• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on President Biden’s Excell…
    Seagrl on President Biden’s Excell…
    William on President Biden’s Excell…
    Seagrl on Satellite Distraction
    eurobrat on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    eurobrat on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Beata on Satellite Distraction
    William on Satellite Distraction
    Propertius on Satellite Distraction
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    February 2008
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Reasons For Hope (1): The Solutions Are Known
      Ok, this place has mostly been about how fucked we are, and how we’ve fucked up. Blame is more on our leaders than us, but as a species we’re on the hook. But there is cause of hope because mostly we know what we have to do. We know we have to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. We even know mostly how. We pretend we don’t, because the how will involve changin […]
  • Top Posts

come Saturday morning….


  • Mr. Obama, I saw this video of your most recent remarks and there are a couple of things we need to review. But first, let’s go to the videotape:

Ok, that was ugly and probably David Axelrod, your ratfaced campaign person, put you up to it. But this demonstrates to me how naive and unprepared you are to be president. Because, it’s one thing to get all of the guys together and make fun of your female opponent and guilt some women into joining you because they want to feel cool and stuff. But it’s another thing altogether to bring up that whole menstruation and “women are slaves to their raging hormones” myth. Let’s unpack what you’re really saying here:

  1. You are implying that Hillary Clinton is prone to periodic attacks on you when she is feeling emotional and down on herself. Sort of like PMS. Except that Hillary Clinton is 60 years old and is most likely free of any of that pain-in-the-ass periodicity or PMS, if she ever suffered from it at all. And you know this and I know this. Everyone and their brother Joe knows this. So, are you referring to the raging hormones that no longer apply to her or are you signaling by contrast that Hillary is past her prime in a biological sense? That her waist to hip ratio is no longer optimal, her skin no longer elastic, her eyes no longer clear. Are you signalling to the male gender of the species that she is no longer attractive and can therefore be safely dismissed like so many middle aged women are? She is invisible, powerless and all because some of you guys out there don’t want to fuck her. Excuse me for being blunt but I’m just channeling my inner frat boy to figure out what might be going on in your primeval brain stem.
  2. You may not be aware of this but there are drugs on the market that make it so that women never have to have a period again. Yep, it’s giving the tampon makers fits but there it is. Biology is not destiny anymore. Moving on…
  3. The other message you seem to be telegraphing is that Hillary Clinton is being emotional and that her feelings of frustration and lack of her own self worth are driving her “attacks” on you. Just about every woman I know will identify this as the “soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend you’re only angry because you’re emotional there is no other legitimate reason” maneuver. Guys can’t possibly know why we are mad but you guarantee that it’s nothing to do with YOU; it’s all in our heads. I refer to the “soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend” because relationships do not last long after men pull this crap. It shows contempt for the legitimate anger of the female partner and when contempt enters a relationship, the end draws swiftly nigh.
  4. Female Obamaphiles: Is *this* the kind of Change!™ you had in mind? Because it sounds suspiciously like the same old stereotypical @#$% we’ve always put up with. Maybe you want to sit down and think this thing through again. Your male counterparts are probably going to do fantastically well in the Obama era; you?, ehhhhhhh, not so much.
  5. Prediction: Expect Michelle to be trotted out to give a spirited defense while she also makes some remark about Hillary’s “tone” or something.  Wait for it.  You know it’s going to happen.

Mr. Obama, you have successfully captured 15% of the population that calls itself African-American. They could have been Hillary’s constituency as well because the Clintons have a history of working to overcome the racial divide in America. But whatever, you played the race card, headed for the fainting couch, twisted words, milked the media tea and sympathy for all it was worth and campaigned like a maniac in all of the urban areas of the states where you thought you had a shot of winning African-Americans over. It worked like a dream in some places and not at all in others (like in NJ where I understand you dumped a load of cash with no payoff- at all. You were beaten handily by 10 points.)

But if you think for one minute that you are going to sail to the nomination by dogwhistling to men at the expense of the biggest bloc of voting Democrats, you are very much mistaken. Personally, I hope you don’t apologize or that your attempts at an apology come off like your fumbling and incoherent responses to debate questions. We poor, high school dropout, prematurely aged and invisible females will make our irrational, emotional anger known in the privacy of a primary state voting booth (as I already have). Enjoy your brief frontrunner status while it lasts. Boneheads who make these kinds of statements are not suitable presidential nominees.

15 Responses

  1. While it would be more than fair to pay back Obama’s false racialization of Bill’s and Hillary’s innocuous comments last month with a false genderization of Obama’s comments, it would be just as ridiculous. All Obama is saying is that Clinton attacks when she’s down, and she’s certainly down now.

    The real scandal of Obama’s comments is that, like his unhinged supporters, he doesn’t see any criticism as even potentially and worth of being addressed. He used to be sort of standoffish about his own Kool-Aid, making him more admirable and less creepy than his supporters. No more–he not only manufactures the stuff, he’s the #1 customer. Nobody can question him, except for their own vulgar motives, which he will be happy to point out with the time and breath he ought to be expending on good answers to those questions.

  2. Rich in PA: Sorry, buddy, I know what he’s trying to say. It isn’t overtly sexist but it does tap into some common cultural and primitive references. I’ll betcha he already regrets letting that genie out of the bottle.
    Not only that, but Hillary hasn’t really been attacking him. And even if she does attempt to compare and criticize, that’s what campaigns are all about. Obama has no right to expect kid glove treatment. This video clip is getting widespread attention because of the context which he surrounded his remarks.

  3. There’s a simple test for whether Obama’s words are sexist: would he make the same comments about a male opponent? I somehow can’t picture him blathering on that John Edwards “periodically” gets a little down and tries to boost his appeal by getting all, you know, critical and everything, and man, that’s just SO unattractive when they get all bitchy like that.

    And how, pray tell, is Clinton “certainly down now”? She has won every big state, as well as several mid-size and small states that have an actual chance of going Democratic in the GE. Obama has won victories in states like Idaho and Virginia that have no chance of going Dem in the GE. Even with our cockamamie primary/caucus system apparently set up to let everybody but Democrats choose our nominee, the thing is a virtual tie with her leading polls in the majority of the remaining large states. I’d say things are looking pretty good for her, which is probably what prompted Obama’s little snark-fit. Doesn’t he look just like Dubya when he smirks?

  4. You know, Marcy, the more I think about it, the more I think Obama is going to lose this thing. I know that the media is propelling his juggernaut and writing Hillary’s obituary but Obama is turning off the very voters that he needs most to capture in the fall. He’s got to tap into the working class older guy who might end up voting for McCain and so far, Obama has gone out of his way to capture the 15% of the population that is African-American and the young and beautiful crowd. Everyone is telling us that Obamaphiles are new and fresh and their time has come and they are creative and well-educated. How does the guy from WI or OH identify with that? So, Obama is going for the primitive brain but that is alienating a lot of women. We’re shoved aside as if we were old, wrinkiy, uneducated loudmouths whose time came and went without our full participation. And it’s going to pass us by again if the Obamaphiles have anything to day about it. It’s recklessly schizmatic in its approach. In fact, it resembles a Republican presidential campaign very well. And exactly WHAT is Obama? Is he progressive? Is he Republican lite? He is tofu. You project any flavor you want on him but YOUR flavor is always the sexiest one. And them uppity dames need not apply.
    So, if he wins the nomination, what will he be left with? 15% of the population that is African-American, the young who actually vote, some yuppies, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins and, uh, what else? The working class guys are going to flock to McCain. The suburban women probably will too because he’s got national security creds and Obama doesn’t. All of the Republicans will fall in line. To win the whole caboodle, Obama’s got to reach out to the very group, a HUGE bloc of Democratic women, who he just characterized as hysterically, stupid, gray haired, non-persons with dried up vaginas.
    Not a smart move. Because, in the present scenario, how much worse off would we women be? McCain might be an old, hardass, mean spirited, conservative Republican but he hasn’t really ever been a Bushie. And with a solid majority in Congress, he’s not going to have a mandate to carry out any more fascist crap.
    I’m not saying I would vote for McCain, but I’d like to see how far Obama thinks he can get without my help. I’m sure I can think of better things to do this fall than canvass. Nome sayin’?

  5. Some women in their 60’s do get monthly periods, complete with a day or two each month of snappish behaviour.

    It is called “Hormone Replacement Therapy,” I know because my wife was on it.

  6. whoo! that should have passed thru moderation.

  7. I was not trying to be offensive, hope that was not taken the wrong way. Just trying to rebut people who think being menopausal means being past having periods.

  8. I’m not trying to be offensive either, Horse, but are you sure it was just a “day or two each month,” because I’m thinking it might not have been the hormones — it might have just been from being married to you.

    Horse does raise an interesting issue, though. Which is the most dangerous to the world, estrogen or testosterone? I think we have seen the harm caused by Dubya constantly trying to prove his manhood. Obama, all his wonderfulness notwithstanding, seems to me not just a distant relative of Bush’s, but almost his identical twin. His oversized ego, his off-the-cuff remarks about bombing Pakistan, his constant need to use sexist language to keep Clinton in what he views as her proper place — I can easily picture him being exactly like Dubya in going to drastic lengths to show other countries what a manly, in charge guy he is. I don’t know who he’ll borrow the money from, though. Surely our line of credit with China is just about tapped out. Oh, I forgot — he’s buds with Oprah.

  9. Ok, so he’s a timid centrist. That’s bad enough.

    What’s worse, besides the krypto-sexism in his comment, is his fumbling, bumbling demeanor.

    Bubble Boy got away with it. McCain won’t let the centrist in liberal’s clothing get away with it. He’s already on Obama’s case for plagiarizing Hillary’s economic plan.


  10. no, I get what horse is trying to say but he seems to buy into this periods- crabbiness myth too and what I’m saying to horse is it’s not her hormones. it’s something you’ve done.

  11. I do not know that Obama is a “timid centrist.” He will not take a position on issues, which makes me suspicious. Why can’t he tell people what he intends, what is he afraid of? I honestly feel I have no clue what he stands for, which is my biggest worry apart from his apparent egotism and overconfidence.

    (BTW, I don’t regard position papers posted on his website as taking any sort of stand – he can easily move away from anything that is up there. Same for his voting record – as the Mutual Funds warn, past performance is no guarantee of future results).

  12. Obama’s language is equal to Hillary telling her supporters at a rally that some folks (meaning Obama) are a shade too sensitive when the color of things is not to their liking.

  13. Obama’s language is equal to Hillary telling her supporters at a rally that some folks (meaning Obama) are a shade too sensitive when the color of things are not to their liking.

  14. Maybe we could lose the instrumentalized sensitivity on both sides. Obama isn’t qualified to be president because he hasn’t done anything worth a damn in his public life, and he isn’t qualified to be our party’s nominee because he is insufficiently committed to some important things that our party values, or claims to value. Oh, and his campaign takes our political culture down a path that a self-respecting country shouldn’t go. If we didn’t have so much sensitivity about saying that, we wouldn’t need the other stuff.

  15. Rich in PA: Yes, I agree with your assessment. One of the things that the Bushies did so successfully was pander to the electorate’s worst instincts and prejudices. If you don’t like brown people, vote for Bush. Don’t like poor people who you have to subsidize with a handout, vote for Bush. Don’t like uppity women, vote for Bush. Don’t like secularists, vote for Bush.
    Barack Obama is taking this same route in a slightly different way but it is still pandering to the base instinct. Don’t like baby boomers (your parents), vote for Barack. Don’t like white patrimony, vote for Barack. Still don’t like Democratic partisans, vote for Barack.
    But don’t kid yourself about the sexist messages coming out of Barack’s campaign. They are very real. It may make you uncomfortable because as a more enlightened person you’d very much like that to go away. But the transition of women to persons is not finished yet, Rich. That is what these comments of Obama’s are saying. It is not overreacting to want to figure out what he’s trying to say. There are studies on the Science of Beauty that show that certain attitudes towards women transcend culture. These attitudes are universal even if we are not always aware of them. But we now have the ability to manipulate biology to level the playing field. So, it is important to pull back the curtain on these anachronistic attitudes and expose them for what they are: inappropriate when referring to a potential presidential candidate.
    I hope you’re not too unsettled by it. Try not to turn away from that sensation. Figure out what it is that bothers you about it and tell me about it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: