And if the C.U.N.T acronym wasn't obvious enough you have the wonderful symbol as well. I bet they wish all girls kept their bush neat and in the shape of a star. Seriously - WTF?

My response? I pulled out a card and sent Hillary $25.00 more.

I got called a bitch on a mailing list this morning and pointed out that Bitch was my favorite feminist publication and that I always send them extra with my subscription.

The misogyny just rolls forth. Makes me proud to start calling myself a feminist in public once again.

Not clever. Sorry. How is it that the anti-Hillary/feminist people always come up with the same insults every time?

Actually, to the quote: are they too stupid to realize that it should read "WHO Hillary Clinton Really Is ..." instead of what, or are they deliberately reducing her from person to object by using "what" instead of "who?"

I need to get back to homework instead of playing on feministing.

Not clever. Sorry. How is it that the anti-Hillary/feminist people always come up with the same insults every time?

Actually, to the quote: are they too stupid to realize that it should read "WHO Hillary Clinton Really Is ..." instead of what, or are they deliberately reducing her from person to object by using "what" instead of "who?"

I need to get back to homework instead of playing on feministing.

Don't forget their Scottish counterparts: Citizens Organizing Outrageously Not Timid.

Aww, shit! I didn't even catch that, Dallas! Good eyes, dude!

And sorry for the double post earlier.

Profeministmale: I am pretty sure the "what" is on purpose. Obviously, their answer to the question is, "Hillary Clinton is a cunt." A cunt isn't a person, at least not in the most literal sense of the word.

Yet another over-the-top attack on Hillary that will do nothing but rally more people to her cause--even though she is no more deserving of their support.

You almost think these people want Hillary to win. My guess is that Repubs would much rather face her in the General. I just don't get it. Are people so damn sexist that they can't see that they are only helping Hillary galvanize women everywhere?

Meanwhile, Camp Clinton continues to play dog-whistle racial politics with zero consequences. Great, she benefits from the justified outraged over numerous sexist attacks, making her a sympathetic "victim." But her campaign goes on a viscious rampage against Obama. Read: "drug deal, Manchurian Muslim candidate, slum-lord, etc.

Moreover, Clinton tells blantant lies about his record on protecting a woman's right to choose:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vot_b_82842.html

I'm sickened and depressed at the prospect of her entering the White House as a result of her camp's race-baiting and blantant lies.

Please identify an organized sexist attack on Hillary coming from the Obama campaign. There is none of course, because he's not willing to stoop to the level of her and her pathetic serial woman-abusing husband.

Of course, I'm a black male, so perhaps I'm oversensitive. I dunno. I'm just depressed. Whatever...

Clinton abused women? He slept (sleeps) around, sure, but I wouldn't categorize that as abuse.

I'm really not as convinced as you are that sexist attacks help Hillary. They may help her out among women who already consider themselves actively feminist...or not, as we've seen plenty of posts about why feminists are not voting for her. What are you basing that on? And when you say it "galvanizes" women, are you including nonwhite women in that category? Surely black women would be as put off by racism as you are?

I can't speak about her campaign's talk about Obama, because I haven't been following it. Any of it. I just refuse to. None of them are going to say anything remotely interesting or unusual, and they've been blathering for months and months now.

Here are the womens' answer to that lying mailer that the Clintons dropped in NH:

Sorry, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJK3x66gaww

"They may help her out among women who already consider themselves actively feminist...or not"

I'm willing to bet that those blue collar white women that came out in droves for her, for the most part, are not "active feminists." Rather, that just women that have probably been put down by men before. You don't need to be an active feminist to have had response to what happened to Hillary. I call it the "Chris Mattews Effect."

It wasn't the Bradley effect that did Obama in, it was the Chris Mattews, Drudge, let's dance on Hillary grave crew that shifted the NH primary to her.

It would be poetic justice, but it wasn't Obama that launched the sexist attack on Hillary. While John Edwards chided her for crying, Obama didn't, instead admitting that the campaign is a grueling process that gets to all of them some time.

Nice reward he got.

Still, that Hillary Clinton exploited an issue like "choice" is unforgivable. Straight up gender division poltics against I guy with his record! Obama was the ONLY senator to work against the South Dakota ban, and the Clinton paints him as anti-woman!! Hillary didn't lift a finger in the effort. What a country.

Gimme a break.

I'm so sick of sexism. Recently it's been bothering me more and more and making me MAD AS HELL. Why can't a society, with obviously so much potential, develop beyond these juvenile and arcane ways of thinking - continual harm towards others and hatefulness, especially when it comes to race, and sex.

I was on a blog the other day and the topic came up of hateful and sexist ads and I'm not kidding there were men commenting who said everything from "women get raped because they ask for it because of the way they dress and act" to "Hillary is such a racist bitch, all she does is play the victim card and spouts lies" and all that BS about her crying when she never cried. I'm so sick of it, these people don't even care to look at the facts, they are only interested in spewing out hate toward women - worse more when you tell them what you think of their comments they use the fact that you are a women to discount every point you have! Hillary, and more and more I'm feeling all of us who stick up for women and equality are damned if we do damned if we don't! Barf Barf Barf. I'm feel like I'm going to SNAP soon.

From the filing paper seeking §527 status:

To educate the public about the importance of moral character and integrity in those who hold public office

I'm flabbergasted that an organisation that claims such a thing would have openly and brazenly emphasize having the acronym of CUNT. I'm not offended by the word itself (I quite like the word) but the manner in which it is being used - as a derogative - does offend me. It is clearly an organisation that consists of members that lack any "moral character and integrity".

Is it possible to lodge a complaint against the organisation with the IRS, FEC, or whatever agency handles this stuff on the grounds of obsenity? Or would any action by a government agency constitute a violation free speech? Not being American I have no idea how such things would be handled. I'm fairly sure (but by no means certain) that in Australia such group would be deregistered on the grounds of having an obscene acronym.

Perhaps another strategy would be to directly ask all the Republican candidates to express their opinion on such an organisation. Do they support such an obviously sexist and degrading organisation? Will they denounce it? What do they think of their fellow Republicans who are involved with it? If the candidates denounce, criticize, or otherwise condemn the organisation and the people involved, it may help to marginalise the group. If the candidates express support, don't denounce, criticize, or otherwise condemn the organisation, or refuse to comment, then they can be called out on giving their overt or tacit support to a misogynistic organisation.

shirt's annoying. But i see it the same way i see bitch magazine... unnecessary title, but i take them at face value when they explain their rationale for choosing it.

is this group's shirt any different from women who call each other this word? or more specifically, how much worse is this shirt than women who make "empowering" acronyms out of the B-word and put those on shirts (i.e., "beautiful intelligent terrific cool hottie"--seen more than a few of those... teen girls have been forced to change shirts or go home at certain high schools for wearing those.)

and while "jeff"--the purported chairman of the group is a guy, i believe there's a woman posing in it.

my larger point is this: every criticism of hilary clinton and females in power for that matter, isn't overt (or subversive) sexism; sometimes is just crass disdain for an individual nd nothing more.

why not give this "jeff", et al the same benefit of the doubt that seemingly the entire nation recently gave Kelly Tilghman--the anchor for saying tiger woods should be lynched in a back alley?

her comment has been written off uniformly by white males and females as possibly stupid and insensitive, but not malicious or racist. Something tells me that if kelly tilghman had looked more like Nick Faldo or had said anika sorenstam should be raped, the story would've gone differently, but i digress.)

in the end, just maybe this "c" t-shirt is a goofy stunt from a guy/group that simply doesn't like hilary as an individual for her political stances and chose an over-the-top way to express it--while putting a little money in their pockets at the same time.

is that wrong? probably. sexist? hardly.

h.williams, really?

So, they don't like Hillary because of her political stances, so they start an anti-Hillary club with the name C.U.N.T, make a shirt with a stylized vagina on it, and I'm *not* supposed to think it's sexist?

Right.

h.williams,

Huh?

Is the campaign sexist? Yes, it is. Notice that it is a political advocacy group. It's aim is "To educate the public about the importance of moral character and integrity in those who hold public office", yet the groups acronym refers to female genitalia, uses such reference in a derogatory manner, and is directed at a sole individual, a woman.

Go to the referenced website. Check it out. If this really is not sexist, then other politicians, male and female, would be included in their campaign.

Nice reward he got.

Wait, Obama deserves a cookie for the herculean task of not making a sexist comment?

Robbie, you're assuming that the only reason women in New Hampshire would vote for Hillary is the anti-feminist campaigning of the right wing. Really? Because last I checked, the right-wing media has been making sexist statements for years, and their candidates haven't really had a problem getting elected. Why do you assume that women in NH hadn't planned to vote for Hillary before? Is it really so wildly unlikely that they might have preferred her as a candidate even prior to the Iowa primary? Why would we expect New Hampshire voters to have the same preferences as Iowans? You talk like Obama was somehow owed or had every right to expect a victory in NH just because he won in Iowa. But he and Hillary have been neck and neck all along. I see no reason to assume that support for Hillary is the result of media sexism. You can keep restating that it is, but that's not actual evidence.

"Clinton abused women? He slept (sleeps) around, sure, but I wouldn't categorize that as abuse."

The woman who would become senator took part in a smear campaign to "destroy" Gennifer Flowers, with whom the former governor had an affair, and lied about it.

Then there is Paula Jones who accused the President of propositioning her with his erect penis out when he was governor, after being taken to his room, and others appeared who claimed they could tell similar stories (which I have never heard the specifics of). He claimed that he was immune to prosecution as President. Lame.

Then is Monica Lewinsky. She was of age of consent, but come on. The President of the United States and an intern. Exploitation even if she pursued it, no? Then lying about it, in effect calling her a liar to, as she said, "completely desecrate my character."

Bill Clinton, as an elected official and married man, felt he was entitled to the women of his choosing (going so far as using security to take women to his room while governor), and not face the consequences of his actions, to even be judged by the public, lying and having others like his wife try to sweep things under the rug. He is fortunate he was considered by many to be a good President, for 70% of people polled to be willing to overlook his conduct instead of impeaching him.

Meh on Gennifer Flowers. As I recall, she went public first, and tried to tank his career--of course he tried to smear her. He didn't abuse her; he had an affair with her and then tried to cover it up. Big deal. A middle-aged married man who has affairs? He can take a number.

Paula Jones I remember too. I also remember her cozying up to the right wing and deliberately skipping out on meetings with NOW and other organizations concerned with sexual harrassment. The sum total of her story was creepy and nasty and definitely sexual harrassment in my book--but then she said no, and left the room...and that was the end of it. He didn't follow her, he didn't touch her, he didn't get her fired. Harrassment, sure. But abuse? I don't think so.

Monica Lewinsky? No. I reject that one out of hand. She was 21. Grown women are entitled to make their own sexual decisions. I feel strongly that bosses should not sleep with people in their employ, but it's hardly uncommon, and when it's mutual, despite the fact that I think it is a terrible idea, it is not illegal, or even harrassment. Clinton didn't abuse Lewinsky. He had an affair with her. Sex itself is not damaging. And then, shockingly, a middle-aged married man who had an affair with a woman his daughter's age lied about it and behaved like a cad. Gee. That's...completely normal. Again, not abusive, and I say this as someone who has been in that situation. Jerky, definitely. But abuse? Hardly.

She LIED about Obama's choice record to make him appear anti-woman, when he's been more of a champion than her on the issue. There is no dispute about this.

Those lying fliers went about two days before the NH primary and they went out in Nevada too. If she was serious about choice, she wouldn't play politics with the issue and then duck it like she did with the Dakota ban.

Meanwhile, her campaign plays the race card against Obama and then blames him for playing the race card--all in attempt to paint him as the "black" candidate.

Please explain to me why any Democrat should be gratified with her and Bill back in the White House?

I know, because I, as a black guy (or woman) don't matter. Having a (white) woman in the White House--and I know this isn't exactly a Pro-Clinton site--is ok even if you're willing to play racial politics and lie to get there. Well, while others are celebrating the glass ceiling being broken by HRC, I'll sit back and realize that she got there by walking all over people like me.

I wish I could celebrate her victory.

All valid points, none of which I was disputing, if you recall. I certainly didn't claim that black voters didn't matter, or that you, or anybody else, should vote for Hillary if you don't want to. I was arguing with you over your assumption that it was sexist coverage that won her the NH primary and your implication that for some reason Obama was owed a victory in NH.

I must say, though, that while racist campaigning is disgusting, I'm hardly shocked at the news that she lied about an opponent's voting record. Haven't you ever seen an American election before? That's what they do; they lie.

You don't have to like Hillary Clinton as a candidate to be a feminist. The point here is, I think, that the group C.U.N.T. is not criticizing her policy with it's "catchy" name.

If you don't like her record or her politics, fine. Don't vote for her... plenty of feminists aren't. But don't refuse to see the sexism here.

okay for all those who criticized my comments without reading them thoroughly. The fact that i knew that "Jeff" was listed as chairman of Citizens United... and that I referenced the woman posing in the shirt, should tell you that I actually went to the site to read it.

secondly i find it interesting that you ignored not only the parallels i raised of women who embrace similarly offensive words such as the C-word and the B-word, but pouncing on one guy for sexism. Does anyone know who's in Citizens United? What if there are women in the group?

Also, if you look at the site and the name of the group--it's Citizens United Not Timid. There's a general assessment that you can't criticize Hilary Clinton because all criticism of her is either sexist or myopic. But saying that your group is "Not Timid" says that you're willing to criticize someone without fear of being called names such as bigoted or sexist.

Again, the acronym could possibly be a co-option of the slur to highlight that sincere, genuine disdain for an individual female could quite possibly have nothing to do with sexism, but actually said individual's behavior, record, etc.

but the possibility for this isn't even allowed. not here, and not in any other arena where i've seen this t-shirt image posted.

but if we want to talk "sexism", the most sexist act i've seen in weeks is the stunning silence from women pundits in regard to Kelly Tilghman, a well-known white female sports commentator joking that Woods should be lynched in a back alley.

Not one feminist blog, not one feminist writer, not one female in the media has stood up and said how biased and bigoted that was. But you can best believe if a male commentator had said Anika Sorenstam--the most popular female golfer i can name--is so dominant that "she should be raped" before a tourney just to give her competitors a fighting chance (the same context Tilghman claimed to have intended her lynch tiger observation), feminists from coast to coast would be demanding that male commentator's head on a stick.

but long as there's a situation where a white woman can come off as a victims, we'll go for the most obvious and easiest opportunities to knee-jerk rant about it.

what if, sometimes we're actually wrong?

you ignored not only the parallels i raised of women who embrace similarly offensive words such as the C-word and the B-word, but pouncing on one guy for sexism. Does anyone know who's in Citizens United? What if there are women in the group?

Because that parallel doesn't work. The publishers of Bitch are reclaiming that word reference to themselves, just as gay men and women use "queer." Whether or not there are women in this pseudo-group is irrelevant. It would only be like the magazine's use of "bitch" if they were using "cunt" to refer to themselves. Since the entire purpose of this group is to attack Hillary, we can pretty much assume that the title is directed at her, and meant as an insult. The use is entirely different.

but if we want to talk "sexism", the most sexist act i've seen in weeks is the stunning silence from women pundits in regard to Kelly Tilghman, a well-known white female sports commentator joking that Woods should be lynched in a back alley.

That's not sexism; it's racism. And quite appalling. You don't note, however, whether or not male pundits have said anything. If not, it's just general pundit silence about racism, and there's nothing sexist about it. I haven't seen any mention of it in the NYT or on the Daily Show or any other news sources I flip through, so it seems more like a general media silence than specifically a female pundit one.

There's a general assessment that you can't criticize Hilary Clinton because all criticism of her is either sexist or myopic....the acronym could possibly be a co-option of the slur to highlight that sincere, genuine disdain for an individual female could quite possibly have nothing to do with sexism, but actually said individual's behavior, record, etc.

How on earth would that work? Calling a woman a cunt is a way of signalling that they're not attacking her for her gender? That's some serious willful mental contorting you're doing there. And where is this "assessment" that you can't criticize Hillary? Take a quick pass through the major feminist and liberal/left websites; all of them regularly criticize Hillary as a candidate.

But yeah, how fucking brave. Calling a woman a cunt is such a daring act.

Oh my god, h.williams.
The image is of a woman's "triangle" at the meeting of her thighs.
The acronym is CUNT.
The message is clear; it's the same message inherent in ALL these attacks on Clinton, which have nothing to do with her politics: "She's a woman!"

They are basically reminding the public that she's got a vagina. Calling her a bitch - another way of doing it. Calling her "shrill" - yep. Using the word "cunt" as your acronym - again. Hand-wringing over her non-existant menstrual cycle - YES.
What it all boils down to is this: she hasn't got balls.
They invoke images of female bodies. They freak out when she gets choked up.
What they don't do is mention her oh-so-horrible POLICIES or her awful RECORD. No. It's all coded (often not so subtle) warnings that GASP! she's a woman.

I'm pretty alarmed and disappointed at the possibility that the Clinton campaign is involved in trying to associate Obama with Islamist extremists (and depressed that it should be such an uproar that someone went to a madrassa school, which from my experience in Indonesian schools is the only place you'd ever learn anything at all).

But I think that both Clinton and Obama supporters should hope that not everything said or done by the campaign is actually attributable to the candidate.

Otherwise Clinton is both racist and anti-Muslim (we sure don't need another one of those), while Obama is a frothing bigot who believes that Christianity cures homosexuality.

For what its worth, Robbie, I'm not convinced by your argument that the attacks on Clinton galvanize many women to vote for her. I just don't see the evidence of that. And even more, I've just seen a lot more blatant and hostile sexism toward Clinton than racism against Obama, and that's not because I'm not sensitive to picking up on subtle racism. I just don't see what's been said or done to Obama that compares with the Hillary Nutcracker or the endless tripe about the clothes she wears.

robbie121:

The didactic of Clinton=liar and Obama=saint doesn't really stand up. In fact, here is a blurb from Factcheck.org that exposes untruths that came quite recently from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:

Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans" including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts.

Obama falsely denied endorsing single-payer government health insurance when he first ran for the Senate, saying, "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer." But in fact he gave a speech in 2003 saying, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program."

Edwards misleadingly claimed, "I was the one who beat John McCain" in a recent CNN poll. The problem is that there is a more recent CNN poll, one that shows either Clinton or Obama beating McCain and doesn't include Edwards.

So they're all politicians. I like Obama; I think he's great on the stump. But I support Hillary because she actually says something when she speaks (not to mention the fact she has out-debated Obama just about every time I've watched a debate). I mean specific action items, specific policies and situations. Not just inspiring euphemisms. I think Obama would be a good president, but I think Hillary is much more savvy and has a better understanding of the issues and the current international situation

...the most sexist act i've seen in weeks is the stunning silence from women pundits in regard to Kelly Tilghman, a well-known white female sports commentator joking that Woods should be lynched in a back alley. Not one feminist blog, not one feminist writer, not one female in the media has stood up and said how biased and bigoted that was. - some troll

ORLY?

Reappropriate

Racism Fairy

Dumbass.

Dumbass is right. How would ignoring the Kelly Tilghman episode even register as sexist?

Shakesville covered it as well, btw.

Ah yes, Shakesville too. No no, don't thank me, dumbass - it's my pleasure.

Wow. Lorna Brett Howard, who apparently used to be the President of the Chicago chapter of NOW, has taped a pretty devastating account of why she recently switched from supporitng Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

This is HUGE!! This video is damning to Hillary.

Wow. Lorna Brett Howard, who apparently used to be the President of the Chicago chapter of NOW, has taped a pretty devastating account of why she recently switched from supporitng Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

This is HUGE!! This video is damning to Hillary.

Hillary Clinton exploits the rights of women and the trust of women for her own selfish political gain. She doesn't care if she lies to women and preys on their anxieties surrounding their basic rights, as long as it buys her some votes.

Sure, Obama is 100% choice and the whispers and the letter and mailer were all lies. But demonstrating that Obama is a strong advocate for women's rights isn't nearly as significant (because it is so obvious anyway) as the clear and unmistakable proof this provides that Hillary Clinton is quite eager to exploit other women and women's anxieties for her own political gain.

If, as a woman, you want to see Hillary Cliknton in office because you think somehow she will be good for women, consider what her behavior in the last month reveals about the depth of her commitment to women's issues. It must be very shallow indeed if she is willing to lie to female choice activists in order to induce them to sign a false letter smearing her rival.

Hillary Clinton exploits the rights of women and the trust of women for her own selfish political gain. She doesn't care if she lies to women and preys on their anxieties surrounding their basic rights, as long as it buys her some votes.

Gee, you mean Hillary is ambitious, eager for power, and relatively unscrupulous in her pursuit of it? Wow. She must be a candidate for president.

What do you think this is, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Politicians lie. They manipulate people. They do so in order to gain power. Of course they do everything they can to get votes. They're politicians. That's the job description.

I mean, what, "selfish political gain"? What other kind of political gain is there? Of course she's selfish and ambitious and plays dirty. Do you think she'd have gotten this far otherwise?

Robbie, stop being a troll. You are mistaken if you think that those of us defending Clinton against sexism are supporting her in her bid for the presidency.
How would you feel if every time you defended Obama against racism someone shouted you down and told you not to vote for a black man just 'cause you're a black man. It's insulting.

"selfish," "shallow" ... hmm, maybe these aren't the best words to be using to describe a woman when trying to convince feminists about something.

haha you think they'd come up with something better then not timid for the NT but I guess when you don't have the intellect of a feminist...or even a peanut for that matter...

My apologies. I have no right to hijack this diary.

Seriously. I'm sorry.