before. | after.

Oppressive.

  • Jun. 10th, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Hillary
Day four of this disgusting heat wave presses on, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I've been a virtual hermit this entire time. I cannot stand excessive heat and humidity. And despite blasting the AC 24/7, during the height of the heat I can't get my little ranch house cooler than 74 degrees. There are likely three reasons for this: A) poor insulation in the laundry room; B) no attic fan; and C) the big front window was the only one not upgraded by the previous owner - in fact, the living room feels 10 degrees hotter than anywhere else in the house!

Meanwhile, our front lawn looks disturbingly like the one from AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE. Even if it wasn't an oven outside, I'm seriously allergic to grass and am not supposed to mow it (seriously, the mere smell of fresh-cut grass turns my face puffy and red!). Because of Joe's odd work schedule, he can only cut the grass on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays. Last week it poured rain like a monsoon, and then by Saturday the heat wave had rolled in. Only now we're so ashamed of the lawn he's going to brave the 100+ degree heat index and take one for the team. Such the mensch, he is.

There's so much going on in my life right now that I can't/don't feel comfortable with writing about yet, but one major thing that's been on my mind is the end of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. I have this friend, Emmett, with whom I routinely argue about the election. He's an Obama man, largely because he doesn't believe in dynasty politics. Emmett, like most Obama supporters, has been calling for Clinton to officially drop out for months now. Of course, I'm guessing Emmett's way is probably more abrasive, as he likes to throw around words like "stupid" - usually in connection with some statistic I've cited - and has made the claim that Obama could choose an inanimate object as his running mate and still clean the floor with McCain. In fact, sometimes he's so abrasive that I end our "friendly" debates with expletives and then ask Joe, "Why do I even bother?" (Apparenly I am a sadist, but that's another post entirely.)

Anyway, I bring up Emmett because I now owe him a homemade baked good, as I was convinced that Obama wouldn't end up the democratic nominee. I really thought that Clinton would pull it out in the end.

Then again, I hadn't counted on the misogynistic news coverage, or the blatant favoratism of Howard Dean, or - most troubling - this pervasive feeling that if you're not for Obama, you must be a racist. There was even this story on one of the news channels - a reporter had gone into a predominantly black high school to see the teens' reaction to the possibility that there could be a black president, and one of the kids said, "You're not allowed to be for Hillary here. If you're for Hillary, they call you a racist." That's so insulting on so many different levels. For one thing, it reduces Obama's entire candidacy to the color of his skin. For another, it underscores this other erroneous belief that Clinton's supporters are only voting for her because she's a woman.

I know this has been hashed and rehashed a thousand times, and I doubt I'm adding anything new to the conversation, so I'll leave it at that.

The thing that got me was Hillary's "exit" speech on Saturday and the media's reaction to it. (If you haven't taken the time to watch it, at least read a transcript, which can be found here.) So I'm watching the speech with Joe, and I'm getting very emotional and teary eyed, and I'm shocked when a vocal throng of her supporters boos at her request to help elect Obama, and it's all very overwhelming and surreal and then she says these words:

Now, on a personal note, when I was asked what it means to be a woman running for president, I always gave the same answer, that I was proud to be running as a woman, but I was running because I thought I'd be the best president. But...

But I am a woman and, like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us.

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows.

To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect.

Let us ... Let us resolve and work toward achieving very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits, and there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country.

You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories ... unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States. And that is truly remarkable, my friends.

To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.

Always aim high, work hard and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on.

As we gather here today in this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.

Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it ... and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.


And by this time, I'm pretty much sobbing, and Joe's looking at me like I've lost my mind. Did I support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman? No, I supported her because I believed she was the best person for the job. But does it break my heart to see the first viable woman presidential candidate step down? God, does it ever. And if the situation was reversed - if on Saturday we'd watched the first viable African American presidential candidate step down - I believe there would be a lot more public mourning, and a lot more time and press coverage memorializing the loss.

Instead, most of the newspaper reports about Clinton's speech and the suspension of her campaign began with phrases like "finally ended her desperate bid." Even this piece by the New York Times seemed biased and unnecessarily harsh. What's worse is the lack of respect that some hardcore Obama supporters are displaying in the wake of her concession. Where's the graciousness in that? I haven't even bothered to check in with Emmett, bracing myself for the kind of gloating that makes me wonder why we're friends to begin with.

I'm a Democrat, and come November, it is likely that I will be casting my vote for Barack Obama. But I'll do so with a heavy heart, because I do not believe the best candidate got the nomination. I believe that the most charming, most inspiring, most likeable candidate got the nomination, and for the sake of our country I hope he can parlay that into a win.

But if he can't - if John McCain takes the White House - I know who's got my vote in 2012.

Tags:

Comments

[info]jessicaburkhart wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2008 11:42 pm (UTC)
I actually cried with she quit. I did. It was a tough day. I will, however, fully support Obama now that we don't have a choice. I have fingers crossed that there will be another chance for Senator Clinton.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:35 pm (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'll end up doing the same, because of the reasons I stated before. But that whole lack of choice thing - it's like how I supported Kerry because he wasn't Bush. That was the main thing Kerry had going for him: NOT BUSH. With McCain, it's a little bit more muddied, because I actually *liked* McCain before this election season. He is a more centrist Republican, but since winning the nomination he's gone deeper into the dark side, and now I'm thinking NO NO NO.

I'm still not convinced Obama can win this thing, though I do think his choice in VP is going to play a major part in whether or not we take back the White House.
[info]jessicaburkhart wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 08:17 pm (UTC)
Ah, see, I was never a McCain fan. Ever.

I also am not convinced Obama can win key states. He NEEDS FL and because of the whole mess, he missed us completely. I'd love to have him come so I can listen to him.

Do you think he'll pick Clinton as his VP? I don't. I'd love to see it, I really would. But I doubt it.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2008 05:32 am (UTC)
I don't think he *can.* He built his campaign by painting her as the old guard and himself as the agent of change. But, I also have doubts as to his ability to win the election without her. Who knows?
[info]tinaya wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 01:08 am (UTC)
I was upset too. The media has just killed me for months-- the way they trashed her over and over and over was just unbelievable. So sad. I'm not sure if it was because she is a woman or because her last name is Clinton. Just terrible.
[info]newport2newport wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 02:45 am (UTC)
Let me just add my amen to all you've said. I've actually had to retreat awhile from news and election-oriented conversations -- me, the outgoing, political wonk. It's all been so convoluted and ugly...and seemingly orchestrated for a preordained outcome. I've been wondering what happened to our country, and now I'm baffled about what's become of my political party.

I can't imagine myself voting Republican in the fall, and especially not for McCain, but I grieve all that we lost when Clinton exited the stage. :(
[info]tinaya wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:07 am (UTC)
I agree-- it did all seem orchestrated for a preordained outcome like you said.

I think a lot of the older women who were for Clinton may go towards McCain. I know my mom and aunts are FURIOUS with how horrible they were being to Hillary and all said they are voting McCain now. And isn't there an organized group (in Ohio or something??) all about trying to get Clinton supporters to go for McCain? We'll see what actually happens though when the time comes to vote.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:40 pm (UTC)
There's a "Democrats for McCain" organized movement - a lot of voters who are, like me, horrified by how Clinton supporters have been characterized as uneducated racists. I'm sure the movement was started by Republicans hoping to capitalize on the brutal media coverage, but I wouldn't be surprised to see their ranks swell over the coming months.

And this is the line that scares me, because if the second half of the primary season proved anything it's that Obama can't close those swing voters the way Clinton did. I bet we'll be hearing a lot more about the electability argument come November, when Obama's struggling for numbers.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)
I can't see myself voting Republican either, though the bratty side of me WANTS to, at the very least wants to write in Clinton's name.

BTW - "It's all been so convoluted and ugly...and seemingly orchestrated for a preordained outcome" - this is what gets me the most. The final straw was the division of the Michigan delegates, confirmed by an e-mail from the DNC sent TWO DAYS after Obama clinched the nomination informing everyone that they'd no longer be accepting donations from lobbyists and interest groups. The party as a whole adopting Obama's M.O. And it's not that I disagree with the policy - I just felt disgusted by when/how it was announced, and how it just showed that this is what Dean wanted all along.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2008 12:39 pm (UTC)
The party as a whole adopting Obama's M.O.

Seeing as he's the elected leader of the party, I don't really understand the problem with this.
[info]brainysmurf wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 06:30 am (UTC)
*sigh*

You just put my thoughts into better words than I ever could.

:(
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:32 pm (UTC)
That's seriously the best compliment ever. :)
[info]http://getopenid.com/ck wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 01:40 pm (UTC)
I know where you're coming from - I, too, have the grass (and ragweed, goldenrod and several varieties of trees) allergies and no tolerance for heat. Fun times ahead!

I was so saddened by all the Clinton bashing - not the criticism of her record or ideas but by how much of the criticism seemed to be streaked with resentment and open hostility at the idea that a woman could dare to pursue this highest office.

When a female politician up here wrote about the sexism Clinton faced throughout her campaign in the Toronto Star recently she received tons of sexist replies calling her all kinds of names designed to put her in her place (which is presumably ironing or making sandwiches).

I think anti-sexism efforts like this one at the Women's Media Center

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

are crucial for women's future success in politics (and many other areas of public life).

I really hope the majority of people who were going to vote for Clinton support Obama now though. Voting for McCain out of spite will only bring down a bigger anti-choice storm on American women's heads. (http://www.doublespeakshow.com/2008/06/05/when-it-comes-to-womens-health-john-mccain-is-just-plain-out-of-touch/).

He's a scary, scary guy.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2008 03:51 pm (UTC)
I think it will be split. I know a lot of working class Americans who were for Hillary but do not trust Obama, and are more likely to go with McCain. Not because they are racist, but because they don't believe in voting with someone with such a lack of experience.

But values voters - and yes, there are liberals who vote values! - will most likely go with Obama because his ideals fall more in line with their values. Just as there are other values voters who align with the Republican party and will vote McCain regardless.

I think I would feel better if more attention had been paid to the blatant sexism. I mean, the comments about her clothing and her hair and how her voice was grating and reminded men of their shrewish wives, etc., etc. All of it was so disgusting. But when even Obama tells Clinton she's "likeable enough," it perpetuates this feeling that it's okay to bash the woman, though it most certainly would NOT have been acceptable to bash the African American.

There are still a lot of ceilings we need to smash, that's for sure.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2008 12:25 am (UTC)
Hoping for pie, anyway.
I would hope that when all is said and done, Hillary's supporters come around to the logical conclusion -- It's not that people objected to voting for a woman, it's that they objected voting for Hillary Clinton.

I don't know of anyone that said they wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman. I've heard plenty of reasons not to vote for her:

Her tendency to blame the media for, well, whatever it is this week. Lying about sniper fire in Bosnia. Pushing a healthcare agenda that not only didn't succeed, but pushing on it so hard (and in a certain way) that made it easy for the opposition to activate their base and destroy it. Comments like 'Hard-working americans, white americans.' A deep-seated objection to the Executive Branch being controlled by the same two families for two decades. Clinton Fatigue. The really weird gas-tax relief thing.

None of these things have anything to do with her vagina.

Still, she was a rockstar of the Democratic Party, and she was the presumptive nominee for a long, long time -- Not just in the media but in the general zeitgeist. This primary was hard. Obama had the fight of his life on his hands, and he won. It's not like he was in a knock-down drag-out fight with Kucinich or something; He fought Hillary Clinton.

Why does so much of the static on this come down to charges of sexism and bigotry? Even within the Democrats, which tend to be well, liberal -- To date, I have never seen anyone jump up and say, 'You know, since Hillary and Obama have similar positions on just about everything, I'm going to vote for Obama because he's likely packing a thundercock down there.'

I think that pushing the sexism and bigotry angle doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Hillary's message failed to connect with a lot of people, and I don't think that has a lot to do with her gender.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2008 05:41 am (UTC)
Only if it's humble pie ....
"It's not that people objected to voting for a woman, it's that they objected voting for Hillary Clinton." <-- this is not what I said. I said that I personally objected to the blatant sexism in the media's coverage of her campaign. The Daily Show ran a montage the other night of how many pundits complained that men hear Hillary Clinton's voice and think of their wives carping at them to take out the garbage. And that's just ONE example.

"Hillary's message failed to connect with a lot of people, and I don't think that has a lot to do with her gender." <-- you and I will NEVER agree on this. You keep acting like Obama has some mandate from the people. He won, but not by a lot, and even you admitted that a lot of his early wins were the result of a mismanaged campaign by Clinton's staff. This was a squeaker, and there are so many "what if?" variables that could've meant a completely different outcome (and before you ask, I don't have the time/patience to list them all, but I will say that many of the objections raised in my post could've all played a major part).

ALSO: If you go back and read my post, I never once said that I thought Hillary lost because she is a woman. NOT ONCE. What I did say was that I thought the news coverage affected the outcome. That Howard Dean's clear preference for Obama affected the outcome. That this weird "cool kid" factor Obama supporters perpetuate affected the outcome.

But mostly I was objecting to the coverage of her exit speech, and the blatant sexism inherent even in that. Also making the point taht had she been the victor, and Obama the #2, media coverage would've been far different. And there would've been NO question as to her adding him to the ticket, because not doing so would've painted her as a racist of the highest order.

To pretend like race and sex didn't have anything to do with this primary season is ignorant, plain and simple.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2008 12:38 pm (UTC)
Re: Only if it's humble pie ....
I said that I personally objected to the blatant sexism in the media's coverage of her campaign.

If you really want to take the media to task for their coverage of the campaign, sexism is probably near the bottom of any reasonable list. It had been mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination for at least two months prior to the end, and anyone with a calculator had figured this out.

What I did say was that I thought the news coverage affected the outcome.

Any politician's job is to control the media narrative, and
she failed to do so. There are any number of factors that control the outcome in elections, and media has been at the top of that list in US politics since time immemorial.

That this weird "cool kid" factor Obama supporters perpetuate affected the outcome.

It's not weird; It's right out of Bill Clinton's 1992 playbook.
[info]http://getopenid.com/ck wrote:
Jun. 13th, 2008 12:47 pm (UTC)
It's hard to measure precisely how much of an effect sexism had on Clinton's campaign but the Facebook group "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and make me a sandwich" had nearly 40,000 members and, as Lara pointed out, so much of the media coverage of her campaign had a stridently anti-woman tone to it. At the very least, these things make it impossible to deny that the U.S. has trouble dealing with the idea of a woman in power.

A non-partisan site has been set up to monitor how the media is portraying Michelle Obama (http://michelleobamawatch.com/) and you can already see the intersection of racism and sexism in the media coverage.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 13th, 2008 09:55 pm (UTC)
At the very least, these things make it impossible to deny that the U.S. has trouble dealing with the idea of a woman in power.

I don't grant this premise in a million years. I think it makes it impossible to deny that folks in the media can read polling data and will adjust their coverage to appeal to a majority.

They sell commercials during the news, after all. If the democrats are split between Hillary and Obama, and all the republicans don't like Hillary, the money is in slamming Hillary, because most people watch news sources that affirm their values, rather than challenge them.

Media coverage in this case doesn't have anything at all to do with sexism -- It has everything to do with selling ad time to the largest possible audience. Guess what? The largest possible audience doesn't like Hillary. Again, nothing at all to do with Hillary's gender.

[info]http://getopenid.com/ck wrote:
Jun. 14th, 2008 02:56 pm (UTC)
It could well be that you're so accustomed to seeing sexism in the media (and society in general) that you don't see it. Double standards are deeply ingrained.

Sexism Sells -- But We're Not Buying It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U

If you can examine the media coverage (and the openly misogynistic comments on Facebook and tons of Internet forums) and not see a problem with it, you're willingly keeping your eyes shut.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 19th, 2008 11:52 pm (UTC)
It could well be that you're so accustomed to seeing sexism in the media (and society in general) that you don't see it.

It could also be that you're simply too sensitive to it.

If you can examine the media coverage (and the openly misogynistic comments on Facebook and tons of Internet forums) and not see a problem with it, you're willingly keeping your eyes shut.

If you can't see the difference between media coverage (which is run by large publically-traded corporations bound by law to return value for shareholders) and things that people say on internet forums (who are bound by nothing except their desire to entertain themselves), then you're stacking the deck.

Neither of those venues are without their own problems, and I suspect you're confusing media with message. A television is a box with a big mouth and no ears. Content is not what you decide. Internet forums are interactive to a limited degree, but content is *still* not what you decide.

Writing for television is hard enough -- I try to work as though if people are going to sit down in front of a box with a big mouth, at least it should be saying something funny or honestly informative. I can think of at least fifty problems with television that has nothing to do with sexism. The constant, slavish devotion in attempting to sell people things that they don't need is way-higher on my list.
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 04:10 am (UTC)
Might I point out that you are also a white man?
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 12:31 pm (UTC)
Might I point out that you are also a white man?

So sexism is okay when you do it? Why are you arguing my gender, instead of the issues?
[info]zeisgeist wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 02:30 pm (UTC)
My point was that your perspective is colored by your own race/gender. Of course you're more troubled by marketing than sexism. When are you ever being discriminated against because of your sex or race?
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)
When are you ever being discriminated against because of your sex or race?

Exactly. You're saying that it's harder for me to understand sexism because I am a man. That's sexist, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Let's try to get back to the issues instead of declaring my point-of-view entirely invalid based on my gender.
[info]http://getopenid.com/ck wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 12:43 pm (UTC)
Both the mainstream media coverage on Clinton and anonymous comments on forums show a glaring amount of sexism. They're both coming from the exact same place of disrespect (and sometimes open hostility) for women. The problem goes much deeper than the mediums you're discussing. It's woven into the fabric of society and is evident in the huge amounts of domestic & sexual violence women face throughout their lives; that they make less money than men, even when in the same fields, from the moment they leave university; that it's almost impossible for them to play games online without being sexually harassed; that many men regularly get off on images of women being brutalized; and the way women are often bullied online, especially when they raise issues of sexism (http://www.alternet.org/story/50519/).

When people term Clinton shrill or complain about her being emasculating, those are clearly comments that are designed to put her in her place, remind her that she's a woman in a man's world. It's hard for me to imagine that you're being genuine when you refuse to acknowledge that such coverage of Hillary is sexist.

The fact that you write for TV in some capacity (and see other problems with it) has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing here. If you're unwilling to examine your own privilege within the system there are alot of things you won't *see* - racism, homophobia and yes, sexism. We all need to be willing to take our blinders off and show a little sensitivity to the way people unlike ourselves are being treated in the media and in real life. If we want to truly create a better society what we need is indeed more sensitivity, not less.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
Both the mainstream media coverage on Clinton and anonymous comments on forums show a glaring amount of sexism. They're both coming from the exact same place of disrespect (and sometimes open hostility) for women.

Strange to relate, I see an awful lot of disrespect (and sometimes open hostility) of conservatives, republicans, liberals, democrats, third-party leaders... The list goes on and on because any political race is a contest. It is confrontational by design. Look at some of the folks in your video that you posted earlier; These are the people that make their money by espousing overblown political opinion.

I have seen years and years of unfair political coverage. Guess what? All political coverage is unfair. I've seen political figures absolutely torn to shreds in ways that are absolutely impossible to overcome, and if you're in politics, you understand that it comes with the territory.

This ain't stickball -- Running for President of the United States is the biggest political contest in the entire known universe.

If you're unwilling to examine your own privilege within the system there are alot of things you won't *see* - racism, homophobia and yes, sexism.

You know absolutely nothing about me other than that I am a white male, and this is enough for you to claim that I have 'privilege within the system?' Ye gods.

We all need to be willing to take our blinders off and show a little sensitivity to the way people unlike ourselves are being treated in the media and in real life.

See above.
[info]http://getopenid.com/ck wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 08:52 pm (UTC)
"You know absolutely nothing about me other than that I am a white male, and this is enough for you to claim that I have privilege within the system?"

Whether you realize it or not membership does have its privileges:

Male Privilege Checklist:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

Interestingly #46 is "I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege."

White Privilege Checklist:

http://www.unh.edu/residential-life/diversity/aw_article17.pdf

That men also have a tough time in politics doesn't negate the fact that women are held to a different standard. But I can see we're not getting anywhere with this conversation so I'll just leave you with those lists.
[info]class_emm wrote:
Jun. 20th, 2008 09:00 pm (UTC)
That men also have a tough time in politics doesn't negate the fact that women are held to a different standard. But I can see we're not getting anywhere with this conversation so I'll just leave you with those lists.

Okay. I'm sorry that you're unwilling to understand a different point-of-view because you can't see beyond my gender and the color of my skin.

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow