saying that Hillary Clinton was not a big victim of sexism. There was one, in particular, in NY Times, that I'm thinking of. This is more opinion than journalism, not that opinion doesn't have its place.
There is a lot of left-over bitterness about the primary season. I tend to think this article is reflective of that. The real fact is, the Clintons (PLURAL -- BOTH OF THEM) pissed off many on the left because of their stance on the war for five years. It may seem unfair, but I think they have suffered more backlash over this because they were such important figureheads in the Democratic Party as well at a time when many of us felt betrayed. Perhaps the most overused phrase on the left blogosphere in the past few years has been the one "Spineless Democrats," used to describe our own Representatives and Senators. The Clinton supporters, sadly, ended up having to defend Hillary by saying, oh yeah, well, everybody else was just as bad, maybe Obama would have been too if he had voted for it. Few ever tried to defend Hillary's vote because it was such an obvious mistake.
I remember, in 2004, election night, I was in the Bartcop chat room watching the returns (Kerry lost, ya know) with others and chatting. When the news came that Daschle had lost in South Dakota, there was some dark rejoicing and Schadenfreude. I certainly took some grim pleasure in it. Daschle, Gephardt, Hillary, Biden. They all voted for the war, but it was the high-profile Dems that pissed us off the most.
I'm speaking for myself here and generalizing it to others, which is perhaps unfair because I'm no spokesperson for anybody. But I am probably representative of many who opposed the Clintons.
Why did they vote for the war? I am still convinced, to this day, that they knew that it was a bad idea, but they did it anyway for political reasons, out of calculation, rather than out of responsibility. That is ambitious. It is calculating. It is immoral and a disservice to our country. This was Bush's war, but our own Democratic leaders let us down. They were supposed to be our guardians, the loyal opposition, and they weren't. So there was bitterness over that, and it was allowed to stew for years.
by her Public Editor for her literal war against HRC. Especially when she was traveling with the opposite campaign.
I was hoping somebody else would link to it. This is the NYT article I meant:
NYT article.
Media Charged With Sexism in Clinton Coverage By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN Published: June 13, 2008 Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a "Media Hall of Shame," starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter. But many in the news media -- with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" -- see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton. Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair...
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN Published: June 13, 2008
Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a "Media Hall of Shame," starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.
But many in the news media -- with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the "CBS Evening News" -- see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton.
Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair...
basically discredits itself. It's sour grapes bullshit.
So should we have Mr. Olbermann define sexism and that women should fall in line with that definition shouldn't they?
like NOW on a progressive blog like MyDD, I would suggest little bit of self restraint...
like Keith Olbermann on a progressive blog like this one, why don't you restrain yourself. This is an intramural pissing contest and little more. NOW isn't necessarily right because of who they are anymore than Keith Olbermann is necessarily right because of who he is.
I read the NOW list and commented on it elsewhere. Not everything that criticized Hillary was sexist, as the author of that list seems to portray it. If you define sexism down that way, then you make it only a tool for a personality cult.
as a wanker in waiting..A progressive leader is somebody like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, or in previous years somebody like Martin Luther King Jr or Pete Seeger or John Henry or Susan B. Anthony...You need to get your Progressive hero role model a calibration.
Mr. Olbermann's progressiveness is illuminating when he encourages some "man" to take Hillary Clinton in an enclosed room and make sure he is the only one who comes out..His continuous sexist remarks against female actresses are also very illuminating..
You need to get educated on NOW's background..Good luck...
I said commentator. And please don't assume I don't know the history of NOW. I'm a gray-bearded baby-boomer, dude.
(The author communing with nature.)
serious suggestion that your hero worship is in a serious need for a progressive calibration..
Before you attack a progressive commentator (none / 0) like Keith Olbermann on a progressive blog like this one, why don't you restrain yourself. This is an intramural pissing contest and little more. NOW isn't necessarily right because of who they are anymore than Keith Olbermann is necessarily right because of who he is. I read the NOW list and commented on it elsewhere. Not everything that criticized Hillary was sexist, as the author of that list seems to portray it. If you define sexism down that way, then you make it only a tool for a personality cult.
You called him your "progressive hero" atleast twice...
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/0 4740/6528/87
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/28/0 4740/6528/86
Anyway..I'm need to get back to the netherWorld of Coaxials X2s...G'nite.
And yet now you have the current highest profile DEM voting for the war again by approving funding, going to vote for FISA telecom immunity and other Constitutional compromises, wanting to expand Faith based inititives...all for what?
For purely the most transparent political reason. To get elected.
I'll let you sum up the argument:
That is ambitious. It is calculating. It is immoral and a disservice to our country. This was Bush's war, but our own Democratic leaders let us down. They were supposed to be our guardians, the loyal opposition, and they weren't. So there was bitterness over that, and it was allowed to stew for years.
It will only be a few months, but as Obama moves further and further to the right he becomes 'everything' the far left decried about Hillary. And as the days close on the nomination we all have to wonder, which one would have been better. The one we know who is more centrist, or the one who pandered left, and moved right for political reasons?
Approving funding for our troops in an existing war is not the same as voting for the war in the first place. I wish people would just stop making that idiotic nonsensical argument. It's the same as the difference between making a mistake and taking responsibility for a mistake--a HUGE difference.
Hillary took responsibility for her mistake many times, and said she would take that vote back if she could. But of course that's not the same as saying the precise words, "I made a mistake and I'm sorry", so apparently it simply wasn't adequate for many people-- including Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and their ilk.
For some people-- and I'm NOT pointing at you-- it wouldn't have made a difference no matter how she worded it.
I never heard her say she would take that vote back if she could. When was this? If I heard her say that it would have made a difference to me. But if she was willing to say that then why wouldn't she simply admit it was a mistake? No one was asking her to get down on her knees and grovel for forgiveness.
But my main point was that funding an existing war is NOT the same as approving that war in the first place, as many people continue to claim.
Ohio debate 2/26 with Tim Russert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdWh8qOUA zk
Listen all the way through to about 1:45 where Russert says "To be clear, you'd like to have your vote back," and she says "Absolutely. I have said so many times."
I totally agree with your main point. However, reading or listening to Hillary's floor speech at the time she voted for the authorization calls into question the notion that she approved of the war itself. She, as Kennedy did with the No Child Left Behind debacle, made the mistake of believing Bush...
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. [...snip...] My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
[...snip...]
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
like Edward's "I was wrong." Or Obama's clear statement that this war was a dumb war and he was against dumb wars.
I was shocked to find myself so ready to forgive Edwards. His apology was not craven at all. It was sufficient, and suprisingly so.
Let's not forget Bob Shrum's book, which details the way in which Edward's vote for the war was crafted. He states that Edwards and his wife were both opposed to the war, but Shrum told Edwards that if he wanted to run for President, he better vote for it because doves never win. What an incredible profile in moral cowardice.
AND YET I STILL forgave Edwards because I still had more confidence in him that he finally got it, that the war was a huge error, that it had to be corrected, than I had confidence in Hillary because of her continuing hawkish rhetoric.
So I was ready to forgive Hillary all along the way, but she never properly distanced herself from the war. She may regret that now.
I was dismayed all through 2007 and part of 2006 that it appeared Hillary was inevitable. I believed it. I kept hoping that she would finally face up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake. And then came that famous "non-apology" where she basically TOLD US VOTERS to vote for somebody else if we wanted somebody who was against the war or will apologize for it. She told us to vote for somebody else!
The fucking chutzpah of that. And you wonder why some people came to hate her so early in the campaign? This was a fatal flaw in judgment that destroyed her. And it had NOTHING to do with sexism.
Or perhaps it did. Perhaps she and Bill and Penn thought that it was necessary for her to look tougher than a man, tougher than the neocons even, so tough and uber-macho she couldn't appear the slightest bit doveish. Perhaps. If so, she misjudged, or this was just never meant to be her year. Being hawkish is one thing. Being hawkish about a blatant monumental strategic military disaster is another thing, and not easily corrected.
I thought it was actually (and sadly) funny when she tried to "take responsibility" for a mistake she wouldn't admit she'd made. I'm pretty sure the first step in taking responsibility is admitting you've made a mistake.
Three little words--"I was wrong"-- would have made a huge difference for me. But she wouldn't do it.
she stated that in the Ohio debate.
Look it up - it was the last question in the debates.
But it was too little, too late. Not just for me, personally, because that's irrelevant, but for her, because by long before then she had already allowed an anti-Hillary movement to metastasize.
As for ME, well, I appreciated her comment, but it was so hard to pry from her. A deathbed conversion.
Contrast that with Edwards. I was mad at Edwards over that vote, as well, but his mea culpa seemed so genuine and unhedged that I felt like he finally got it, and that made him an acceptable candidate to consider, a threshold that Hillary never met for me.
Maybe Edwards merely made a calculated political move. I don't know, although my gut feeling is it was sincere (although late). But it was well-executed, and timely enough to keep him in the top three. Still, if Finegold or Gore had been in the race, I wouldn't have wasted my money on Edwards.
Question: When someone says many times "If I knew then what I know now I would never have..." how hard is it to understand the regret inherent in such a statement?
To my mind-- and this was before I became a Hillary supporter-- she was saying "I made that vote. I'm stuck with it. I take responsibility for it. But I wouldn't do it again." It seemed pretty clear to me that she was admitting a mistake.
To be sure, I also would have preferred a clear "I was wrong", rather than the way she did it. She rather annoyed me in that. And I do think that lack of clarity cost her votes, though from the comments here it doesn't sound at all clear that she would have gotten these commenters' votes anyway.
I agree with you. I think Obama is moving to the right (or center, depending on how far right the pundit analyst is) for purely political reasons. On FISA. On the war funding. On faith-based initiative. I will grant you your point.
But NONE OF THAT reaches the caliber of cynicism that voting to start a needless war implies.
I don't let Obama off the hook so easily on telcom immunity. (I'm uninterested in the other two items.) But whether calculated or not, it can't be properly compared in scale to voting for the Iraq War.
Write to the SDs. We don't have to go with Obama since he's not the Obama we knew.
The good news is, all this is happening before the convention.
Bye bye evangelicals, welcome back blue collar workers, et. al.
