• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on DNC to Arkansas Voters: …
    SWPAnnA on DNC to Arkansas Voters: …
    riverdaughter on Friday: Bicycles
    riverdaughter on DNC to Arkansas Voters: …
    riverdaughter on Monday Night at the Movie…
    riverdaughter on Monday Night at the Movie…
    Nakajima Kikka on Monday Night at the Movie…
    insanelysane on Saturday: Power Wash
    mike peine on Friday: Bicycles
    churl on Monday Night at the Movie…
    bemused_leftist on Adolescent Humor: Bad Lipreadi…
    bemused_leftist on Adolescent Humor: Bad Lipreadi…
    r u reddy on Saturday: Power Wash
    r u reddy on Saturday: Power Wash
    r u reddy on Saturday: Power Wash
  • Recent posts delivered to your door — Follow TC on Twitter

  • Categories


  • Tags

  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Cannonfire

    • Something's coming
      Posting may be light, because I'm working on something big. In fact, I plan to do up a video presentation on a huge story that could destroy the Murdoch/Fox empire.No, I'm not talking about the phone hacking scandal. Think bigger. Much bigger.Actually, the real work was done by some very prestigious foreign news firms. What infuriates me is that no […]
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Obama headquarters
      Charlie Pierce pays a visit to campaign central: The headquarters is on the third floor. To visit, guests have to surrender their driver’s licenses in exchange for a visitor’s tag at the front desk. The days of the storefront walk-in headquarters are as dead as the Whigs, and Steve was not even allowed to tell [...]
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Dutch Disease
      It seems a lot of people don’t know what Dutch Disease is.  Here’s the short. Dutch disease is when you sell a lot of resources and that makes your currency increase in value.  So if you discover a lot of oil, or oil becomes a lot more valuable because of a shortage so that you [...]
  • Top Posts

Is Obama a sexist?

Bomisogynist

In the final installment of Eriposte’s interview with Eric Boehlert is up and I found this part worthy of notice:

Eric Boehlert: By contrast a lot of the attacks on Clinton’s candidacy were strictly personal in nature. For instance, I don’t remember reading lots of allegations online that Obama was a monster out to destroy the Democratic party. Or that he was an egomanic. Or that he was a sexist. But the inverse—that Clinton was a racist monster trying to rip the party apart for her own personal gain—became quite common by the spring of 2008.

Of course, a lot of that looked pretty hollow when one of Obama’s first acts was to appoint the ‘monster’ as his Secretary of State; a move which made the online claims against Clinton look rather foolish. And I think people realize that now. But there isn’t much interest in going back and examining the phenomena. And examine what drove the hate rhetoric.

[Eriposte note: Eric and I exchanged some additional notes on this topic. The gist of it is that his comment about Obama not being labeled a sexist really applies to the A-list pro-Clinton blogs - there were much smaller and mostly low traffic pro-Clinton blogs that did accuse Obama of being a sexist. In contrast, the references to Clinton being racist were rather common in the front pages of some A-list blogs.]

I guess we must be one of those “smaller and low traffic pro-Clinton blogs” he is referring to because we accused Obama of being a sexist (and a misogynist too.)  Were there ANY A-list pro-Clinton blogs?  I can’t think of any.

I must say I am a little disappointed in Boehlert and Eriposte.  Despite the fact that they both recognize the over the top sexism and misogyny that was pervasive during last year’s campaign, they both give appear to Obama a pass on the issue and hold him blameless.  So to clarify I asked this question in the comments:

It’s not much of a jump to make the conclusion that the pervasive sexism during the primary and general campaigns was directed or at least encouraged by the Obama campaign itself.

If Obama ran a sexist campaign is it unreasonable to conclude he is a sexist?

Eriposte’s reply:

Myiq2xu,

In the absence of direct evidence that the Obama campaign “encouraged” or “directed” the use of sexist attacks, I would not assume this was the case. I have not seen any compelling evidence for this theory.

Let me also pre-emptively address another possible line or argument. Even if one wants to argue that Obama, occasionally said something that could be construed as sexist, it is a giant leap from that to assume that he is a sexist by nature or that he encouraged sexism. Sometimes people who are upset say stupid things that they regret later.

A final point. Michelle Obama is a fairly independent woman and I seriously doubt she would have stayed in her marriage if she thought her husband was sexist or encouraged sexism.

Posted by eriposte at June 5, 2009 08:25 AM

Obama supporters not only saw racism in unlikely places last year, they always presumed it was directed and/or encouraged by the opposing campaigns of Hillary Clinton (in the primary) and John McCain (in the general election.) To my knowledge neither Eric Boehlert nor Eriposte agree with that presumption, but then again neither one of them has indicated that racism was a significant factor in last year’s elections.

However both men acknowledge that the sexism was widespread and played a major role.  Obama was the only beneficiary of the sexism because any sexism directed at Michelle Obama would be unlikely to help Hillary or McCain/Palin.  Assuming that the Obama campaign directed and/or encouraged the sexism, would you really expect them to admit it? The Watergate era term that comes to mind is “plausible deniability.”

It is widely accepted that beginning with Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and continuing with the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush that the Republican party ran racist campaigns utilizing “dogwhistles.”  Their campaigns were not overtly racist but used code words and symbolism that would appeal to racist voters.  In the words of Lee Atwater, the 1988 campaign manager for G. H. W. Bush:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff.”

I would have been shocked if any candidate for President openly used words like bitch, c**t, slut or whore, just as much as if they used racial epithets. But Barack Obama, allegedly the smartest President in history whose biggest strength is his ability to communicate, did say these things:

“ I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

“You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.”

“Tea parties with ambassadors.”

“Hold on one second, sweetie.”

“You can put lipstick on a pig.”  “It’s still a pig.”

Michelle Obama added this little pearl of wisdom:

“If you can’t even take care of your own house, then you have no business in being in the White House.”

Obama maintained a dismissive attitude towards Hillary throughout the campaign, at times even acting contemptuous. He was even more dismissive of Sarah Palin.  He made little or no effort to stop the rampant sexism among his supporters. A few times he tepidly denounced the it, usually when it was starting to create a backlash but never really calling off the dogs.

Let’s not forget that the virtually every minute of the Obama campaign was tightly scripted and controlled from the top, from who sat on the stage behind Obama to people fainting at rallies.  So my question for Eriposte is this:

What more will you need before you accept that there is compelling evidence?

Will it take copies of written memos from David Axelrod or will you require a confession from Obama himself?

Obama didn’t “occasionally” say something sexist, he did it on a regular basis and not when he was “upset.”  The only time he showed regret was when there was a backlash.  Obama has yet to show by his actions that he gives a shit about women’s issues, and the evidence continues to mount that he does not.  Sure, he nominated women to his Cabinet and to the Supreme Court, but then again so did Ronald Reagan. As for “fairly independent” Michelle, she has been relegated to the role of June Cleaver.

If the burden of proof was on Obama to prove that he is NOT a sexist, what evidence could he present?

BHO finger


Please DIGG!! & Share!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

145 Responses

  1. There’s no compelling evidence ‘cuz it wasn’t in the papers or on the news, silly. If Tweety and AC don’t co-sign it, it didn’t happen, okay? As soon as these blogger guys admit they stopped thinking for themselves at any point, they pretty much become useless, don’t they?

  2. How about Favreau and the cardboard cutout? This was Obama’s SPEECHWRITER for Gawl’s sake.

    • It all went down the memory hole while eriposte wasn’t looking.

      • eriposte stopped looking and listening when Obama was nominated. since then he’s been too busy forgetting.

  3. Thanks for this excellent and well written post, myiq2xu. I’m more disappointed in eriposte than I am in Boehlert. I really thought eriposte knew better.

    Question: how is eriposte defining “low traffic” blogs? Interestingly, The Confluence gets more traffic than The Left Coaster.

  4. about the “A LIST CLINTON BLOGS”

    there was one – YOURS which has always been an A list blot imho even though I rarely get over here (or anywhere anymore)

    still – this was almost the first and probably the most loyal Clinton blog that I’ve read. Screw what the ignorant hacks think. (they DON’T)

    peace

  5. typos – too early – sorry

  6. One of the positive effects of last year’s campaign is that I’m far more aware of and sensitive to sexism than I was before. But you would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to see it at all.

    Even the hard core Kool-aiders admit it was there, they just claim it was offset by all the racism. Yet Obama was unsullied by it?

    • You didn’t get the memo: “Obama is sort of God”- News Weeks Prophet Evan Thomas

      See, Obama is above the WORLD! :shock:

      • Holy Smokes, someone should inform God that things are not looking too good in The United States (via Liberal Rapture):

        Friday, June 05, 2009
        The Geography of Collape.
        Holy Cow. Watch this please. It is an animated graph of jobs gained and jobs lost in the U.S. from January 2004 to March 2009. Watch until the end. The scope of the recession is numbing.
        The Geography of Jobs
        http://tipstrategies.com/archive/geography-of-jobs/

  7. Eriposte’s last comment bothers me the most:

    A final point. Michelle Obama is a fairly independent woman and I seriously doubt she would have stayed in her marriage if she thought her husband was sexist or encouraged sexism.

    Yes, but Michelle Obama is also very ambitious (not that there is anything wrong with that … ), likes glamour, doesn’t mind marrying a rich/powerful/ambitious man to get there, and most important do whatever dirty work it needs to be done to fulfill their mutual quest.

    What Eriposte and many others miss is that both Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards are in a sense old-fashioned in that their ambition is fulfilled through that of their husbands. It’s the idea of “we want to live at the White house”. Hillary is funny in a sense that she doesn’t associate her worth with her husband’s. You note, she never tried to be a glamorous first lady (and I am sure the cocktail circuit in DC hated her for it). She saw it as a role to do good work, and she rolled up her sleeve and got to it. In fairness, Elizabeth Edwards wasn’t that much up for her own glamour, but she also was ready to bash another women (“I am more joyful that HIllary….” was a nasty hint, as was Michelle’s comment regarding keeping your own house.”)

    You know, many sexist men have no problem with either Michelle or Elizabeth, especially the former. You note Michelle has the same education as her husband, but professionally walks two steps behind, which suits him.

    There is something in America that I like to call the 75% rule, which is the modern version of walking two steps behind. It’s no coincidence that women get paid 75 cents for every dollar the man makes. I have noticed in professional settings that a women who is an intelligent, or as competent as a man is frequently treated somewhat less, and if they applied for the same high level job, I bet you that her chance of getting it is at most 75% of his. It seems to me that compare to a man, the real worth of women takes a 25% automatic dip.

    So even a very competent woman (think HIllary Clinton, Sheila Blair…) is supposed to be somewhat modest and not shrill. If she observes the 75% rules, which means she matches her behavior to the opinion of good old boys of her stauts, she will fit just fine.

    I wouldn’t at all surprise me to find out

    • Agreed. You said it well and I posted my own thoughts below on Michelle and her own ambitions to become first lady trumping her own independence. Also, just because a man seems like a guy who doesn’t cheat on his wife doesn’t make him a feminist or an all around nice guy – or even a “good” husband.

      • Lack of infidelity is a rather low standard, isn’t it? It reminds me of when Ed Meese was being trumpeted as qualified for the SCOTUS during the Reagan Administration because he’d never been convicted of a crime.

    • There are so many reasons a person stays in a marriage that to use Michelle’s continued relationship with BHO as evidence that he isn’t sexist is such
      A BIG STRETCH that I’ve decided to skip the rest of his posts even though Myiq has been recommending them for the past few days.

      His reasoning is as faulty as Chris Matthews’
      Hillary-only-got-elected-senator-because-Bill-cheated-on-her rationale; just doesn’t make sense; one thing doesn’t necessarily flow from the other.

  8. Another thing I’ve realized – there was a BIG group of DEMS who (over the years thanks to the wretched MSM) were convinced Hillary could NEVER WIN cuz of the Repug hatred towards Bill and Her in general.

    I argued that with some OLD X Dems on the DNC blog years back……….. they were positively positive that Hillary could never win in the general. And they were DEAD set on getting a DEM PREZ no MATTER! Now lookie what we have! BLECH!

    • I had that concern myself – after watching the rampant CDS back in the 90′s I was not looking forward to a sequel.

      But Hillary was so much better than any of the other candidates

      • In a New York Minute! ;-)

      • We need to remember that many of the young people who joined the Obamob had spent their formative years being brainwashed with CDS by the Corporate Propaganda Media.

    • Ah, but she was just the most qualified candidate that just happened to be a woman, we now have the revelation of why he was better: “Obama is sort of God”- News Weeks Prophet Evan Thomas

  9. I think the excuse that just because Michelle seems independent, therefore, Barack can’t be sexist or she would’ve left him already is a very weak argument.

    There are plenty of sexist men who appear (at least in public) to be devoted fathers and committed husbands. There are men who see women as Madonna/Whores with their wives as respectable enough while they buy prostitutes or even go so far as raping (and killing) other women. Just because someone is devoted in their family life doesn’t make them an overall good person.

    Secondly, Michelle and Barack’s marriage wasn’t always so stable. We’ve now learned that Michelle believed Barack to be selfish because he placed his ambitions and climbing the political world more important than their marriage and family.

    Now that Michelle is a superstar and first lady, I highly doubt that she has much to complain about publicly now (and who can blame her). Any problems she and Barack might have will now be covered up with photo ops. She has now willingly allowed their handlers and PR people to give her a makeover into a woman who is smart and educated but now knows her place in society and has given up her career to be a politician’s wife and stay-at-home mother.

    So everything isn’t always what it appears to be. Michelle, like a dutiful wife, joined her husband in bringing down Hillary Clinton using sexism so that her husband could win and she could be first lady. I don’t place a ton of blame on Michelle because she was just helping her husband. But that does not clear Obama of any wrongdoing.

    I don’t expect Boehlert or anyone who works in and for the blogosphere or the mainstream media to ever admit to the truth. We will have to wait for unbiased historians or a political scientist who supported Clinton (like Anglachel) to document our side of the story.

  10. I probably sound like a broken record on this point but to me the way the Obama campaign discounted Hillary’s experiences going abroad, working on policy, and everything else she did as First Lady was terribly sexist. This is a kind of pervasive sexism that infects many men and women alike. It should matter what she did and how well she did it but because she did it as someone’s wife it all counts for nothing.

  11. Michelle Mom-in-Chief Obama is not the same Michelle Wake Up And Get it Obama she was before the June Cleaver injections.

    • Yes but at least she’s now “proud of her country for the first time”

      HA – and with that I bid ur blog adieu

      peace out

    • ” the June Cleaver injections” lol! . Funny because it’s true. I don’t what they are doing , but it’s something along June Cleaver lines

  12. And what has Michelle done since entering the White House? Grow gardens, host parties, work out, supervise her mother’s care of the children, basically all of the trappings of the uber-rich wifey.

    Michelle doesn’t mind sacrificing her career for her man. She’s satisfied with making the Republicans happy as a cookie baker. She is by no means the feminist.

  13. Boelert and Eriposte are just two more gutless wonders, terrified that if they said the truth, the mindless Loons will go bye-bye — or worse yet, say bad things to thiem!

    • Lets not be too hard on them, neither of them is or was a Kool-aider and they are saying things that very few others are willing to say.

      Several A-listers are snubbing EB’s book because he told the truth and it hurts.

      • I haven’t heard about EB’s book anywhere except for PUMA sites, Anglachel, and TalkLeft. Don’t go to the Cheeto blogs so haven’t read what they’ve said about him but I’m sure not much. It’s not like he’s getting the attention he deserves from other news outlets either. This book will be buried as quickly as possible and forgotten about. If MoveOn.org still wasn’t on their knees for Obama, they’d offer to distribute EB’s book to their members for a small donation.

    • I think that’s going too far. I think they both have open minds and can be educated.

  14. Michelle denied being a feminist or a Democrat in an interview published during the campaign. I think she’s perfectly happy to suck up the approval and the status she enjoys as a sort of trophy wife to the man with the biggest trophy in the world.

    I also don’t think that Obama’s all that great of a dad. Michelle, herself, said that he spent most of the girls’ lives away from them because of his political career. Why does he get a pass on that and Hillary and Palin, who kept their daughters close, get harangued on their parenting?

  15. Absolutely, ghost2 – Having worked with women in battered women’s shelters I’ve learned that there are many women who, although they may not be physically battered are abused in many other ways – those women are often willing to stay with their abusers because of the psychological “power” but many of the volunteer women who thought they weren’t being abused just didn’t want to give up “the stuff” – social standing, nice home, car, parties, $. Clearly Michelle seems to fall into that category – she is so overshadowed by mr ego that she’s fallen in stature.
    As first lady she should be playing a serious role – but she’s not – she seems to be wallowing in his “glory.”
    I dont’ think either of them have a clue how they should be representing our country.

  16. “Is Obama sexist?”

    Does a bear poo in the woods?

    “Michelle Obama is a fairly independent woman and I seriously doubt she would have stayed in her marriage…”

    This shows a complete misunderstanding of misogyny, patriarchy, and the whole nature of our society. Here it is 2009 and still for women, the only way to get into the white house is to be married to an ambitious man.

    Why did huff and puff stay married to a gay Republican for so long? Why are so many women trapped in abusive marriages?

    I’ve listened to Michelle. She is one resentful woman, forced to passively aggressively complain about stinky feet., to laugh hysterically when asked if Obama was ready to be Prez, to referring to him as just a fashion accessory. She smiles for the camera and does the photo op dates, and tries to fake dancing with this man, but it’s not real. You can see it in her body language.

    • “Why did huff and puff stay married to a gay Republican for so long? Why are so many women trapped in abusive marriages?”

      yttik – You’re right. Many of these “powerful” and “independent” women are in fact Stepford wives to their powerful husbands. Hillary was trashed for using her opportunity as a politician’s wife to carve out her own path in politics and American history. Huff n Puff, a hypocrite and opportunist, stayed married to a gay Republican while criticizing Hillary for her true independence. Huff n Puff, in order to remain relevant in politics and social circles after her divorce, switched sides and created the Huffington Post. Anyone who believes Arianna is a liberal is only fooling themselves. I recommend reading this article in the New Republic about Arianna:

      http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ce686bd3-233a-44a2-bdd4-ee3d879a1967&p=1

    • Richard Wolffe writes in his book that MO wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about staying in her marriage for a good little while there. Makes that argument a little harder to buy. Even though, the “you’re mean to other women for us, I’m outta here” position is hard enough to buy about a woman who says, “if she can’t run her own house…” about another woman.

      Wolffe writes that Michelle Obama “hated the failed race for Congress in 2000, and their marriage was strained by the time their youngest daughter, Sasha, was born a year later.”

      “There was little conversation and even less romance,” Wolffe writes. “She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful.”

      When Obama ran for the Senate in 2004, his wife still had mixed feelings about her husband’s love of politics, and played no part in the campaign, the book says.

      By the time Obama decided to run for president, the couple’s two children were older and Michelle Obama was more supportive.

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6xKMt2ceN5MBDW8emWvqwhDLC5gD98JBDE00

      • “Cold and ungrateful” as opposed to “warm and appreciative?”

        I guess she didn’t understand her place as a housewife?

        • She didn’t understand that her primary role was as a supplier of admiration and attention for her husband the malignant narcissist. Apparently she decided the tradeoff for being First Lady was worth the sacrifice.

      • Ungrateful? He is beyond belief.

  17. Of course Obama is a sexist. The media ignored the sexism because the media depends on sexism to sell products. Women need to start hitting the advertisers for sexism. Women are the major consumers of these advertisers.
    Any time some woman complains about Obama being sexist. I say I told you so. We said that throughout the Primary but no one listened. He used sexism against Sarah not as much but he still used them. They still voted for him because he is pro choice and so called pro woman.

    • People assume alot and that was one of the things Barry’s handlers counted on. He’s dark skinned, so he’s has to be a liberal, he’s a Dem so he must be pro choice…No need to actually look into it .

      I recently had an exchange with a middle aged trust fund baby. They assume these things and more….experts, people, SOMEONE will take care of it, because for them, that’s how it’s always been . It was interesting. The need to actually know ( they would say with disdain, ” micromanage ” lol! ) was completely missing.

      Whatever Barry World Group Inc decides and does, won’t impact their life too much and never has, so they don’t see a need to actually know in the same way we would . Not being a trust fund baby, just how all all that worked was a mystery to me . It’s a strange way to live… very removed.

      • That was the point of my final question – if there was a presumption that Obama was a sexist unless he could prove otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, what could he offer as evidence besides rhetoric?

  18. OT:

    Haha! Jake Tapper says Gordon Brown called Omaha Beach “Obama Beach” at D-Day ceremonies.

    • (nodding) He did. I heard it with my own ears.

    • Sigh! And even without that misspeech, Obama now owns not only the liberation of Buchenwald but also D-Day.

      Never has any one man accompliced so much … without doing a thing.

      Everything has been and is handed to him.

  19. “99 Problems , But a B*tch Ain’t One.”

    Nuff said.

    (Or was he talking about his own wife?)

    LOL

  20. I disagree with Eriposte’s response in that Obama was not aware of attacks on Clinton and ther eis no evidence that there was.
    I saw quite a few incidents where he participated in the attacks.

    However, let’s say that those of you who really believe he is so innocent just stay there. Answer me this: why not make an attempt to stop them rather than escalate them with more attacks from staff, friendies in Congress, hateful and abusive television commentary?

    I suspect that the answer is ‘oh it’s politics”. Okay. I thought you all voted for him for ‘change’? Did that change not include civility? Or just not civility against Clinton and women? Can you explain that to me please?

    Also, if Eriposte is not aware, would he/she accept my clinical texts, researched and validated, used by the best colleges in the country for post graduate curriculum’s, to educate him on what abuse toward women is and how it is proliferate in third world countries….and in the United States?

    Or maybe psychology missed that part. Abuse is okay in politics.

    • You make a good point. Also, if he is the ‘smartest’ person EVA, then how could he have not known? Surely he knew about his own statements and how that set the tone for his supporters.

    • It’s almost like the idea that Obama emerged from the Chicago political machine with his innocence intact.

      • Indeed. He was introduced into the machine corrupt already. That’s why Obama was there at all. He seemingly was lead like a goat for years by others, undoubtedly still is, married deep within the machine ….what I mean is, there was never anything else to fall to corruption . So Barry is innocent in a sense….innocent of anything but the fix.

    • “they both give appear to Obama a pass on the issue and hold him blameless.”

      He’s always blameless. If the blogosphere was poisoned by rampant misogyny, and the O campaign had a sophisticated astroturfing system, how could they/he be blameless? It’s preposterous–they fueled it, and that doesn’t even include his own treatment of Palin & Clinton. No offense to our resident enlightened men here, but it doesn’t surprise me that the two bloggers who do not see the sexism from O are both men. Women could see/hear/feel the dog whistles in their gut, and they were everywhere.

  21. Anyone need a quick refresher on sexism in the campaign?

    “Sexism, Misogyny, Women’s History & Hillary Clinton”
    youtube

    http://tinyurl.com/ra8oh6

  22. I see a lot of good comments here. Y’all should drop by The Left Coaster and (politely) post them over there as well.

    Just follow the link at the top of the post.

  23. He did NOT use Michelle as a sop to Obama, did he? Hey guys we just solved sexism, every man has a mother, wife or daughter!!!!!

    I’m at the state convention waiting for plouffe to speak welcome to the 9th circle of hell….

  24. I published this on my blog on 6/22 and especially since the Tiller murder and my run in as a candidate with right to lifers (oxymoron) I’ve thought a lot about it again.

    But, my point is this. I was a candidate at one point and I had the money and the means to make the other person’s life miserable and I had the folks that would do it too. I always pulled them back in. My opponent let them run amok and the entire experience was personally destructive to me.

    My point? The Candidate is ALWAYS responsible for the tone of their campaign. PERIOD.

    http://dakiniland.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/you-dont-fool-me-candidates-are-responsible-for-the-tone-of-their-campaigns/

  25. Wasn’t the Obama campaign behind Obama girl?

    “Hillary! Stop the attacks! Love, Obama Girl”

    http://tinyurl.com/3bnskq

    • Obama Girl who didn’t vote for Obama? Yea, I believe they were behind Obama Girl just Like they were behind this:

      Vote Different

      • What is so terrifying about this ad is that everything Obama claimed Hillary was or would bring to the country is exactly what he was planning for us.

    • The 1984 clip was traced back to Blue State Digital, Obama’s Joe Trippi influenced web consultants. Obama Girl was supposedly produced by an “independent” group, Barely Political, but, I’m skeptical about their “independence.”

      • I personally NEVER believed him when he said he had nothing to do with the Apple ad, because his people were all over it and then only on guy resigned, but I am sure he was regarded for allowing them cover. The press/media believed it hoop line and sinker. :-(

  26. I think there are plenty of signs in their marriage that show he is a sexist there, too. People are not just “sort of,” or “selectively” prejudice. Remember his morning interview with Ann Curry during the primary where he said outright Michelle was out of bounds to the press. He further patronized with a “don’t you worry, little lady” patting of her leg. She coyly responded with putting her head on his shoulder in a “my hero” kind of way.

    He uses Michelle for his image. He wants to be seen as a heart-throb, sex symbol himself. Beach photos, Cinderella evening in NY, and his constant remarks about his deep love for his wife and daughters. But, he’s posing for the cameras and nothing candid is ever caught showing that affection in action. When he had to READ off the teleprompter, “Maliah, Sasha, I love you more than you can know” and did so in the same droning tone he uses in lecturing the country on the merits of turning over all their money to him, it was clear that’s one empty vessel.

  27. Eriposte may indeed be bright but he clearly doesn’t have a clue about what it’s like to be a woman in today’s world.

    He totally ignores the fact that the one thing that could have stopped all the sexism and mysogyny is O saying “Stop it – but he didn’t he participated in it and seemingly enjoyed it.

    And Mrs. O should be ashamed of herself for participating and supporting his sexism. Remember, Madeline’s quote: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women”

  28. Ha. I disagree with a *premise* and I have “stopped thinking” for myself, have “become useless”, “stopped looking and listening”, a “gutless wonder” and so on. Just the kind of discourse that enlightens and allows honest debate, especially given most of the people who express these views probably have not read all of my primary coverage.

    Myiq2xu,

    Fundamentally, making judgments about whether someone is a racist or sexist is not easy in many situations. My general tendency is to give people a fair amount of benefit of doubt before labeling them sexist or racist. Most of Obama’s statements that you have described above are ones that I have mentioned during my coverage of the primary. In fact, I referred to these as “borderline sexist” statements when I criticized Obama during the primary.
    It is however a big leap for me from criticizing someone for making “borderline sexist” statements and claiming that they are inherently sexist as a result. This is a personal opinion based on my own experiences in life where I have seen people sometimes make stupid statements – in some cases statements that could be interpreted in more than one way – and then regret what they said (usually privately).

    I think we just have to agree to disagree on this.

    • “This is a personal opinion based on my own experiences in life where I have seen people sometimes make stupid statements – in some cases statements that could be interpreted in more than one way – and then regret what they said (usually privately).”

      The clear pattern confirms that these were not slips or careless mistakes. The O campaign knew that the sexism worked to their advantage. If you are arguing that Obama is not inherently sexist, then it was purely political. He did absolutely nothing to insist on respect for his fellow Dem opponent. To the contrary, he used it for political advancement, which is equally repellent.

      • Indeed. They not only knew, they damn well paid for and directed alot of it.. The checks were a flying…of course many didn’t need to be paid either

    • I repeat, all he had to do was say “Stop it to his followers and it would have stopped. But he didn’t

      A campaign is run from the top down.

      • That’s my position. When I ran for office I purposely didn’t hire people that I knew were known for the low road. I didn’t want my name associated with them.

    • I disagree with the comments some people here have made about you. There is no call for that stuff – you have never been one of the Oborg.

      In fact, I referred to these as “borderline sexist” statements when I criticized Obama during the primary.

      I don’t see anything borderline about them.

      I think we just have to agree to disagree on this.

      Fair enough.

      • I disagree! I think you should throw the Bu!! Shiite flag on this one. To dismiss the numerous episodes of O’s “saying something that he regrets” “then making up in private” smacks of everything you have always pointed out as signifying an Obamatron.

        I call Bu!! Shiite! 15 yards for excusing senseless rationalization!

        myiq I like you and your posts and usually agree but I don’t agree to disagree if you are wrong. Just me.

        I’m willing to have a knockdown drag out arm wrastling fight to settle it… then I’ll buy you a cold one and argue about something else.

        • I really admire most of Eriposte writes. I am not prepared to cast him into the outer darkness because he doesn’t agree on this one issue.

          He is not the enemy, he is a friend that hasn’t been persuaded yet.

          We aren’t Obots, and we don’t scorch the earth.

          • I’m not saying you should cast him out. Just in this instance I smell a lot of you know what. It sounds like…

            Never mind, it has been a long day and maybe I jumped the gun. Still reading up on eriposte, haven’t made my mind up yet but this attempt at self apologia does not set well with me.

            Let’s skip the arm wraslin and just go get a cold one, it’s easier and I don’t trust the captain to stay out of it.

    • “Borderline sexist” is apparently in the eye of the beholder. Women behold these statements differently than some men.

      I did read all your primary coverage and admired it greatly. I’m a bit disappointed now, but I recognize that we all have blind spots. I think you have the potential to get past yours.

      • BTW, eriposte, you might want to read the comments on your own blog posts before you criticize others.

      • Dr. BB,

        I’m a male and I don’t find this even close to “borderline”. I’m throwing the Bu11 Shiite flag on this one!

        Eriposte may be alright. I’ve been trying to read up on some of his stuff but this last attempt at excusing his complicity in O’s sexist attitude by pulling the self righteous I like to give people “the benefit of the doubt” is spineless and self serving in my opinion, much like O himself.

    • “My general tendency is to give people a fair amount of benefit of doubt before labeling them sexist or racist.”

      What’s unfortunate is that that is not turned around. People who complain about sexism would like to be given the benefit of doubt and not be simply dismissed. It seems like people were prepared to bend over backwards to make excuses for those perpetuating the sexism, while persecuting those who kept pointing it out. Trust me, nobody gave me the benefit of the doubt when they were calling me bitter, racist, republican, or a myriad of more obscene insults.

    • Funny you took the “stop thinking for themselves” comment personally. I was thinking of what was posted yesterday about bloggers caving to commenters. When they do that, they do “stop thinking for themselves” and “become useless,” don’t they? If I confused you with someone you wrote about, sorry. But, I stand by the assertion that much of what is perceived is driven by what is validated in the media. Had the misogyny been documented as well as the racism, drawing the obvious parallels would be easier.

    • Beg pardon but I read your posts during the primaries and consider them to be the very best in both content and form of any blogger. I stopped reading when TLC joined Obamanation with the rest of the more dutiful democrats.

      I understand it’s not easy to call a sitting president of your own party a sexist, but if it walks like a duck etc. In this case, since winning the election Obama has talked like a democrat while behaving like Bush III. Seems few in left blogistan has noticed.

    • Eriposte,

      I respect you a great deal. I read a lot of your primary coverage and found it to be consistently incisive and analytical, and by far some of the best political blogging of the year. You were logical and your work was flawlessly cited.

      What I don’t understand is why you seem to find the denizens of this blog and the PUMA movement as a whole somewhat distasteful, why you seem to have backed off from last year, why you would use such poor logic as “Maybe he was angry and felt bad afterward” and “Michelle wouldn’t stay married to a sexist” to support your perspective.

      If I’m angry and say something out of line, but feel bad about it afterward, I’m sorry that I did something socially unacceptable by saying something that in a way that was overly blunt or out of line. But very rarely are those temper tantrum gaffes something new, something that I don’t already think on some level.

      So if Obama got mad and acted rashly, it’s likely that he was being impulsive, not creative. Now, I get that many of us carry deeply buried misogynist or racist sentiments as a result of our upbringing in a racist, misogynist society, and that we try very hard to deconstruct those and root them out because we find them appalling. So if Obama lets something sexist slip, it does not mean that he is someone who would usually say something sexist (either because he is personally against sexism, or because he worries about the social repercussions).

      But because this is inconclusive, we need to look at his other actions. His planned rhetoric, policy suggestions, the way he behaves in his personal life… And if you look at those, it becomes much more apparent that he is not a feminist. Michelle Obama has never presented herself as a feminist (in fact, I believe she publicly chose to distance herself from the feminist movement). So assuming that she would never stay married to a sexist is ridiculous when we have no evidence that she is not herself a sexist.

      Instead, we should all be assessing Obama on his merits or lack thereof, including his credibility on women’s issues. And sadly, he has no credibility on this front. When someone supports clearly misogynistic policies, is it fair to label them as sexist? What if someone through inaction fails to support policies that would protect women from harm? How badly does someone have to hurt women before we assume that it’s on purpose? How often does it have to happen before we assume that it is a pattern?

    • A. There is nothing “borderline” about it. Those statements, and others, were sexist.

      B. The idea that someone can continually make sexist statements and not be sexist is an absurd distinction. We are what we do. Arguing that he’s not like that, really he isn’t, his intentions are good is nothing more than excusing. And after watching the A-List blogs basically devolve into a year-long scream of “Cuuuuuuuuuuuunt”, I’m really not interested in your excuses.

      C. You think we’re uncivil? Did you ever bother to read the comments at your own damn blog?

  29. It’s really frustrating having people deny that Obama was sexist. There have been thousands of people complaining about the sexism and providing examples and facts, for a few years now.

    We don’t do this with racism, with homophobia, with other forms of hatred. We don’t gaslight the people who complain about it. We don’t tell them they are crazy, they’re imagining things, they’re just filled with hatred.

    Can you imagine if myiq posted that video of the racism in Israel and somebody tried to spin it like this: “Even if one wants to argue that they, occasionally said something that could be construed as racist, it is a giant leap from that to assume that they are racist by nature or that they encouraged racism”.

    • Even better points!

    • wow, that is spot on!

    • It is so pervasive around the world, so accepted as the norm and then we have our own President Obama advocating for the RIGHT to wear the BUrka as the most pressing thing for women. :shock:

    • Mel Gibson was drank when he said his anit-jew stuff so what excuse does Obama have? Remember he did not just use sexist language once. This was something that happened many times. No one can seriously say that Obama didn’t know what he was saying when he said:
      “You can put lipstick on a pig.” “It’s still a pig.”
      He compared a woman to a pig!

      • Try looking up “lipstick on a pig” in the Urban dictionary :

        The street use of this term is analogous to putting a paper bag over a woman’s head before sexual intercourse, or “trying to make the ugly fuck look good
        “making cara look hot is like putting lipstick on a pig” .

        BO uses code words to play to an audience , he has been doing it all along. It became plain with” the old Okey Doke ” speech in South Carolina.

  30. LOL, oops, I used the R word and wound up in moderation. I forgot how it works over here.

  31. Is Obama a sexist?

    Even Huffpo picked up on this one:

    PRESIDENTIAL hopeful Barack Obama claims to run a clean campaign, but someone in his camp took a swipe at Hillary Clinton through the candidate’s theme song.

    As Obama and his wife, Michelle, strolled triumphantly into his victory party in Des Moines, Iowa, on Jan. 3, Jay-Z’s “99 Problems” was blaring. In it, Jay raps, “I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one.”

    Some listeners took it as a not-so-sly reference to Hillary.

    http://tinyurl.com/27bhxu

    another example is Ludacris “Obama is Here”

    Hillary hated on you so that b! tch is irrelevant

    http://tinyurl.com/6483ds

  32. Or again the Annie Oakley remarks:

    http://tinyurl.com/nsqby3

  33. brilliant post, myiq, as usual you nailed it! the confluence is one of the only blogs that made it through this last year with intelligence, wit and integrity intact!

  34. Disagree with Eriposte all you want but please lay off the personal attacks.

    We can disagree without being disagreeable.

  35. Barry is always trying to emulate his Dad….so yeah, I ‘d say he’s super nova sexist as we understand the term . His sexist is so extreme, the glare can blind you….But it’s so extreme, it’s pure.

    As myiq2xu, on June 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am Said:
    It’s almost like the idea that Obama emerged from the Chicago political machine with his innocence intact.

    That goes for the sexism as well as the looting and why the Nancy’ level love him so much. IMO. There’s no messy, being torn, there’s no self distaste because of falling into to corruption…with Barry, all that is gone. He’s pure alright . And our corrupt officials , media , bath in that and feel esolved of sin.

  36. Plouffe is creeping me out. They’re like condescending androids on permanent commercial mode. Go to the website or American dominance is over.

    • Is he making a speech at your meeting? What is he saying?

      • It’s the state party convention and you wouldn’t believe it. He’s talking to us like we’re 2 and saying Obama is unlike most politicians caring about us and not resorting to soundbytes and cheap political tricks. He killed irony, brought a light show, AND they’re about to add a “father’s rights” amendment to the platform. They took OUT a plank that declared health care is a human right, but this will probably make it in. Holy hermiola.

        • Update: men’s rights went down but they gave them a raised hand second vote to make sure, everybody else got one voice vote without appeal.

        • Sheesh!

        • Honestly, I don’t understand how anyone is taken in by these people. They drip with contempt for everybody’s intelligence. Scary.

          I will say though, that Deval gives a freaking phenomenal speech. Call me delusional, but I could almost believe he gives a damn and actually knows what he’s talking about.

        • He’s trying for the male vote, along with the fundies.

          I can’t believe they wanted a second vote-Jeeeezzzzz

  37. Baa baa baaaaaa baa.

  38. is he sexist??YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. From Andrew Stephen of the Brit New Statesman
    on “Hating Hillary”

    Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media – consciously or unconsciously – are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history….

    Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. “While I was working in the streets,” he scolded her, “. . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.” Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”

    One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King (“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964″) and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela (“I’ve been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary”) were deliberate racial taunts.

    Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver – whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans – then weighed in publicly, claiming that “a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements” and saying: “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?” That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists…

    The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman’s presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself “unhappy” with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

    Please-keep on telling me that Obama and Axelrod had nothing whatsoever to do with the sexism and hatred that pervaded the campaign.

  40. BTW this is why Bill Clinton was accused of racism-he called Obama’s stance on the Iraq war a fairytale:

    http://tinyurl.com/qoo7vc

  41. Lying Obot Optical Neuropathy Syndrome (LOONS):

    PUMA-ism is dying. None too soon, either – it’s been a full year. But while all sane estimates suggest that President Obama is building the most progressive presidency in history, these former Clinton malcontents will continue to foam at the mouth about imaginary sexism, until the end. Their latest is a reflection on Obama’s sexist campaign, embodied in, apparently, roughly five quotes.

    “ I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

    “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.”

    “Tea parties with ambassadors.”

    “Hold on one second, sweetie.”

    “You can put lipstick on a pig.” “It’s still a pig.”

    Let’s give the PUMAs the benefit of the doubt on this, and agree, for the sake of argument, that these five out-of-context quotes, excerpted from thousands of public appearances spread out over three years, somehow make his entire campaign one long, running insult to America’s women. Still, these perceived offenses stand to naught against real accomplishments, like the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the withdrawal of the “Mexico City Policy,” and the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, who will be (yes, will be) only the third woman to ever serve on the Court, and a reliable fifth vote to keep Roe on life support. The PUMA’s ‘08 favorite, John McCain, opposes or opposed every one of these policies, vocally, and before you say it, no, being friends with a woman because she looks good on TV doesn’t excuse his anti-feminist positions. In fact, it almost makes it worse: McCain and the Republican Party basically treated Palin as a prop, or a chance for a good news story, hardly an empowering move.

    No, Obama isn’t perfect, nor is his administration. But when judging his record on women’s rights, let’s focus on his actual record, shall we?

    The author is “Ames” (one of our regular blogstalkers)

    • most progressive presidency in history? is he on drugs?

    • and sheesh, i thought i deleted that ping back pretty quickly

    • Sotomayor a reliable fifth vote for roe? Is he reading the same newspaper that I read?

    • People who stalk PUMA are truly pathetic. I haven’t been to DKos once to check out what they are up to because I don’t care. What is up with the blogger boyz infatuation and hate with us?

      • They have a need to share their amazing pearls such as “keep telling yourselves that” and “we will laugh at you mercilessly” with a larger audience than they usually find patrolling the perimeters of mommy’s basement in fatigues and night vision goggles. Plus, they’re pathetic losers who want to feel like they have a larger purpose but are too lazy and sad to actually do anything useful.

  42. Can people honestly think that? I mean do they seriously believe that men with independent wives are incapable of being sexist?

    If that were the case, don’t you think there would be alot less sexism in the world?

  43. I don’t know much about Obama’s childhood or parents because I absolutely refuse to read his books but from what I have heard, his mother was fairly “liberated”. I wonder if this is where Obama’s issues with women come from. Maybe he deeply resents that she did not perform the traditional role and that’s why he chose Michelle, a very “liberated” and independent woman, who would be a challenge to try to mold into that traditional role thereby making him very powerful and “winning” over the mother he resented. I am just thinking out loud about it but I do think Obama has deep issues with women and his sexism was not just political strategy.

  44. The remark to the two women about the vibrating cell phone was the pig remark that really fried my ice. His phone “went off” while he was doing a pander photo and pointed out it was his cell phone and he didn’t want them to think he was being fresh, or some suck crack.

    What a pig.

  45. Hum… is Obama sexist? Here is a hypothesis:
    My understanding is that much of the population considers Obama to be God. Since the tradition of male-oriented uni-god religions also have a history of sexism, then perhaps we can extrapolate that the Messiah is only fulfilling his manly-man destiny as Super-Sugar-Daddy to the world.

    “Hey sweeties, do you want some candy?”

    This is a snark (if not readily apparent)

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 254 other followers