That title sounds a bit like a "What I Did Over My Summer Vacation" essay - because this is essentially going to be a comment with a title stuck on it as opposed to a "post" (in keeping with Dan's request that we write posts).
Actually, the calculus is fairly simple:
I see little of significant difference between them policy-wise. So, as much as I dislike "identity politics," or whatever the right term is, my decision for supporting Obama is based on how I judge the campaigns they've run, and my sense of the comparison between Obama and Clinton as people.
Obama strikes me as being much more authentic. Obviously, I don't know either of them and can only make that kind of assessment based on a gut reaction to how they're portrayed in the media. But I will say that Obama's presented personae seems to be consistent, whereas Clinton's seems to be tailored by her handlers to meet any particular circumstance, and consequently strikes me as less genuine. I've really tried to examine whether my reaction is a sexist reaction against the "strong women" stereotype - and honestly I can't say I have ruled that possibility out. But as I've written before at YPP, my reaction to Hillary is very much the same as my reaction to Bill - they are highly inauthentic.
Perhaps more importantly is my reaction to how they've run their campaigns. Thus far, I think that Obama has largely taken the high road. Despite the assertions of some that he has attacked Clinton from the right, I think that description is much more apt for her campaign - as evidenced by her campaign's characteristic themes of fear-mongering, ridiculing the concept of dialog as a foreign policy, and capitalizing on highly irrelevant issues such as the whole Farrakhan line of attack and the "plagiarism" and NAFTA attacks (as if Clinton doesn't also take policy positions during the campaign which will require political maneuvering once elected).
I have also heard from friends who have been heavily involved in the Obama campaign just how "grass-roots" it is. Certainly, the comparisons of where Obama and Clinton are getting the money to finance their respective campaigns would reinforce the notion that his campaign is much more "bottom-up." I consider that to be important.
Focusing more locally, we have already seen the Clinton campaign parrot rightwing talking points about racial components of who votes for whom (see comments by our Governor). Depending on whether the Clinton campaign continues this approach, it is quite possible that the fight for PA may tear some newly formed scabs off some of the racial wounds which have just recently started to show signs of healing.
It will be very interesting to see how Obama's campaign reacts to Clinton's recent victories -- which seem to have been based on negative campaigning. Will he "go negative" also? Certainly, there is plenty of material for him to use in such an approach. But as much as I don't want to be naive, I would like to see a president who eschews such political tactics, no matter their practicality. If he does go negative, it will certainly reduce the level of my support for his candidacy.
And finally, again I hope I'm not being naive, and I am uncomfortable allowing personality rather than policy be a defining criterion, but I have been impressed with Obama's ability to inspire a wider cross-section of the electorate. That could mean that he will be more effective in triangulating important "progressive" principles. Or, it could mean that he will be more effective in accomplishing tasks that require splitting more "moderate" Republicans away from the lunatic fringe. Hmmmm.
men, can't live with em...
i dunno, Josh, I appreciate your thoughts and opinions a lot. But this didn't do it for me.
For one, I am not sure I agree with your choice not to consider issues (see this comment).Although I do understand what you mean--and relate emotionally.
Which brings me to point #2, without taking sides, I have seen a lot of men post about Obama here and on other forums, yet I have seen relatively little substantive conversation about sex and gender play into this race in a major way.
.
Fair enough, Ray
Honestly, I'm not entirely comfortable with why I'm supporting Obama - but I think that the personality issues, and how their campaigns may reflect personality issues, are enough to swing the balance.
That said, it isn't that I'm not considering issues - only that I don't really see significant policy differences.
The race and gender issues are really important - but again, it's hard not to see them as being pretty much a wash. How does one go about comparing the symbolic and substantial power of electing a black man or a woman as president? I would be interested in hearing speculation, however.
So?
A caveat
I have been considering how the voting seems to have been breaking down: Clinton doing better among the "Democratic base," and Obama doing better among the "elite" and independent voters. But again, the issues are just so damn confusing.
For a long time, I've been arguing that choosing a Dem candidate on the basis of how independents vote only disenfranchises more of the voters I care most about. But there's a complicating factor here: I think that there are relatively few from the Democratic base that wouldn't vote for Obama in the national election. Sure, a couple of racists, maybe, but not many. So, there would be not much of a loss in having him as the nominee - but with Clinton, I think that there would be a significant net loss in terms of independent voters, and even some Dems who are turned off by her personality/tactics.
But would that mean that Obama, if elected would be more likely to be triangulate since he had significant independent support?
Hmmm.
Pure sexism
And again, I am not advocating for her, but it just seems like there is so little acknowledgment that sexism exists in this race.
Even this question, which I am sure we have all been asked, "are you voting for Hillary or Obama?" Why is she called "Hillary" and he is called "Obama" so much?
It happens all the time. Quick, who serves us on Council? Maria, Blondelle, Donna or Jannie, right? What about Jim, Brian, Darrel, and Frank?
Thta's just an example that I am using to illustrate the fact that women in politics are treated differently than men. And there less of them.
Look at the state leg races. The number of men challenging incumbents, or who are incumbents, is much more than women.
Call me a cynic, but as much as people talk about the excitement of this race, and its transformative power, I don't see all that much that's different. (And that's not to say that I won't vote for Obama over Clinton, it's just that this election, and these candidates, are not what inspire me to be a part of revisioning our political process and our society. And I think it's cool that is the case for some people, but that doesn't mean that frames like misogyny and sexism go away just cuz you are really geeked out over Obama.)
Sorry Ray - Catch 22 not Sexism
Clinton's candidacy is a good example of sexism on a larger scale, i.e. the first woman to run has to have been married to a former president and have spent the last 30 years working toward this moment. I get that part of the sexism argument. However, I don't think that a large portion of those who are voting for Obama are doing it for sexist reasons. It's a Catch-22. Clearly, Hillary is brilliant and deserves to be in consideration for the presidency, though she could only get here because of her last name. Without it, she's just another Senator (and she probably wouldn't have been that without Clinton attached).
It seems cliched already, but people are rejecting Hillary because of the been-there-done-that nature of her candidacy. Not since the early part of our nation have celebrity and family ties dictated who will rule as much as they are right now. We were on a nice clip of individuals who rose up to be president (not commenting on their merit as presidents). While all had family connections, none were really from the same family (the brothers who could have done this were killed). We now sit with 28 straight years of Bush-Clinton-Bush in the Executive branch. A lot of people are not looking for 4 more years with a Jeb Bush candidacy in the offing. To me, this explains a large portion of Obama voters and certainly a lot more than sexism.
Also, the point about people referring to her as Hillary is a bit off-base. Since she has printed millions of signs with "Hillary" on them, as I've seen at the covered campaign rallies, she seems to view this reference to her first name, the first that is not a man's to have a shot at the presidency, to actually benefit her.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
sorry AJ
You just can't prove this:
It might be true, but I have a feeling (which I can't prove either) that it's not.
Yes I can
Give me a jury, and I can prove anything.
Ask any Obama person why he/she voting for him. Along with his charisma, it's that he's not part of the baggage. Many view Clinton, whether right or not, as part of the problem.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who won't vote for a woman. I'd say that there are just as many who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Neither of these people seem to be as significant as those voting for Obama because they're tired of the cyclical nature of who is in charge in this nation. Will these people be enough to beat the large portion of women who may be voting for Hillary because she is the first woman with a chance (which I understand and actually wonder why there aren't more of them)? Will they be enough to overcome those who don't think the country is ready for a black president or those who have some false notion of Obama's personal history? I don't know. I just don't think that this election will be decided on "sexist" grounds.
Flat-out, the reason Hillary hasn't run away with this has more to do with her baggage than sexism. Sexism should have dictated that she'd win in a walk. She should be winning women voters 80-20 for Christ sake. I think her campaign actually thought this would be the case. However, a good portion of women and some men that would be inclined to vote for the first woman, don't want her and Bill, regardless of their success in the 1990's, back on the throne.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
oh ok
i guess i was wrong.
Empirical proof?
I'm not sure what I can put forth to prove it, but how can you prove that this is sexist? We all know that there are some other "ists" involved in this election as well. However, I think a lot more "ists" people are overcoming their own "ists" or "ists" in their personal histories and demographics to go for Obama.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
i think you are misunderstanding
and i apologize if i was not clear.
I am not saying that Clinton has fewer delegates than Obama because of sexism. there are obviously other factors. however, her gender and her sex identity are factors that are in the mix, and as exciting as a competitive Democratic primary has been so far, I am disappointed by how little attention members of the progressive community--especially the men i have talked to--have paid to sexism and misogyny.
if folks really want to talk about Obama's ascendancy as proof of a progressive movement (which is certainly fair) there needs to be come reciprocal interest in talking about "unprogressive" things that are happening along the way.
Obama, Clinton, racism, sexism
Ray, I think a big part of the reason why Clinton is frequently referred to as Hillary - including by her campaign - is that she shares her last name with Bill. Often, it is just easier to use her first name in order to distinguish her from her husband. Is there a sexist element? Maybe, it's really hard to say - and I think the more operative question about sexism and her candidacy relates to whether people's distaste for her negative campaigning is more pronounced because she's a female.
What's of more interest to me are the questions of how race play into Obama's campaign. One of the most frequent comments among Obama omponents is that his black followers are only voting on the basis of race. That is a huge piece of the subtext behind the overwhelming criticism of him as being an "empty suit." What's most disturbing is that while that is almost a mantra among Republican partisans, it is also an undercurrent in many of the comments among Democratic supporters of Clinton - in their zeal to co-opt the Rovian playbook. Of course, obviously, blacks have voted for white candidates far more than visa-versa, but there is an element of truth to the whole "reverse racism" angle of this notion - and I see this issue as being yet another arrow in the quiver of those who want to resist racial equality.
Focusing more locally, I'm wondering what the fallout will be from the racial aspects of this race. If the state and local "machines" gear up to support Clinton, will it only further alienate the Dem Party from vast numbers of Philadelphians who already feel that the Dem Party doesn't represent their interests? How will that balance against the increased energy among previously disenfranchised Philly citizens who will, undoubtedly, be activated by Obama's campaign? What about Nutter? I heard him yesterday on the radio essentially parroting the Clinton/Republican attack line that good speeches aren't a qualification for being president. Will there be fallout between him and Philly Obama supporters?
acknowledge that this is minmizing
I get that that is what you find interesting. And I'd argue that most of the country has. Discussions about Obama and race may not be totally satisfying, but there have been some. And they are important discussions.
My whole point is not to advocate for or against Obama, but to point out that discussions--especially among progressives,and especially among progressive men--that i have personally have had--do not often take into account or acknowledge the role that gender and sex identity play.
And you really don't have to look much further than the PA House and PA Senate (or US COngress) to see that women are not elected to office anywhere near in proportion to their presence in the populace as a whole.
Ray, the question
is which issue is more operative in this campaign. You bring up the lack of female representation in PA. But is minority representation in the PA House and Senate proportional to population levels? These are both important issues - but how are they related to this campaign more specifically?
I was disagreeing with you about the level of significance to the tendency to refer to Clinton as Hillary - and saying that in terms of the mix of sexism and this race I think that issue is secondary to the personality issue.
Also, I'm saying that to me - racism related to the campaign is more operative than sexism. Yeah, it's just an opinion - but because I'm of that opinion doesn't mean that I dismiss how sexism is related to the campaign. I've had many discussions about whether negative reactions to Clinton have a sexist element.
So, I'm not really clear what you're getting at.
I am getting at two things
1. You said :
2. You said:
I appreciate your honestly in laying those two concerns out, but I have not heard much in the way of deeper analysis from most progressive men I know. And you specifically said that the identity politics seemed like a wash, and yet it seems like there is one you clearly think is more important.
I don't totally disagree--an African American nominee for President is going to become a lightening rod for all of the racism that chokes America daily. That said, there are a lot of issues about gender and sex identity that I see many progressives ignoring. Is that movement building?
That's all I am getting at.
Look Ray,
And I've said this before - if you're going to hold my own words against me, and expect me to be internally consistent, I won't be able to post here any more.
I guess the best I can do in trying to pretend that I am logically consistent is to say that I think that in terms of what plays out in how people react to the candidates themselves, the level that some won't vote for Obama because he's black may be a similar to the number who won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman - or because she's an "aggressive" woman. But on a larger scale - I think that having a black man run for president is more of a catalyst symbolically and practically than having a woman run for president. (There may have been so much rationalizing there that it makes absolutely no sense to anyone's brain but mine.)
Ok - I'm really exposing my jugular here, but I think that (1) having a black man run for president exacerbates the racial divide more than having a woman run exacerbates the gender divide, and (2) having a black man elected president will have more of a positive impact domestically and internationally than having a woman elected president.
Alright. Fire away.
that's consistent
I just think you are I disagree about the power that women have in our society.
Perhaps
I think these are interesting questions - but the issues are complicated and very hard to quantify.
Are black youth in Philly more likely to be inspired by a black president than girls by having a female president? What percentages of whites will find having a black man president inspirational? What would the respective impact be globally? How do you factor in statistics (50% of the population being female versus ..... I don't even know where to begin to figure out the comparable percentage given that certainly not only American blacks will find having a black man elected president inspirational).
Uh oh. I guess I'd better add...how many men will find having a woman elected president inspirational?
Racism vs. Sexism
This is a very interesting conversation. It makes me think about a conversation I had recently with a mentor of mine.
He was a young community activist during the civil rights era and he's an Obama supporter. He told me that black people his age (he's 60) are estatic. They never thought they would see a viable black presidential candidate in their lifetime. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don't count. Obama can actually win. So my mentor says that he has to support Obama.
However, that doesn't mean he doesn't like Hillary Clinton. Actually, he can't understand why people hate her so much. What did she ever do that was so wrong? He said if Obama wasn't running, he would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. But he knows people voting for Obama that would neever vote for Hillary.
Then he acknowledged that for the first time in his life, he realized that this country is more sexist than it is racist.
I just thought this conversation was interesting and relevent.
Trying to unpack sex
I think, too, that the broader media plays a role. The way race and racism is covered in this country is often ham-handed at best and atrocious at worst, but there are at least tropes and networks and forums for talking about it. When was the last time you really saw a really good treatment of continuing sexism, gender bias or even (really) anti-gay sentiment on television -- whether network, cable, or public?
Gloria Steinem has tried to inject some of this into the conversation, but partly because she's been deployed as a partisan and not a critic, it's been pushed back against or marginalized. It would be useful to find more critical voices here. Melissa Harris-Lacewell has had some sharp criticisms of the way that black women have been treated by politicians and the press -- she's also a strong Obama supporter, so that's not exactly a disinterested voice either.
In general, all of the meaningful discussions about racial or sexual or religious or even generational identity have been swallowed up by the horserace questions -- the "can Obama undercut Hilary's support among older female Hispanics?" questions, intercut with b-roll of Mariachi bands, that just make you want to scream, "How stupid is our TV news? How dumb is America?"
Names and Hillary
I think thats a llittle bit of a stretch.
The female councilperson who is most routinely referred to by their first name is Jannie Blackwell. Jannie like Hillary are following in the footsteps of a very well known spouse who served in the same position and in both instances the use of the first name I assume was adopted originally to distinguish them from their husbands who served in the same position. In the case of Jannie Blackwell there is also her step-son State Rep. Thomas Blackwell who is commonly refered to by many around West Philadelphia as "Tommy", again to distinguish him from his step-mom the Councilwoman and his father, Lucien, the former councilman and congressman. Clearly noone calls State Rep. Blackwell "Tommy" because of sexism but to keep the various family members sorted much in the fashion of "Bobby" vs "JFK"
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Democratic base...
It seems to me that, if there really is a 'Democratic Base,' it more closely resembles the idealists supporting Obama than it does the triangulators supporting Clinton.
My $0.02, natch.
But, since when is cross-party appeal, w/o triangulation for the sake of triangulation, a bad thing? Given that the likely Republican nominee has an inexplicable appeal among Dems- news flash, McCain isn't even vaguely liberal, just look at his 83% rating from the American Conservative Union- isn't it a *good* idea to nominate a Democratic candidate who has demonstrated an ability to get support from outside of the so-called 'Democratic Base?'
Obama '08,
-Z
This is the best Obama sticker I've seen
http://www.cafepress.com/o_yes_we_can
Spread it around!
Ugh
I find this back and forth distressing. I think that in the context of choosing nominees, the black man/white woman thing might be a "wash", but the implications of each matter very much on their own. And any minimizing of that deeply distresses me.
I am not going to talk about it more here, but I will write something.
Our first YPP spat?
Just to clarify - (I think that) when I said that I thought that the issues were a "wash," I meant that the impact of racism against Obama and sexism against Clinton may essentially neutralize each other out in terms of who gets how many votes. I know that I wasn't intending to minimize the impact of sexism on the election. Yes, racism and sexism do each matter very much on their own - and comparing them does seem to take away from the serious implications of each individually; nonethelesss, I'm not sure that it is necessarily wrong to look at them in comparison to each other as we discuss each of them individually.
Joel's comment raises some interesting questions about sexism re: Clinton. I'm not sure that I agree with what I see as his conclusion - essentially that negative reactions and critical coverage of Clinton's public personae is a reflection of sexism. But it certainly is an interesting question to examine.
Yeah, the "wash" thing is bigger than you
like you say I think. I know it is a cop out, but I want to write out my thoughts independently of this back-and-forth, and I guess have this conversation more on my terms.
Maybe that is the same as what makes me uncomfortable about participating here (people wanting the discussion on their terms) but I think there is a real lack of openness and consideration of other people's perspective on these issues (also not mostly you!), which is sort of doubly shocking to me (though maybe it shouldn't be, we have a lot of white straight boys with similarly toned responses; I guess this is basically bread and butter identity politics stuff that some people are engaged with and some people really really just aren't).
word
she said *straight* white boys, after all ;)
Why I've contributed to Hillary, again...
None of you have brought up the systematic and relentless Hillary bashing and Hillary negativity I hear every day. On Tuesday during the simple minded All Things Considered broadcast, a man and a woman were asked to give their reviews of bestselling books by Clinton, Obama and McCain. The intrepid--and by intrepid I mean idiotic--reviewers extolled the virtue of McCain's book and its authenticity, and went on at length about how good Obama's book was that it seemed like (I'm paraphrasing) he was a writer first and a politician second. About half way through the spot, the intrepid (see actual definition above) ringmaster, Noah Adams, I think, brought these two reviewers to Hillary's book. The short of it was that her book was much more inauthentic, much more written "by a politician," and much *less good* than either of the other two. It either did not occur to these people and their producers that having such a spot on the day of a few big primaries was perhaps inappropriate, or it was calculated to give Clinton..er I mean Mrs. Clinton..er I mean Senator Clinton, um..Hillary..bad press while listeners were driving to vote. Book reviewing like this isn't objective. It isn't issues-based. It doesn't have anything to do with any of George Bush's wars or domestic surveillance programs, or with the economy or with the murder of a 15 year old gay boy in California...i.e., things I would love the "news" to cover in relation to Clinton, Obama and McCain. Instead, we got: Obama and McCain good, Clinton bad. Clinton inauthentic. Clinton a politician. As if Obama and McCain aren't skilled politicians. As if their authenticity/inauthenticity isn't governed by the same PR rules that govern other big name senators.
These are the same news producers who let George Bush steal one election without comment, start an illegal war without judgment, nominate two white men with them same political agenda to the Supreme Court (at least they objected when he nominated that Harriet Myers fellow...), lie and steal and cheat and lie and steal some more. But they decide to come down hard on Hillary's book? And her laugh? And whether or not she was really crying in New Hampshire? And her outfits? And Monica? And...
(PS: this is NPR I'm talking about, too, not Chris Mathews, who admitted on air that he hates Hillary because she's a woman, or any other mainstream news outlet.)
Obama's and Clinton's memoirs
Have been away from YPP for a bit, and have been trying to catch up with all these posts.
I think the candidates’ memoirs are relevant and do shed light on the issues. George Packer’s article in the New Yorker made the point that the memoirs give us information about how the candidates’ governing styles might differ. The article overall was very evenhanded and described strengths of both candidates. With regard to the memoirs, Packer states:
Read the complete article here< /a>
I had struggled to read Clinton’s “Living History,” and gave up partially for the reasons Packer’s source describes. It struck me as the usual canned political autobiography. After reading the New Yorker article, I bought a copy of “Dreams from My Father,” with the idea of reading it on a beach in Puerto Rico last week.
It was a great beach read and this is not intended to diminish the intellectual subtlety of “Dreams from My Father.” The book is both serious and readable.
The analysis of racism and poverty woven into the sections on Obama’s years as an organizer in Chicago should be of real interest to folks on this list.
Two Books
I haven't read either book, so I don't want to discount Karen's testimony above in the slightest. The publication conditions for Dreams From My Father and Living History are just so different. Obama's book is written when he's fairly unknown, before he starts running for public office. Clinton's is published when she's a sitting Senator and a former First Lady.
All that makes (by nearly all accounts) Obama's the better book, and much more likely to give you an honest sense of the man than Clinton's does of her. For better or worse, whether due to choice or circumstance, Clinton has never afforded herself that kind of luxury.
I think that fellow was Harry Myers, wasn't it?
Great comment - and I think it adds an interesting angle to the conversation.
Do people really pick
Do people really pick candidates based on who they perceive "the media" picks on more? I thought it would be some combination of who has the best policy balanced against their realistic chances of being elected. Or do those rules go out the window for presidential races?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
that's a rather naive way of reading my comment
Sean,
Your comment seems naive in that I don't think it is necessarily conscious decision. People pick candidates based on how they feel about said candidate, rather than WHY they feel how they do. And I described one tiny example of the kind of coverage that can give you a feeling one way or the other about a candidate.
The point is rather that two people saying bad things about Clinton THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES at the same time they are saying really good things about Obama and McCain THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ISSUES while people in Texas and Ohio are driving to their polling stations has an effect, or at least can affect the way people might feel about at candidate.
-Joel
I love when Joel writes
and I hope that he shows up when I put together what I think about all this.
Also, as awful as this is, at least one dude is wearing this tshirt, cause this girl I know almost beat him up: http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a902/a902_bm.gif
The Ego and the Id
My thought is that many if not most voters look to couch their support in some sort of norm-based reasoning, but what they're really doing is either finding norms to match their undifferentiated instincts or opinion about a candidate or drifting into whatever mode of reasoning feels most comfortable, most decisive, or most appealing. In other words, appearing high-minded has a much more immediate value than actually being self-critical.
That's why tagging candidates with an easily memorable positive or negative is so powerful. Barack Obama is intelligent but inexperienced, Clinton tough but untrustworthy, McCain has integrity but is too old, etc. The more complicated the reasoning needed, the more complicated the meme ("Obama can restore our standing in the world," "Clinton is ready to lead on day one," "McCain will fight the war on terrorism in the right way," etc.), but it's still something that you can rattle off at the drop of a hat. Likewise with negatives, like "we don't want the Clintons and Bushes to be a dynasty."
There are nevertheless voters who will openly base their decision on a falsehood ("Obama's a secret muslim") or something that seems like nonpolitical reasoning ("I just like ____ better, they seem more like an ordinary person"). But we can all be guilty of not going very deep when it comes to politics -- or anything else for that matter.
You were griping about an
You were griping about an NPR "humorous human interest" piece as if it was symptomatic of this pervasive media conspiracy against Hillary Clinton. I've read comments from both Hillary and Obama supporters that said Obama's book was a better read. You are right IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES so I am not sure why you bother to even bring it up.
I've not read either book but from what I've read about each Obama's book was written before he was talked about as a presidential candidate and was more of a self-reflective memoir by "that bright young guy who gave that good speech at the Democratic Convention" whereas Hillary Clinton's book was written very intentionally as a "campaign memoir". Obama's book not surprisingly is supposedly more candid and philosophical whereas Hillary Clinton beats home that familiar "how the leader became a leader" theme in a more predictable manner.
I 100% agree that who has the more interestingly written memoir HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES. Neither does it make much of a case for some alleged pervasive anti-Clinton media bias at NPR.
So now that we are done bashing "the media", do you want to talk about more substantive reason why you think Clinton will make Philadelphia a greener, fairer, less crime-prone and poverty-stricken place to live becuase thats much more the case I would have proponents of either candidate make.
To be clear, Joel, I may be responding as much to a general now very tired "its the media's bias" theme I've seen play out in thread after thread about this presidential race as anything specific you posted. I think these arguments are a big fat waste of time. There are lots of things that screwed up about our society, there are lots of ignorant biases that influence politics. They will still be there in a few months.
For example, for whatever reason, attractive people with good teeth who gesture emphatically tend to do well in politics. There are lots of people with lots of good ideas about how to better run our country with crummy teeth and prominent unattractive nose hairs who get ignored by the evil "media" and its just not fair. That said those attractive, "good teeth" biases are probably not going to be overcome before November so lots of smart, capable folks who except for those pesky bad teeth could be fine Presidents of the United States will not be given their fair chance.
It sucks - for them and possibly for us because they might be better than the choices we have now.
At the end of the day, as voters we have to pick the candidate who we think both has a better vision of how to run the country and who has the best chance of getting elected - in world where there are unfair biases and stupidities of all sorts. Biases and stupidities that in all likelihood will still be in place on the first Tuesday in November, as much as we wish it were not so.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
my original subject line was "I'm with Jennifer on this.."
hey Sean,
Actually, I didn't say Clinton would be a better president, nor did I engage on any issues. I also didn't gripe in order to blame "the media." What I did do, I hope, is describe a really specific instance of something I'm seeing a lot of...even when something isn't explicitly biased pro-Obama or anti-Clinton (or vice versa), there's a lot of more subtle stuff going on that sends a clear message.
Hey, I'm perfectly willing to consider it a function of NPR simplemindedness. And I'm down with the fact that Clinton's book may in fact be crap. (Although I'm willing to bet, from my POV as a writer and teacher of writing, that McCain's and Obama's books are also pretty craptastic, either in terms of content, form or both.) And I'm not wild about red phone ads, etc. But have I disclaimed enough that you can actually engage with the issue I brought up? That there has been a consistently different standard applied to coverage of Clinton from a news media that for years (since 2000 and before and strikingly after 2001) has not exerted any effort to investigate, analyze, uncover or report anything substantive. But they have found time to give Clinton this "special coverage."
My original subject line was going to be "I'm with Jennifer on this..." because I'm not interested in back-and-forth that doesn't address or engage the previous post. You clearly write that you are perhaps responding to a "general now very tired 'its [sic] the media's bias' theme I've seen play out in thread after thread about this presidential race as anything specific you posted. I think these arguments are a big fat waste of time." You continue that "there are lots of things that screwed up about our society, there are lots of ignorant biases that influence politics. They will still be there in a few months."
But what I'm saying isn't "oh, yeah, there's sexism out there that's BAD! Sexism is bad!" I'm saying, systematic sexism is influencing the race for the Democratic nomination, and when you refuse to engage it, refuse to call it by its name and admit that it exists in this race, and resist interrogating the ways it is affecting the race--because you prefer the other candidate--you give that sexism a pass.
In my best De Niro: You talkin' to me?
I'm still trying to get this straight - just so's I know, am I being accused of refusing to engage, identify, and of resisting, the ways that sexism is affecting the race?
Anyway, a question. Just how do you quantify that Clinton (Hillary) is being subjected to a different standard of coverage than other politicians? Your story was interesting - but suppose Clinton's book really is crap as compared to the others' books? Why do you say she's getting "special coverage?"
Republicans claim that McCain was subjected to unfair coverage. Obama is now claiming that he's been subjected to unfair coverage. By what objective measure are you quantifying the relative amount of unfairness being heaped upon Clinton?
I'm not feeling it. I think that, for example, when Obama was being asked about Farrakhan, he was being subjected to a non-issue line of questioning that Clinton has largely been able to avoid. I think that her style of campaigning has engendered a certain type of response from the press. All kinds of factors affect press coverage. McCain sweet talks the press and cooks them BBQ, Bush gives them nicknames. At what point to you attribute the specifics of how the press treats Clinton to sexism?
I was talking to you
I think we're getting into dangerous territory here. My intent Josh, in responding to you originally, was not to start a debate about whether Clinton is being treated worse than Obama, No doubt he has already been treated very badly by Fox News and the like. And aside from my fears about the way America's racism will be exacerbated (hard to imagine it could get worse), I am real nervous about this ridiculous xenophobic anti-Islam crap.
But that's neither here nor there. Josh, my comments to you (see above re: inconsistent internal logic) were about actually acknowledging that women in our country are subject to some pretty intense sexism and misogyny.
Ray, I think it's a given
that sexism and misogyny exist in this country. I assumed that's not something I need to acknowledge - but if it makes a difference, acknowledged.
But the question for me is whether/how sexism and/or misogyny are evidenced in reactions to Clinton's campaign. Joel's description of the NPR discussion of the candidates' books was interesting - but I'm not convinced that it was necessarily an example of sexism: maybe her book just sucked.
And I certainly don't see it as a clear explanation for a wider assertion that sexism is behind negative reactions and coverage to Clinton and her campaign.
So, let's get past the linkage to racism and Obama, and deal with this issue on its own merits. How do you, specifically, see sexism and/or misogyny manifest through Clinton's campaign. Or, (and I don't mean this in an accusatory way) are you just saying that since sexism and misogyny in our society are a given, we should just assume the role that they play in her campaign?
Really has nothing to do with anything
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/books/17kaku.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E5DB1F38F93AA15755C0A...
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sean, don't sell yourself short!
These reviews have everything to do with what you are saying. The review of Obama's book was written by the Times's Michiko Kakutani. She's their book critic.
The review of Clinton's was written by Maureen Dowd. Now I thought that name, Maureen Dowd, sounded familiar, so I looked her up.
And would you believe that she's actually an Op-Ed columnist for the Times and not usually a book reviewer at all?
In fact, I did us all the favor of looking up the last 10 headlines of articles written by Dowd that have the word "Hillary" in the headline. Buckle up.
A Wake-Up Call for Hillary
Seeing Red Over Hillary
Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?
Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?
Hillary la Française, Cherchez la Femme?
Can He Crush Hillary?
Carmela Got Gold Jewelry. Hillary Wants a White House.
Who's Hormonal? Hillary or Dick?
Hillary, More or Less?
Lonely Passion Of Hillary
Off to Jennifer's post & thread, though, which is much more interesting than our little YPP bookclub over here...
Hahahaha
if only you had posted a couple hours earlier, mine could have been called "Carmela Got Gold Jewelry, Hillary Wants a White House: an interrogation of a post-feminist and post-racial election."
PS, in re relevancy,
nothing could be more a propos of stupid books than Maureen Dowd.
that is Hill-arious!
...
Ooops. Just pulled book reviews.
I think it points to a special anti-Hillary response that is sure I admit definitely sexist but also something very, very specific to her.
It is funny. I agree the other thread is better, particularly Ray's recent questions. Can't answer just yet.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I am pulling a Ray (<3) with the questions, but
can you seriously defend "very, very specific to her"?
Re: very, very specific
Personal combatitive style (I personally think that is fair and well transcends gender expectations) and perception of advancement because of status as spouse of former Pres (also factual if not "fair")
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I really, really
don't agree.
Ladies and gentleman...
I present you, above, with Exhibit A!
I may well be guilty as charged
but just to throw out one example - the late Gov. Ann Richards - a female politician of some note for both her acerbic wit and sometimes fiery partisanship who nonetheless seemed to avoid some of that same level of mutual personal animosity that often surrounds Hillary Clinton
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.