Nancy Pelosi talks to Melissa Harris-Perry about sexism in politics

You can always count on some real talk from Nancy Pelosi. This weekend she talked with Rachel Maddow Melissa Harris-Perry* about sexism in politics–something the former House Speaker knows a little something about. She argued that it’s hard to increase the number of women in Congress in a political environment driven by money, marked by bitter partisan conflict, and still struggling with underlying sexism. “The minute a woman gets tough in the debate,” Pelosi noted. “You know what people say about her.”

Yep, we sure do. And considering it may be another century before women have equal influence when it comes to campaign donations, the role of money in politics can’t be overstated either.

Partial transcript via ThinkProgress after the jump. Can anyone fill in the rest? Pretty please?

*Dear god, remember when I confused the amazing Melissa Harris-Perry with the amazing Rachel Maddow? Embarrassing.

Transcript: PELOSI: I really believe as a woman in politics, and one of my goals and a crusade I’m on is always to increase the number of women in politics. I don’t think it’s really possible as long as we’re playing on a playing field created by others where money, money, money, money is the currency of the realm where it should be ideas, ideas, ideas, and that the stridency, the harshness, they suffocate the system with money, they suppress the vote, and they poison the debate. That’s not a good formula for women because women need to have a civil conversation. The minute a woman gets tough in the debate, you know what people say about her.

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

4 Comments

  1. Posted July 3, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Pretty sure that’s the fabulous Melissa Harris-Perry and not the fabulous Rachel Maddow. /nitpick

  2. Posted July 3, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    This is Melissa Harris-Perry, not Rachel Maddow!

  3. Posted July 3, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Jeeeez, I clearly need more coffee. Thanks, you guys!

  4. Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Nobody sees a problem with the fact that politics is driven by money and donations in the first place? Really? What does that mean? It means the most affluent candidates can use their money to overshadow less affluent candidates and render them invisible through sheer presence, not so much by what their politics are.

    Money is being used as a smokescreen so the voter has a much harder time making the BEST choice for him. Dont you think some candidates might have a better chance at beating, idk, Romney if they were all given the same media exposure?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

170 queries. 0.474 seconds