Can we admit finally that sexism was a huge problem in both 2008 and 2016 elections

[dsc]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/27/16561386/wieseltier-halperin-journalism-sexual-harassment

When I arrived in Washington in 2005, Mark Halperin and Leon Wieseltier occupied the commanding heights of political journalism. Halperin was the editor of ABC’s the Note, a daily political news digest that the New Yorker called “the most influential tip sheet in Washington.” Wieseltier was the philosopher-king editing the New Republic’s arts and culture section, but his influence extended deep into the rest of the magazine, and into liberal journalism broadly. As Halperin defined the conventional wisdom of the political elite, Wieseltier defined it for the liberal intelligentsia — he was, wrote Vanity Fair, Washington’s “aesthetic and moral arbiter.”

In recent days, Halperin and Wieseltier have been accused of serial sexual harassment and predation. Numerous women have come forward to accuse Halperin of behavior ranging from demanding they sit on his lap to discuss their reporting to rubbing his erections on them (Halperin denies the charges). Wieseltier’s behavior, meanwhile, was so known that ex-New Republic editor Michelle Cottle says it can’t even be described as an open secret — “it was simply out in the open.” Wieseltier was lecherous, objectifying, demeaning, and bullying. He leered at his female employees, groped and kissed them at work functions, left them thank-you notes for wearing miniskirts to the office, and humiliated them when they rejected his advances.

snip

One does not need to dig very deep into Halperin and Wieseltier’s work to find echoes of their private behavior in their public comments. “For Leon, women fell on a spectrum ranging from Humorless Prig to Game Girl, based on how much of his sexual banter, innuendo, and advances she would put up with,” writes Cottle. It’s an observation that sheds considerable light on Wieseltier’s oft-expressed contempt for Clinton. In 2007, Wieseltier told the New York Times that she was “like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.”

end of quote

Imagine that the political reporting in the 2008 race was dominated by Klansmen does anyone think Obama would have won. These people spent their days and nights humiliating women and then were savaging Clinton in print. They clearly hate women just like Klansmen hate blacks. How could the coverage not have been sexist given the role of these woman hating men?

and just so we can dispatch with the it was only Clinton bullshit

https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-sexism.html

Nor was this the first time that the mainstream press and the right wing have, perhaps unconsciously, mutually fed off of, and fed readers, similar and often gendered messages about Warren. Last year, the New York Times published a story about Warren, describing her as “imperious” and a “scold,” the latter of which would be echoed by Mike Huckabee in a February tweet. MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski described her in 2017 as “shrill” and “almost unhinged,” prefiguring the scrambling, frazzled, freaking-out headlines coming from the right this week.

“The irony is striking,” Jon Keller wrote in the Boston Globe back in February. “The leading female critic of the political Establishment is cast as a somewhat unhinged hypocrite by the right, a meme now being channeled by the left.”

But of course we are voting with our vaginas (not that I have one mind you) if we dare say sexism was a problem

[bearsfootball516]

1. I think Obama would have won in 2008, no matter what

That was a bad, bad time to be a Republican. Economy was crashing, incredibly unpopular war, housing market popping, Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s. There was no way on earth Americans were going to put another Republican in the White House that year. It made it very, very easy for Obama to win that year.

[MichMary]

4. If Hillary had been nominated in 2008

she would have won. Hands down. Two terms.

Then, President Obama could have run in 2016, and won in another landslide. There was NO Republican that could have beaten him, then or in 2020. We could have had 16 consecutive years of a Democratic presidency.

Instead, after only 8 years of Obama, we got Trump.

[whopis01]

5. The sexism problem was with the Democratic Primary in 2008

What you said is exactly correct. Had Hillary been nominated in 2008, she would have won two terms, hands down. Then we would have had Obama.

It was the sexism in the Democratic Primary that prevented that and led us to Trump.

[ClarendonDem]

27. So you think HRC

Lost to President Obama in 2008 in the Dem primary because of sexism? I voted for HRC in 2008 in the Georgia primary but looking back President Obama was clearly the better candidate. He won because of that, not because of sexism.

Or are you saying that HRC lost to Trump because of sexism (because that makes sense)?

[LisaM]

37. I think the OP is just saying sexism was a factor

in the press coverage. MSNBC was definitely a culprit.

[pnwmom]

66. She lost by a tiny margin. Sexism could certainly have tipped the race to him. nt

[bobbieinok]

54. I remember DU during 08 primary

The sexism and racism was stunning. I was surprised at the extent of both from so-called liberals. I remember thinking the worst sexism here seemed to be coming from young men.

I seriously doubt HRC would have won the election. The GOP and RW media had been expecting her to be the candidate and were ready with all the stuff they pulled out in 16.

Obama took them by surprise. Although they worked hard, they really didn't have a full-bore attack machine ready against him from day one.

[LisaM]

60. I was called "a old hag" for supporting HRC.

Pretty dispiriting, but typical.

[bobbieinok]

61. One DUer said HRC was tired, disappointed old woman

My immediate reaction: DUer had to be young and male

Had zero understanding, awareness of history of women's suppression and everything HRC had endured to get where she was/is. Just total - and GLEEFUL - willful incomprehension!

[xmas74]

79. I left DU for two years after the 2008 primary.

I was so tired of the insults.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

91. In 2008 Clinton's enthusiastic collaboration with GWB was still in very recent memory

That seems to have been mostly forgiven by now, but the attitude towards her in 2008 has to be viewed through that lens.

[LisaM]

110. What on earth are you referring to?

That is a ridiculous remark.

[ehrnst]

121. By "double down" do you mean "keep correcting those who said she lied?"

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Her foreign policy judgment can’t be understood without that context.

Can you tell us what is "incomprehensible" about her vote?

"On October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Joe Biden, in voting in favor of the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. Later on, Clinton came to deeply regret giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Resolution, and she has plainly admitted her mistake. Yet it is a “mistake” which many other senators of conscience made with her; if Clinton bears any blame for the resulting war, it is because she placed too much reliance on legislation that was actually designed to check a president’s war-making ability but instead inadvertently gave that president cover to run roughshod over the interests of both Congress and the public at large."

And can you tell me why Biden wasn't crucified for his vote on Iraq in 2008?


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html

Care to clarify "believed the assurances of her personal friend Stephen Hadley?"

Or are you at work now? Again?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

125. I don't accuse her of lying, I accuse her of being completely tone deaf

What was incomprehensible was her Iraq position as a candidate from about 2005 to 2008. That was in sharp contrast to Obama's position of "I didn't support the war then and I don't support it now. "

I will accept there was a certain degree of moral cowardice in the Freedom Fries era. But by the time the Iraq war was a complete failure she should have been able to move on. In 2008 Hillary Clinton would not say the Iraq war was a mistake and she got in on the Iran chest thumping.

Lowly Democrats looked at this and just said "Nope."

In any event Biden dropped out after Iowa where he was a rounding error, he wasn't a factor but if he too were up against Obama who was untainted by the Iraq war it would have been an issue. Biden could have won in 2016 but only as Obama's third term, without Obama he is nothing.

Bush national security advisor Stephen Hadley is a friend of Hillary Clinton, I think she honestly believed what she was told about Iraq because she trusted him. That is me casting Hillary as a relatively innocent victim of deception.

[LisaM]

122. To blame Hillary for the Iraq war is beyond ridiculous.

Obama didn't vote yes or no for the simple reason that he was not in the Senate, but when you broke it all down, his position really wasn't that different from hers.

She took that vote seriously, and, while I do disagree with it, she laid out her reasons for voting to give Bush authority (her vote was never to authorize war directly, as you must know). And, she regrets it. To say that she was an enthusiastic collaborator is mind-boggling.

I don't think you seem disposed towards Hillary in any event, but I'd encourage you to read this article, which puts that vote in context. In fact, much of what Hillary has done is often in context - and is nuanced - which doesn't always allow for her sophisticated approach to be broken down into sound bites for voters who don't dig too deeply into things.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html


I'm editing this to clarify that I don't mean that anyone currently engaged in this back and forth is a voter who didn't dig too deeply. Most people at DU, whether or not I agree with them, are way more informed than Joe on the Street.

[ehrnst]

123. Nuance.

Not so much here...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

126. Nobody blames her for the Iraq war

But her actions put her in the worst possible light for her 2008 run as a Democrat. She could have put a million miles between her and the IWR and Bush, she chose not to and she chose to get in on the Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran chorus just as we we're coming up on the 2008 campaign.

My grievance with Hillary Clinton is she is willing to alienate Democrats in her futile pursuit of support from Republicans who think she is the anti-Christ. We spent all of 2016 listening to antidotes about all the Republicans who were going to come out for Hillary Clinton, so many so that even Texas was in play.

Hillary Clinton no doubt wishes to see herself as a great pragmatic centrist who will unite America with common sense and compassion. And that is a noble vision except for the fact it isn't 1952 and half the people she wishes to unite hate her and the other half of the people.

[George II]

124. So Hillary Clinton, a female, "married herself to Bush...."? What do you think....

....of the dozens of MALE Senators who voted the same way as Clinton?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

128. If they, in 2007 were also joining the chorus against Iran

Last edited Tue Oct 31, 2017, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)

as Iraq descended further and further into chaos, then it was a polyamorous relationship.

[ehrnst]

137. You mean like

HRC being "in bed" with pharma companies that were foundation partners providing HIV drugs at low prices to third world countries?

Like that?

[ehrnst]

114. Can explain what you mean by "enthusiastic collaboration?"

Please clarify.

[LisaM]

115. Yeah, I think that was a hit and run!

LOL.

[ehrnst]

116. (crickets)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

118. Sorry for the inconvenience, I have a job.

[ehrnst]

120. And...

Are you going to answer the question now that you are back?

[JHan]

143. No, because this whole Iraq thing..

is once again judging her to different standard.

She can't make mistakes - others aren't hounded over the same behavior. It's the biggest double standard in politics for which gender is just one explanation where she is concerned. It explains the Crime bill, her taking the blame for a whole bunch of shit her male peers aren't subjected to..

Henry Louise Gates covered this in the 90's..and when I first read it, it made me think.

Like horse-racing, Hillary-hating has become one of those national pastimes which unite the élite and the lumpen. Serious accusations have, of course, been levelled against the President’s wife, but it’s usually what people think of her that determines the credence and the weight they give to the accusations, rather than the reverse. At times, she herself sounds at a loss to explain the level of animosity toward her. “I apparently remind some people of their mother-in-law or their boss, or something,” she says. She laughs, but she isn’t joking, exactly.

The remark chimes with something I’ve been told by the redoubtable Sally Quinn, who—in part because she’s a frequent contributor to the Washington Post, in part because she’s the wife of the Post’s legendary editor Ben Bradlee—must herself count as a figure in the so-called Washington establishment. “There’s this old joke about the farmer whose crops fail,” she says. “One year, he’s wiped out by a blizzard, and the next year there’s a rainstorm, and the next year there’s a drought, and so on every year. Finally, he’s completely bankrupt—he’s lost everything. He says, ‘Why, Lord? Why, why me?’ And the Lord says, ‘I don’t know. There’s just something about you that pisses me off.’ ” She pauses, then says, “That’s the problem—there’ s just something about her that pisses people off. This is the reaction that she elicits from people.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/02/26/hating-hillary

And this article references the Gates' analysis within the context of 2016...

Pence can make a mistake. Trump can make a stunning array of them in the span of 24 hours. But if Clinton makes a mistake, she is critiqued, verbally abused and sent to the fictional prison that Trump and Christie and crew have erected for her in their troubling imaginations.

The disastrous Iraq vote notwithstanding — all Republicans senators but one voted in favor, and 29 Democratic senators voted for while 21 voted against — what’s noteworthy is that Hillary is not entitled to make mistakes. If this negation of the flawed human condition resonates with you, you’re probably a woman. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Debora Spar and others have written eloquently about the damaging expectation made of women to be perfect. The most successful woman in American politics is definitely not exempt.

http://forward.com/sisterhood/345928/this-is-whats-really-behind-hatred-for-hillary-clinton/

[ehrnst]

144. This. Dear God, this. (nt)

[Hekate]

131. What you said, bobbieinok. It was shocking. nt

[DonCoquixote]

52. really?

And Obama might have been passed up for whoever else people thought was "the safe bet."

[Ken Burch]

74. Why would you post such a polarizing statement? It's not Obama's fault that Trump's president.

It's not as though the voters could have accepted a black president after a female president but not the other way around.

Also, there are no voters who'd have backed HRC against McCain who didn't vote for Obama, so our vote share was as high as it could have been that year.

If Obama had lost in 2008, I doubt you'd have seen another African-American presidential candidate for at least another 20 years. There's no way any would have thought they'd be given a chance.

[MichMary]

77. What I meant was

that after eight years of GWB, there is no way there was going to be a Republican president, and it didn't matter who they ran. The Dem was a shoo-in. (Which is not to say that Clinton wasn't highly qualified; she was.)

And in 2016, PBO was an exceptional candidate--exceptionally qualified, exceptionally charismatic, exceptionally able. Again--no Republican could have beaten him.

[Ken Burch]

87. The reality was that '16 was going to be a problem year.

The midterms in '10 and '14 were signs of long-term problems; the party leadership chose not to acknowledge those problems.

[stevenleser]

107. Several of you blame the party without any proof that this is what the problem was.

There are a dozen or more possibilities of what the cause of those losses could have been and combinations of those dozen.

If you have proof that the Democratic party was at fault, post it.

[Ken Burch]

129. OK...there were factors in and out of our control

There were also things that we were also all aware of. One of those things was that we'd been getting closer and closer to wipeout status at the state legislative level for several years and that we'd done badly in the '10 and '14 midterms.

Gerrymandering by GOP state legislatures caused part of that...but not all.

Lost ground at state levels is always a marker of decline and evidence of potential difficulty in national elections

A factor that contributed equally to that was that OUR campaigns had not done was to celebrate our legislative achievements, point out how they had helped people, and to pledge, if we did well enough, to rectify the shortcomings in the legislation caused by the necessity to compromise in order to get things passed.

There was a need to keep making a positive case, an argument for voting FOR our candidates and our party, rather than just warning people that the other party needed to be stopped.

President Obama won solidly in both his campaigns because he did make a positive case.

In 2016, the option of a positive campaign, a campaign we could easily have made, having an excellent candidate and a brilliant platform, was largely not chosen.

We could have had our advertising focus on our platform. The voters wanted to know what we were going to do, what HRC would propose compared to what Obama had done.

We knew from the start of the campaign that it didn't work, it didn't EVER work, to center the campaign on the argument that voters needed to "Stop Trump!"

Yes, Trump was and is a world-historic nightmare.

Yes, he did need to be stopped.

But we've had fifty years of proof, starting with Pat Brown's failed re-election campaign against Reagan for the California governorship, that "Stop ____!" campaigns never work.

Every time we run a "Stop _____!" campaign, the swing voters such a campaign is meant to appeal to always say "ok, so ____ is horrible. What is your side offering instead?" And this question, for fifty years, has left our party flat-footed.

Why don't we, then, make what fifty years of evidence would appear to demonstrate was the logical decision and run campaigns focusing on why our candidates are better(as they always are) and why what we propose would be better?

I was saying this in 1976, when I first started working in Democratic campaigns, and I'm saying it now.

We have great things to offer...we have candidates who are far better on the level of qualifications and as human beings...why does our party have such a reluctance to emphasize those plusses?

Candidates such as HRC and everyone else who runs on the Democratic line could win running campaigns like that, and win solidly. What argument still exists for not doing that, and for running "Stop_____!" campaign instead?

That's all I'm saying.

It's not about fault...it's about challenging a collective habit mind that has never served us well in electoral terms. And it harms nothing to try to discuss things like this when we have results like we had in November.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

119. the problems in the house and senate go back decades

The presidency was still very winnable by a nationally competitive candidate.

[Honeycombe8]

132. I disagree totally. No one could've beaten Obama in 2008. It was something like I had never seen...

and I've seen a few campaigns (I started paying attention when Jimmy Carter ran).

I think maybe you're forgetting the immense popularity he had. Remember the jokes about his charisma, people being mesmerized? Some people regarded him in a way similar to the second coming.

He was ahead of her in the polls early on, and stayed ahead, ultimately by a lot.

[MichMary]

135. Were you replying to me?

Because I agree. Yes, PBO would have won in 2008, or any time, actually. Secretary Clinton (IMHO) had a much narrower window, and not just based on gender, but also history. Historically, it is very rare for a single party to win three consecutive presidential elections. It was our "turn" in 2008, but theirs in 2016.

If she had gotten the nomination in 2008, she would have won. Obama would have won in 2016, because of his unique and exceptional talents, regardless of which party's "turn" it was.

[pnwmom]

65. That's beside the point. Sexism was still a factor, and that's wrong. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

2. It's a huge thing in every election with more than one gender on the ballot

And even when it's between candidates of the same gender any talk of reproductive rights often ensures it is STILL a factor.

[Not Ruth]

3. I think they mean the 2008 primary and the 2016 general, not vice versa

[comradebillyboy]

78. There was plenty of sexism in the 2016 primaries.

[GaryCnf]

6. Are we supposed to be admitting

that sexism was as prevalent in American society in 2008 as it was in 2016, or are we now refighting the 2008 primary too?

[dsc]

8. The two reporters most credited with setting the tone turn out to be sexist pigs

but god no, it was all Clinton couldn't be the sexist pigs.

[GaryCnf]

11. So Obama won the nomination in 2008

Because of some sexist "tone?"

Because God knows it couldn't be because he was the better candidate?

It couldn't be because he was the first Democratic Presidential nominee since Carter who could win a majority (not just a plurality) of the popular vote? It couldn't be because he was so inspirational that he overcame the color of his skin in the most racist nation on earth?

[dsc]

12. anyone running in 2008 would have won a majority

but that said, I didn't say sexism was the only factor, but the tone of press coverage was blatantly unfair toward her in both 08 and 16. Imagine if she had a crack pot minister emcee the first even she had in South Carolina, then went on MTV the next day and out and out lie about doing it. Obama did that to nary a peep. The press was in the tank for him in that primary and even gave him the best coverage a Democratic nominee has gotten since at least 92.

[BannonsLiver]

16. You can pull out the MCLurkin crap all day and night if you wish

But it doesn’t change the fact that Obama was in a different universe when it comes to political talent. He WAS the better candidate, period. Media my ass.

[LisaM]

63. The media was on his side and he drew large crowds at rallies...

Which have somehow become the definition of a "good" campaign, even though Hillary worked astonishingly hard both times. The press just isn't into covering different types of events from rallies and they certainly didn't do her any favors. I went to an event in 2008 and there were several thousand people there. It was electrifying. It barely got a whisper in the press, even though she spoke well and the reception was tremendous. She also sat down with the local TV station AND did a town hall with nurses even though many of them were going to be unable to make it to the caucus the next day. But the bulk of the coverage went to Obama's appearance at Key Arena, even though he was only in town briefly and did one event to her three.

I don't want to denigrate Obama here, but she was just as good a "candidate" as he was, if you define a good candidate for a job as someone who has the qualifications and will perform well once "hired", or in this case elected.

[BannonsLiver]

64. I define it by who wins and loses

AKA the only thing that matters.

[LisaM]

67. Ir certainly helps when the media favors you.

But I think you are using the word "candidate" differently from the way I would. Obama was a much more natural campaigner, but to me the definition of a good candidate is someone who is a good fit for the job.

[GaryCnf]

17. That is pure revisionist history.

McCain was in another class amd a thousand times more formidible than Trump. War hero, politically moderate when it was still fashionable, the model of bipartisan-ism, temperate in both language and behavior.

Btw, calling Reverend Wright a crackpot is despicable and demonstrates a near total lack of understanding of black liberation theology. I pray that people who would use such an analogy are not typical.

One more thing. That candidate who the press was "on the tank for" in 1992 had a right wing third party candidate siphoning off GOP votes and still couldn't manage anything near an outright majority.

Obama was a transformational candidate. Attempting to taint his primary OR general election victory is wrong.

[dsc]

18. I was referring to McClurkin not Wright the fact you didn't know that shows

my point. It was so poorly covered that you hadn't even heard of it. As to the other, the economy tanked in Oct with Bush being blamed, quite correctly. Any Democrat would have won a majority. and yes McClurkin was a crack pot. He called gays vampires among other things.

[GaryCnf]

41. Tell me about McClurkin's role

Do you seriously want to play this game, trying to smear a candidate because of who supports them and who appears on their behalf?

Because, if you aren't, if you are talking about who came through and who caved by supporting life destroying policies like don't ask don't tell . . .

[dsc]

43. I already did

but here it is again, try reading it. He emceed the first event Obama held in NC (a gospel show). He then was asked about it on MTV the next day and out and out lied. During said emcee McClurkin talked about how gays can and should be cured.

[GaryCnf]

46. So the character of someone who

participates in a campaign event should be held against a candidate?

Gotcha

[dsc]

47. yes since he was warned just what he was when he had him do so

and his LYING about it sure as hell should be. If Hillary had a Klansman emcee an event telling us how black people should become white and then lied about it her campaign would have been over. McClurkin is just like that.

[GaryCnf]

48. You're willingness to slander Obama

astounding.

[dsc]

50. It is not slander

McClurkin was famous for believing in the ridiculous notion that one can pray away the gay. He was hand picked by the campaign to emcee the event, gave a speech at the event that extolled praying away the gay, and Obama was asked on MTV about all of this and told a bald faced lie. He claimed that all McClurkin did was sing a song. Here is a link to a story about it. Other than the MTV appearance everything else is there. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/10/29/post_159.html

The only person being slandered here is me, by you.

[BannonsLiver]

20. Some folks scream sexism

Last edited Sat Oct 28, 2017, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

And then diminsh Obama’s accomplishments by saying “anyone could have done it.”

Except of course the candidate they are talking about. That candidate did not do it.

Forget closing the book on 2016, we’ve still got Dems with axes to grind over 2008.

[Tavarious Jackson]

26. Obama was a better candidate that is true

but Hillary had more experience.

[ClarendonDem]

28. Not sure I agree

That in 2008 HRC had more experience that President Obama. But willing to be convinced.

[Tavarious Jackson]

29. Sure she did.

NY Senator, active policy wonk first lady and far more years in politics. Love Obama and glad he won but she did have more experience

[ClarendonDem]

30. But President Obama

Was also a senator at that point, and a "policy wonk." As I said, I was a HRC voter in 2008, and she would have been a very good president. Not convinced she was any more qualified than President Obama though. Just being in politics doesn't qualify a person to lead. We've got lots of senators who have been in office for decades and aren't particularly ready to lead (McConnell for example).

[Tavarious Jackson]

33. He was only a state senator

Even to this day Hillary is more of a policy wonk than Obama.

[ClarendonDem]

35. I'm not arguing she wasn't qualified

She was (and is). I'm just arguing she wasn't that much more qualified than President Obama. And she certainly can't hold a candle to him as a politician.

[Tavarious Jackson]

38. I love them both

They each have qualities of their own

[ClarendonDem]

39. yup

[lunasun]

57. Barack Obama won the US Senate seat in an election in 2004 . Yes he was also a state senator

before that . Also, not only

[dsc]

31. She was in the Senate for twice as long as he was

8 yrs vs 4yrs. She had headed the equivalent of a law firm, then was partner in a law firm, was a very involved first lady in both Arkansas and the US for a total of 20 years. He was a state senator for one term, a US Senator for less than four years, did some important legal work and was a law professor. Yes, she had way more experience than he did by any reasonable standard.

[ClarendonDem]

32. 8 years versus 4 years isn't that much of a difference

And for years, President Obama taught constitutional law at U. Chicago law school, one of the top law schools in the country. He was a state and United States senator. So I get the point that HRC was qualified, but I don't concede she was "more" qualified than President Obama. And in any event, she lost the Dem primary to President Obama, and sexism wasn't the reason.

[lunasun]

58. By that reasoning John McCain was the best candidate

[tonedevil]

85. That's good news....

for John McCain.

[BannonsLiver]

55. So what. The primary electorate that year didnt care.

[dsc]

14. Now imagine for a second that she had won in 08

and again in 12, and Obama ran in 16 and lost after the press attacked him continuously and provided his opponents blanket coverage. Then we find out that the two reporters who most affect the group think belonged to the Klan. Yea, I think a discussion of racism in the press would be in order.

[Egnever]

21. Lol you are trying to give Halpern way too much credit

In a feeble effort to try to excuse Hillary's loss.

Most influential my ass.

In a sea of reporting the idea Halpern of all people was the most influential is complete hogwash.

Not Peggy Noonan or George will or myraid other long time political reporters mark fucking Halpern.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so good damn pathetic.

[former9thward]

40. "the most racist nation on earth"

I gather you do not travel much. Or even learn about the attitudes of people in other countries much.

[GaryCnf]

42. I gather you are not black

[GaryCnf]

44. Oh, btw

I was raised in the South, undergrad in France, and have lived in Central America, so . . . fill in the blank.

[former9thward]

49. My original post stands.

You must of ignored what the people of most European nations think of blacks. You must have ignored the names I have heard in Central and South American about blacks.

There are almost 200 nations in the world. I have traveled in 41 of them. Not the majority but quite a few. Please name the countries of the world who have elected a member of their nation's minority to the top leadership spot. And yes, there are people of African origin in every nation beyond the postage stamp countries.

[GaryCnf]

56. Now "Obama proved were not racists?"

WTF

[former9thward]

68. You really fail in logic.

Who said "Obama proved were not racist?" Not me. Hopefully I don't use such bad grammar. You said the U.S. was the most racist nation on earth. I challenged you to list nations who have elected a member of their minority to their highest office. You have almost 200 to choose from. You could not even come up with one.

Electing Obama does not prove racism does not exist but the most racist nation on earth is not going to elect a black person to be their leader. Waiting for the list .....

[GaryCnf]

70. Do you mean I did not list one such country?

I only ask because you said I "could" not list one.

I did not list one because your question is irrelevant to whether this is the most racist nation on earth. Perhaps a better question would be whether you can point to any powerful nation in the history of the world that practiced slavery in the manner it was practiced in the United States for 4 centuries, perpetuated it for over a century after its supposed abolition through overtly discriminatory laws, and continues to perpetuate it to this day through institutional racism and the retention of stolen capital?

[former9thward]

71. Easy.

Slavery was known in almost every ancient civilization and society including Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Hebrew kingdoms of the ancient Levant, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.

Rome and Greece practiced slavery for centuries on end. Their empires went far, far longer than the U.S. BTW the U.S. is not 4 centuries old. It is 228 years old if you date from the Constitution. Slavery was not an original institution of the colonies. It was introduced by the British who made money off it by transporting slaves from Africa.

In the more modern era slavery existed in almost all the European tribes/nations, the Arab tribes/nations, China, and the African tribes/nations where it continues to exist to this very day.

I not aware of any other nation where hundreds of thousands died to end the institution of slavery. (The Civil War in case you forgot). What other nation went to such an extreme to end their slavery? Answer: None.

[GaryCnf]

72. Pay attention friend

Slavery was indeed practiced throughout history, however, never as it was practiced as it was in the American South.

[former9thward]

75. No, thousands of slaves weren't put on crosses and crucified like in Rome.

So you are right there.

[BainsBane]

100. Millions died in the Middle Passage

as much as 60% of those captured, according to a study of the Angolan Trade. 10 million is the conservative estimate. Deaths from the transatlantic slave trade are traditionally greatly underestimated, due in part to the level of fraud which meant ship rosters under reported the numbers transported and died.

This image appears on T shirts with the caption African Holocaust.

What most people don't realize is that diagram was presented before British parliament as an example of an ideal way to pack slave ships, so as to minimize over packing and hence deaths ( ie. profits). But many if not most slave traders judged their profits were greater by loading as many captives as possible on to ships and sustaining high death rates rather than transporting fewer in the more efficient method that image was meant to encourage. The narrative of Oludah Equiano gives a chilling account of the Middle Passage.

And of course rape was endemic in American slavery, as every single narrative by a formerly enslaved woman recounts. Of course that extended throughout the Atlantic slave system.

[former9thward]

101. How is that on the U.S.?

That is on the British who transported slaves. Have you forgotten that the colonists did not originally have slavery? And that it was introduced into the colonies by the British who saw a way to make money from the transport? Does that make Britain the "most racist nation on earth" or do they get a pass?

[BainsBane]

103. Where did the British import slaves to?

It included the US, and US economy and industrialization was made possible because of slavery and cotton in particular. Slavery developed in Virginia across the 17th century, in racial terms. The first episode of Africans in American, entitled "The Terrible Transformation" recounts that history.

Slavery then thrived for two hundred years, with Jim Crow lasting another 100. That is all the "US's fault."
Then there is the fact those "original colonists" were in fact English.

You also ignored the information about American selling slaves to Cuba and the domestic slave trade.

I happen to have a PhD on this subject. I do know something about it, even if I no longer teach it.

Another point. The invention of the cotton gin greatly effected American lawmakers attitudes toward slavery. It might have ended sooner if not for that, but the cotton gin made US, short-staple cotton viable in British and Indian markets. It was cotton that supplied the textile industry that fueled industrialization.
Ship building of slave ships in places like Liverpool were, as Eric Williams and World Systems Marxists argue, essential to the accumulation of capital that made the industrial revolution and hence industrial capitalism possible.

[BainsBane]

105. Additionally, the US maintained its own slave trade

after independence, and colonists actively participated in and bought from the English trade before it.

[GaryCnf]

73. Btw

The Contitution neither established nor modified the practice of American Slavery. To use the constitution to date the practice in this country is sophistry.

[former9thward]

76. My copy of the Constitution is different than yours.

Of course my history books are 100% different than what you print so there is that.

In the Constitution Article 1 Section 9, the framers put a provision that would provide the means to end slavery in 1808 by putting an end to the slave trade once and for all. If that was not modification I don't know what is.

But let's hear from James Madison about that provision: It is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a country filled with slaves. James Madison, Import Duty on Slaves, House of Representatives 13 May 1789

[GaryCnf]

80. Yes, I distinctly remember

The "slave trade" ending in 1808. What, you mean it didn't? You mean Article I, Section 9 actually PROHIBITS the abolition of the IMPORTATION of slaves before 1808.

As for Hamilton's platitudes . . .

[former9thward]

95. It did end.

Sorry you are so history challenged. Slave owners began to try to breed slaves to make up for it. That did not work and led to increased tensions between the free and slave states. By the time Jackson was elected southern states were threatening to leave over it and a generation later the Civil War started.

I quoted Madison -- the guy who wrote that section of the Constitution -- not Hamilton.

[GaryCnf]

111. Coming from someone

who thinks the fact that the South was fighting to preserve slavery means the North was fighting to end it.

[BainsBane]

99. The institutions of transatlantic slavery was radically different

from those which preceded it, and in the Americas--specifically the US--race as a biological category and racism was developed to justify slavery. Prior to transatlantic slavery, religion was the predominant justification for slavery among Europeans. In some African cultures, slavery meant being uprooted from one's ancestry, being transported and held in another location, but the status did not pass down to children. In the trans-Saharan slave trade, slavery was likewise justified based on religion.

You are not aware of other nations where hundreds of thousands died. While the numbers are smaller due to the smaller population, Haiti was the first nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, and it did so through a revolution--a slave rebellion. The white population was far smaller, but the vast majority either died or fled, to places like Cuba and New Orleans.

In Brazil, slavery ended incrementally, through a series of laws--abolition of the slave trade, which legislators knew would end slavery because unlike the US, the population was not self-reproducing. The law of the Free Womb, which made children born to slaves free, with an elaborate system of economic compensation of owners and indentured servitude for the young. And finally the abolition of state mandated whipping--which was two years before abolition.

In Cuba, wars played a major role in the abolition of slavery, and slaves took up arms on the side of rebels in order to secure their own freedom.

In mainland Spanish America, most countries abolished slavery soon after independence, if not earlier.


What distinguished the US is the nature of the racial justifications for slavery and the construction of Jim Crow in order to recreate a social order as close to slavery as White Southerners could manage. No where else were peoples of African descent denied participation in the state, in elections, until the late 20th century. In Brazil, slaves achieved full citizenship, including voting rights (such as they were for all Brazilians apart from the aristocracy), upon manumission. Manumitting slaves in wills, rare and eventually illegal in the US, became fairly common in the final years of slavery in Brazil. Slaves in the US could not own property, whereas they could in Brazil. Slaves and African freedman and freedwomen left wills allocating their possessions and property. They petitioned courts for their freedom, and sometimes won. They petitioned to be spared the death penalty, and it later years were often successful. That did not make slavery any less brutal, but it did make it different, particularly in terms of the law.

You're correct congress ended the transatlantic slave trade, but it did not end the domestic slave trade, which carried on through the civil war. American ships continued to sell slaves to Cubans long after it the transatlantic trade was abolished, all the way through the Civil War. The whole issue with the Free Soil movement and why Lincoln was so loathed in the South is that he promised the end of the EXPANSION of slavery into the new territories. Slavery only emerged as a goal during the war, after Frederick Douglass and others lobbied and influenced Lincoln. Certainly slavery was the root cause of the war, but it is false to say union soldiers died in order to end slavery. Nativism and racism prevailed in the North and played a significant role in the Free Soil movement, and hence Republican party. The expansion of slavery also meant having to live near blacks, which white Northerners and new immigrants did not want.


You seem to think terms for blackness are the principle marker of racism, yet you dismiss as irrelevant how people of color experience racism. The Spanish American cast system was based on such terms for all peoples, with legal distinctions based on the level of European, indigenous, and African ancestry, and combinations thereof. Indigenous Guatemalans have been subjected to genocide. That they or ladinos use racial terms for people of African descent does not put them on par with a legal system of Jim Crow or mass lynchings. Racism is far more than language.

[BainsBane]

94. The only competition

is S Africa. History is a large part of it, not just current attitudes. S Africa and the US both had apartheid.
You should also remember that if you are white, like myself, you don't experience racism as people of color do.
I can observe historical phenomena and political and cultural factors, but I can never know what racism feels like.

[former9thward]

96. No the U.S. did not have apartheid.

You don't know the what the word means if you think that. The contention we were anything like S. Africa is ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

97. Jim Crow was indeed apartheid,

and there is academic literature establishing parallels between the two.

https://www.amazon.com/White-Supremacy-Comparative-American-African/dp/0195030427
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,24&qsp=1&q=comparison+of+south+africa+%22united+states%22

That you have never thought or read about it does not make it ridiculous.

Slavery existed throughout the Americas, but the US was the only nation to develop a system of segregation and systemic disenfranchisement. Like apartheid, it was created and enforced by the state, including the "party of FDR" we are told we should return to.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

130. Apartheid was an institutional failure that burned out quickly

Apartheid just didn't work as a system for a lot of reasons, such as the fact there was no particularly strong "white" identity in South Africa, just pale skinned factions with historical grievances who were suspicious of one another and the black population that was never any variation on pacified.

The perpetuation of Southern racism on the other hand has been incredibly successful, behold of the morons who practically live in Canada, are decedents of the French and plaster confederate flags on every garment and surface.

[lapucelle]

104. Although not the reason why Obama won,

the sexism was more overt in 2008 than in 2016. Watch as Olbermann, Matthews, Barnicle, and Mika and Joe participate.
"

[Honeycombe8]

133. Wow. I didn't remember all that. It's chilling what those media guys said. Chilling.

Even if they don't say it, that's what they THINK. (Let's not forget, there was some awful stuff about Obama being black that was going around...under the glare of light, though.)

So they both had issues.

Obama was destined to win, though. He was ahead of her early on, and stayed ahead of her. It was his time, his election to lose. He didn't lose it.

[lapucelle]

136. 2008 was Obama's moment,

but there were factors that were going to work in any Democratic candidate's favor in that election.

I think that part of the problem in the 2016 GE was that the press was trying to recreate the magic of 2008 by selling the Trump insurgency narrative to the extent it didn't properly vet the outsider candidate whose appeal was limited to the claim that he was an anti-establishment "Republican" and to the fact that he could fill seats at ratings-generating rallies by making speeches that consisted of telling acolytes exactly what they wanted to hear and making promises that were impossible to keep.

I also think that the press was afraid in 2008 of appearing to be even latently racist, whereas in in 2008 and 2016 there was little correlative awareness of sexism, be it latent or overt.

We kept hearing that the Democrat was a "flawed" candidate. The fact that only one candidate has been held to the standard of "perfection" is the embodiment of the double standard.

[ehrnst]

138. They were, statistically speaking, neck and neck. (nt)

[GaryCnf]

140. The qualifier "statistically speaking" obscures a greater truth

"Statistically speaking" then-Senator Clinton and President Obama were indeed "neck and neck" IF you are speaking about their respective number of pledged delegates or their respective misleading (because it radically undercounts voters in caucus states) number of "popular votes."

Both you and I know, even when candidates AREN'T "neck and neck," even when they are just relatively close in those two categories, who becomes are nominee is not determined by pledged delegates. It is determined by that group of political professionals (as defined by criteria upon which reasonable minds could differ) called "super-delegates." I recognize that "super-delegates" has, for some, become a dirty word, but the fact of the matter is that there is something to be said for the idea that our nominee shouldn't just be the most popular person running in the Democratic primary, it should be the person who can win in the general election. (I can hear even now many of my fellow Sanders supporters gnashing their teeth over the gentle click, click, click of my keyboard).

Considering those super-delegates, then-Senator Clinton had no more of a chance to win the 2008 Democratic nomination than Senator Sanders had of winning the 2016 Democratic nomination. I know it hurts to admit it, because it hurts me to admit the same thing now, but the fact is that the people who live, breathe, and finance this party decided in 2008 that Barrack Obama was a far stronger candidate that Hillary Clinton.

We can debate until the sun drops below the horizon whether they were correct in 2008 or any other year, but the fact is that the 2008 primary was not "close."

[ehrnst]

141. "radically undercounts votes in caucus states"

Careful about saying that around here.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

[GaryCnf]

142. Good point

In the back of my mind I kept hearing a voice saying "don't say it, don't say it."

In any event, it remains that super delegates chose the nominee in 2008 just like they choose the nominee any time the pledged delegate count is anywhere near close. Because I live in a world where winning is everything and personal preference has to come second, I am more than willing to live with that.

[David__77]

7. I voted for Obama in 2008 primary, in part, because I thought Clinton ran a despicable campaign.

The Rev. Wright stuff, the commercials implying Obama was denigrating others’ religion, the “3 AM” bullshit - I found it disgusting.

Of the candidates in 2008, I think Clinton could have managed to lose against McCain. I certainly thought so then. And I thought Clinton would be disastrous for the Democrats in 2016 should she get the nomination.

Sexism was a factor in 2008 and 2016. I think that Obama’s “periodically down” comment likely played to such prejudices. I think some were uncomfortable with the idea of Clinton as president, simply because she was a woman. I also think there were some who were uncomfortable with the idea of Palin being Vice President, simply because she was a woman.

[dsc]

9. on the subjects of despicable campaigns

McClurkin, remember him

[CousinIT]

10. Yea. About that. . . When my brother told me he was voting for Trump...

....because: "I'm not going to vote for no feminism"

That pretty much sealed that fact for me.

I reamed him a new one via email for that shit. He screwed the country and he fucked up MY finances for years (if the GOP terrorist regime's tax plan goes through and it likely will) - causing me to be unable to save as much for retirement. HE is already retired so he doesn't give a shit.

He thinks I owe HIM an apology.

I. DIDN'T. VOTE. FOR. TRUMP. - HE. DID.

AFAIC, HE owes ME an apology. AND $36,000 - $40,000 for all the money I'm set to lose now over the next 10 years by having to pay more taxes.

I have now spoken to him once since the election and since my ass-ripping email. It was about a matter unrelated - some family stuff.

I did NOT apologize to HIM.

I. WILL. NOT. apologize to HIM.

HE owes his entire country, especially the women, and particularly his own family - many who will be hurt by HIS vote - an apology. NOT the other way around.

He REFUSED to vote for Clinton because she didn't have a penis to keep her brain in. Nevermind that he HAD been a Democrat all his life. Nevermind that SHE was the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE in the history of this country and would have made a DAMN fine President.

But --- No penis = NO vote. That was my brother's attitude.

So yea. Fuck him up the ass backwards with a cactus every day for the next 150 years.

I do NOT accept this. And I NEVER will apologize for HIS grave mistake.

[mcar]

13. Their reporting influenced how others reported

The media needs to admit that sexism runs deep in their industry.

[cwydro]

15. Yep.

Spot on.

[meadowlander]

19. Yes, as long as we can also admit that it wasn't the only problem.

Any female candidate has and will face a litany of bullshit.

There are better female candidates and better candidates overall than Hilary Clinton.

Running a campaign where a key message is "Vote for me, I'm female" or "Stop being so mean to me because I'm a female" is not a winning strategy. Even if it's true, it's never going to resonate.

What 2016 taught us was that apparently the bar for female presidential candidates is set at over 10,000 times better than the opponent as opposed to the 100 times better that usually applies to women trying to break into a new field.

Also that they are desperate and willing to commit treason to hold onto the judicial branch and squeeze every last drop of non-renewable energy out of the planet before taking a hit to their wallet from climate change.

So we can:
1. Find a female candidate who is 10,001 times better than Trump and is effective at messaging
2. Address the systematic dismantling of our democratic processes
3. Stop people from being sexist

For some reason 1 and 2 seem more doable than 3.

[TheFrenchRazor]

24. well, just accepting sexism isn't part of my game plan, that's for sure. nt

[meadowlander]

36. I don't accept it.

I'm being realistic about the probability of eradicating it in the next three years given the pace of progress in combatting it for the last 130.

[BainsBane]

90. You don't accept it?

Yet your entire description of Clinton revolves around it. You refused to inform yourself on her policy positions and decided that all that mattered was that she was a woman. You assumed that was the basis of her campaign because that was all you thought about. This despite the fact she had a detailed slate of policy proposals she talked about in every single stump speech. That's on you, not Clinton. And it is the opposite of working to eradicate sexism.

It won't be eradicated as long as people decide that women candidates aren't even worth listening to or informing themselves about, which is what your post demonstrates.

[lunamagica]

92. + a million!

[lapucelle]

93. The media was reluctant to cover HRC campaign events live because

they were mostly small and medium-sized events focusing on policy and platform. That stuff is so boring! I have very little patience with people who seem to think, "If I didn't see it on the tee-vee, it didn't happen."

Many of the same people never even bothered to read the 2016 Democratic platform or examine the GE candidate's record for policy positions, legislative and executive branch achievement and accomplishment.

Instead, we were reminded that the Democratic candidate was "flawed" because, for one and only one candidate in the history of presidential elections, the standard was "perfection".

"Flawed" is code for "female".

[meadowlander]

109. Cool your jets. I voted for her and I know it wasn't her only message.

What I said in my original post was that it isn't a winning message for 2018 or 2020. It doesn't resonate, sad but true.

I'm not interested in rehashing 2016 or, god help us, the 2008 primary. What I'm saying is yes, sexism exists. Yes, it sucks. We're not going to get rid of it by next year. Let's focus on what we can do to win 2018.

[lunamagica]

81. If you think that Hillary's message was "Vote for me, I'm female" you were obviously not paying

attention. It;s one of the most ridiculous things I;ve ever read

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/



09CLINTONweb1-superJumbo

Since launching her campaign last April, Hillary Clinton has outlined a number of major platform points in a series of speeches. Now that it it is clear the general election will be Clinton versus Republican Donald Trump, it is important that Clinton continue to deliver substantive speeches and combat a Trump platform that seems to offer no substance or foundation. Clinton’s platform is built on a career of public service and an understanding of domestic and foreign policies. While not everyone may agree with points of her platform, taken as a whole it is clear that she has put together a solid plan to more the country forward and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to live up to their full potential.

When Clinton has introduced a major platform topic, we add it to the Platform category of the website. Looking through Clinton’s speeches and policy proposals, a clear plan emerges. From Clinton’s kickoff rally in June 2015 to the announcement of the proposed cap on child care costs and expanded early childhood education earlier this month, a list of Clinton’s platform speech topics and announcement dates are below:

June 13 – “Four Fights” of Campaign
July 13 – Economic Agenda
July 27 – Climate Change
July 31 – Cuban Embargo
August 10 – College Affordability
August 18 – Drilling in the Arctic
August 26 – Agriculture
September 1 – Substance Abuse
September 8 – Campaign Finance Reform
September 9 – Nuclear Agreement with Iran
September 14 – Sexual Assault
September 22 – Prescription Drugs
September 23 – Clean Energy
October 5 – Gun Control
October 7 – Trans-Pacific Partnership
October 8 – Wall Street
November 4 – US – Israeli Relations
November 10 – Department of Veterans Affairs
November 12 – Coal Communities
November 19 – ISIS and Global Terrorism
November 20 – Middle-Class Taxes
November 22 – Caregiver Tax Credits
November 29 – Infrastructure
December 8 – Manufacturing (Part 1)
December 15 – Immigration Reform
December 15 – Anti-Terrorism
December 16 – Buffett Rule
December 20 – LGBT Rights
December 22 – Alzheimer’s Disease
January 5 – Autism
January 11 – Fair Share Surcharge
February 12 – “Breaking Every Barrier Agenda”
March 4 – Jobs
March 23 – Counterterrorism
April 1 – Manufacturing (Part 2)
April 13 – Department of Immigrant Affairs
April 13 – Environmental and Climate Justice
May 10 – Improved Child Care and Early Childhood Education
May 25 – Infrastructure Revitalization in First 100 Days
May 31 – Plan to Assist Military Families
June 2 – Foreign Policy
June 13 – Reduction of Gun Violence
June 24 – Immigration Reform
June 25 – Democratic National Committee Platform
June 28 – Empowering Young People to be Entrepreneurs
June 29 – Initiative on Technology and Innovation
July 6 – Debt-Free College
July 7 – Protections for Small Businesses
July 9 – Universal Health Care

https://hillaryspeeches.com/2016/07/09/read-hillary-clintons-broad-presidential-platform/

[Mediumsizedhand]

84. This is simply the lazy, non thinking, non factual attack so often used on Clinton that can in no

way be backed up and is continually allowed.

[lunamagica]

88. I know. It's baffling how someone can post such blanket, absurd, untrue statements and get away

with it.

[meadowlander]

108. I didn't say it was her only message, or even that it was her message at all.

I said it's not a message that resonates and can't be relied on to win elections in 2018 or 2020. I.e. yes there was sexism. Pointing it out isn't enough to win elections.

[BainsBane]

89. That's one way to advertise that you never informed yourself

On the issues the Democratic nominee ran on, and quite another to advertise it a year later. Those positions are archived on her site. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ Those who know how to capture caches pages could find the site as it existed during the campaign. I linked to it multiple times during the election and since, and it is uncanny how many are invested in refusing to inform themselves on those positions so that they can continue to promote false narratives, which is precisely what your post does. Meanwhile, we see people demand the party adopt progressive policies that were part of Clinton's campaign platform.

Clinton ran on jobs, criminal justice reform, the environment, gun control, reform of K-12, publicly funded higher-education, and offered many other policy proposals, far more detailed that her opponents. Yet you manged to remain willfully uninformed on all of that. You clearly never bothered to read her website or listen to her campaign speeches. Perhaps your entire exposure to her issue positions was limited to the 26 minutes of television coverage they received during the campaign. That didn't change the fact she talked about them continually. You appear to have filtered everything through the lens that she was a woman and you needed to know nothing more. Yet you proclaim absolute knowledge of a campaign's positions that you never bothered to read about.

Democracy is not threatened by a woman you don't like running for president. It is threatened by the willful ignorance of citizens who treat rumor and internet meme as fact and ignore evidence. That is what insures that they make poor political choices, and it is that which leads them to vote in ways that give rise to authoritarianism. It is that abdication of civic responsibility that threatened democratic self rule.
The US is now undergoing the rapid deterioration of democratic norms and institutions and continual repetition of lies as fact. And now we see a return to one of the false narratives that helped Trump seize power. That argument was invoked by Trumpsters to place a sexual predator in office, and the result showed how women are viewed in our society, including by too many other women. It was part of the big lie that enabled the rise of fascism. We see all kinds of justifications for why Hillary wasn't acceptable, even in the midst of the worst presidency in history. I suspect that for some they are seeking to justify their collaboration with fascism.

Those who refuse to care about or inform themselves on the policies of female candidates are not going to "stop being sexist" period. Failing to inform oneself of a woman's policy proposals and then invoking the mendacious claim that her entire argument was vote for me because I'm a woman shows a refusal to consider that woman as a full human being whose platform is worthy of consideration, particularly when the claims are so easily refuted. It is much like the insults of women as "vagina voters" that women were subject to. Daring to vote for a woman for president even once meant women were voting with their vaginas because the only legitimate president is male.

Insisting that women must meet an exalted standard of perfection in order to be considered acceptable for office is part of how patriarchy is maintained. Clinton's level of experience far exceeded her predecessors.
Such a standard was held for Obama, and he met it, at least in terms of his campaigning ability and his dignified comportment in office. That is the only way a racist country could elect a black man. The fact he was president didn't vanquish racism, no more than a woman head of state banished sexism in Pakistan, the UK, or Brazil. Additionally, we have seen progressive candidates like Warren savaged with the same arguments used to defeat Clinton. And of course the language of "corporate whore," dormant since Clinton's defeat, has been resurrected against Kamala Harris. It is the language of male dominance, an effort to maintain the established social order --with whiteness and maleness at the top--above all else. That is the true establishment, far more enduring than any occupant of the White House. It has endured for millennia, and any challenge to it results in false narratives invoked to maintain inequality at all costs.

[brer cat]

106. Nothing like broadcasting that you were a willfully uninformed voter.

You might consider talking to yourself about No. 3.

[ehrnst]

113. +1000 (nt)

[ehrnst]

112. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "a huge problem" and "the only problem?"

That or you simply see it as an opening to bash Hillary...

[marylandblue]

22. I think the sexism does run deep

Last edited Sat Oct 28, 2017, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

And even if Clinton had beaten Obama in 2008, she would have lost to McCain. Because of sexism. Studies have shown how it works.

In men as well as women, any criticism of a female leader is more likely to stick to her than to a man. It's why Bhenghazi stuck to Clinton and not to Obama. It's why some people grab pussies and others are blamed for making their pussies too grabbable. It's why Hillary paid a price for Bill's infidelity.

And I don't have a vagina. I just listen to what the women in my life actually say.

[Tavarious Jackson]

25. agree with you 100% nt

[ClarendonDem]

34. I'm male

And I think HRC would call bullshit on the notion that she would have lost to McCain because of sexism. She would have been a great candidate in 2008, and would have won. She just had the misfortune of running against President Obama, the best politician of the last 20+ years.

[TheFrenchRazor]

23. it is, but some people will never admit it. nt

[lindysalsagal]

86. Absolutely.

[Mediumsizedhand]

45. Admit or not, it is a reality. Not a tough one. As the hate for Obama stemmed from bigotry,

so much of what we see stems from sexism. All that Clinton has been thru that no other politician running for Presidency has experienced is pretty damn clear. So anyone denying has to be putting forth the effort to ignore. What we see today, in 2017, in the demands on women and girls, while attacking them, and leaving them out in the cold is chilling and shameful

Damn, even obtuse Sanders admitted to the sexism.

[guillaumeb]

51. And still is a big problem. eom

[DonCoquixote]

53. how are we going to win 2018 and 2020

when some people are still mad about 2008?

[USALiberal]

59. No!!!! Not in 2008.........

I loved Obama! Young, exciting, etc.

He was a once in a lifetime candidate. Sexism had nothing to do with it.

[Honeycombe8]

134. I agree about Obama. No one could've beaten him. But sexism was involved...

to some degree, AND so was racism re Obama.

But he was charismatic, likable, good sense of humor, command of the issues. The primary and the election were his to lose. He didn't screw up and lose them.

But there IS a lot of sexism. I'm not sure it's getting better.

[Awsi Dooger]

62. Both sides took turns savaging Hillary

She was unrecognizable here in spring 2008, and reputation didn't threaten to match reality in fall 2016.

The world became a lesser place. Both times.

Obama was more personally popular than Hillary in 2008. Who cares? He also didn't have that Iraq vote from a few years earlier. Again, who cares?

Only the short term tunnel vision idiots failed to grasp that nominating Hillary in 2008 was our best strategic approach. I argued repeatedly that we were far better served establishing a woman in the White House as opposed to a black man, which could only lead to further bigotry and division. No Republican was going to succeed in that 2008 environment, not with Bush stuck in 35-40 approval rating for 3 consecutive years post-Katrina. Hillary would have cruised. She would have been seen as a strong successful woman, to the horrors of the GOP. Then we could have followed her with an unblemished Obama in a more difficult 2016 situational spot, after owning the White House for 8 years.

I'm sure Joy Reid's recent article has already been posted here. She covered the devastating basics very well, that Obama started turning off white voters very quickly after criticizing the police, and then the health care debate shoved away even more of those working class whites.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/seeds-trump-s-victory-were-sown-moment-obama-won-ncna811891

We turned 16 years into 8 years by ordering Obama before Hillary, as opposed to the other way around. No big deal. Trump...Supreme Court...

Genius handicapping

[X_Digger]

69. Oh great, let's not re-fight the 2016 primary, let's go all the way back to 2008!

[lovemydogs]

98. While an Obama supporter in 08, Sanders in 16 - I do agree sexism existed

I am a woman. I personally liked Hillary alot. I just did not like her policies. Obama was my senator and I supported him in 08. I even went to his announcement for president that cold Feb. day in Springfield.

I supported Sanders as I am a long time FDR fan and Sanders policies were pure new deal.

That said, I never had anything against Hillary and thought she was fine and would be a good President.
My son was a supporter.

But, I know sexism played a huge role. After having an african american president, the racist whites were not going let another 'other' get the office of president.
I also watch Washington Journal on Cspan and during call ins just as many women and as men were against a woman as President unless it was Palin.

[TygrBright]

102. ::Carefully reviews thread:: ::sighs:: Apparently not. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

127. My reaction as well.

It’s infuriating, pathetic and heartbreaking

[JHan]

139. Yes, and the piece by Rebecca Traister which inspires the Vox Article is spot on...

"Our National Narratives Are Still Being Shaped by Lecherous, Powerful Men"

https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/halperin-wieseltier-weinstein-powerful-lecherous-men.html