I'm sure mysogyny is part of it, but another potential explanation is that Hillary Clinton is the sort of candidate who tries on different personalities according to focus group results, and doesn't do very well with any of them.

I am not a Hillary suppoter either. However, watching the first serious woman candidate for president, someone as distinguished and honorable as she, someone who endured as much as she has from the Right over the years, implode and collapse right before our eyes is not comfortable to watch. I am very uncomfortable watching this woman be torn to shreds like a bunch of hyenas after killing some hapless impala. It makes me sick the glee in which people are piling on.

Not to go all Chris Crocker on anyone, but she's human and does indeed have feelings. And I am appalled at watching this play-out on national television. A dismantling and derailment of a human being.

I agree.

Clinton was my eighth or ninth choice in the Democratic field. And she has certainly made her share of disastrous mistakes (Mark Penn, Kyl/Lieberman, false hopes...) But the disgraceful, gleeful criticism based on personality is profoundly misogynist. Any woman who runs for President could be attacked in many or all of these ways. It's wrong, and Democrats shouldn't partake in it, period.

Oh, btw, again, not a Hillary supporter (I'm for Obama after a brief flirtation with Edwards) but I will say this:

Chris Matthews is an asshole of the first magnitude.

How that man has a job being as anti-woman as he is is beyond me. The misogynistic things he gets away with on the air would render him fired if he said them on the job at the place I work.

It's the whole premise of her site the thehillaryiknow.com that we don't actually know her after almost two decades of her having a prominent place on the national stage. Analyzing her personality quirks is almost fair game, as she is deliberately changing them according to the message she's trying to send to the voters.

And regarding racism, maybe there's a reason Obama came in third among the older folks?

BoyBlue:
You are right, but as David Roberts points out, Tweety is the leader of the brigade and it is about time someone in the TradMed with some standing calls him out on it. He's a pig of the highest order and lessens the public discourse.

I'm going to disagree.

I think this race is more misogynist than racist because, as a lawyer working in NYC, women are much more of threat to the establishment than blacks. Let's face it, blacks and hispanics don't make it through the course: they don't have the money or the scores for college or grad school and therefore they aren't around to challenge the white guys when the big bucks get handed out. Women, on the other hand, manage to worm their way through the system. We come from the same families as the white guys, and dad would rather pay tuition and be done with us, rather than pay for us forever. Lots of men think they'd rather not pay for sex, so as woman in this country you can get an education, get a job, still get laid, and then be around to challenge the system. We're much more of a threat than the blacks or the latins, who've all been eliminated by the time you get to grad school. Hence the misogyny.

I find it very strange we all must weep for the supposed misogyny clinton has suffered from when some of the coded racism mentioned toward Obama was pushed by her campaign.

But then it was about making sure he could take the slings and arrows the right would throw, right?

With the apparent collapse of her campaign there sure seems to be a big push today to make us all feel so bad and guilty for rejecting her and questioning our motives for doing so.

Not buying a bit of it.

The disparity between overt racism directed towards Obama and overt misogyny directed towards Clinton is the media has been the only ones slinging mud, so Hillary is gets all of it. When the right wing noise machine starts chiming in, after the primary or before if Obama has a definitive lead, you'll see racism out in the open and it's going to be ugly.

So do all young D.C. writers style their e-mails to one another as if they were full-blown essays or at least blog posts? Seriously, the register of language and rhetorical style seem characteristic of something written to be published, not an e-mail between friends.

Besides the overtly sexist criticisms directed at Hillary, the one that made me (and a roomful of intelligent, very well-educated women) cringe the most is the implicit sexism of John Edwards's reference to Hillary's outfit and his retraction of it in Saturday's debate. He retracted it by saying something to the effect of, "I think Hillary looks great." It was terrible to see the discomfort on her face and what I wish Edwards had said was, "I'm sorry I made a comment about your appearance because that has nothing to do with your qualifications as a candidate." It says a lot about how far we have to go as a culture that Edwards got away with making comments about Hillary's looks, twice.

I'm of two minds on this. For one thing, the whole pillorying-her-for-crying thing got me angry.

But some of the other stuff? Not so much. The complaints that her "angry/impassioned" display was misrepresented due to sexism...just struck me as wrong. Edwards gets slammed for being too angry all the time. Obama got slammed for being too nice, for months. The media just loves to slam the candidates.

And its not like Hillary herself hasn't made her gender a focus of the campaign herself. The whole "boys ganging up on her"/"victim" thing she was doing early on, her naked appeal to women built around her gender...certainly not "blaming the victim", as it were, but she can't have it both ways either. Especially early on in the campaign, she overtly invoked her gender as relevant to an extent Obama did not with his race.

And her campaign has been much quicker to involved Obama's race as a negative for him.

So, in the end, while I agree she has been treated unfairly here and there, I have trouble mustering sympathy for her.

The treatment of Hillary Clinton has been painful for many American women to watch.

This isn't Hillary Clinton in a vacuum, much as many would like to paint it.

This is about the status of American women in general. It is uglier than I ever expected it to be.

I never took the criticisms or jokes about HRC as sexist. I am a woman. Very independent.
However, maybe I got over that self conscience feminism years ago and just concidered myself an equal person and my own self.
I don't look for sexism when there is none.
If we made those remarks about a white man no one would say a thing.
Criticsm and humor about people is just part and parcel of running. I never saw anything that seemed to say sexism. I saw HRC treated as an equal with the good and the bad that comes with it.

Tweety is the leader of the brigade and it is about time someone in the TradMed with some standing calls him out on it.

Matthews today: "I'm not obsessed, I'm not obsessed... not an obsession."

And Hillary dealt with him -- to my surprise -- in a fine, refreshing way.

"I'm sure mysogyny is part of it, but another potential explanation is that Hillary Clinton is the sort of candidate who tries on different personalities according to focus group results, and doesn't do very well with any of them."

This statement is misogynistic and that's why it's worked so well against her. You dress up your misogyny as personality criticism.

I have said from the beginning, esp watching Chris Matthews, that misogyny is much more socially acceptable than racism...It's expression in public and private discourse is smiled upon and twittered about. Those sexist ripostes are considered witty!!!!

Racism though is so socially unacceptable that it's not allowed to have any overt expression. It's considered racist to even ask if this country is ready to vote for a black for president.

But that will change if he wins the nomination. The right will begin it, it will transmute and change and by the time it hits the MSM it will shapeshift subtly. If I mention them I am sure I will be accused of racism ...so I won't.....but it will end with patrick healey and Mike Allen questioning his competence to run his campaign and therefore the country.

I also agree with Diane to a degree, but i think she underestimates male solidarity. Obama is a still a man. And intermarriage can turn black people in to non black people....but you can't turn women into men.....except of course as a an emotional harridan.

I am a man. Gay man, but still a man. And even *I* see that vwcat is willfully blind to the misogyny.

I sometimes think that the ones who are the most helpful to women's rights in this country are gay men. A lot of women seem to be women's own worst enemy. Not seeing overt misogyny is an example.

The treatment of Mrs. Clinton is the definition of overt, disgusting and sleazy misogyny.

Oh, and Chris Mathews often borders on sexual harrassment the way he compliments female guests on their physical appearance. Other than his having a man-crush on Fred Thompson and his "manliness" this past summer, he has never made similar comments about men. Matthews is a neanderthal pig.

"This statement is misogynistic and that's why it's worked so well against her. You dress up your misogyny as personality criticism."

You should do better than just claim it is misogyny masked as criticism. explain specifically how that comment was what you claim or retract the claim. Please dissect the comment you criticize.

Everything you don't like or agree with is not misogyny.

"I'm sure mysogyny is part of it, but another potential explanation is that Hillary Clinton is the sort of candidate who tries on different personalities according to focus group results, and doesn't do very well with any of them."

This statement is misogynistic and that's why it's worked so well against her. You dress up your misogyny as personality criticism.

I have said from the beginning, esp watching Chris Matthews, that misogyny is much more socially acceptable than racism...It's expression in public and private discourse is smiled upon and twittered about. Those sexist ripostes are considered witty!!!!

Racism though is so socially unacceptable that it's not allowed to have any overt expression. It's considered racist to even ask if this country is ready to vote for a black for president.

But that will change if he wins the nomination. The right will begin it, it will transmute and change and by the time it hits the MSM it will shapeshift subtly. If I mention them I am sure I will be accused of racism ...so I won't.....but it will end with patrick healey and Mike Allen questioning his competence to run his campaign and therefore the country.

I also agree with Diane to a degree, but i think she underestimates male solidarity. Obama is a still a man. And intermarriage can turn black people in to non black people....but you can't turn women into men.....except of course as a an emotional harridan.

After today, I agree gender is definitely a factor how others perceive Clinton.

But, I disagree that there is no racism here. There is a plenty of racism surrounding Obama's run. You just don't understand the nature of the racism. Obama is the "magic negro" to all to many looking at this race.

Look for an incredible discussion of that here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/5/173727/4473

It's long, but let me tell you as a black guy who has heard white people during this cycle question my race for not supporting Obama as my first choice- it captures the insidousness of race here.

In a nutshell, this quote sums it up. The context of the quote is about a diary in which a woman explains to her father how Obama isn't like other blacks ("the magic negro"):

"The problem I had with the diary wasn't particularly that. It was that in the discussion, the basic framework was never changed. The basic framework being that there is this Black Agenda that the diarist's father is fearing, but that Obama isn't that kind of Black. This upholds two basic fallacies. One, that there is a Black Agenda that apparently hinges on Blacks on welfare who destroy their apartments or what-the-hell-ever, rather than a Black Agenda that hinges on correcting hundreds of years of racist baggage in this country and in which we all have a huge stake. Two, that there are two kinds of Black people, and Obama is cool because he's, well, he's not like those other ones. "

There are other variants. If we elect a black, then America has no race problem and is colorblind. Obama by being Black is per se a symbol of progressivism. As if Obama is a dog and pony to be trotted out for progressive symbolism, and on and on.

What amazes me is that no one on these blogs recognize the racism in all of this. I suppose its easier to see it in others.

I'd really rather that this campaign focused on the comparably lousy legislative history Hillary has (and yes, Edwards does too... his record in the Senate was a joke), rather than whether or not people are being fair to her gender.

I'm happy to vote for the first black president, but I'm voting for him because he's the best candidate in the race. I'm sure the day will come when I'll vote for the first woman president, if she's the best candidate for the job.

Okay, this new syste sucks, and I will have to rewrite my thoughts:

It's comment like this that reinforce my gut that this is really about the 'magic negro' syndrome:

"I'd really rather that this campaign focused on the comparably lousy legislative history Hillary has (and yes, Edwards does too... his record in the Senate was a joke), rather than whether or not people are being fair to her gender.

I'm happy to vote for the first black president, but I'm voting for him because he's the best candidate in the race. I'm sure the day will come when I'll vote for the first woman president, if she's the best candidate for the job."

For the record, compare and contrast Sen Obama's record as a Senator vs. the other two, and you will not see much difference. He has no meaningful record to speak of. Yet this person is asking to have faith- and I am left to ask why?

So far on the subject of race, the most honest comment about how people view Obama has come from Biden when he said Obama is articulate. That was at least telling the truth about what some of this is about.

By the way, least anyone accuse me of selling Obama short- I would respond, I am selling some of his supporters short. Big difference. Although the fact he needs to avoid discussions of race and must speak in 'code" as claimed int he black community or that he 'can't act like other candidates' because he is black as some have said in their endorsement of him- bothers me too.

This statement is misogynistic and that's why it's worked so well against her. You dress up your misogyny as personality criticism.

Geez, come on. Roberts is complaining about "serial depictions in the media", when the most obvious explanation for the media having contradictory depictions is that she keeps trying to reinvent herself. Like after that "bad and evil men" joke, she complains "You guys keep telling me, 'Lighten up! Be funny!'", an admission that she uses consultants to determine her personality.

I mean, sure, all politicians craft a personality to run for office. Few of them are as transparent about the dynamics of this process as Senator Clinton.

Someone may have said it above (I didn't read through all of the posts), but I also think it's worth remembering that part of this may be due to the fact that the Clinton campaign has played the so-called "gender card" in a far more direct way than the Obama campaign has attempted to use his race for political gain in this campaign. I think that if Obama had pointed to his race as much as Hillary has pointed to her gender, we would have seen plenty of racial discomfort directed towards Obama.

"Obama campaign has attempted to use his race for political gain."

this too is an untruth because no one looks in the mirror long enough to realize it. his campaign expressly avoids race , but silence itself is saying something. it's a different dynamic, but no less an issue.

As a feminist woman, I'd say Hillary is easy to admire, but she's hard to like.

well the most parsimonious theory is that much of the derision of the Press and the media is directed towards her because she is the more viable candidate for November. You see, first use the gender stereotypes against Hillary, because it will be easier to sink Obama because of his race. The last I checked, the percentage of black voters is much smaller than the percentage of female voters.

The more they pile on Hillary the more I like her! She is a tough woman with a lot of heart. She has been an activist on women's and childrens issues all her life. She is simply the best person for the job . Obama needs another 8 years of seasoning, then we will see. See also Gloria Steinm colum in NYT .

I don't think anybody needs to feel sorry for Hillary. Some people act as though she's being ritually humiliated in public because she lost a primary election. Even if she loses the nomination campaign, big deal. People lose elections all the time. There's no shame in it. Al Gore lost an election (sort of), then won a frickin' Nobel Prize. John Edwards is poised to fail in his bid for the nomination for the second time in a row; no one will think any less of him.

People tend to overlook the fact that even if Hillary loses, her campaign is historic in its own way. No matter what, she'll be the closest a female candidate has gotten. It's possible that because of her, the next female candidate won't have to deal with many questions about her gender, and instead can be judged on the merits of her candidacy.

Race, on the other hand, is playing a major part in this campaign in a very subtle way. As akaison pointed out, Obama has been assigned the role of the Magical Negro. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the apparent power of this archetype. I thought it was just a silly Stephen King trope, but this familiar narrative is being played out on a national stage as we speak.

I don't mean to deny Obama credit for his victories so far; he deserves it. He's a very able politician. But the way some of his disciples, especially the ones around here, attribute superhuman abilities to him is just remarkable. They actually think Obama is going to change the way politics is conducted. If you step back and think about it, that's really, really crazy.

But Obama is "transformative." We never hear, exactly, how he's going to transform everything; he's just going to. He just will. He's magic.

If we elect a black, then America has no race problem and is colorblind.

Incidentally, if Obama does end up in the White House, you can expect that fact to be used as an argument-stopper any time someone tries to talk about racism in America, until the end of time.

Yes, as a young man of color myself, I expected racism to play a much bigger factor, but the tsunami of misogyny has taken me aback, especially amongst my age group (Yes, amongst "liberals"). It's not just prejudice, but hate, and not just hate, but violent hate.

Misogyny is bigotry, regardless of which women or girl is targeted. Universally, it's mistaken as either "disrespect" or "nature." Glad to know there's at least a few other men who can see the hate so clearly. And I, too, am not a Hill supporter--not even close.

It's ugly all right. And what's especially ugly is that a lot of this viciousness is coming from women.

I don't understand it. To me, Obama is a natural politician who would make a fine president in a few years. But he is too inexperienced now. Too untested, too untried. Hillary knows what will be expected of the president-she lived with it. I believe that she would make a fine president. And although I'm a democrat, I'm not willing to vote in November for a newbie.

To human beings things like looks and personality matter, though they should not, this goes for men and women. Hillary is not good looking and her personality is not attractive so it may not me that her detractors are misogynistic, just shallow. The attractive Nancy Pelosi does not get the same type of crap neither does Elizabeth Dole. It goes both ways, many men never will say a bad thing about a very attractive woman. It is just the way that people are.

But the disgraceful, gleeful criticism based on personality is profoundly misogynist. Any woman who runs for President could be attacked in many or all of these ways. It's wrong, and Democrats shouldn't partake in it, period.

Yes, yes, that's exactly it. And akaison, I like Obama, but I think you're exactly right about some of the disturbing 'magical Negro' undertones of some of his supporters (and critics, for that matter).

Floccina's world view depresses

What is so depressing is that the crude bullying continues to work. The Village screwed Gore, Dean, Kerry (and uplifted Bush and McCain) with their crappy "narratives".

I truly believe all the "Clinton is inevitable" chatter was designed just so they could have a jolly old time bringing her down.

Floccina, the funny thing is that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are really not that different in the looks department. But you're imposing a narrative on Clinton simply because you were told to do so, whereas you were never told to regard Pelosi as bad-looking.

You are shallow, but not in the way you think you are.

I was dazzled by how much Dave Roberts' views matched my own - our surprise that racism was less intense than expected but sexism was much much more blatant and acceptable. And I was not originally a Hillary supporter either, for political reasons. But the sexism in the media and the blogs brought out my solidarity side. And most of all - and here is where I disagree with friend Roberts - I believe that Hillary Clinton is the right candidate for this moment.

I can accept that a lot of people, especially young people, want to be inspired in the way that Robert Kennedy inspired his generation's young people. Obama does not reach me that way, but it's obvious that a lot of people are deeply touched by his words and his life. Fine. If there are enough of those people he will be elected, and John Kennedy turned out to be a lot better President than we expected at the time. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him, with some regrets for Hillary and John Edwards and Al Gore, my other favorites.

The reason I believe that Hillary Clinton is a better bet for President in 2008 is the job description. We have had a year to examine the Republican strategy for what to do when not formally in power. It's oppose, obstruct and demean. Stop all legislation the Democrats propose. It doesn't matter if the issue is popular and the voters punish them, because they will all have jobs in the conservative support system. Just obstruct and deligitimatize the Democrats. The public will eventually hold the Democrats, and a Democratic president, in contempt and turn back to the media-supported Repugnants. Plus we cannot forget that they have infested all levels of government with true believers who will hang on to their jobs just to undermine a Democratic administration. That is the water the next President will have to swim in. And if that is the job description of the next President, we do not need a big-picture inspiring leader. We need a compulsive worker who knows all the ins and outs of government and pays attention to details.

As Al Gore reputedly told someone who urged him to run, "The main job of the next President will be to clean up the mess. Hillary can do that very well." I agree. That's why I support Hillary Clinton.

As Al Gore reputedly told someone who urged him to run, "The main job of the next President will be to clean up the mess. Hillary can do that very well." I agree. That's why I support Hillary Clinton.

That's insane, a lot of this mess actually started under Bill - abuse of executive privilege, using terrorism as an excuse to ratchet up security (It was under Clinton that airport security really started becoming ridiculous, well before 9/11), the tremendous growth of corporate lobbyists, etc. Why would you think Hilary of all people would reverse these trends?

I'm an Obama supporter because I think that he is just as smart, not tainted by the war vote, and isn't already the victim of the Heathers that Hillary (and my first choice Al Gore) is. That being said, I'm really upset by this piling on. I didn't want Hillary to run in the first place, because I didn't want to see her getting beaten up - I don't have the same emotional response to Obama.

I'm a decade younger than Sen. Clinton and my first career was in a male dominated profession (engineering). These attacks on her personality are stirring up memories. The men could shout and stomp and storm around, but if a woman showed any hint of emotion she was a bitch or emotional or out of control or PMSing or what have you. It left you in the position of having to take endless quantities of crap and unfair, unequal treatment. It was a complete win-win situation for the men, many of whom were less capable and less qualified.

The racism directed at Obama will be more likely directed at the religion of his father and his middle name than at the color of his skin. We've seen that already.

"I think this race is more misogynist than racist because, as a lawyer working in NYC, women are much more of threat to the establishment than blacks."

So? You compete with boys for puff jobs-- that threatens the system?

By the way-- you can't possibly be a lawyer. If you are, I'd watch it because if that's the way you reason about society, I suspect your days are numbered. Rich white chick or not.

The racism directed at Obama will be more likely directed at the religion of his father and his middle name than at the color of his skin.

Predjudice based upon religion or name is racist?

What madrassa did YOU attend?

"Racism though is so socially unacceptable that it's not allowed to have any overt expression."

This used to really get me riled up-- why is it that sexism is acceptable. And I think the answer to this is that the ravages of racism are really hard to deny, and whereas the ravages of *misogyny* are also really hard to deny, the liberal left that pays attention to such things in those terms have largely turned away from and *ignored* the ravages of misogyny, many of which have to do with sheer pure sexual exploitation (which takes many, many forms), attention to which doesn't comport well with the liberal left "pro-sex" position. This was *not* true a generation ago, but those women were beaten back and beaten down.

So there you have it. Pity the poor elite woman who can't smash her fist through the highest glass ceilings just doesn't grab a lot of paople, women included.

I'm crying crocodile tears for Hillary Clinton and all her ilk.

"but you can't turn women into men.....except of course as a an emotional harridan."

Sure you can, debcoop. You can turn a woman into a man-- just protect her from the ravages of misogyny, and she'll do just f-ing fine. Andrea Dworkin was right about that much. Most people sittin' in front of a 'puter today have no idea what in God's name they're talking about.

I also agree with akaison that Obama is subject to racist framing that people don't recognize as such. And, if he is elected president, he faces some pretty outrageous hazards. Imagine how nice it will be when the plutocrats keep on screwing the people, who like to blame politicians for their problems.

Egads.

"And I think the answer to this is that the ravages of racism are really hard to deny, and whereas the ravages of *misogyny* are also really hard to deny, the liberal left that pays attention to such things in those terms have largely turned away from and *ignored* the ravages of misogyny, many of which have to do with sheer pure sexual exploitation (which takes many, many forms), attention to which doesn't comport well with the liberal left "pro-sex" position."

the period would be your friend if you let it

If Hillary is suffering due to misogyny how in the world did Hillary ever have a commanding lead in the polls? It's not like people just learned she is a woman.

akaison:

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly. I agreed with your first post entirely. There is certainly race issues and racism at play in this election on the left and right.

But then in another post you go on to undercut someone who says he's for Obama because Obama is the best candidate. You mention “the magic negro” and seem to stop just short of calling his motives racist. Then you go on to say something about Obama talking about his race in code...

For me, Obama is freaking inspirational. Not because he is black, but because he’s a terrific leader and an extraordinary politician. And he IS going to unite the Democratic party, and pull independents, and even some wavering Republicans into our camp to create a Majority. Not a 51% majority, but I’d guess a Reagan like electoral vote landslide which will give him a STRONG mandate for change. THAT is why I like Obama.

I can’t quite make out what your meaning is here. Are YOU calling him the “Magic Negro”? Some kind of racial Manchurian candidate, who hasn’t made race a top issue, and is there fore why you don’t like him? Because he only talks in code?

If you are, and I’m really not sure if that’s what you mean, I have to say, that I think that is pretty ridiculous. He is trying to become president of the United States of America. Not of the President of the Democrats, or President of the Blacks. He is trying to lead a nation that is deeply devided, by colossal issues. And to be honest, right now, Race is not at the top of the heap.

If his campaign where explicitly all about Race, I would be uninterested in him as a candidate. Why? Those are not my personal political issues. Those are not my heart felt concerns for our nation right now.

Income inequality is something I care about. And race a sub set of that. But that’s not what I'm fighting for this election. If that was what he was fighting for.... I'd vote Hillary.

look up the term by googling it. i am always amazed how people can go on at length critiquing someone without even having the basic understanding of the language being used.

Why is this shocking to people?

IMO, the issues of women are usually second to that of blacks/minorities.

How many times has CNN, BBC or even Fox reported a case of a women in some third world-usually an Islamic nation- being beaten and jailed for being raped? Where is the outrage that Americans expressed for South African apartheid? Shouldn't there be a similar disgust over domestic violence as there is for the Jena Six?