I've banned myself from commenting on anything about the Clinton/Obama primary, but I love that puppy!

(OK, one comment--Traister's word choice of "dark and funky" is rather unfortunate)

I can understand it and that scares mes.

While young people are at the forefront with a more comprehensive (less siloed) look at social justice issues, the problem is that many of us still have a hard time seeing women's rights and reproductive rights as part of that agenda.

This is *exactly* what I'm experiencing! I cannot publicly mention Hillary Clinton without engendering enormous amounts of hate and anger. Before I've even finished saying her name, people tell me, "I can't stand her!" or "I would *never* vote for her for president!" -- and these are *Democrats*!!! One of my best male friends practically spits fire the minute I bring up Hillary or point out any of Obama's flaws. His arguments about Hillary are arguments that could be made about *any candidate* at any point in history -- she's got bad business connections, she voted the wrong way, her partner is a slimeball, etc. But, what kills me is the anger that this male friend has when he tells me these things. I can't even have a conversation with him once Hillary comes up because he's so angry!

I couldn't agree more that men AND women in the US on the liberal left are uncomfortable with the idea of a strong woman in a leadership role.

Couldn't we just import several of the 14,000 comments Traister's column itself produced?

First let me says props to Traister for a great article!

Second. I am a feminist. I'm voting Obama. BUT I totally hear where so many of these women are coming from. I think I can most identify with Michelle Goldberg because I can't see not giving this guy a chance to do the great things so many believe he can do, but I do see definite sexism going on, no matter how subtle. And Jessica I think you're totally right in that most women are afraid to call men out who seem sexist because they only *seem* that way and it would just be too hard to prove it when they already have trouble seeing from a vagina prospective.
The glassy-eyed support for Obama would be one thing, but when it's accompanied by Clinton "bitch" bashing, that pisses me off! Why aren't we all getting together to bash on McCain for all his flip-flopping?! Why aren't we bashing the actual opponent? I think it's disgusting and ridiculous that an Obama supporter would protest his primary loss by not voting at all or voting for McCain. I dare say your secular savior would not be in support of McCain if he doesn't win the nomination. Let's get real and think about the movement and not stupid sexist personal vendettas.

If we progressives really want to see change lets start putting our money where our mouths are and quick being misogynistic. I agree there are plenty of legitimate reasons for not voting for Clinton so lets stick to spouting those in political debates and stay clear of asshole-ish sexist stereotypes!

Hope Monty recovers well!

And you wonder why men are always worried about feminists cutting their balls off...

...feminist whine? dark and funky?

Jesus.

I was hanging out with a particular male friend of mine the other day. Talk turned to the election and guess what? I couldn't even say "I'm pretty much set on voting for Obama after all, but if I think Clinton has a lot going for her too and I'll be totally happy to vote for her if she makes it through the primaries" without being made to feel like even *that* was too strong a positive view to take on her. The rest of the conversation went:

Him: And *another* bad thing about Clinton is...
Me: Yes, that's bad too, but I think behind that she's...
Him: That doesn't make up for the fact that she also...
Me: Never mind.

He never said anything that I could interpret as sexist, but I'm not sure how much that means--an earlier conversation between us told him how I feel about the use of sexist rhetoric against Clinton.

I just wish that two people who plan on voting Democrat no matter what could have a conversation about the candidates that focuses on what's actually *good* about them--their platforms!--rather than just puking back up and poking through all the stupid negative trivia that the media keeps shoving down our throats.

Traister's word choices were so gentle, so tentative and understated: and yet there goes the foam all over Salon. I hope it's the death rattle of the patriarchy.

I do think next time the liberal dewdz and their followers pile their hating on a female candidate, in a future election, they'll have to dilute their venom and spittle a bit. When they say "not THIS woman," maybe they'll actually have to name a candidate they don't hate.

Honestly, I have NO problem with a woman being president. Just not Hilary. She engenders every bad feeling I've ever had towards ANY candidate, but with extra disappointment added in because I had really hoped she could run a decent campaign, and not this "Three A.M." crap. I'm not afraid of a vagina in the White House, but at this point I'd rather wait for Michelle Obama to run than help Hilary get there.

I have plenty of reasons for disliking Hillary, but I've noticed that my female friends and relatives don't share my strength of feeling on the matter. I don't know if it's sexism (on their part or on mine), media saturation, or what. But I don't pick fights about it, and I don't try to persuade people about it, apart from saying nice things about Obama. They're both better than McCain on all the issues that matter, so there's no point in starting fights, as far as I'm concerned.

It's funny, though, I have an 80 year old friend who complained to me that she really wanted to vote for Obama, but was brow beaten into voting for Hillary by a group of her peers.

And by the way, I know everyone is going to accuse me of being a misogynist and hating women in power (I'm not, I worked on both Boxer and Pelosi's campaigns), but I would not vote for Hillary in the general election because she's a Clinton.

I hated Bill Clinton and the way the disgraced the office of president, sold out the left to get elected and set the cause of national health care back 25 years. I hate the Clintons because like the Bushes, they seem to view elected office as their birthright (Chelsea in 2028 anyone?). And more than anything, as a minority male, I believe that America should about merit, not who know. Let's end these political dynasties and put someone in office that the people actually support on their own merits, either McCain or Obama would be great and push forward the cause of reform. Hillary's election would only ensure another four years of graft, firming up of the establishment and the funneling of taxpayer dollars to old-guard Clinton cronies.

Is it possible that we are seeing sexism in every Obama supporters voice, simply because we are looking for it? I'm not naive, I know sexism exists, and am sure plenty of Obama supporters (or McCain for that matter) view her gender as a factor. If you look at polls, you will also note that Hillary garners a far greater number of the white vote. I have unfortunately heard plenty of people say they would never vote for a black man. It is disgusting, equally so as to have aversions towards a woman.

I am a man who supports Obama. If Hillary gets the nod, I will campaign for her. She is not my preferred candidate, based upon legislative issues, especially her blind support for the war, for torture, and for not speaking out on these issues until she became a cnadidate for the Presidency.

There is a very sickening, poisonous relationship between Obama and Hillary supporters. This needs to be repaired or we will be dealing with John McCain and the neocon machine for another 8 years.

When an asshole speaks ill of your desired candidate, it is our part in the democracy experiment to be knowledgable, and attempt to sway them, or at least stand our ground. If someone isn't going to listen to you, then why associate with them? That's a seperate issue altogether. When acquaintances mention "Osama Obama Hussein" it sickens me. We have to speak out against their words. Explain how that simply isn't true or appropriate, and explain what sets your candidate apart from the others running. Another common theme is "America isn't ready for a (Black Man/Woman) as president." WHY?? Ask the question, make the fool feel like a bigot. What would the conditions have to be so America would be ready?? Press them for an answer.

Again, this is becoming a poisonous primary season. I sincerely hope that as Democrats (or at least those voting that way), we can pull together and take the Presidency back. This election is even more important than 2004. The nation is broken, not on the precipice as we were then. Let's get it together Dems and see a victory for us and our country (and thereby the world) in November.

I won't be at all surprised if the first women elected to be president does so as a republican rather than as a democrat.

I doubt that Hillary would run any worse among republicans than Obama, and probably better among conservatives, but I expect she would do worse among progressives regardless of her position on any progressive issues.

Is it possible that we are seeing sexism in every Obama supporters voice, simply because we are looking for it?

No.

This is just the flip side of Taylor Marsh's "you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist" argument. People are seeing sexism and racism in this campaign commentary because it's there.

"There is a very sickening, poisonous relationship between Obama and Hillary supporters. This needs to be repaired or we will be dealing with John McCain and the neocon machine for another 8 years."

Heh, passive tense. Well, the Obama supporters better getting working on those repairs, then.

My main problem with this article is that it perpetuates the myth of the "Obama cult". There are good intellectual reasons to support Obama, just as there are to support Clinton. Her repeated references to Obama supporters as "glassy eyed" is offensive. I am not brain dead, nor am I supporting Obama because my male peers have pressured me to do so.

Another reason I find this characterization so troublesome is that she also connects it to the Dean campaign of 2004. I think both campaigns were representative of a youth based grassroots movement that we should be proud of. Why does enthusiasm have to equal fanatical?

Finally, not only is this "Obama myth" idea offensive, it's not based on any fact. If you look at the polls it is the CLINTON supporters that are more likely to defect to McCain if their candidate is not the nominee.

Caitlyn-
I agree. The amount of mindless misogyny I see in the Democratic party leads me to believe the Democrats aren't as progressive in women's issues as they'd like to consider themselves to be.
I swear, every time I hear some variant of "I'd vote for a woman/just not this woman" I die a little bit inside. The words just sound so......hollow. It's hard to say why, because I know there are good, non-sexist reasons to oppose Hillary. I just can't help feeling that NO woman is ever going to be judged as up to the task of the Presidency. People will find new excuses not to vote for a woman. It feels so demoralizing, this feeling that only one gender is destined to hold the Presidency.

she really wanted to vote for Obama, but was brow beaten into voting for Hillary by a group of her peers.

This is a secret ballot. Once you get behind that curtain, it's between you and the voting machine.

"I hate the Clintons because like the Bushes, they seem to view elected office as their birthright (Chelsea in 2028 anyone?)."

Okay, first off both Hillary and Bill Clinton were way into politics and law starting at least in college. They fell in love in part b/c they had this in common, not vice versa. Chelsea, on the other hand, has no interest in being in politics (with the exception of supporting her mother this elections season). I seriously doubt she'll ever run...

"And more than anything, as a minority male, I believe that America should about merit, not who know. Let's end these political dynasties and put someone in office that the people actually support on their own merits, either McCain or Obama would be great and push forward the cause of reform. "

McCain has more merit than Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton has worked her ass off most of her life for law and political issues. Let alone, McCain would be "the cause of reform"? Please. McCain is a conservative, with very conservative positions overall. He won't "reform" any more (or less) than George W. Bush has "reformed". If that's the kind of reform you want, then *shrug* I don't know what to tell you...

And speaking on the topic of "merit" -I feel like if Obama's and Michelle's positions were switched -that is, if she was the politician and he was the corporate lawyer -people would probably be accusing her of not running on her own "merits" b/c the reason she'd be able to have a political career to begin with is b/c her spouse was bringing in the big bacon...

Which is not to say that I don't think Obama has merit... it's to say that I think it's taken for granted that wives will be supporting and helping their husbands to any extent to achieve successs, but when the situation is reversed there's a tendency to look at that spousal dependency to say that the woman is not able to achieve on her own "merit"

WheresTheBeef- "If you look at the polls it is the CLINTON supporters that are more likely to defect to McCain if their candidate is not the nominee."

Sorry, but which polls are these, exactly? Because the ones I've seen have shown no such thing.

I accept you're right to support Obama and believe that most supporters do have a legitimate reason for their support of him, but I'm getting really sick of getting the cult idea thrown in my face, too, as if I can't support Clinton for any legitimate reason because I am a feminist woman. I didn't turn off my brain the second I heard that there was a female candidate running; I spent a long time debating which to support. Among other things, as a lesbian and a woman, I felt that Clinton served my interest better. Still do.

You know, it's not just the whole idea that supporting Clinton is what old-school, stupid feminists do, either. My liberal-to-the-core roommate told me that she wouldn't vote for Clinton "because she's a bitch," and I had a classmate stomp across the room and yell at me when I made a Clinton-favourable comment in a conversation that she wasn't even involved in. She also called Clinton a bitch, among other things. Many of the other Obama supporters I know are going that route, too ("Bros Before Hos" merchandise is just the first thing that comes to mind). My concerns about Obama's dedication to women's rights comes from his own words and actions, but it is discouraging that so many supposedly progressive people are resorting to this kind of misogyny.

I hated Bill Clinton and the way the disgraced the office of president, sold out the left to get elected and set the cause of national health care back 25 years.

Because obviously Hillary Clinton is the one who got a blowjob, "sold out the left," and...hmm...who was it that proposed Hillarycare?

I hate the Clintons because like the Bushes, they seem to view elected office as their birthright (Chelsea in 2028 anyone?).

Dude. Seriously? You're seriously going to say Sen. Clinton or Pres. Clinton were bluelooded political lineage BEFORE the met and married? Do you know anything about Bill's early life whatsoever?

And more than anything, as a minority male, I believe that America should about merit, not who know. Let's end these political dynasties and put someone in office that the people actually support on their own merits, either McCain or Obama would be great and push forward the cause of reform. Hillary's election would only ensure another four years of graft, firming up of the establishment and the funneling of taxpayer dollars to old-guard Clinton cronies.

I understand being uncomfortable with one family holding such power for so long (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton* were she to win and win a second term). But to say she didn't get there on her own merit? WTF? To say she doesn't have more merit than McCain or Bush? WTF? And to say that anyone elected to president in the last gazillion years didn't get there b/c of their political connections and business connections? Willful ignorance.

Sorry: "Your," not "you're."

Best English major ever.

I swear, every time I hear some variant of "I'd vote for a woman/just not this woman" I die a little bit inside. The words just sound so......hollow. It's hard to say why

I'll tell you why. It's because any woman who gets into a position to make a serious run at the White House is going to have hands as dirty as Hillary's. It's because reasons range from not liking her voice to not liking the fact that she's a Clinton, and you can find those kinds of reasons for anybody. It's because this is the woman we have running now, and I don't see a better woman on the horizon. So if you don't like her, you don't like her, but I framing it in terms of her woman-ness does indeed ring hollow, especially when it's a man doing the framing.

One thing that I find really troubling by all of this is that we're now judging the candidates by their supporters: either "I don't want to vote Obama because of the cult of Obama-mania" or "I'm voting Hillary because of the misogyny of Obama supporters" etc, etc, etc. There are so many reasons to pick a candidate, but should the caricatures that have been promoted by the MSM's idea of his/her base be one of them?

"One thing that I find really troubling by all of this is that we're now judging the candidates by their supporters"

I agree. I don't think that should be a main reason for picking a candidate. I do think that it's a great thing to discuss though, for carrying meaning in and of itself.

I'm also tired of this idea that whether or not someone has a vagina should /not at all/ be a factor in how you evaluate the impact someone will make as a president, even (or especially) if you're a feminist...

B/c honestly? Either Clinton or Obama will pass some progressive laws, and may fail on a few... we really don't know the potential either has for passing laws we'd like. Chances are within the next decade or two after their office, we will have had another conservative president and all those laws will be rescinded again b/c the US tends to go through those damn cycles. But if we have a female president, that would mean that in the history books little girls all over the nation would learn it's possible for a woman to be president. And male and female misogynist's all over the nation would be forced to realize a woman can be powerful just like a man.

Who knows when we'll have a chance to have a serious female candidate for the presidency again... Hillary has been in a very unique position, b/c of her husband and also b/c of her own personal dedication to political issues.

I know some of you like Michelle as a person (from the impression you've gotten about her from the media), but I don't think she has the history and interest in politics that Hillary does... I don't think she'd necessarily want to run.

Diana- I really think you need to calm down and re-read my post. I am in no way attacking anyone, and there is no need to get so defensive. The only thing I've said is that I object to the article's characterization of Obama supporters as cult-like because it is offensive and inaccurate. That's it.

I only mention that Clinton supporters are actually more likely to defect to underscore that point, not to make the reverse charge that they are cult-like. If you want to see the polls showing this fact, and there are many, I will direct you to Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
These numbers have been pretty consistent throughout the primary.

I've seen that statistic before, WTB? But both of those numbers are higher than they should be (Hillary supporters who'd defect to McCain, Obama supporters who'd defect to McCain), IMO. So to me it makes more sense to complain about overall divisiveness of this election than to continue the same argument of "whose supporters are worse overall?"

Ampersand, over at Alas, a Blog!, has an hilarious post up about bad pro-Obama arguments (in preparation for tomorrow's post on the good ones).

9) Hilary has shrill laughter. She reminds me of my hectoring mother. She’s a woman, and woman things disturb me.

This is the one (paraphrased, obviously) that I've heard from several male friends and colleagues.

WTB, I don't agree that she promotes the Obama-cult stereotype, seeing how most of the people she interviews are Obama-supporters. If I was an Obama supporter, I'd probably get annoyed at any mention of the fact, though, so you probably have a point.

At this point, I wouldn't trust polls about who people would vote for if their preferred candidate does not win. I don't trust polls about who people would vote for in half a year anyway, so I think they're pretty much bunk.
That is not to say that there aren't people who would switch, and there is a troubling element racism in voting for Clinton (which I'm sure does not apply for the posters here) and sexism in voting for Obama (which, again, does not apply to posters here).
But the thing is, if these people say they would SWITCH TO MCCAIN (capitalized for outrage), do you really think that half-a-year of selected media narratives directed at a black or a female candidate couldn't dissuade these voters anyway?
Now, the forums and sites I visit outside a few feminist blogs are pretty much gamer geeks ones, and they're pretty hardcore in favour of Obama, in very much the sense of this article, as in "I would never vote for that bitch" and who are personally insulted at the fact that she hasn't dropped out. The thing is, while I believe them about the Clinton thing, I don't trust them at all when it comes to voting for Obama. Even this Wright thing frayed it around the edges. I don't trust them as Democratic voters when certain media narratives starts going against Obama, or starts to pump McCain as the reasonable moderate candidate.
Of course this is not about most Obama voters, but merely about a vocal, Clinton-HATING minority (they're very vocal, but you know how much publicity Ron Paul got online? these are from the same segment of the population, in my mind), who I think have a lot of effect on the polarization of Democratic voters, just like the very small minority of Clinton-voters who breed polarization. I'm afraid a lot more people have been suckered in by the discourse of these people, but I think that can be handled.

I support Clinton at the moment, but I expect Obama to win the nomination. If he does, I'll support him (he's a great candidate) to the finish line, and let's not forget that he and Clinton have better policies than McCain ON EVERY POINT.

I think people who turn against the "other" Democratic candidate forget the fact that the media is not there to do us any favors. Remember what happened to Gore? Trusting what negative things the media says about Democratic candidates is dangerous business, because that media narrative WILL turn against your preferred Democratic candidate at some point, and we better be ready for it.

I really think sometimes that everyone should just get policy statements from every candidate and do the voting from that, because as we can see, every Democratic candidacy will be "bad" if we trust the media (I have honestly seen people saying that the Obama campaign "blew it" with this "bitter" thing and Wright).

Sorry, this was a bit disjointed.

Christ on a bicycle, I really should have split that up in different posts with different points.

As a political blogger in Ohio who is female and 45 (Jessica, I voted for you AND me AND Digby AND Melissa McEwan in the WVWV thing btw - and I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to meet you at WAM!), Rebecca's article represents a lot of what I've been living for the last three to five months. The Ohio political blogosphere is overwhelmingly male-authored - only two female blogs have ever made the BlogNetNews influence ranking of the top 20 although there is a third blog that has three female authors and they're often in the top 20, likewise a few group blogs that have a smattering of women who contribute on the front page, but absolutely are not the primary voices.

I won't rehash it all but a few key things:

1. I posted a YouTube of an Ohio voter who speaks about being ashamed or embarrassed to let people know of her support for Clinton - that's just wrong - no one should ever feel that way or be made to feel that way, and that is the subtlest form of intimidation but also the most widely used form that's coming from Obama supporters. It's not their fault that there are reasons why Clinton can be an embarrassing choice, in some people's minds, but who gave anyone the right to intimidate people out of voting for whomever they choose?

That just is unacceptable and frankly, it's part of what's galvanized my objection to how people who don't support or like Clinton address those who do.

2. Like the examples Rebecca sites about voters who have been undecided, I too received a zillion calls, emails, comments of all flavors trying to, really, intimidate me. I was particularly upset about Obama's Superbowl ad because it was titled, "Join." I have never been a joiner and telling me that everyone else is doing it, to get on the bandwagon? That's the LAST way to persuade me.

3. I will differ with Rebecca on her reference to the second-wave feminists. I'm the daughter of a first-waver and I am a second-waver and I would view women under 35 or so to be third wavers, if we have to label.

Steinem et al are first-wave, at least in the terms of age and era. I feel strongly that much of the second wave, like myself, is horrifically stuck between examples not of Steinem as much as mothers, aunts or other female models who were stuck between being the activist and being what the 1950s had prepared them to be - wives, mothers with a house, 2.2 kids and two garages.

I grew up watching my mother only occasionally succeed in acting in an indentifiable feminist fashion but ultimately succumbing to a lot of oppression. I prefer not to say much more except to say that for me, in the second wave, well - I've had to wait a long time for these realizations to hit me or to recognize them.

Anyway - this is really minor compared to Rebecca's overall points and shouldn't invalidate anything else that she's written there.

I wish she'd concluded with some advice, but perhaps that really wasn't her goal, but just exposing a common experience was. I'm a co-blogger at The Moderate Voice and there too, the beating back of people who question Obama and say anything good about Clinton can be swift and sharp. I wrote there about the pummeling I felt pre-primary when I questioned the whole "join" approach of the Obama campaign and was basically told by commenters that it's just me, with interrogations about who is doing it and where are the examples and on and on. Ridiculousness and total lack of trust, benefit of the doubt or show of respect.

Sigh.

So - I'm glad Rebecca wrote the piece. It may be too little too late for people who don't realize what they've been swept into.

But then, the goal isn't to actually get anyone to vote for Clinton. It is to encourage all voters to respect one another's choices - whomever it is or if it is to remain silent.

And all the candidates should be publicly stating that if you can't treat your fellow voters with respect, then you are no supporter of mine.

Thanks for this post.

"There is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots."

So there's something "dark and funky" and "not female friendly" about the campaign of a black candidate? This language seems, to put it mildly, somewhat racially charged.

I point this out not to suggest Rebecca Traister is a racist. Rather I just want to highlight the irony of a post about the implicit sexism of Obama-maniacs that contains a degree of implicit racism.

On a personal note, I am an Obama supporter who strongly dislikes Hillary Clinton. I cannot speak to whether it has anything to do with some subconscious sexism or not. But I can say that there are real reasons that are justifiable at this time and place: Hillary Clinton is staying in an election which she can only win by making Obama an unelectable candidate. She has been race baiting consistently to accomplish this. Because she has taken on Republican souther strategy tactics, I have come to find her campaign of late detestable.

Excellent article. There's another pretty good one on a similar topic here: http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/ I apologize if it's old.

For the couple of people who still somehow doubt that sexism among Obama supporters is a serious problem, take a Hillary sign and stand at a busy intersection for a couple hours. (This was in a middle-class suburb of Maryland)

You will hear the words "bitch" and "cunt" shouted by many charming young democrats (many of whom are driving expensive cars) who will go on to proudly shout Obama's name. Of course all Obama supporters are not so crude, but it's very apparent that the level of hatred directed at Senator Clinton is completely out of proportion to any political or personal flaws she might have.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from showing their support for Hillary, you'll certainly see a lot of people (~80% working or retired women) who support you, but be prepared to get hit by the occasional wave of senseless misogyny masquerading as political opinion from your fellow democrats.

My wife, who is a small, unassuming woman, was shocked at the vulgar things people shouted at her concerning Senator Clinton. It's really disappointing for this to happen so frequently when their candidate claims to support reconciliation, cooperation, and social justice.

I respected Edwards a lot for saying that he did not want the support of people who were voting for him because of racism or sexism. I wish that Obama would do something genuinely brave and similarly denounce the sexism displayed by many of his supporters.

For me, the primary experience and my growing discomfort with "Obama Boys" boils down to the statement I've heard from more than one (two, three, four) of my male pro-Obama friends. This is "if Hillary (never "Senator Clinton") gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain." And that kills me, and kills a little bit of love for those friends.

The other day, my liberal Gay boss said this. Um, like McCain and his ilk aren't going to set the clock back a few decades on Women's and GLBT rights? To me it's just spiteful and nasty, and reeks of "I'll take my ball and go home." And behind this attitude, when I talk to these friends, it all comes down to "she's a bitch, she's got where she is on her husband's coattails, she's shrill, etc." Frankly if Senator Clinton is a "bitch" then there are just not swear words strong enough for what McCain is, let alone are current president.

McCain has more merit than Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton has worked her ass off most of her life for law and political issues. Let alone, McCain would be "the cause of reform"? Please. McCain is a conservative, with very conservative positions overall. He won't "reform" any more (or less) than George W. Bush has "reformed". If that's the kind of reform you want, then *shrug* I don't know what to tell you...

Actually, who is being ignorant now? Ever heard of the McCain-Feingold Bill? McCain has shown repeatedly that he is dedicated to the cause of campaign finance reform and getting special interest roles reduced in politics. I'm an Obama supporter, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect the man and what he's done.

McCain is a war hero. He was tortured for five years without breaking for his country. There is not a single candidate (including my beloved Obama) who can claim to have done more for his country or been more dedicated. just because we don't agree with is politics doesn't mean he is somehow not the strong person of high character that he has proven to be again and again.

As for the arguments equating Bush and McCain, well they are just ignorant. Bush is a privileged little Daddy's boy who rode family connections to the white house. Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons. Hillary was early in her life, but are you really tring to convince me that Hillary being MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT didn't somehow give her some privilege and acceess that others don't have?

Honestly, I always thought of Hillary as an anti-feminist candidate. I never understood why feminists wouldn't make a bigger show of supporting people like Barbara Boxer or Pelosi over Clinton. I would love to see a woman president. But Hillary getting elected would seem to indicate to me that yet again, a woman can only ascend if she is tied to the right man.

There is no point in me arguing any further, because you've clearly made up your minds that the Clintons were the greatest things since sliced bread, having endured the last eight years of Bush hell. To me that's like praising Polpot because he wasn't as bad as Hitler.

didn't McCain go on to say that he wouldn't support the same legislation that bears his name now as he did then?

One last thing: are you really using Hillarycare as a pro-Hillary argument?

LOL.

There's no point in debating you.

neutering monty won't necesarily stop the humping. my dog still does it, and my dad yells at him "how many parts do we have to cut off you???"

I think Hillary Clinton rarely gets the benefit of the doubt because she is a woman. Aside from the obvious bitch bashing, a lot of the negatives people have about her I feel would not be as much of an issue if she were a guy.

Well that's nice, Spottie. I think it would be kind of you to leave now. Clearly you are no feminist.

WheresTheBeef- I don't need to calm down. I'm not angry. Your post, at first glance, did seem to imply that "if anyone is cult-like, it's Clinton's followers" (and I apologize for misinterpreting you). I've heard that way too much, so that simply provided a way of feeding into the rest of my comment, which was concerning people questioning my own choice in candidate on misogynistic grounds, which does annoy me, and if that ire seemed to be directed at you personally, I apologize for that, too.

I'm not sure what to do with those numbers. I have to say, they strike me as inacurate (in all of my experience, online and with RL campaigning, I've only met two Clinton supporters who didn't say that they would vote for Obama, however reluctantly). I'm actually suprised by it, since I clearly remember seeing several polls showing that the difference between Obama supporters who would vote for McCain and Clinton supporters who would do the same was miniscule. I'm not saying that the poll is falsified or anything, but it does seem strange.

It's also worth adding that the attitude of the Clinton campaign towards Obama supporters has always been one of dismissal: States that vote for Obama don't matter; only blacks and elites support Obama; He has a real problem with "regular" Americans. If there is a pervailing attitude of anger for Hillary among Obama supporters, it can be partly attributed to the way they've been marginalized by the Clinton campaign itself.

Spottie: McCain never would have gotten where he is if he hadn't dumped his first wife, while she was in the hospital, and married an heiress whose parents could buy him a seat in Congress.

Just sayin'.

There is no point in me arguing any further, because you've clearly made up your minds that the Clintons were the greatest things since sliced bread, having endured the last eight years of Bush hell.

Who are you talking to? I'm honestly confused because commenters here have come out as both HRC and Obama supporters. (I also don't appreciate how you seem to be trying to shut down the conversation ["...no point in me arguing" & "...no point in debating"]. It's condescending and bad form because many here do think there is a point to continued argument or debate. Whether or not you want to join in is up to you.)

I would agree that Hillary Clinton does have name and face recognition as a candidate. This would privilege her to some, but be a mark against her for others.

Also, she didn't marry "The President."

I wouldn't call myself a Clinton supporter. I didn't vote for her. I just can't understand the animosity towards her from supporters of the other Democratic candidate when their platforms are mostly the same. The same goes for Clinton supporters who seem viscerally opposed to Obama.

Can we please just stop assuming that the supporters of the opposite camp aren't thoughtfully weighing the pros and cons of each candidate and making the best choice based on their experiences until we observe otherwise?

where's the beef: I am with you 100%. I am a woman, and I voted for Obama, and if another Hillary supporter accuses me of being "star struck" or " a cultist" I will scream. I agonized over the decision, researched my candidates again and again, and drew my own conclusions. This article was nothing but a vicious screed against Obama, almost insinuating that because *some* of his supporters say mean things about Hillary, they're all sexist!! But whats worse, this article is laced with language suggesting young women are just being stupid and not living up to the feminist calling and voting for Hillary. I really am offended by this article- and by the way many "feminists" are trying to tell me how UNfeminist I am being by voting with my brain and my conscience.

Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons.

How is leaving your disabled wife to marry into a Budweiser fortune "self-made"? I think believing that a McCain presidency would be any different than "the last eight years of Bush hell" is pretty warped thinking. It would be 4 more years of failed nation building abroad and support for the wealthy and white at home, at the expense of all others. Nothing about his platform veers from the republican status-quo.

I am a female, feminist Obama supporter who IS angry at how Clinton and her supporters have handled this campaign. However, I do not disagree with her platform and fully intend to vote for her if she wins the nomination.

I don't understand how supporters of EITHER Obama or Clinton could claim to vote for McCain if their candidate loses. WHY would you vote for a candidate with a nearly opposite platform rather than vote for someone with nearly identical goals and ideas to the candidate of your choice?

Jill, Steinem and her crew are second-wave feminists. The first wave was the suffragists.

I really am offended by this article- and by the way many "feminists" are trying to tell me how UNfeminist I am being by voting with my brain and my conscience.

Yeah, well, I'm getting pretty sick of the implication that Hillary-supporters are voting with some other body part.

Kind of a side note, but I wish they'd correct/clarify the bit where it says "she sponsored a flag-burning amendment."

Wrote 'em a couple letters, but no response so far.

So many people online seem to think that Clinton supported an amendment to the Constitution banning flag burning, but she actually didn't.

Clinton, like Obama, supported legislation carefully crafted to avoid banning Constitutionally protected speech -- it bans stuff like burning someone else's flag, and burning a flag to threaten/intimidate someone -- as an alternative to the Constitutional amendment that was being pushed by Republicans.

It was basically legislation to provide political cover for those voting against the amendment (you could argue it also serves other tactical purposes in making the case on Meet the Press and whatnot, but anyway...)

Clinton and Obama both voted against a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. They both voted for the alternative legislation.

But a lot of people seem to have been misinformed on these points. Stating "she sponsored a flag-burning amendment" further perpetuates this misinformation, I think.

I mean, I don't imagine that particular fact is going to change many people's minds about who they're supporting, but it would be nice for people to get accurate information.

"Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons. Hillary was early in her life, but are you really tring to convince me that Hillary being MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT didn't somehow give her some privilege and acceess that others don't have?"

Wow.

Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons.

Whereas Hillary not only made herself, but made her husband president. You really expect me to believe that his success had nothing to do with her intelligence and contacts?

ALSO- my mom and grandmother are hardcore Clinton supporters. NEVER in my life I had I ever heard my sweet mother utter anything remotely racist until this Easter sunday- when she and my grandmother went on and on about Obama with you can guess what kind of terminology. I think another article needs to be written- instead of "why are Obama supporters being sexist?" how about "why are Clinton supporters becoming Racists?"

@EG: Thanks. Funny, I was JUST reading that somewhere else.

Weird. I really don't know where I fit. I hate being at the end of the baby boomer years but I'm definitely not a Gen Xer.

Is there a 2.5 wave? :)

@EG - not meaning to hijack the comments here so I'll make it quick but reading up now, I can see that I was definitely doing very third-wave related work in 1990 through the mid-90s - writing and teaching healthcare professionals how to ID victims of domestic violence in pediatric settings, training to do hotline work at domestic violence hotlines etc.

Other observation: I always felt my mother missed out on the second wave because she married young, had kids quickly, her mother died and my dad suffered a severe heart attack - all within about seven years and she was overwhelmed by expectations she'd adopted. Then, when we were older, she got more into it - maybe she did more than I've ever known - I'll have to ask her!

But I can see how I repeated the pattern somewhat and thus missed the knowledge or the sense of being in the third wave - I was marred in 1992 and had kids from 94-2000. I was working in nonprofit mental health for children and families, but was not engaged much in the writing about or activities of third wavers.

Anyway - thank you - I'm learning a lot these days.

Obama boys, eh?

Such unfortunate timing. We're Obama supporters, by the way.

I think that's a reference to the obnoxious Obama girl video, but I agree--unfortunate timing, given the givens.

Diana- Fair enough, I can see how my capitalizing the word Clinton could’ve led to that interpretation. Here’s the passage from the article I was addressing:

“I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls "just a man."

As I mentioned, the polling in this area has been pretty consistent. The numbers just don’t bear that out.

Anders- I don’t know how you read that article and don’t find that she’s promoting the idea that Obama supporters are cultlike. In addition to the above quote, where she says just that, I lost count of the number of times she used the words “fanatics� “glassy eyed� “messiah� “maniacs� and on and on in reference to Obama and his supporters. At best, it is condescending and dismissive, and at worse, these are some pretty sinister sounding characterizations (note: by making this point, I am NOT saying that Clinton supporters aren’t portrayed unfairly too). Beyond that, I agree with you 100%. I don’t think that many of these people will actually vote for McCain in the general election. I don’t see how anyone could profess to support Clinton and Obama’s policy positions and then vote for someone with the opposite position. For me, it goes without saying that I would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.

Finally, I think you’re right that these vocal minorities often represent the worst in either candidate’s support base. It almost seems inevitable in politics that the lunatics (and I hesitate to use that word) on the fringe get to color the discourse.

Is there a 2.5 wave? :)

As someone born in 1981, I've always resisted the concept of "waves" when it comes to feminism. It can, at times, be useful shorthand for characterizing different phases of activism, but I dislike the way it shoehorns people of certain age-groups into stereotypes, and highlights the supposed generational conflicts between older and younger feminists. As an historian, I also find it extremely reductionist when it comes to describing the variety of women's experience of feminism(s) in the past two hundred years here in America.

In college my women's studies profs used to tease me about being "2.5" . . . I say claim it if you want :). Otherwise, just embrace being a feminist, with no "wave" attached.

If it doesn't apply to you, it's not about you.
If you aren't one of Obama supporters calling Hillary a "cunt," describing her as "shrill," or insisting she "go back to the kitchen" and let one of the men be president, Traister is not talking about you!
She did not say that ALL Obama supporters fall into the "Obama Boys" camp. She is not calling ALL of you bullies. That's pretty clear. If you're not part of the problem, stop being so defensive about it.
We don't have to "look for sexism" when it's thrown in our faces every single day. Check out Feministing's own Hillary Sexism Watch. Or the long list of sickening sexist anti-Hillary remarks over at Shakesville. There are what - dozens of blatantly misogynist anti-Hillary Facebook groups?
This election has made it perfectly clear to A LOT of women that we are still considered second-class citizens by our peers.

Regarding someone's comment upthread that it is unfortunate to judge a candidate based on their supporters - I disagree. I agree that judging them on the MSM depiction of who they are would be bad, but if you attract racist, sexist, hatemongers, then I think there must be something racist, sexist, and hatemonger-y about your campaign. And I want to look at that.

I also completely don't understand the whole dynastic politics thing. So... because three men were president before her, only one of which she had anything remotely to do with, she should be punished? That's ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons not to support Clinton (though, I am a Clinton supporter), but that just doesn't seem like one of them.

The article did make me uncomfortable. Because I am a feminist and an Obama supporter. And I do not consider my support for Obama to be blind, glassy-eyed, or cultish. It was actually a very difficult decision to come to. And while there are reasons I don't like Clinton, you better believe that if she is the Dem nominee, I will be out campaigning for her as hard as I can. Because this is not about "taking my candidate all the way or leaving the game" it is about getting someone in the White House who will stop the decline that this country has been in for the past 8 years. And both Obama and Clinton are light years better than McCain in that respect.

This race is very toxic. There are lots of fences that will need to be mended once we have a candidate. And I think responsibility of mending those fences falls equally on the supporters of both candidates. I have heard both Clinton and Obama supporters (in about equal numbers) threaten to vote McCain if their candidate doesn't win. I have heard both sides spew hateful things at the other. Neither side is blemish free in this race. But I would hope that those of us who are voting on the issues will realize that when it comes to what is most important--policies and issues--both Clinton and Obama are strong candidates. Claiming you are voting on the issues for either, and then voting for McCain is so inconsistent it's incomprehensible (to me). And, perhaps I'm naive or an idealist, but I believe most democrats can get beyond the divisiveness of this election to realize that either of these candidates is far better than McCain. It's dirty now, but when it's over, we'll all have to focus on the next fight and the bigger picture.

KMP - apparently some people need to look up the definition of "dynasty" huh?
A woman becoming president after her husband does not a dynasty make. Even a son becoming president after his father does not a dynasty make. But I guess it sucks for Hillary that everyone's tolerance for pseudo-dynasties ends where her candidacy begins. What a coincidence.

@Annajcook - I think you are on to something, for sure. It isn't about age, certainly not entirely anyway. Although there's no denying the influence growing up in a certain time can have on us, it does not have to define us - if we choose to be defined or define ourselves at all.

I agree about resisting the assignation of waves, it's just that I've been trying to understand the feminist language that I feel woefully illiterate in.

Very helpful thoughts.

As a male feminist I noticed immediately how blatantly gender-biased media coverage and rhetoric concerning Clinton has been. I slightly favor Obama's policies, but I'm cynical enough about the government that I almost wish Clinton would win so that we in the U.S. and even in progressive circles could have four to eight years in which to possibly notice how deep and pervasive sexism is in our culture. It's easy for a straight white male such as myself not to notice the subtler forms of misogyny during the normal course of things, but when a woman in a role that is not normatively feminine becomes the center of our immense media apparatus it's really fucking hard to ignore.

Of course, people are capable of herculean efforts when it comes to maintaining the invisible foundations of their privilege.

"Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons."

Give me a break! most men have always had other male mentors who got them where they are today in any business.

Women for the most part had to make it alone in a field where they are not wanted.

For those who say they have done the research about Obama...are you listening to the biased media? His resume is thin.

....and I can't see not giving this woman a chance to do the great things so many believe she can do...

Aside from the obvious bitch bashing, a lot of the negatives people have about her I feel would not be as much of an issue if she were a guy.

Posted by: MLEmac

WTF? Aside from the misogyny of thimbledicks like Tweety Matthews, the "misogyny" is a strawman on the part of Clinton's supporters.

Hillary Clinton is detested because she not only supported the Iraq War, but voted to let Dubya to start a new war with Iran. She is also disliked for supporting NAFTA, GATT and other schemes that have seen American jobs shipped to China.

On top of all that, Clinton and her machine have lied, cheated and tried to steal at every opportunity. At the Senate District Convention last month, Hillary's campaign tried to challenge the credentials of precincts that just happened to go for Obama. The reasons given were absurd, and the Clinton campaign offered to withdraw their challenges IF they got half the delegates no matter what the actual vote totals were. It was a ploy to gum up the works and cheat. It was only when Obama's campaign threatened to introduce a motion to seat ALL delegates that the Clinton thugs backed down.

In other words, Hillary Clinton is a clone of Joe Lieberman, and this giant red herring about sexism is shit for the birds -unless you think Lieberman was disliked because he's a woman and not because he's a two-faced huckster.

In re-reading the comments posted today to this article here, I am amused to note that *so many* posters immediately did exactly what the original Salon article griped about: ranted about Hillary and how much they hate her w/o ever really saying WHY.

Sexism is alive and well among both genders -- no matter how many "waves" of women have come and gone, and fought the same damn oppression.

I am just a high school student in Utah and even in my very small liberal community, I have heard extreme Hillary bashing akin to what Traister comments on. It is very disheartening in such a limited, Democrat community that should be more united. Thank you so much for posting this article.

That Salon article makes me want to scream.

There has been both sexism and racism in this primary, which pains me. The depiction of Obama as an unqualified, affirmative action candidate taking a position from its rightful owner--a white woman--is itself part of a racist paradigm.

But what I find unforgiveable is the Clinton camp's use of the racist Southern strategy. Though my preference has been for Edwards, then Obama, I would have supported Hillary Clinton as a nominee. I was so happy in Jan. 2008 because the Dems had a slate of excellent qualified candidates. The reason I cannot now support Clinton is not due to sexism, but because of actions over the recent months that I find deplorable.

The vibe I get from some Hillary Clinton supporters is that there really is no legitimate reason not to support their candidate. Even the Salon article said something like, even if the Obama supporter doesn't say anything sexist, I can't help feeling that they really have sexist feelings. WTF? How denigrating! What are the chances of Salon posting an article about how "even if Hillary Clinton supporters don't say anything racist, I can't shake the feeling that they really are."?

This truly is the silly season.

Hm, Newbaum Turk's post wasn't up at the time I wrote mine. However, I totally disagree with NT about sexism -- hello? No one is spitting hatred and profanity at Obama for his Blackwater connections, or over the fact that he had some nut as his "spiritual advisor" for 20 years!

EG: Hell yes to everything you have said on here, particularly with regard to that insidious "just not this woman" excuse I hear so often. You said it much better than I could have.

On a different note, Spottieottiedopalicious said:

But Hillary getting elected would seem to indicate to me that yet again, a woman can only ascend if she is tied to the right man.

Jesus Christ, this is so incredibly depressing and fucked a statement. So should we stop voting for wealthy people, because voting for them indicates that poor people can't run for president? We're living in a sexist fucking world, and we can't stop it just by refusing to vote for a woman because she's married to somebody who formerly held office. We can make up these excuses about why this particular woman isn't the right kind of woman to stand as a beacon of why we should elect a woman, or why this guy is the wrong kind of black guy to really empower black people, or whatever bullshit. But all that placing such restrictions will do is raise the hurdles to electing somebody who will actually make a damn bit of difference to the people of this country.

As a Hillary supporter, I do have to acknowledge that she's done a lot to offend and alienate the people who support her opponent. There's been a near-constant barrage of thinly veiled racist remarks, if not from Clinton herself then from the people on her campaign. Obama is a pipe dream. He's all flash, no substance. (The same thing is constantly said of superior black athletes. A scrappy white player like David Eckstein is exalted above a better performer like Alfonso Soriano.) He's Jesse Jackson all over again. "Real Americans" (i.e. white lower/middle class Americans) won't vote for him. There may be an element of truth in each of these critiques, but in total they make me very uneasy. I'm a longtime supporter of Hillary and think she's the more electable candidate, but she has run a very ugly, negative campaign, and Obama attacks, while maybe equally unfair, have largely stayed away from identity politics. My support for her is far less enthusiastic than it was six months ago.

That's not to say that the bile that's constantly spewed against her isn't sexist. The media's treatment of her has been unfair and disgusting. But she's done quite a bit to justify people's impressions of her.

I fully identify with the first person this article talks about.

I am an Obama supporter, but I also don't think Hillary is a bad candidate or even a candidate that I wouldn't vote for. When campaigning for Obama with others from my university, it continually made me uncomfortable the veracity in which others would attack Hillary. When I'd tell others that I would fully support Hillary if she was given the nomination, it was met with silence and a "well, I'd rather vote Republican!" attitude. I've seen people worked up in a fervor over Hillary Clinton with just the simple justification of "I don't like her".

I think it's worrisome and that's why this article disappointed me. This is something that I believe should be legitimately looked at, but when it's skewed so anti-Obama, it's just reinforcing this "us against them" mentality. I think there are many people who hide their hatred of Hillary as a strong female behind a veil of ardent Obama support, but not all Obama supporters are that way and there's no way to open a dialogue about this when all Obama supporters are painted as sexist cultists.

The article really doesn't say all Obama fans are cultist. A lot of the people complaining about sexism are Obama supporters. It's specifically about creepy Obama supporters, not ALL Obama supporters. There are plenty of great Obama supporters, but there are also some fucking creepy Obama supporters. I don't hold that against Obama at all, but I do hope that if he's elected come November, none of those people end up with any political power. I want them shut out in the cold.

I had a male friend who is an Obama supporter tell me the other day that he would vote for McCain over Clinton because he has more INTEGRITY. John McCain. A man who falsely portrays himself as a maverick despite his incredibly conservative voting record, a man who cheated on his first wife while she was in the hospital, and most importantly, a man who was part of the Keating Five! Wouldn't it be great to be implicated in a corruption scandal and still maintain an air of integrity?

It matches what Spottie said up there about McCain being a self-made man, doesn't it? A man who was born in a privileged military family, went to USNA, and married an heiress is a self-made man, but Hillary Clinton isn't, because she MARRIED THE PRESIDENT. It's like it doesn't even occur to these people that in 1975, she would have had no idea that he'd win the 1992 election. We know she can't see the future, because otherwise, she wouldn't have voted for Iraq.

"I am amused to note that *so many* posters immediately did exactly what the original Salon article griped about: ranted about Hillary and how much they hate her w/o ever really saying WHY." [alikatze]

AND

"If it doesn't apply to you, it's not about you.
If you aren't one of Obama supporters calling Hillary a "cunt," describing her as "shrill," or...
She did not say that ALL Obama supporters fall into the "Obama Boys" camp. She is not calling ALL of you bullies. That's pretty clear. If you're not part of the problem, stop being so defensive about it." [SaraMC]

I agree with both of these commentators. I don't understand why so many posters here are getting defensive about this article. The article wasn't talking about ALL Obama's supporters, like SaraMC says, the article is talking about SOME Obama supporters. The real issue is why do some supporters feel the need to bash the other democratic candidate with such misogynistic and sexist slurs and what should be done about it. And also, the fact that the tone and volume of these slurs is so noticeable that it may be having an effect on ALL voters, including Obama supporters that don't support these sexist remarks, undecided voters who may be turned off by the name calling, and Clinton supporters who are incredibly offended by the repeated sexist attacks. Frankly, I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't spoken out about this yet and I'm also disappointed that more Obama supporters (some here included) haven't expressed their disapproval of these sexists attacks either (and instead resorting back to the predictable "this is why I like Obama, and this is why I don't like Clinton" speech). I'm not saying any Obama supporters here are sexists, and I certainly think it's wrong for any supporter to attack a candidate because of either their race or gender. But, as an undecided voter, I'm becoming increasingly disgusted by the tone of the sexist Obama supporters, especially because they make the rest of the supporters look bad and reflect poorly on the campaign in general. Before I started noticing this, Obama's candidacy was appealing to me, but because of all the Hillary bashing that I perceive to be coming from some of his supporters this has drawn me away from him a bit. I just wonder if the sexist remarks by some of Obama's supporters is having the same effect on other undecided voters and, also, why do some Obama supporters keep spewing out such sexist hatred, especially when it could turn off undecided voters. This, I think, is a more important question to ask, than the "why I like this candidate and don't like the other" posturing.

Again, I'm disappointed that some of the commentators here are getting defensive about the article and resorting to a predictable dialog of why they don't like Clinton and why they like Obama. I think there are a lot more important questions to ask here, especially about what this underlying misogyny says about society in general, and what effect, if any, the name-calling could have on voters.

"I'm about to take Monty to the vet to get neutered. I'm nervous about it, but he had one last hurrah with his pillow last night so I don't feel so bad"

Poor Monty. I have long felt that neutering is a very practice. But, Folks who keep pets want them to be calm. So, I guess...

"And you wonder why men are always worried about feminists cutting their balls off..."

Ha,Ha
Stereotypical, But still funny.

I meant to say cruel and unusual practice. Neutering that is.

Actually, neutering is far from cruel and unusual. It's done under anesthetic and as mentioned by a previous poster, most male dogs are fully capable of humping even after the surgery. In other words, the dog generally has no idea that he's missing out on anything. Most arguments against neutering are just thinly veiled castration anxiety; there's no denying the fact that thousands of unwanted dogs are put to sleep everyday due to careless owners of unsterilized pets.

As for the Obama/Clinton thing... The article is doubtlessly flawed, as are all timely articles on politics. Everyone has an agenda. The complaint about the Clinton campaign preying upon racist fears is legitimate. However! The level of virulence and impunity with which Clinton is publicly attacked is unprecedented.

People of color overall get the short stick in life. I don't doubt that; the success of the Obamas is a testament to both of their internal resources. I think that upper-middle-class white women do not win the Oppression Olympics.

But it is not acceptable for any mainstream figure to make explicit, racist public statements. Whereas sexism and even straight up misogyny are acceptable. If you complain, non-feminists say "well, they just have a different opinion than yours" or "why can't you just celebrate the differences between men and women?" My favorite game is to replace blanket statements about women with Black, Gay or Jewish. The vast majority of the time, the comment becomes instantly unacceptable.

That doesn't make either racism or sexism less important. That doesn't mean that if you fight the one, then you get to practice the other. There are women of color and they suffer on both fronts.

To me, this article resonated really strongly because no one has any problem pointing out that Clinton's supporters implement racism in their campaign against Obama. At least the nastiness of the public attacks on Clinton will open the eyes of all those insisting that sexism doesn't exist anymore. Because we've all recently admitted that Obama has had to overcome racism! Yay, we can now acknowledge the hatreds still pervading our society! >.

(As a side note, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ann Coulter's promise to vote for Clinton if McCain won the nomination. Or McCain's refusal to retract this statement from 2000: "I hate the gooks. ... I will hate them as long as I live." As a PoW and torture victim, this statement is understandable but do we really want to see a Presidential candidate who's filled with an unreasoning, racially-charged hatred due to profound psychological scarring? You know, considering the tensions with Asia that are already in place. I think that's a bit worse than Clinton being mercenary in a climate already stacked against her.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/MN9HUPVEO.DTL&type=politics

Let me share a little anecdote. About 15 years ago I worked for a large bank, in their proof-transit dept (sorting and shipping checks). My boss on that job was a Phillipino man, probably in his 50's.

I didn't like working for him, at all. I was almost always his top performer, on nearly every metric (being a bank, they had a lot of them). But he was always very critical of me, and made it clear he didn't really want to work with me. About half the staff was also Phillipino, and sometimes he would start giving instructions in Tagalog, and get angry at me when I'd ask him to repeat them so I could understand them. We clashed a fair number of times over procedural stuff, sometimes his boss would get involved and almost always over-rule him.

After about 2 years, I left to join the USAF. On my last day, he pulled me aside and asked "You don't like me, right?"

"No", I said.

"It's because I'm oriental?"

"No," I said, "It's because you're an asshole."

I don't like Hillary Clinton. I've distrusted her for a long time, but I didn't dislike her any more than any other politician of her ilk until she started going negative in this campaign. Now it's bordering on hate, because I think she's putting her ambition ahead of the country.

I hate *a* woman. Because of what she's done, not what she is. Does that automatically make me a misogynist? Because it really seems that's what is being claimed here, nobody can come up with a way that Obama supporters are being classically misogynist, or even using coded or camoflaged mysogynistic attacks, but they hate a woman so it must be misogyny, right?

No. A lot of us just think *this* woman is a grasping, lying, asshole who is playing games with the future of the country because her own ambition is more important than anything else. We hate the person, not any particular class of people she might be a member of.

--Dave

What, you think your anecdote makes you free of suspicion of sexism? Or do you think we're too stupid to understand the concept of disliking the person, but not because of her gender without an example?

And your language doesn't really make me think that your opinion of her is based solely on logic.

If it seems to you that people here are saying that criticism of Clinton automatically equals misogyny, then you obviously haven't paid much attention, because several people have precisely otherwise several times.

"nobody can come up with a way that Obama supporters are being classically misogynist, or even using coded or camoflaged mysogynistic attacks, but they hate a woman so it must be misogyny, right?"

Cunt, bitch, shrill, nagging, "tea and cookies," "Make me a sandwich," "Iron my clothes," none of this counts as misogyny? Gee, thanks for clearing that up, I was getting worried about the state of our nation for a minute there.

Meenecat, I am with you. As with KMP, too, about the fanbase havin an influence.

However, much as baseless vitriol against her pisses me off, I will vote for whoever the fuck gets the nomination, even if it ends up being Obama, who lately has been failing in my book.

What is wrong with you people who say you won't vote or will go McCain??? Are you fucking kidding me? He is better than her/him?

You know DR, I was going to write Oh, "Read the comments. This isn't about you" but then it hit me that this IS about you... your anecdote didn't work. Baseless vitriolic shit-flinging is not a political statement. Maybe next time you can, you know, explain why you hate her POLICIES so much.

Seriously, what the fuck did she ever do to you to make you spend so much energy hating her?

There is a conflation here of really messed up misogny directed at Hilary, and people passionatly advocating for obama.

I'm sorry, but dudes in your life being excited enough to call you about Obama isn't fucked up.

Dudes in your life thinking that you aren't capable of determining your own candidate of choice before the day of the election... that is messed up. Especially the fact that it isn't just one guy or several guys deliberately coordinating efforts. When you have a half-dozen guys calling up to pressure you into voting coincidentally, that's indicative of a systemic flaw. Not that you should be voting in the primary anyways if you don't have a legitimate, issues-based preference.

That's also not the only complaint.

"...because her own ambition is more important than anything else."

Yes, like the male politicians are the only ones who truly care about the country....not ambitious at all. LOL!

That line is used so often to discredit Hillary...in and of itself I find it sexist. You really think that the men are not ambitious enough to do what it takes to win?

I think it is sad that obama supporters will not acknowledge the lies, ruthlessness, and indiscretions Obama is guilty of....wait I know why; they aren't talked about in the biased media.

Imagine a woman being ambitious!! the horror!!!

RishiGajria, neutering is actually the humane, KIND thing to do for your dog. I agree that this illogical opposition to neutering is just castration anxiety. Neutered dogs are less aggressive, and have fewer health problems. Intact males are literally controlled by their hormones. Plus, neutering cuts down on unwanted puppies. There is no downside to neutering your dog.

Oh, Dave. If you have legitimate reasons for disliking Hillary and do not couch your dislike in SEXIST terms or double-standards, we are not talking about you!!
However, if you decide to call her a whore, or complain that she's too ambitious, you are being sexist.
It's like some people don't even understand the definition of "sexism." Opposing a woman isn't necessarily sexism. Opposing her 'cause she's not hawt enough, or because you think she's "power-hungry" (a candidate for POTUS? Power-hungry?! Who'da thunk?) IS sexist. It's not that complicated. Getting all defensive about it only makes you look guilty.

Here's a concrete example of misogyny directed against Clinton by an Obama supporter. A friend of mine, supposedly a "progressive" guy asked about Clinton: "If she can't satisfy her husband, how can she satisfy her country?" I have heard similar sentiments elsewhere. Another friend (again, a "progressive guy") made a photo album on facebook of "unflattering pictures of Hillary."
If anyone's confused about why those things are misogynistic, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

Fine. I'm sexist. I get it. I always knew I wasn't a truly enlightened male, but coming to this site has made me realize what a misogynist asshole I really am, so I will refrain from oppressing you with my comments.

People of color overall get the short stick in life. I don't doubt that; the success of the Obamas is a testament to both of their internal resources. I think that upper-middle-class white women do not win the Oppression Olympics.

One of the best comments on this issue. Since you do not want the support of people like me, I will retire to the people of color corner in the oppression Olympics and give the simplest argument I can on why I support Obama instead of Hillary:

It's harder to be a black man with a single mother than an upper-middle class woman. Feminists have drawn their line in the sand, so don't be surprised when the vast majority of minorities throw our lot in with the side you oppose. There's a reason why black women are voting for Obama overwhelmingly; the POC have spoken.

Wow; Spottie, I'm amazed that *as a male* you feel you have the right to speak for Women of Color! Holy cow. Never mind the egregious sexism WoC face in mainstream PoC culture ("gangsta rap," anyone?!)....

okay. i haven't read any comments yet, but "dark and funky"!?

okay. now, i'll read s'more.

This article is EXACTLY on point. She exactly pin-pointed every bit of what I've been feeling this election season. Right on!

"give the simplest argument I can on why I support Obama instead of Hillary:

It's harder to be a black man with a single mother than an upper-middle class woman."

First of all, I notice you don't note the economic status of the man in this scenario, or the "race" of the woman. I find this odd...

Second of all, I think a lot of the comments of yours being criticized were separate from this particular belief of yours.

Honestly, I think this has nothing to do with people's love of Obama and everything to do with their hatred of Hillary. I don't think the two have anything to do with each other. People would still be saying these things about Hillary no matter who the other Democratic candidate was, and sadly it's because so many men are threatened by such a headstrong, powerful woman.

Oh for fuck's sake.

From the OED:
dark 1. a. Characterized by (absolute or relative) absence of light; devoid of or deficient in light; unilluminated; said esp. of night.
2. Of clouds, the sky, etc.: Reflecting or transmitting little light; gloomy from lack of light, sombre.
3. a. Of the ordinary colour of an object: Approaching black in hue.

It's racist to assume that dark = African American. So let's get over "dark and funky" now, please.

AND:
Until someone shows me the Obama equivilent of "Get Out Of The Race And Make Me A Sandwich, Bitch" I am unable to believe that the level of sexism against Clinton (regardless of party or preferred CANDIDATE) is negligible.

I'm personally not a big fan of either of the Clintons, mostly due to their apparent inability to distinguish reality from fable, and the attendant drama this creates. But I will happily vote for her in the election if she's the nominee, and I think we should all be thrilled that we have not one but TWO viable candidates in the running this year. This should be considered a welcome change from our recent past.

As the campaing wears on I've been getting more and more sensitive to the back-and-forth bickering between their respective supporters. While it's to be expected in politics, the vitriol has become more and more intense as this primary season wears on. I've seen absolutely disgraceful attacks directed at each of them, and nobody's camp can claim the moral high ground here. No, we're not all to blame, but it's disingenuous to pin the blame on one side or the other.

It's fair to point out that Hillary has been the victim of sexism, but not without acknowledging the racist garbage Obama has been subject to as well. And trying to weigh one against the other isn't a very productive activity either. Racism and sexism both suck. Period.

I just wish everybody could put all that behind them and focus on what matters -- taking out McCain!

To those that don't like the language I used: I was being blunt, but not sexist. Everybody has an asshole.

Of course you have to be ambitious to run for POTUS, but at some point, I would think you have to look at whether that's realistically possible. It's not for Hillary, no matter what fairy tale the "Fact Hub" and HillaryIs44 are dishing out most recently. Oh, there's an extremely remote chance she could get the nomination, but no scenario in which she wins in November. That's just the cold hard math of the situation.

Her continued candidacy is an ongoing gift to the McCain campaign, and has been for over a month. It serves no rational purpose but to kneecap Obama for the general and give her a chance to run again in 4 years.

Think about what that means, not just for the country, or the Democratic party, but for women and for feminism. Just for starters, kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, it's amazing it's survived Bush and McCain would get to replace at least 2 of the votes sustaining it.

It's not just her candidacy, which I didn't have a problem with. It's what her "Scorched Earth" strategy has as side effects. And she is way too smart not to know it. So, to put it in the bluntest terms, her ambition is more important to her than your reproductive rights.

That's far from the only negative consequence, but it's the one that strikes nearest and dearest to the readership here. So, maybe you should stop asking why Obama's male supporters hate her, and start asking why you don't.

--Dave

Dave: That's just the cold hard math of the situation.

Nice try Dave, but according to the math Obama cannot win the nomination either.

If Obama cares so much about the country, he should step down. He has shown he is inexperienced and cannot handle the country. Please don't let you ambition destroy this country Obama.

Also, it is known that the media has been in that tank for him and that should scare everybody in this country...that his indiscretions and questionable friends are being hidden by the media. This is Bush all over again.

So we should be asking why men are so gullible to not see this.