. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Caoilainn

              But you know, we'll never find out if we don't try.

              It would be nice if we could start to find our common ground again.

              And criticizing the MSM -- come on, that's an easy one, isn't it?

              •  I'm all for criticizing the media (4+ / 0-)

                I hate the generally accepted level of sexism in the traditional media, and would be willing to protest it.

                It's the disingenuousness of criticizing the media for sexism against Clinton while perpetrating its worst tropes against another strong woman that I find repulsive.  

                I agree with your basic point -- that we should all challenge the media on this -- but this protest didn't try to do that.  They chose MSNBC because they feel it's been the most unfair to Clinton, but ignore the absolutely rampant sexism and racism at Fox.  Embracing O'Reilly and FoxNews -- how does that advance the dialogue?  It completely deconstructs the protest.  That's why common ground is hard to find -- they aren't really protesting media sexism.

              •  Uh, talking about MI and FL (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Chris in West Seattle

                all while praising Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is no way to "find common ground", Angry Mouse.  You know damn well that this was a bad faith effort, and defending them makes your effort look in bad faith as well.

                Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Using the sexism in the media theme (6+ / 0-)

            to talk about how wronged Hillary has been in this campaign is not the way to get people interested.  Intentional victimization for political gain is not attractive and it is not being done in an effort to reconcile with Obama people because you don't want to do that.  If the situation were flipped, tons and tons of people wouldn't be mocking Obama for staying in the race when there was no hope of winning?  I do agree with your complaint about the media but I'm sick of it being the excuse du jour for why the almighty Hillary Clinton is losing.

          •  It wasn't a good faith protest... (5+ / 0-)

            it was a protest designed to advance the cause of one candidate, NOT beat back rampant sexism in the media.  MI and FL have no place- NONE- in a discussion of sexism in the media.  It wasn't in good faith, and I fail to see why I should make a good faith effort to help people who do not appear to be making their own good faith effort.

            Sexism exists in the media, of course it does.  But it doesn't JUST exist with Hillary Clinton, and I'm not going to take part in a faux protest on sexism that also includes such bullshit items like counting the votes for MI and FL, and piling on Keith Olbermann (whose only sin in the eyes of Clinton supporters was that he dared to criticize Saint Hillary).

            If I don't like your candidate, I'm not going to be involved in an event that is designed to help your candidate win.  And that does NOT make me sexist.

            Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

            by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:50:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I can't say that I never say bad things about... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    boadicea, MBNYC, Punditcrat, Angry Mouse

    ... Clinton, but when I do, I try to keep them substantive and policy-related.

    As for supporters, I do what I can to be respectful. I mean, it's their choice. It's not my choice, but they have the right to back who they want.

    •  err... and I get troll rated occasionally (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      droogie6655321, kingfishstew

      for saying nice things about Clinton...
      (okay, so it's probably me saying Miss Queen High Bitch of Discipline -- which isn't tactful. I'm never tactful!)

      Understand that sometimes people don't express themselves right. The good ones apologize.

      Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.

      by RisingTide on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:13:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True. Sexism, like Racism involves (0+ / 0-)

        a conversation in which there is danger, or at least otherwise decent people feel the danger, or having what they at least believe is a legitamite and non-ist opinion being portrayed as racists / sexist and the whole discussion being dragged down to name calling.

        Which is why, if we were to have serious discussions about the issue, you have to allow room not only for clarrification and as generous an assumption of goodwill as reasonably possible, but also disagrement.

        Fundamentally, you're going to run into a wall when someone believes something is racists / sexists and another party doesn't. And can the discussion, and good-will, survive and move beyond than impasse?

  •  No, you were right. (9+ / 0-)

    A lot of the response to that diary, it seems to me, came from the fact that it wasn't, in fact, a straight-up effort against sexism and media bias. It was billed as such, but what it really represented was a chance to air a laundry list of grievances united only by their being held by Hillary supporters - Michigan, Florida, Howard Dean, and so on.

    There's a distinct gap between selling and substance, is my point. If this had been a protest confined to media bias, I might have gone myself, and I am no friend of her campaign. But as it is, I couldn't do that.

    Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

    by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

    •  So can't we have that conversation? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, paintitblue

      Can we say:

      Look, I don't like Hillary.  I don't like her policies.  I don't like the way she's run her campaign.

      BUT...

      We should talk about the media and its double standards for how it talks about powerful women and powerful men.  (And it's not just Hillary.)

      Wouldn't that be more, I don't know, useful and productive than just laughing at them?

      •  Yes, it would. (7+ / 0-)

        But I, personally, was not even laughing, I was

        a) appalled at the Fox Noise celebrating, and

        b) somewhat amused at the exultation over the protest's size, when it was actually quite small.

        Thing is, media bias is a critical issue. It doesn't help, I think, to lump it together with every other grievance held by Clinton loyalists over the course of a primary they are losing. To me, that reduces the real issue, bias in all of its forms, to just one item on a laundry list of complaints that their candidate isn't doing so well.

        Does that make sense?

        Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

        by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't read all the comments (2+ / 0-)

          but I saw no sexism in the diary itself.  Am I missing something?

          McCain and Lobbyists; McCain on NAFTA

          by ETinKC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Punditcrat, cachola

            You're missing the fact that Clinton supporters think that:

            Criticism of Hillary == Sexism

            So anytime there is criticism, that's automatically sexist in their minds.  Yes, you missed that.

            Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

            by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:30:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I find it (3+ / 0-)

              less than helpful to ascribe exactly the same thoughts to an entire group of people. Angry Mouse, for example, is a Clinton supporter, and I find no evidence that s/he thinks as you describe it.

              Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

              by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, I was IN those comments (3+ / 0-)

                and when I asked for an example of sexism by Olbermann, the only thing that was pointed to was his Special Comment on Ferraro (where he went after the Clinton Campaign for condoning it).

                And WRT Angry Mouse, this diary is not in good faith IMO.  The outrage shown by those protestors was faux outrage, and it's all on behalf one candidate and one candidate only.  It was a stupid and self-serving stunt that does nothing to counter the stereotype that Clinton supporters are delusional narcissists.  They deserved to be mocked, and Angry Mouse responds NOT by denouncing that silly faux outrage, but instead produces a diary full of (wait for it) more faux outrage.

                I'm tired of the faux outrage, and I'm tired of the bullshit sexism complaints.  I'm not going to pander to someone who instinctively defends that behavior, and I'm not going to tread lightly around someone who just basically accused me of sexism.

                Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, come the fuck on. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Angry Mouse

                  I'm hanging around a lot on MyDD these days, so I'm slightly irritated at some Clinton supporters myself. Still doesn't mean I blame them as a group for some bad apples, and to tell you the truth, I tire of some of the Obama zealots and their insistence that not supporting him must be explicable by racism as well.

                  Angry Mouse makes some very valid points here. Debate those if you want, and don't treat this as an occasion to vent every bit of anger you may have at every Hillary supporter you've ever come across. Or, if you prefer, go over to MyDD and face the people you're complaining about. They are there, I assure you.

                  Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                  by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What exactly ARE those valid points? (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Chris in West Seattle

                    Look, we do this ALL THE TIME with Republicans when they take trips to Crazytown on the Bullshit Express.  And this event was bullshit, totally deserving of the mocking it got.

                    So why the outrage at the mocking?  What's so "valid" about complaining about mocking bullshit?

                    Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

                    by cfaller96 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                      as Progressives we don't smear people based on their belonging to a group. Simple enough for you?

                      Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                      by MBNYC on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]