I was shocked this morning when I saw that the top headline on the Huffington Post was entitled "Cease Fire?" over a picture of Obama and Hillary. The story linked to offers this analysis:
But the reality is that both sides have declared an effective cease-fire as they prepare to bring the party together for a general-election campaign against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).Excuse me? Are we watching the same campaign? It is true that Obama has declared a cease fire, in fact he has been focusing almost entirely on McCain since North Carolina and Indiana. But Hillary? Has Hillary declared a cease fire in order to unity the Party? Most definitely not. In fact that exact opposite is true, she has taken the war underground to fracture the Party and sabotage Obama in November. If the Washington Post had been paying attention at all they would have noticed that Hillary and her supporters are working overtime to blame sexism, and Obama and the Democratic Party in particular, for Hillary's failure to win the nomination. It has gotten to the point where a group (supposedly thousands) of middle-aged women has been formed to go after Obama is he wins the Democratic nomination because they feel he is sexism and somehow robbed Hillary of her rightful nomination. I wrote about them the other day when I first heard about them, and mentioned their plans to go on the O'Reilly factor for some Obama-bashing. Well I have the video here. But first, I want you to notice a few things. First, thankfully O'Reilly actually asked them to name a SINGLE example to back up their claim that Obama has been sexist, watch, they can't do it, they stumble, they just can't substantiate their claims, and they end up pointing out a stupid comment by Chris Matthews, as if he speaks for Obama or Democrats in general. Second, nothing else they say makes any sense whatsoever:
So where to stay. Like I said in preface, they talk about Obama running an "incredibly sexist campaign" (a very serious charge), but once again can offer absolutely NO evidence of sexism from Obama or the Democrats. They say that they are "barraged with (presumably sexist) insults" every single day, but can't offer any evidence or example of that either. Are there sexists out there? Sure, just like there are racists, but has there been any evidence of sexists or racists "barraging" either Obama or Hillary or their supporters daily just because of their race or gender? Hell no, that is completely unsubstantiated, it is a ridiculous assertion. But I think I know what they are referring to here. They aren't talking about sexist insults, even though they say they are mad about sexism, they are talking about calls for Hillary to exit the race. That is what they are identifying as "incredible sexism", people who understand that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win the nomination, and people who realize that her divisive campaigning is hurting the Democratic Party and helping John McCain, these people are supposedly sexist because they don't ignore the math and reality and think that Hillary still has some chance of winning. This is what they are threatening to leave the Party over, this is the "extreme sexism" that they feel so victimized by that they will vote for John McCain, someone who called his wife a cunt, in retaliation. That makes a lot of sense.
They talk about how they feel that the Democratic Party acts like women voters "don't have any value" because some Party leaders want the Party to come together around the nominee. Can we say overreacting a little bit? Just because the math makes it impossible for Hillary to win and people realize it means that the Party is treating women like shit and acting like they are completely worthless?? Like to play the victim much? Listen: It has NOTHING to do with sexism, it is a little thing called reality, and if you were acquainted with reality you would understand that Hillary absolutely cannot win this nomination, and that is according to the rules, which were written long before we had any idea a woman and a black man were going to be running for the nomination. It IS NOT SEXISM! Hillary started this race with more than 100 more superdelegates (those are leaders of the Democratic Party) than Obama had supporting her. How's that for sexism? From the very beginning Obama has been fighting an uphill battle against that huge superdelegate lead, against this deck completely stacked against him. This election has been going on for a year and a half and it took Obama up until just a few days ago to finally overcome Hillary's institutional advantage within the Democratic Party. The Party establishment has ALWAYS been heavily skewed in her favor, and now her and her supporters are trying to paint the Party as sexism and say they are screwing over Hillary??? How's that for ridiculous logic??
Oh, and one of the women accused the media of race-baiting and fearmongering on race (not sure what that means, I think she was just throwing out words at this point) by exaggerating the importance of the African American vote while ignoring women (again, completely baseless), and she identifies women as the strongest democratic constituency, apparently ignoring the fact that while 90+% of African Americans vote Democrat, 45% of women voted for Bush. Basically her argument went nowhere, it made absolutely no sense, she had no idea what she was talking about. What they did say though, which I always find funny when they bring this up, is that they have been "careful about any kind of racism" in this campaign. Yes, this coming from supporters of Hillary who shamelessly exploited racism throughout this entire campaign. They are apparently extremely cognizant of avoiding racism, yet they overlook blatant race-baiting from the Clinton campaign (which was what cost them the black vote by the way, they were winning it against Obama until they pulled the race card out), and then accuse the Obama campaign of sexism even though there is absolutely NO evidence of any kind of sexism coming from Obama and the Democrats, yet they call it "incredible sexism" and "terrible sexism". Yeah. Let me underline this one more time: The Clinton campaign blatantly pulls the race card against Obama, over and over again, and this, according to these women, is not racism at all, yet when there is absolutely no evidence or reason to accuse Obama or the Democrats of being sexist, and absolutely no evidence that gender or sexism had ANY negative impact on Hillary's performance in this race, Obama and the Democrats are "incredibly sexist" and "terribly sexist". Got that? Make sense? Yeah, not so much huh?
I'd like to point out more more thing. I want you to step back and look at the situation objectively. We have one group saying that they feel discriminated against and totally rejected because the Party didn't give Hillary special treatment and overturn the rules and hand her the nomination even though she didn't win. What they are saying is that taking the nomination away from the person who clearly won, by all possible measures, would be the only acceptable way to not be acting like women are worthless. Yet what are they really advocating? Let's look at the other side. They are advocating that the first viable African American presidential candidate be stripped of his nomination in favor of a white person, even though he won fair and square by all of the rules. Do these women have ANY idea what that would make African Americans feel like? They FINALLY, after centuries of injustice and persecution, get to the point where they almost have a black presidential candidate, a likely first black president, and then at the last moment the Democratic Party CHANGES the rules at the very end just so the black candidate doesn't get nominated and so a white candidate gets the nomination instead. Do these people have any idea what that would do to American politics, to race relations, to the Democratic Party?? They are whining about feeling crapped on because the Party is following the rules and their candidate lost fair and square, and yet they are advocating completely screwing over African Americans (and everyone else who voted for Obama, which includes a very large percentage of women), as if that won't make them feel absolutely worthless and betrayed?? This is insanity. I honestly can't put it into words how absurd and outrageous what they are saying is. And I need to make one thing clear: These women do NOT speak for all women, not even close. These women to NOT speak for all Hillary supporters, or even for all (or even a majority) of women who support Hillary. These women are extremists, they are on the fringe. Thousands of feminists support Obama. Millions of women support Obama, of all ages, colors and backgrounds. In many states Obama beat Hillary among all women, and he has often beat her among women under 65 years old. Hillary's loss had nothing to do with gender. Obama is NOT a misogynist, he has NOT run a sexist campaign, he has NOT brought gender into this election at all, although Hillary has, repeatedly.
So next we have Geraldine Ferraro and Rachel Maddow facing off on the Today Show this morning. Again, although Ferraro said yesterday that Obama has been "terribly sexist" she can't point to a SINGLE real example of Obama being sexist. But here is what she comes up with:
- Obama joked that Hillary had been acting like she was Annie Oakley, a famous female exhibition shooter in the Wild West, because she was doing a pander tour around Pennsylvania talking up how she went shooting with her granddaddy when she was a child, in between her drinking a beer and taking shots of whiskey. When asked by a reporter in response to this when the last time she fired a gun was she said it wasn't an relevant question to ask. Now is that sexist? Not at all. It would take a pretty big stretch of the imagination to make that sexist and offensive. It had nothing to do with her gender, it was all about how she was pretending to be "one of the people" when she clearly is nothing like her Annie Oakley persona. Anyway, not sexist. Next?
- After ABC's "debate", which saw Obama essentially being interrogated on every non-issue smear conceivable, for nearly an entire hour, Obama responded in a speech the next day saying that that was just how Washington was run, and that is the sort of thing politicians have to face from the establishment which seeks to distract from the real issues affect people. Then he said when they do this he just has to brush them off, and made a gesture as if he was brushing off dirt from his shoulders. Geraldine Ferraro apparently thought this was terribly sexist, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with women, and wasn't even about Hillary, it was just an articulation of his philosophy that when they pile on with distractions and attacks you just have to brush it off and keep going. Yet Ferraro tries to stretch that as being an example of Obama being sexist. Ridiculous.
- The next example she has really was sexism, but it had nothing to do with Obama, and had no impact on the race, other than maybe the help Hillary. Right before the New Hampshire election a couple dumbass guys went to one of Hillary's rallies and help up a sign that said "Iron My Shirt". Completely despicable, absolutely offensive, and yes, very sexist. Did this have anything to do with Obama or Democrats? No. Did it hurt Hillary's campaign? Nope, just the opposite. Everyone thought after her big upset loss in Iowa (coming in third place) it was over for Hillary, given the polls which showed a huge lead for Obama in New Hampshire. It was that "Iron My Shirt" event, along with her tearful "finding her voice" event in front of a group of women voters (and I don't think that was a coincidence) brought a surge of women to the polls, a surge which essentially saved her campaign. So yes, there is sexism in the world, and there are instances of that being directed at Hillary, but it wasn't Obama, it wasn't the Democrats, and it didn't hurt her campaign, so the assertion from Hillary, Ferraro, and Hillary's hardcore women supporters that sexism caused her to lose the nomination is completely baseless.
So Ferraro was asked to point to a single example of Obama being sexist, and she couldn't find a single real example, even though she has claimed that Obama has been "terribly sexist". Here Geraldine, I'll help you out (and not because you are a woman, I know you are completely able to help yourself, but you seem to be struggling with identifying real sexism, which I'm sure has nothing to do with your gender, which I completely respect, so let me just help you out this one time). Here are a few examples of some of the most blatant sexism I've seen yet in this campaign:
- One man commented on Hillary: "If she gave him (Obama) one of her cojones (that's testicles), they'd both have two." Woah, so just because Hillary is a strong woman she must possess male sex organs? As if only men are strong and a woman can't be both strong and a woman?? THAT is offensive! Why didn't Ferraro mention that? Why didn't the women on the O'Reilly Factor mention that? Why didn't Hillary attack that? Why aren't Hillary's female supporters up in arms?? This wasn't from some punk ass kids, this was from a major Democrat!! Oh wait, it is because it came from Hillary's campaign! That quote was from James Carville, major Hillary surrogate and supporter and longtime friend of the Clintons. Ooohh, so it isn't about sexism at all is it? It is about playing politics and trying to drive a wedge between voters for political gain (or out of spite). Interesting.
- Wait, here's another: A labor leader said that we need a leader who has "testicular fortitude". Woah, is that sexist asshole saying that we can't have a president that isn't male?! Again somehow a woman can't be strong or a good leader because that takes MALE sex organs???! That is OUTRAGEOUS! And he was introducing a certain presidential candidate at an event! This is unacceptable! Women of the world unite against this sexism!!! Where's Ferraro??! Oh wait...you mean he was referring to Hillary at the candidate with more "testicular fortitude"? Oh, that must be why no one in Hillary's campaign cared about that blatant sexism (he went on to disparage the millions of Americans who support Obama as "Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle").
- Okay, one more, someone commented that Hillary Clinton made Rocky Balboa look like a "pansy" (Pansy, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "usually disparaging: a weak or effeminate man or boy; or usually disparaging: a male homosexual). Woah, so who is the misogynist that thinks Hillary is somehow ultra-masculine just because she is strong and determined?? And why does he think that effeminate men (and we can only assume the women they supposedly emulate) are inferior to ultra-masculine men?? That is incredibly sexist, and offensive not only to women, but to men and the LGBT community! Who is this bigoted misogynist? Must be Howard Dean or Barack Obama!! C'mon women! Fight the sexist Democrats! Down with Barack Obama!! Oh, no, wait, it was North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley who supports Hillary.
Hm...yes, it does seem to be a weird double standard doesn't it? I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that Obama and the Democrats actually aren't sexist and this has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with Hillary's desire to create a rift in the Democratic Party so she can either run again in 2012, or just have the satisfaction of getting revenge on Obama and the Democrats for not electing her the Democratic nominee.
And in all fairness, the "boys" focused on Hillary more in the first debates because SHE WAS THE FRONTRUNNER! It has NOTHING to do with gender, at least until Hillary and Bill made it about gender by complaining that the "boys" were ganging up on her. At the time, all the way up until Iowa, Hillary was considered the "presumptive nominee", she was considered inevitable, and so if anyone else was to stand a chance, they were going to have to put a dent in that inevitability. If Obama or Edwards or Dodd would have been #1 we would have seen the exact same thing. Hillary wasn't abused, she wasn't singled out because of her gender, she was the leader, she had the football so to speak, and so everyone went after her. And what "going after" meant at that time isn't anything like it meant after Hillary made negative attacks the centerpiece of her campaign, and after ABC spent nearly an hour interrogating Obama with outrageous questions that had nothing to do with anything Americans truly care about. She got off light. And yet Ferraro points to that as evidence of sexism? No, once again it is HILLARY and her surrogates who have repeatedly injected gender into the race.
What women should be worried about is not sexism from Obama or the Democratic leadership, because that simply does not exist. However, they should be worried about what Hillary is doing to the perception of women in this country by conflating herself with all women and feminism, and then going out and acting how she is acting, and having her supporters do the same. She is the first viable female presidential candidate, and so she is supposed to be the role model, she is the standard bearer of the public's perception of how a woman candidate acts, and yet she has run a nasty and divisive campaign, proving here what Margaret Thatcher proved in Britain, that there is absolutely nothing to the claim that women will act any better than men if they were in power. And now as she conflates herself with womanhood more than ever she is displaying the worst possible qualities, qualities that I fear will also be attributed to all women, thanks to her and her hardcore supporters like those shown above, qualities like vindictiveness, being a sore loser, being a hypocrite, playing the victim, playing the gender card, lying, stabbing your own Party in the back, and being willing to say and do anything to win. Those attributes describe what Hillary has done in this campaign, and those are many of the reasons why I'd hate to see her as president, especially the first woman president, because I don't want to see those negative characteristics being attributed to ALL women, because those qualities have nothing to do with womanhood, they are just Hillary.
I can't wait for the day when we can have a woman president, and I don't think it is that far off, but this election is not about women, it is about Hillary, and out of the multitude of things that are wrong with Hillary, NONE of them are related to her gender or sexism. So I urge women who support Obama to make yourselves heard, and push back against this gender-baiting campaign, let people know that you are a woman and you support Obama and there is no reason that you should have to support Hillary simply because of your gender and that sexism has not been a factor in this race. And for women who support Hillary, please take a good hard look at what she is making the rest of you look like by acting the way she is acting. She is prepared to make the rest of the campaign about gender and sexism, she is prepared to be the sorest loser possible, she is prepared to drive a wedge between Democrats either out of pure spite or political ambition, and in doing so she is going to make it much harder for the next woman presidential candidate to be viewed favorably, because Hillary will have damaged the brand, and that isn't fair to anyone.
Update: This is encouraging yet discouraging: According to the latest Gallup poll Obama has jumped ahead of Hillary among her most reliable demographic groups. He now leads her among all women (49-46), and among Latinos (51-44 - wow), narrowly leads her among non-college educated Democrats (47-46), and ties her among whites (47-47). The only demographic group Hillary still holds at least 51% in is women 50+ (52-41), the very crowd targeted by her current gender-baiting campaign. Obama has a big lead over Hillary (56-41) among women under the age of 50. So I guess it is good news, but it shows that Hillary still has a chance to make her women 50+ demographic split with the rest of the Party if she succeeds in making them feel attacked and marginalized.
Update #2: Sen. Claire McCaskill responds to Ferraro's comments:
Frankly, it is bitterly disappointing to me that a woman like Geraldine Ferraro would actually publicly say she is thinking about supporting John McCain, and what he would represent to women in this country. Really, the issues are so much more important than the people here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment