Cold Spaghetti

{ 8 }

Comments

1. charlotte | 15-May-08 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

   wow. I’ve noticed the gender-based so-called jokes and criticisms, etc about Hillary. But when you read all of these examples in one post & think about it, it is truly disgusting. I’m an Obama supporter but if Hillary gets the nod, I’ll vote for her.

   Thanks for sharing.

2. Cold Spaghetti | 16-May-08 at 5:50 am | Permalink

   I’m also for Obama, but I feel that the treatment of Hillary from day one has been completely inappropriate and unacceptable. I feel it is proof positive of how generally okay people are with misogyny. Disgusting is a very good word for it.

3. Christoph | 17-May-08 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

   Come on, my friend. I have to say, I think this article is off-base. Let’s be real: This article is just sour grapes by someone who is probably a Hillary supporter. “Some” of Clinton’s reasons for losing didn’t have to do with her “strategic mistakes” — not unless by some, the author means “90 percent.”

   Really, despite the writer’s protestations, this article’s purpose is to suggest how mysogyny, in the end, cost Hillary the race. The third-to-last column pretty much betrays that sentiment, despite what the last graf says. And that’s pathetic.

   Hillary Clinton lost because she ran a terrible campaign, and pandered on too many issues. Doubtless there were voters who wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman. But there were voters who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he is black — look at Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia. And there are voters who won’t vote for McCain because he is too conservative for them. If anyone regularly reads online comments for Huffington Post, ABC News, Washington Post and other sites across the poitical spectrum, they will know that there are foul things being said about all three remaining candidates that are wildly out of bounds (go to Huffington and read what’s being said about CINDY McCain, much less John, if you truly want to see mysogyny in action).

   But when you run for office, you have to accept that there’s a population who won’t vote for you, period, and will demonize you. You still must focus on putting together a coalition of people who WILL support you.

   But to suggest that Hillary lost because of an overwhelming anti-woman environment is the type of lament that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for future female candidates — and to whine about her losing after the fact is (a) sour grapes; and (b) allows the person who deserves the blame for her busted campaign to dodge it — Hillary.

   Mysogyny didn’t cost her when she said that Obama wasn’t a Muslim, “as far as she knew.” Mysogyny didn’t cost her when she pandered to voters by offering to suspend the federal gas tax, about as economically stupid and damaging an idea as can be proposed in American politics. Mysogyny didn’t cost her when she trotted out lame, ad hominem attack lines in debates, like how Obama was a plagiarist offering “change you can copy.” Mysogyny didn’t cost her when she decided to not campaign in caucus states, or when she decided to run as if she was an incumbent/front-runner/inevitable nominee, in a campaign cycle that’s arguably the most anti-incumbent/frontrunner/ Establishment since Watergate and ’74. And mysogyny didn’t cost her when her husband couldn’t stop saying stupid things in South Carolina and all along the campaign trail. If a man had run the same campaign as Hillary in the Democratic primaries, and made the same mistakes, he might not have made it as FAR as she has!! He might’ve been gone by Super Tuesday!

   One day a woman will come on the scene who is a better campaigner than Hillary, and has ideas and innovative style that captures the most people’s imaginations. When that happens, she will win her party’s nomination and stand a decent shot of being elected. Besides, if the writer’s point is, “hatred of women” has been exposed as a part of our culture, then I have two beefs with that: (a) How is she conceptualizing “hatred of women,” and (b) depending on how she’s conceptualizing it, how is it a revelation that there are men and women who won’t vote for a woman for president? And is that simplistic announcement the best use of column-inches in The Washington Post?

   End rant.

4. Cold Spaghetti | 17-May-08 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

   Baby, you know I love you, but you missed the point.

5. Christoph | 18-May-08 at 10:48 am | Permalink

   What larger point am I missing? I get the writer’s point that she feels that the campaign pulled back a seam of “hatred towards women” that she feels has been hidden just under the surface of society. I get that.

   But there is undoubtedly a metapoint that she is making as well, and it is plausible to read the article as a exculpation of why Hillary lost. That is why I reacted as I did. (It wasn’t just random combativeness, I promise.)

   When Cocco writes things like, Randi Rhodes gave her “Hillary’s a B” rant before an audience of “Obama supporters” … and when she writes about the “Bros Before Hos” t-shirts … even if thats factually accurate, it’s a subtle but unmistakable dig against Obama, in the sense of, “Your supporters, and thus, your campaign was a part of this. That’s a reason why Hil lost.” Otherwise, there was no reason to bring BO into it.

   And when the author writes:

   “Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? …”

   Seriously?? Really?? How long has she been asleep? Does she realize that there are “Barack Hussein Obama” t-shirts with BO wearing a turban on them? What about the Curious George t-shirts that say “Obama in ’08?” What about the state party ads plastering the picture of Obama in tribal uniform all over the South, to suggest that he’s Muslim [(a] as if it were a crime to be Muslim, and (b) even though the costume has nothing to do with Islam?]

   And when do we address the psychology of those who automatically felt that a Clinton-Obama ticket was plausible, but a Obama-Clinton ticket … “uh, that just wouldn’t work!” Why not? “Because Obama doesn’t have enough experience.” Um, he’s been in elected office longer than she has. “Yeah, but, cough cough, I can’t hear you, you’re breaking up …”

   And by the way … if Obama had cried in New Hampshire, would he have won the primary, like Hillary?

   The author probably wanted to write that sexism was just as pervasive a problem as racism, in her view. She should have stated that, and not have brought Obama into it. At best, it was unnecessary to make her point, and at worst, it was an intentional part of a larger political agenda.

   Overall … when white women try and compare their standing in society to that of black men, a racial and gender tone deafness often occurs that is harmful to both sides. Such traps must be avoided, then.

   Since I’m channelling a billious cable TV host, I’ll give you the last word.

6. Christoph | 24-May-08 at 10:07 am | Permalink

   Paglia wrote a good column about this:

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/24/do2411.xml

7. Maitri | 27-May-08 at 11:39 am | Permalink

   This race before the race is very educational because it has exposed the hatred of women AND black people that is taken for granted in America. Never before have I heard such racist and misogynist comments from within the party of “liberal” and “progressive” people.

   Obama and Clinton have to overcome their differences and run together. That is the party’s only chance at redemption and embarrassment control. Seriously, it’s before the nomination and things are already WAY out of hand.

8. Christoph | 27-May-08 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

   I’m resisting the urge to write more, since ya’ll have better things to do than to read my diatribes, and I don’t mean to monopolize this space, but Holly knows I get all fired up sometimes … but let me just stipulate that it should not be a revelation that Progressives are not Gods, and that they have the same imperfections that afflict conservatives and moderates. That is to say, yes, progressives are racist and sexist too, just like anyone else. Anyone who’s ever grown up black, or worked in politics, or lived in Los Angeles knows that reflexively. Also, be it known that the most racially tone-deaf network is NPR. It’s a shame that Fox News is more diverse than NPR.

Post a Comment