Morning Reading

Increasingly, the first blog I read in the morning is Booman Tribune, where today I find another post that expresses perfectly my feelings on the Clintons, feminism, and the Democratic primary. Here's a tidbit:

During the Bush years, while Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were speaking out, Bill Clinton was touring the world with Poppy Bush, while Hillary Clinton was voting for the war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. There are so many reasons to oppose the Clintons politically, including the generally pro-war tilt of her official supporters and advisers, that it really shouldn't be necessary to spell them all out. But I have spelled them out in a brief, cursory way, to make the point that my opposition is based on a wide array of considerations. And these considerations informed my opinion long before the campaign actually started.

I think that's a point that hasn't been made often enough—Bill Clinton's record in the White House and after has hardly been progressive. So why are so many progressives supporting his wife, whose own political inclinations—particularly with foreign policy—aren't that progressive either? 

Is there any way to get those progressives back into the fold? Or is it really all about gender and race, and a deck of cards that no one knows who's playing?

Go read the rest—especially the last paragraph.

Comments

[nancy]

Obama/Sebelius 2008!

[Diane]

What troubles me deeply is people either accepting or endorsing the excessive sexism and misogyny in this campaign. You DO NOT have to support Clinton to be outraged by what has happened. I do not support Obama, and I am outraged by the racism. Regardless of which candidate you like or whether, like me, you would rather not have either, misogyny and racism must always be protested.

[Diane]

I should add to that--I am also outraged by the way McCain, whom I cannot stand, is being treated because of his age.

[KathyF]

I agree, Diane, but there are Clinton supporters who believe that the reason she lost is due to sexism. I don't know if that's just a convenient excuse, or something deeper, but I'm very afraid it will prevent the party from coming together. That would be a real shame, because on women's issues, Obama is leagues ahead of McCain.

Here's an example of what I mean.

And here is another that puts it in perspective.

[Diane]

Actually, of all the angry women with whom I've spoken or to whom I've listened, very few--if any--believe that Clinton lost because of sexism. Why they believe she lost depends on the individual woman, and I won't go into those reasons here (not to say that misogyny is not somehow involved in some of those reasons).

What they are angry about is the unspoken, but obvious, American rule that one does not express racism publicly, but that it is quite acceptable to express both sexism and outright misogyny on the airwaves, on bumper stickers, on products, etc. And they are angry that no prominent Democrat called for a halt to the obscenity, though every prominent Democrat would have been expected to call a halt to racist "jokes" or vile racist comments declared publicly, especially by the so-called news media.

[KathyF]

I'm just not sure what prominent Democrats would have been able to do, calling out against products such as the nutcracker (which I never heard about until HRC supporters brought it up) that had nothing to do with the party, and have been bubbling around since Clinton I. And Shuster got suspended, which everyone agreed was appropriate.

What makes me angry is that Hillary Clinton has tried to convince voters that racism in the US is so great that a black man would never be elected. No one on the Obama team has ever said anything similar about sexist attitudes--implying she should not be nominated because sexism exists. Not only is she wrong about that, but to stir the pot like that is definitely uncalled for. As far as I'm concerned, she took the low road, and is still taking it. (She's on CNN right now, insisting on the shaky math.)

More importantly, this is not a racism vs. sexism contest. It's a contest for who is the best candidate. I, for one, am sick of implications from feminist leaders that the candidate I think is the best is not qualified, and in supporting him I'm betraying my gender--or am just too young and stupid to know better. I know the issues, and understand the political implications, as well or better than Erica Jong.

By the way...the American media is tame compared to what's going on here. Cheri Blair just published her memoir, and has been called a "viper" and "Britain's biggest cow"--by female reviewers. (I'm not saying that makes it okay in the US, but just an fyi--Britain is leagues behind the US in this regard.)

[Diane]

"I'm just not sure what prominent Democrats would have been able to do"

Kathy, Howard Dean should have spoken up right away, as should have Pelosi and Reid (good luck with that--he only recently raised his support of civil liberties up to a bit over 50%). It would have been easy for them to have gotten on talk shows and called for an end to it. They could have easily pointed out the double standard among "news" commentators. You don't live here now, and I think you maybe do not have an idea of the proportion of the misogyny. Shuster was a drop in the bucket. The ugliness has come from everywhere.

My pointing this out, I trust you know, in no way diminishes my own disgust over any tyupe of racism, overt or covert. My purpose is not to defend anyone, but to call for so-called leaders to have a spine when it comes to EVERY type of bigotry. The notion that the bigotry against Clinton (and all women) is irrelevant because she is a bad candidate and an unsavory opponent is just another version of the old "whores can't be raped" argument.

As for Shuster, most of the "liberal" blogosphere thought he should not have been suspended. "Free speech," "political correctness," etc. He has never apologized without a crossed finger behind his back, and that has been just fine with most people.