Some of my posts

from six months ago should be helpful.

The day the blogosphere died

Gender is the story of this election

Sexism will cost us this election

Gender is the story of this election Part 2

Sexism will cost us this election Part 2

Paul Lukasiak was spot on with Obama, Sexism, and the Infantile Id.

Rosanne said this election was the ultimate in triangulation. Using race against gender in order to defeat class.

Three months ago

I will step in,” Pelosi told the paper. “We cannot take this fight to the convention. If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules…”

Jay Cost, four months ago

No candidate who has won as many votes and delegates as Clinton hasn’t taken the fight to the convention.

Taking Back The White House

Primary Misogyny Sparks New Feminist Movement

Via TGW, A Movement Is Born: The New Agenda

August 11, 2008 –On Monday, 30 women from around the country who are leaders of various women’s organizations or have worked as community activists came together in Westchester, NY, to found a group called The New Agenda, a non-partisan organization to advance women’s issues.

“We will pool our talents and leverage already established ‘friends of the family’ organizations to launch a grass roots and grass tops effort to register women voters, organize a national ‘get out the vote’ effort around women’s issues,” says Amy Siskind. “Our long-term goal is to cultivate and groom women to run for public office at all levels of government – including the presidency,” adds Siskind, a former Wall Street executive who is active in Democratic politics and is a founding member of Together4US, which is supporting efforts to put Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“The first order of business for our group is to persuade candidates for the presidency, Senate and House to incorporate a number of women’s rights goals and policies into their platforms,” says Siskind. These include:

Mandating paid maternity leave;
Ensuring that affordable healthcare is available to women and children;
Passing the Fair Pay Act in the Senate;
Helping women establish and run small businesses;
Reducing domestic violence;
Allocating 20 percent more party money to female candidates than to male candidates until the number of women elected to Congress is on par with their percentage of the population;
Strengthening FCC regulations to penalize content that denigrates women.

“One women’s rights issue conspicuously missing from our list: abortion,” Siskind points out, adding, “It’s not that The New Agenda doesn’t view choice as a central women’s issue, it’s that Roe v. Wade has been used a single defining issue to hold women voters hostage in the past. There are many other issues that are important and relevant to a broad spectrum of women.”

The New Agenda also will look to hold men and women in the public eye accountable when they treat women with disrespect and are dismissive of issues important to them. “Although several names were put on a ‘to do’ list, Chris Matthews was our unanimous choice as the worst offender on women’s issues, therefore the first person on whom we will focus,” says Siskind.

Many of the women who attended The New Agenda’s first meeting got to know each other as a result working with pro-Hillary groups. Attendees included founding members of such groups as Together4US, Party Unity My Ass (PUMA), IOwnMyVote, Just Say No Deal and Vote Democracy ’08.

“This group is comprised of women who are “gravely concerned about the mistreatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary season, and the passion and emotion that resulted from Hillary’s mistreatment brought us together.,” says Siskind.

Attacks on any woman are attacks on all women

There’s an ignorant idea going around that attacks on HRC are only attacks on privileged white women or political leaders. Actually, this is quite prevalent. The media attacks were attacks on all women especially because all women will be fair game as a consequence. The media then affects how women are treated. It’s like the male-identified women quote:

There are male identified women and they are always seek to divide women and make certain of us off limits because we are not right politically or culturally or socially. Women identified women view gender as a caste and feminism as a Union.

Attacks on ANY woman are attacks on ALL women.

Conversely,

For what is done or learned by one class of women becomes, by virtue of their common womanhood, the property of all women.

–Elizabeth Blackwell

Male-identified women

are women who choose men and male definitions of women over other similarly situated women - male identified women are those who sleep with their girlfriend’s lover, women who Uncle Tom for men - women who keep other women in line for the boys on the left or right - women who cut the clitoris off their daughters even in the US because daddy wants to preserve his honor - women who kiss the pope’s ring - women who voted for BO - women who pretend MOB is experiencing sexism - women who cannot respect a republican woman’s goodness because they are in love with the male dominated left or democrat party, who did not pass the Equal Pay Act WITH a majority, who said they wanted to make abortion rare and did so, who have not done one fucking thing for women but make promises they do not keep, who expect us to kiss their ass because they raised the minimum wage 43 cents while voting their own raises and benefits. And for this I should trash a women bring doctors to Viet Nam children? Get over it. There are male identified women and they are always seek to divide women and make certain of us off limits because we are not right politically or culturally or socially. Women identified women view gender as a caste and feminism as a Union. See Mary Daly Gyn/Ecology for more and better explanations of male identification. Don’t confuse it with limiting stereotypes of women as purer or softer or more nurturing or all that crapola.

The first women who come to mind are the women of Slate. They’re surrounded by jerks so they appease them and become like them. Maybe it takes reading Daly and other feminists to think of women/feminism as a caste/union.

The essence

of feminism.

Heard on the internet

We both agree that there’s a tendency in the community to kneejerk respond to pointing out instances of sexist or homophobic behaviour as instant villification — whether the person is simply calling you an “asshole” or putting forth constructive criticism.

It seems to come part and parcel with pointing out internalized oppression — whether you offer a solution or not, it is interpreted and discarded as villification. To me, this is a problem with the way the community perceives mainstream/marginalized oppression issues, and not the messenger.

And that doesn’t even get at the fundamentally problematic argument that basically says “if only we were nicer when we pointed out the homophobia and sexism in the community, the community would listen.” Although I hate taking this tactic, I think it is most appropriate here: imagine if we the mainstream were to tell communities of colour, “if only you told us more nicely about our racism, and couched it in a way that didn’t make us feel bad about ourselves, we would stop being so racist…”

The pragmatics of the argument are obvious, but it misses the basic human element: oppression is ugly and it hurts. And it’s unfair to tell the victim to “suck it up” and “play nice” in order to force the change and equality that they deserve.

It’s a poor analogy for two reasons: Obviously there’s a huge difference between someone from the mainstream white community telling people to suck it up. I’m not telling anyone to “suck it up”. If you want to kickbox sexist people in the head, I’m all for it. What’s I’m saying is that we are in the exact same battle and I’m just interested in winning. You have every right to respond however you want and every justification. But even though I’d like to slap the people running our segregated school system or racist media in the face and gloat about it, I want to win more.

Well, it’s like white feminists who say there’s a sisterhood who want to beat the patriarchy. Meanwhile, nonwhite women fight racism of white feminists and sexism at the same time.

More on silencing

Littoral Mermaid:

So, the only progressive women who don’t want to vote for Obama are white? That’s news to me.

Funny, but this nonwhite woman was damn offended by the misogynist garbage of the primary, and a good deal of the sexism cuts across race. I’ve also been offended by sexist slurs on Clinton, like calling her a “white bitch”, that dress themselves up in progressivism as attacks on her whiteness.

For the record, I do feel just as much anger about sexism as I do about racism.

I am so sick and tired of “progressive”, “antiracist”, “feminist” white men who knowingly or unknowingly silence nonwhite women. Our femaleness is erased, for it is assumed that we feel more solidarity with nonwhite men than we do with white women. Maybe some of us do, but it’s damned offensive to make that assumption, particularly if you are looking down from white and male privilege.

They stand for nonwhite women as virtuous victims, not as the individuals, good and bad, that we actually are. Even if they are “progressive” and “feminist” and “anti-racist”, they still feel ok with making gross generalizations about us and using us as props and proxies so that they look more enlightened. They still feel ok with erasing the many, many nonwhite women who do not fit their beloved stereotypes. Or maybe, from the position of their privilege, they do not see that we exist at all.

Furthermore, white women’s views may be colored (no pun intended) by resentments about sexism and men that white men will never understand. Nor do they seem interested in it.

As a feminist, I do not consider sexist attacks on white women an acceptable “defense” against racism.

More on silencing

Caught up in the glamor of their shoddy intellectualism, they have forgotten that their work wasn’t yet done when they decided it was time to start out-liberaling other liberals instead of outsmarting the fucking conservatives.

Yup. Well said, and well targeted. The more people willing to stand up, be feminists, and be something different from the reflexively guilt-driven non-analytical norm, the more options there will be for the silent ones who have things to say and the will to say them.

I’m tired of Liberals trying to be ‘allies’ to everyone while silencing oppressed people who don’t fit their nicely carved niches. As for the third wavers what do you think it will take for them to get back on track and unite?

The title feminist has always been about my freedom, no matter how much it is hijacked by third wavers. Let’s create a fourth wave.

Singling out MSNBC/NBC

RedStar of H1K:

NYC Weboy has an excellent post up about MSNBC’s sexist, misogynistic coverage of the Democratic primary, thoughtfully linking it to their biased coverage of the Iraq war, and their overall low ratings among the cable news networks. A must read.

Update: Meanwhile, The NYT hops on the it’s-safe-to-talk-about-media-sexism-now-that-Clinton’s-out bandwagon with this piece. I’m just going through it now, but I was struck by this graph on the difference in positive media coverage of the 2 Democratic candidates from December 2007 - June 2008:

Never mind the attacks on Clinton, Obama’s coverage was positive during almost the entire period! Upwards of 80% at least last winter! How is this not biased?? Those are unbelievable stats.

post-primary thoughts

pocochina of H1K rants:

This post is about party accountability. It is not an endorsement for or against one candidate or another - I am the H1K resident undecided working through these issues.

Warning: this post rambles, and will probably be updated and revised. I’ve been writing it since very early last Wednesday morning, but it came out slowly, like cheap vodka that has started to freeze, and burns just as badly going down. I’m hoping to be up and writing again soon, though.

I’m of the generation who came of age in the 1990s, and I’ve always been interested in politics. It’s been interesting, particularly over the last few months, to untangle how those years shaped my views of politics and ethics. Those views on politics, that sense of ethics, has been violated to its very core, by those who I thought shared those views and ethics. I won’t deny that the disappointment is partially about Senator Clinton’s suspension, but the sense of betrayal goes far beyond that. Y’all know I’m usually pretty anal about my sourcing and backup links, even in comments. However, I’m making an exception and not using this post to link to people who I think have made reprehensible comments, both because I generally respect them and am trying to let the wounds of this season heal, and because I don’t want to drive up traffic to those mean-spirited posts.

I am not an angry girl - but it seems like I’ve got everyone fooled…(Ani DiFranco)

I’m pissed at the classism of this campaign. It’s not even that the Democratic Party is taking the working class for granted any more - no, according to Donna Brazile, we don’t want the working class any more. Sending out Harry & Louise flyers, ignoring the rural poor, giving up on true universal health care. A party that turns its back on the sick and the poor is a party that does not deserve power. We’ve been saying that about Republicans for years. We have met that enemy, and it is now ourselves.

I’m pissed at the use and abuse of religion in this campaign. I care not at all as to what deity, if any, a politician prays. As a person with a Catholic background, of specific ethnicity, I am aware that I may respond to someone who speaks in my sub-cultural patterns and language - and yet, the only politician in my memory who has matched that experience was Mayor Giuliani, with whom I share little except a pronounced aversion to long-term monogamy. I hold the First Amendment dear, and believe there is no religious requirement for any role in public life. What I do find infuriating is religious exceptionalism. When within one month, the entire country knew about his religious conversion. And his pastor. And when he did and didn’t go to church. We were treated to photos of Obama standing in front of a cross of gold. His regard for his own faith is high. And yet, when looking for an excuse to lose the PA primary, he lumped in religion with deadly weapons, xenophobia, and bitterness - and these were all bad things, because they were things done by poor people. Respect for the freedom to worship (or not) is available only to those who support him.

No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex.” (Susan B. Anthony)

I’m pissed at the blatant misogyny of coverage of the campaign. I’m pissed at people who should know better - who acknowledge other people’s sexism, who can cast an accusing finger at the entire horrible media, but can then turn around, utterly free of irony, and utter, “but he just inspires me,” or some other sufficiently vague, comforting reason to not check one’s own sexism. You know, it feels a bit ridiculous now, with my highly partisan perspective on the campaign, but I did a lot of soul searching to make sure that I wasn’t just voting based on whiteness or femaleness, and I did it relatively frequently - though less so as the campaign went on and only one candidate acted as if she actually wanted my votes. The bottom line was that I trusted her views on government (we have it, so let’s use it, and do so in a way that helps as many people as possible, and then next time let’s do better) more than his (hope!(TM) change!(C)); that her health care plan was better; that while his reproductive rights record was more than satisfactory, hers showed nuance and leadership. And those, in the bottom line, are the reasons I went for Senator Clinton. I am deeply fortunate to have access to the pro-Obama voices of POC who forced me to take that look into myself.

I’m pissed at what Senator Obama has done to my party. I’m pissed that DNC officials couldn’t even be bothered to publicly acknowledge sexism; I am even angrier that they chose to buy into it. Make no mistake, the DNC chose their candidate. They had no commitment to the process of the primary. They could have stormed every talking head show in the country talking up all the good things about this long and exciting primary. People are interested in politics. A record number of Democrats voted; far more than the Republicans - they were making money, they were raking in votes, they were building a new Democratic system. Instead, they chose to mourn and moan about how every minute that passes, McCain voters have another hate-gasm because That Bitch was Killing the Party and Why Won’t She Just Quit. To expect a woman who’s winning millions upon millions of votes to step aside so that Teh Menz can get to their serious business is blatantly sexist, and every time one of them got in front of a camera to moan WWTSBQ, they sanctioned it, and used it to their own advantage. When the life of one of our own was threatened three times in one week, the DNC said nothing. This is inexcusable.

I’m pissed at Barack Obama for his misogyny. I can understand - though I do not condone - why he did not apologize for his own fuckups on that score. But he had not one, not two, but three clear opportunities to distance himself from the hate speech of others, and he did not. He could have taken a moment - just a fraction of a breath - in his many condemnations of Rev. Wright - whom he could no more disown than the black community, until of course he did just that - to say “by the way, the personal attacks on my opponent are not worthy of my church, my party, or my country.” He did not. He could have said the same when distancing himself from Father Phlegler. He did not. He was careful to condemn so-called divisive rhetoric which did nothing but tell the truth about the drug war, allegedly un-American comments which would (and, of course, still will, for there is no escaping the Republican Attack Machine) make him look bad, and he could not be bothered to condemn hate speech against a colleague. He could have said the same when he issued his departure from his church and he did not.

Were an observer from Mars to judge the man by his public statements in these moments of crisis, that Martian observer would be quite rational to conclude that his need to see Senator Clinton abused means more to him than his faith. I expect that from Republicans. I expected better from Democrats. I no longer can.

Deny us three times, Senator.

And that isn’t even touching the dirt of his shoulder, tea parties, likeable enough, periodically feeling down…you get the idea. Beyond even his upfront sexist statements, he has relied on the implacable and unjustified hatred of Senator Clinton and her charming husband, in both hard right and right leaning media outlets. When Drudge - transparently and baselessly - claimed that a Clinton staffer had spread an email photo of Senator Obama on a visit to sub-Saharan Africa - the Obama camp and its surrogates in the media on and offline jumped to repeat the rumor. Then he went on TV and magnanimously said he believed her, and then he went to Mississippi and lied, and said she’d done it. Everyone, after all, would believe it about that woman. That ruthless, ambitious, political woman.

I’m pissed at the netroots. For a brief, shining moment - like, 2 1/2 years or so - Left Blogistan was a place of high media skepticism, of proud partisanship, of committed progressivism. Now, anything goes, as long as it’s about That Bitch. HRC and her filthy husband are slobbering racists - everyone knows she sent out that photo, I saw it on Drudge - as long as we never have to question the source. And by the by, Atrios and LGM, your Solemn Pronouncements on race and ethnicity lose a lot of credibility when you snidely revel in the disenfranchisement of an island full of brown people, because they didn’t vote for your candidate.

I’m pissed at the next generation of political pundits. Whenever confronted with uncontrovertible evidence of sexism, they reacted uniformly - to grudgingly admit that sexism exists, and then jump to BUT ITS NOT THE ONLY REASON. People who follow politics to any extent are well aware that there are many factors in political decision making, and most of them are subconscious. There is no one and only reason, but if I had to pick the most influential one, it would damned well be sexism.

I’m pissed at feminists who decided their feminism didn’t extend to That Bitch. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about feminists who, in good faith, decided that they wanted to support Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or whoever else. I am the first to state openly that reasonable people could have come to different decisions on that. I’m talking about feminists who, usually incisive and merciless in their rejection of expected gender roles, uncritically accept the Nasty Harpy narrative about Senator Clinton. I expect feminists to be able to step back and say, “well, knowing what I know about how I, and everyone around me, and in particular the chattering heads paid to tell me what to think about this campaign, have been conditioned in my expectations of female behavior, I am going to be critical of how I process this election.” For a lot of feminists (Edwards and Obama supporters as much as Clinton supporters) that happened; for a lot of them, it didn’t. I saw one feminist blogger say of Clinton’s suspension speech only, “Best speech of her political career.” The best speech of a thirty five year career of one of the most brilliant women in modern public life just so happens to be her concession? We’d be unbelievably suspicious of such an assessment about any other woman’s career - but it was Hillary, so it’s okay. It’s nauseating from a babbling jowl show - it is heartbreaking from a feminist. And the wheel turns, and a woman’s career is at its apex when she submits to a man.

They have drawn race as black and white. This is patently ridiculous. I’m not linking to anyone who makes the claim that - essentially - white women are the only ones who liked HRC, we should just stop whining and suck it up, POC are thrilled about Obama and we are just entitled bitches. It is true that Black Americans overwhelmingly - though far from universally - preferred Obama. But this erases the huge numbers of brown women - Asian-American, Hispanic-American, in huge numbers, at least where the pollsters bothered - and men as well, who knew that they are not invisible to her. Those claims are out there, though. I’m thrilled for African-Americans who see themselves in Senator Obama. But I do not ever condone the erasure of anyone because they are inconvenient to a political agenda. I have been proud to call these women ally and sometimes, presumptively, friend. I’ve talked before about my frustration with this erasure, but with Clinton supporters - neither all white nor all male - so offended by this campaign they have decided the Democratic Party is no longer their home, the erasure has reached fever pitch. I do not begrudge Obama supporters their excitement. I do not understand the need to begrudge us our grief.

I think that non-feminist Obama supporters, and particularly male non-feminist Obama supporters, have this idea that we are just irrationally angry, our feelings are hurt and we should get over it or we’re just silly, don’t we know how bad McCain is, maybe they’ll just tell us one more time. The choice not to support Obama is a long-run rational choice. Right now, there is a party that hates women all the time, and a party that used to humor us, but hates us when it is convenient. It is our job to never, ever let it be convenient again, or there will be no one in government advocating for our rights.

We are not your sweeties, who just need candy and flowers to come around.

We are not your bitches, that is not a leash in your hand. Our bodily integrity is not a choke chain you may use to threaten us. If you think it is, you are no better than the Republicans. And yes, the “But! But! But!” Roe stick is just that - a threat. Politically involved women know exactly where we stand on Roe, and we know the Democrats haven’t been all that bothered to even look like they’re trying to protect it, these last seven years. We know what an anti-choice Supreme Court looks like, because we read Gonzales v. Carhart and our hearts broke in fear for ourselves and our sisters and nieces and daughters.

When you tell us that we’d better get in line and vote for Obama, OR ELSE ROE, you are holding our own bodies hostage against us, as if they were yours to take. You are actively, proudly, literally threatening us with our lives. Is that the change we should believe in?

I’ve left versions of the following comment on a couple of journals/blogs over the last couple of days:

What hurts the most is that I really thought I might have a chance to vote for someone in whom I really believed, and now no matter what I do I will be compromising more than ever. There is no choice that does not reward hatred of myself and those that I love. A write-in for Clinton or McKinney will be held against Clinton; a vote for McCain sanctions the Republican war machine, and a vote for Obama sanctions the (new ?) Democratic misogyny machine.

I was thinking of myself, and my own disappointment, and while I still think that’s legitimate, I am willing to say that I missed the broader context. The party’s eagerness to push her out, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (particularly in the case of Representative Cohen) was in reaction to this very feeling. They have come to rely on women not expecting any better. They have grown dependent on the Bush Administration’s vile abuse of women, so that their burden of accountability to us is lighter. They were terrified of rank-and-file Dems realizing that there is better out there. And there is, and she still lost, and with her she brought down the pretenses of the party. The bullying we’re all getting now is an unapologetic part of that - baby, you need me, nobody else will love you.

If he really is such a unifier, surely we don’t need to be threatened. Surely he will come through, with his famous ability to reach out, and let us know that it’s our party too. Surely it will happen. At least, I hope - though I confess I am not holding my breath.

++In the last week or so, I have read posts by the incomparable pixxelpuss, Kate, Liss, Violet Socks, RQ, Anglachel, Pizza D, and I am sure others. While they have prompted me to clarify my thinking, these (to the very best of my knowledge) are my thoughts, coalesced over the last couple of days.

Another manifesto

from Violet Socks.

Archimedes’ Lever

I am thrilled that so many women are drawing their line in the sand. I’m thrilled by the growing PUMA movement (Party Unity My Ass). I’m thrilled that for the first time since the 1970s, women as a group are demanding that a national political party treat us with respect — or else. And they — we — are dead serious. We’re too old to be tricked or browbeaten or guilted. We’ve been riding the Democratic donkey faithfully for 35 years, and damn if that ass didn’t turn around and fuck us.

No more.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. My own prognostication is that the existing feminist movement and this new wave will remain largely separate, at least for awhile, and very possibly even oppose each other. That’s because modern feminism is dominated by a) young Third Wavers who support Obama anyway, and b) “establishment” feminists who are too plugged in to the money circuit to fight City Hall. This new wave is different: a big grassroots uprising of women of all ages whose latent feminism has been awakened by this election. This group is big and messy and fairly diverse in its political orientation (from leftists like me to near-Republicans), much the way the Second Wave was in the 1970s. But these women are united in their anger and their exasperation and their determination that now is the time to draw the line. No more.

I’m looking forward to it. But that’s another post.

CNN on sexism and women candidates

Don’t reward bad behavior

Shakesville via Wampum:

To vote for Obama after the abuse in this election would be a set back. As Dr. Phil would say “going along and coming around….how’s that working for you?” This is a longer game with a bigger point than just McCain. Real change is not going to be comfortable and people will ask you to change back to compliant, but holding fast is necessary. Point blank, to vote for Obama at this point would be voting in agreement to the effectiveness of the strategy of sexism and hatred of women. We would only get more of it if they see it works with no punishment. Don’t fall for the empty promises sure to follow. We have to hold fast and sit this election out or vote for another candidate.

Clinton-hate is in danger of damaging the Democratic Party

The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don’t. It used to be that the monster faction was limited to Republicans and certain mainstream media fixtures like Maureen Dowd and much of the MSNBC lineup. Now, increasingly, it involves too many Obama-supporting Democrats — and the Clinton-hate is in danger of damaging the Democratic Party.

Jill Iscol: How Dare You!

Bill Clinton Has ‘Never Seen a Candidate Treated So Disrespectfully Just for Running’

ABC:

Clinton spent more than six minutes calmly discussing what he called a “frantic effort to push her out” of this race, saying that no one asked Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart to end their presidential campaigns early.

Clinton also spoke against bullying superdelegates to make up their minds, saying, “I cant believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. ‘Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.’”

“If you vote for her and she does well in Montana and she does well in Puerto Rico, when this is over she will be ahead in the popular vote. And they’re trying to get her to cry uncle before the Democratic Party has to decide what to do in Florida and Michigan because they are claiming that it only takes 2029 votes on the first ballot to win, and it takes a lot more than that if you put Florida and Michigan back in. Well, they will have to unless we want to lose the election. I mean, look, so there is that that is going on.”

“She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. Her only position was, “Look, if I lose I’ll be a good team player. We will all try to win but let’s let everybody vote and count every vote.’”

Clinton also strongly criticized the media, saying that ever since Iowa they have been against his wife, making him feel as though he was living in a “fun house.” As he concluded his thoughts on how this election has been handled, he again went back to the media’s choice of coverage.

“If you notice, there hasn’t been a lot of publicity on these polls I just told you about,” Clinton said. “It is the first time you’ve heard it? Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don’t you think if the polls were the reverse and he was winning the electoral college against Sen. McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station? You would know it wouldn’t you? It wouldn’t be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes, yeah. She will win the general election is you nominate her. They’re just trying to make sure you don’t.”

Alegre agrees. You’re reading her, right? Because you have to:

Now I have a few thoughts on why people are pushing so hard to force Hillary out of this race. As people have noted repeatedly in the past, this is the first time we’ve seen such a massive push to force someone to drop out of the race for the presidency.

Is it a coincidence that this is also being done to the first woman with a real shot at the White House?

I doubt it.

What gets me is why she even needs to explain why she’s fighting for the right to continue her campaign in the first place you guys. She’s leading in the popular vote. She’s within a couple percentage points of the lead re delegates. She’s running stronger in the states we absolutely have got to win in November and her numbers re electoral votes look better than her opponents against McCain. She’s won more states and votes in the past 2 - almost 3 months than he has and she’s closing the gap. She’s still got time to convince enough super delegates to back her in this race and neither candidate can win this thing without them!

They’ve never pulled this shit on a guy - right?

Now why is that do you think?

A guy would tell them in no uncertain terms to feck off wouldn’t they? “Party unity” and “why can’t we all just get along” wouldn’t work and has never worked on a guy, right? They’d go after the nomination with everything they’ve got and rightly so. After 17 months on the campaign trail and only a few percentage points separating the candidates - and a lead in the popular vote there’s no way in hell any guy in his right mind would give up now.

So why are they pushing so hard to force Hillary to drop out?

They’re pulling this sh#t on Hillary because we women are brought up to be less selfish about such things. To put our own needs, desires and ambitions second to a man’s - any man’s. Especially the women of Hillary’s and my own mother’s (who’s just a few years older than Hillary) generation.

They’ve never pulled this on a guy because men are a hell of a lot more ambitious and self-centered when it comes to this stuff than most women. Even in today’s political environment.

They saw parts of her public life (like her fight to hold her family together) as a weakness and they’re trying to exploit that perceived weakness by demanding that she drop out. I’m guessing Hillary was thinking some of this as she repeatedly said “I don’t know” when they tried to get her to tell them what she thought was their reason for pushing her out - or trying to.

Lambert: Obama to Bill Clinton: You’ve got the Unity Pony. Give it to me. Unbelievable.

Link love: Buyer’s remorse edition

Paul Lukasiak: Buyers’ Remorse: How Rank & File Democrats Rejected Obama Once He Was Declared The “Inevitable” Nominee

Hillary’s Voice:

Newsweek
Clinton (48%) vs. McCain (44%)
Obama (46%) vs. McCain (46%)

Electoral-Vote.com, May 23, 2008 (270 needed to win)
Clinton 315 McCain 206 Tie 17
Obama 242 McCain 272 Tie 24

Hominid Views give Obama only a 32.7% probability of beating McCain, and give Hillary a 99.9% probability of beating McCain. And the Republicans haven’t even begun to trash Obama yet.

Politico: Viral e-mails attack Obama’s life story. And they’ve only just barely gotten started.

Red Queen feels dirty because FOX News. is. fair. and. balanced.

Echidne has WIMN’s petition against sexism in the media. It’s about time, WIMN. Sign the petition.

Pen Elayne has buyer’s remorse.

Riverdaughter is so good. Saturday: Are Obama and the DNC working for Hillary? and Wishing doesn’t make it so.

You’re reading her, right?

Bloggers decry sexism in the media

Digby: You Can Believe Us

Echidne: “I have written about it because sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere.“

Daily Howler: “Has Hillary Clinton encountered misogyny in this campaign? Duh!“

Sexism in the campaign is important because the mostly white male media, punditry and blogs chose or is choosing our nominee based on sexism and the knowledge an Obama Presidency is more advantageous to them as men than a Clinton Presidency. Is a Clinton Presidency more advantageous to women than an Obama Presidency? Yes, but women are the historically oppressed demographic. It wouldn’t be right for a women-dominated media to choose a Clinton nomination either. But that didn’t happen. Sexist media, punditry and blog bias should not choose our nominee.

Sexism will cost us this election Part 2

Part 1, February 27, 2008

New Statesman:

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

He is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

Meanwhile, Hillary Sexism Watch, Part 100.

Hillary Supporters Protest against NBC!

Great video of today’s raucous Burbank protest. Pictures here.

He outspent us in West Virginia. We beat him by 40 points last week. He has outspent us in Kentucky 2-1. We beat him by 35 points this week.

Do we really have to nominate the WEAKEST candidate because that’s what we feel we MUST do?

Cokie Roberts discusses blatant sexism in the media

NPR: Clinton Supporters Point to Sexism