Hey if it helps you sleep at night...
or you could respond to the content.
Sure, Hillary was the victim of some sexism, just as Obama has been the victim of some racism and McCain will be the victim of some ageism.
But that's not what spiked Clinton's chances. Bill Clinton would also have lost this year.
Bill Clinton would also have lost this year.
It's Not Sexism - - - It's Not Sexism.
That it's not sexism is ... laughable. But you're taking after your candidate explaining to people why they feel the way they do.
He's not telling you how to feel, he's stating why he thinks Obama is ahead. By your reasoning, anyone who says (for example) "Hillary may have lost because Mark Penn ran a bad campaign" is also telling you how to feel? I mean, the two have nothing to do with each other.
Taken another way, one could interpret your comment to mean, "I don't care what anyone says, Hillary lost because of sexism, and denying that is sexist in itself."
Being told by a male under age 30 (2.00 / 2) That it's not sexism is ... laughable. But you're taking after your candidate explaining to people why they feel the way they do.
in my book. Condi is a woman. Selebius is a woman. I would not vote for them.
hwo about margaret thatcher?
Sexism comes in many forms. For instance, all those who are voting for Hillary because they want a woman candidate,
So the African-American community is racist for supporting Barack Obama? The AA community should be proud of Barack Obama and I think it is wonderful that they have shown up in record numbers to support him. To me, that is pride, not racism.
But if women for Hillary, they're sexist?
I'm a gay man and I have made no effort to hide the face that Hillary's gender has played a significant role in my decision to support her. Am I sexist? If so, against whom am I discriminating?
At least you see the equivalence. Yeah, a lot of African-Americans are drawn to Obama, and a lot of women are drawn to Clinton, and it's obvious that racial and gender affinity plays a role for both candidates. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Some Obama supporters are just upset because for months now they've been told that black voters are ONLY voting for Obama because of race, and that's the only reason he's winning. It's an offensive blanket statement that's untrue. Just as it is equally offensive and untrue to say that women voted for Clinton in very high numbers in many states ONLY because she is a woman, and that's the only reason she made it this far.
Yeah, both of our candidates are history-making in their own way, and they represent remarkable racial and gender progress, which has inspired women and African-Americans, in addition to their solid progressive policies. It's a shame that this had led to sites like mydd devolving into back and forth accusations of sexism and racism.
Voting for your own gender or race to break down a barrier, that's fine and anything but racist. BUT, voting for your own race or gender because you hate or fear the other races or gender, that would be racist or sexist.
I don't hold it against women who want a woman president. There have been many silly or offensive arguments made for why we HAD to have Hillary as our nominee, but solidarity between women never sounded silly or offensive to me. If all other things equal, as a liberal man, I would make me feel proud as an American to vote for the first woman for president. However, the issue of the war in Iraq spoiled it for me with Hillary. As it is, since Obama has won the nomination, I am VERY pleased, because he is and was against the war, and because it will make me very proud as an American to vote for the first African-American president.
Fail.
Someone who would never vote for a candidate of a particular sex or race is sexist or racist. Someone who would have a hard time voting for someone of a particular race or sex is racist or sexist. Someone who counts the fact that a candidate is breaking through a glass ceiling as a point in their favor is being anti-sexist or anti-racist.
Okay, then if I cut and paste his diary and posted it, would my gender make it un-laughable.
Seriously, this line of argumentation infuriates me more than anything else. Why don't you just call me a traitor to my sex for supporting Obama? It's the same thing as you're saying here.
This isn't trying to explain to people why they feel they way they do. This is trying to explain why many Obama supporters feel the way the do in hopes that you will realize that to us, this has nothing to do with sexism.
Did he acknowledge this?
I didn't know that, and I've been reading him/her for years now. In fact, I may have assumed from the way he wrote that he was a well-educated older female. Never thought about it that hard.
And Spoon is right. The problem wasn't that Hillary was a victim of sexism. The problem was elsewhere. It was the war, it was her consultants, it was the strategy, it was a number of other things I might document elsewhere that suggest they just did not get what we have all been upset about for the past five years. You can't run what is (basically) a "reelection" campaign in a year when the people want to throw out all the rascals.
I TR'd this comment.
Your diary is a piece of shit. Barack Obama would be ashamed to read it.
That is an awful thing to say and do. The poster was merely saying what many election officials are saying: HRC ran a strong campaign BUT she didn't do some important things. She didn't realize the move the the left of the activist base and address the role of the war vote. Her advisers admitted that her campaign had no plan after 5 Feb. She burned through cash too quickly and listened to a few very bad advisers such as Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle. (Staff at the top is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in a campaign).
The poster was merely saying that these things are far more likely to be the reason that she has lost the primary.
But getting so insulting because the poster attributed her loss to her positions and organization is awful troll like behavior on your part. Stop this. It is time to see the end of this damned civil war. We are one party and that was unacceptable.
I don't know where the words "election officials" came from. Maybe I meant commentators and or writers/ columnists.
COLUMN 1
Progresssive ---- her not him
Bring new voters-----her and him
Howard Dean ----Huh
Ground-up campaign ----he has run the tight centralized campaign and it will be more in the genreal
Rejection of lobbyists ----- a facade, a gimmick...so they bundle money for him
50-state strategy ----- in the general...you really think ...esp. if he takes federal money and no 527's ...no it won't happen ---- Establishing new coalitions ----so does she, Hispanics, unmarried women, and in certain swing states she brings young voters
Downballot as important as top-of-ballot ---- in Texas Obama voters were only thee for him, they didn't vote for downballot races while places she was strong, they did. You see Democrats vote for Demcorats...Indepenents and Republicans who have only crossed over for the day don't care so much about the party
Unapologetically espousing progressive principles and taking with you the voters that will come your way ----this is either just wish fulfillment on your part, rationalization or bs. Hillary not only talks more about being a progressive, she uses the word more and she used the word Democrat more. Obama made his mark by dissing progressive infrastructure form parts of the abortion rights agenda to Reagan to blogs.....
Looking tough on national security by not voting with Republicans ----like what...he can't vote when he's conveniently not there to vote...there is
Lookiing beyond the social issue fights that have characterized politics lo these many years ---WTF does that mean...women who care about abortion and gay people fall in line and shut up while I ignore you and your concerns.
COLUMN 2
Bill Clinton --- Tom Daschle .... a man with the courage of a caterpillar. Barack Obama is the 2008 version of Bill Clinton in 1992.
DLC Democrat --- that's actually where his policy positions really are
Mark Penn ---- okay you're right
Terry McAuliffe ----you mean the man who told Tim Russert from Jan 20, 2001 on that George bush ws illegitimate and Al gore won. No more partisan a Democrat is there than Terry McAuliffe. Tom Daschle just agreed with Timmeh. Also the The man who got the DNC out of debt, built a huge warchest and built its own building.....
James Carville ---- if he's for Obama you'll be grateful Triangulation ----- you mean what Obama does as well
"big/swing state strategy" ---Obama is just a map changer not expander...it wil be much the same map as before
Top-down campaign ---Have you been reading the consolidation series in Open Left?....
Keep the old coalition alive at all costs and win back the Reagan "Dems" by magic pixie dust establishment oriented ---- yes let's throw out working people..let's throw that part of the party and the people it represents upon the pyres
"the White House is all that matters" ----you are mischaracterizing her position
Trying to look tough on national security by voting with Republicans to invade other countries to prove your bone fides ---- Obama agrees with her on Iran....
And continuing the same squares/hippies proxy fights that have been taking place since the late 60's. ----yes let's throw boomers the way Eskimos used t treat their older members.
It is also the height of ostrichism to think that these things are going away. That fight comes from the other side....and the sexism that you are unaware of has defined her from the begginng of her time on the national stage. Hillary was a target of the right because she was a exemplar of how far woman had come and could go.
So it was sexism from the begining...and it's sexism that distorted the view of her and it's sexism that continues when you ascribe all that's bad to her and don't begin to give her credit for what she has done and what she stands for....
Spoon has been hard to read since he changed his focus several months ago. I used to enjoy some of his postings but this one just proves that he is simply not paying attention...but he is talking anyway. Sorry to see that.
But very happy to see you, again. Thank you, from those who haven't the heart, for splainin' it out for him so well.
but in my case, the essence of it is correct. My support for Obama is based mainly on his grass roots approach, his rejection of lobbyists, and his embracing of the 50 state strategy over the DLC swing state strategy. Issues of gender or race do not come into it. I think Clinton would make a great President, I just like Obama better. Most Obama supporters I talk to feel the same. It is only a noisy few doing most of the trolling on the blogs (and some of those might be freepers).
I also take issue with the idea that suddenly Obama supporters that were rude in the past are suddenly reversing themselves and making nice in an insincere effort to create unity. I think if you look at the posting histories, most of the polite entreaties are coming from people who were never trolls... what you are seeing is simply a shift in awareness by the real Obama supporters who were previously to busy phone banking and canvasing to pay attention to the worst of the blog chatter.
It is unfair to judge all Obama supporters only on the behavior of the worst of us, just as it would be unfair of me to judge all Clinton supporters that way. It is just too easy to do that because often the most annoying supporters are also the ones most motivated to make themselves heard.
So please continue to support Clinton until the nomination process is over. Then, whatever the outcome, it is indeed my sincere hope that we can all remain unified in defeating McCain and the Neocons. The stakes are too high to let the immaturity and poor manners of a few supporters divide us. McCain does not magically because a good candidate just because some Obama supporters are jerks.
Peace
This is just some advice for people who want Obama to do well: if you want to insist it's not sexism, you have an argument to make and that is just fine.
But you hurt your cause when you deliver that message from a 25-year-old male.
Most women do not experience sexism or see its effects well into their thirties or forties.
Do you realize Obama is running attack ads in Oregon, while his supporters say Hillary is "permitted" to keep running as long as she doesn't attack him?
any male under 30 is essentially disqualified from discussing the race?
You wouldn't be being...discriminatory or anything, would you?
No but a male under 30 is not the ideal messenger to discuss sexism.
No, but a white person is not the ideal messanger to discuss racism.
I find both of those sentiments to be equally offensive. Actually, yours is even more offensive because it discriminates by age as well as gender.
Ideas are sensible in one's estimation or not. One finds them agreeable or not based on reasoning that takes place after hearing or reading them, at least that's how it should be. The messenger, to me, doesn't make them valid or invalidate them.
If this diary were an apology, I could see considering the source as sincerity is integral to the value of an apology. But, that is not what this is. It is a collection of ideas or arguments put forward that anyone can think about and embrace or reject in part or on the whole. To do otherwise is to invite incorrect analysis and it is also to presume that, regardless of the merits of the ideas themselves, an entire group of people is not capable of a valueable or viable intillectual concept. That's a pretty crummy thing to do to women. Likewise, it is crummy to do to anyone not old enough or female enough for your liking.
And your writing style - are you in academia?
I am not saying a 24-year-old male must be censored. I was a fan of thereisnospoon before this primary, I will be a fan of spoon after this primary. I believe he's a future champion of progressive causes. Spoon's knowledge political history and philosophy is on par with that of John Adams in his day (well, when John Adams was a young man at least.)
I know spoon, in his heart, wants equal opportunity for everyone regardless of gender, age, or race.
I also know that unconscious bias is something that I've caught in myself, against my own kind. It's something AAs hold against AAs. Women against women. Latinos against latinos.
I know a large part of Hillary-hate has nothing to do with sexism. But I have seen, to my own surprise, this primary season, that a large, very large part of Hillary-hate is caused by sexism. And what's shocked me is a lot of it comes from women "she voted for IWR because she's female and she was trying to look tough." I don't believe Hillary would do such a thing. I believe she voted for the war, as did her fellow New York Senator, for deterrence.
"If she wouldn't campaign like a man people wouldn't hate her so much" said a progressive, latina friend of mine who works in ethnic media.
could be misread.
Let me explain: I thought I was laying it on too thick, so I said the philosophical knowledge of spoon and hekebelos was an par with John Adams when he was their age.
This is not to belittle your young age. Adams was pretty effing smart before he was 25.
Oh, tell hell with it. Just TR me.
no TR necessary, the statement is logical. And my dislike of Hillary Clinton has everything to do with Democratic Party structures. I don't have nearly as much of a problem with Hillary Clinton, to be honest, as I have with the cast of characters she surrounds herself with--Carville, McCauliffe, and the like, who basically want to run the party like it's 1992.
I thought you and spoon were well-educated in philosophy, etc.
When you are a young fertile nubile female, the guys give you more leeway in hopes you will favor them with attention. Once you have passed that age, the sexism comes out and you are put down, passed over, and generally made to feel like you are not as valuable in society.
It shows some when you are younger, but mainly in aggressive unwanted attention.
I really see it now. It's a bizarre experience.
Does that make any difference? I can only speak for myself. I am a very issues driven voter. I know other Obama voters of varying ages and both genders and I don't think gender or race come into their decisions either. I'm not saying that sexism and racism has not been a factor in this campaign... just that we should not jump to the conclusion that it is the major factor or that those that choose a different candidate always do it from such motives.
We've have two great candidates. There are valid reasons for selecting either one. We don't need to resort to tearing each other down to explain why we are not all on the same page.
he's running attack ads in Oregon right now.
Are the ads sexist or racist? Do you have links to them so we can judge them for ourselves?
Thanks
They follow a pattern with him - he attacks her windfall profits tax on oil companies as one that would never pass (No, we can't.) Therefore, he says, it's a pander and typical of what's wrong with Washington and (and implied: what's wrong with those horrible Clintons who were worse than Bush.)
I really don't think ads that are centered around issues should count as attack ads.
Like all of his attacks have been. Hers have been on issues.
Dude, you just said he was going at her for her position on the gas tax holiday. How is that not an issue centered criticism?
And the emails from camp Obama have been worse: she is "desperate" "viscious" "will do anything to win" "dishonest".
Her emails: "our opponent is outspending us."
At the same time, he never said McCain had crossed some mark in the sand that Hillary did not. That, in my opinion, is pretty vicious.
But again I ask, is criticizing her position on the gas tax really a personal attack? That seems to be centered around and issue to me.
On a professional note, I appreciate the fact that you welcome informed arguments.
On a personal note: Fuck you buddy. I'm one of those males under 25, and if that makes my vote count less in your head that's fine. but just know that I arrived at my choice of candidate out of principal, I never expected to see a politician within my lifetime that refused lobbiest donations and when that happened, I jumped on the opportunity to support the candidate that championed something I had hoped to see.
Women experience sexism later in life, men face it earlier. My insurance rates are higher because I'm more likely to get pulled over and actually get a ticket all my female friends my age get a warning. Where is the sexism worse there? When I'm trying to get a job as a server, it goes to the good looking girl who brings in more tips. Who is the sexism working against there? And now you tell me that to support my opinions and defend myself against the accusations that I arrived at my decisions not out of sexism, but out of principal, that I have to be a female over 30!? Again, to summarize my feelings. Fuck you.
and you have very right to speak out for your candidate.
Feel insulted and discriminated against for being young? Sorry, but youth is one area where discrimination is warranted. Life is not fair.
You realize how much the elderly have been insulted this primary? Older women? Middle aged women? Life is not fair, get used to it.
Wait wait wait. First of all, let me repeat my fuck you. I thought we lived in a country where we were judged not by our race, gender, religion or age but by the merits of our ideas and actions and by the integrity of our character.
Second, I was addressing the fact that sexism against younger males is prevelant in the workforce, insurance and even within our legal system but you chose to gloss over that.
Third, a big FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU on behalf of my best friends, my cousins, my classmates, the kids who grew up with on my fucking street that are fighting in iraq and DYING! This is a FUCK YOU for your generation raping social security, raping the planet and leaving it to my generation to fix and all you say is it's warranted to be prejudice against people my age. You want to say it's warranted to be discrimative against people my age? Tell that to the "kids" who face roadside bombs everyday you hyporcite piece of self-important slime.
Honestly, do you know anyone who's actually fighting is this god foresaken war? Have you ever had to sit with a circle of crying friends wondering why your buddy had to die? Do you know what it's like watching one of your friends walk out the door after a goodbye party wondering if the next time you see them is going to be at a funeral.
People younger than me are expected to SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES in COMBAT ZONES. And yet it's justified to be prejudice against people my age? God you must love the smell of your own farts waaaaaaay too much. Not in all cases, but in your case it's true: the mind really does go first.
Hey, I totally agree with you and as a former Marine who got out in 2003, I totally understand where you're coming from. But you don't help the youth argument with the "fuck you's." It makes you seem passionate, but immature. I grant you that immaturity does not necessarily correlate to youth (look at Bush), but it often does and people on this blog will use that as a strawman to undermine the validity of your points.
Your vote counts no more or less than mine. Yes the war is sickening and I know Hillary will be better at getting us out.
I wish I lived in a world where I could pretend that gender bias did not exist. Let's face it. If a woman had entered this race with Obama's resume, she would have been laughed off the stage.
Given how much I have tried to reach to the Obama people on MyDD over the last week, I'm insulted that this piece of shit diary is on the rec list.
Just keep telling Hillary supporters why they are wrong and how wrong they are. That will get them to unify!
sexism isn't a determining factor, not that it doesn't exist.
Nearly every Obama supporter I've talked to said it would be great to have a woman in the White House, just not Hillary. For all the reasons discussed here and elsewhere.
Nearly every Clinton supporter I know argued the gender-identity line unabashedly (most are women). "For my daughter", "so I can finally vote for a woman president" and all those other very weak lines of reasoning that border on fallacies. A few point to her experience, which is at least a point to be debated against Obama's. The gender-identity ones all lash out with cries of sexism or misogyny when engaged on their argument.
Given my admittedly anecdotal evidence (which is still better than your unsubstantiated foulmouthing), I would say whatever gender-based discrimination there was played to Hillary's favor. We Democrats wanted to nominate a woman this cycle. When a truly deserving woman comes along, she'll have a huge reservoir of goodwill. Oh yeah, and was there anything inaccurate about the list of campaign characterizations? Or did it simply point to a conclusion you didn't like?
Clinton lost because she was a crappy candidate with crappy advisors and poor political instincts. All this complaining about sexism only reflects her campaign's and her supporter's inability to accept her glaring shortcomings. It's not very presidential (or at least it shouldn't be) to try to blame others for failure.
I have yet to see anyone make the parallel argument:
If Hillary Clinton were black, no one would have ever heard of her. She certainly would not have been elected to the Senate in New York, granting she was running on her exposure as First Lady. Which she wouldn't have been - no black presidents.
If a woman candidate had emerged with Obama's background and resume and chose not to accept lobbyist money and ran a 50-state strategy instead of mocking the 50-state strategy then I'd be campaigning for her.
Or do you think I just chose Obama for his penis?
Oh please, no more of that phony stuff about lobbyists. He HAS accepted lobbyist money. His chief strategist is a nuclear industry flack. A lobbyist helped him buy his house. That was no boneheaded mistake. A real estate settlement is not something that happens in three minutes. He knew exactly what he was doing. He has NOT followed a 50-state strategy. Just last week he did not even campaign in West Virginia.
And as for his resume, there isn't any. He has no significant achievements. His record as a state senator and U.S. Senator is undistinguished.
As for why you chose him, only God knows, but it wasn't his achievements.
I'm no mind reader, but I can't think of any reason for you to post this kind of stuff but this: you want to intentionally divide the party to prove how necessary HRC is.
You're putting a candidate before our shared values within our community.
I wonder how you sleep at night....
I was responding in kind to Alegre, whose comment was innapropriate. The form of mine and its sentiment are intended as the same.
Please let me know what I did that deserves to be troll-rated. If I did something inappropriate I'd really like to know. I truly value fair discourse and it was on those grounds that I wrote the comment.
I always let people know why I TR them, and I apologize if I'm wrong.
ANd if I'm wrong here, I'd like to know why.
Otherwise I'll just assume that you're TRing because you want to censor my brilliantly persuasive commentary.
;)
exactamundo!
