But this is just standard opposition practice. There doesn't have to be any overarching logic. Always remember that these are the people who argued that Clinton's womanising proved he was secretly gay, and that Obama is both a Kenyan Muslim, a Communist, and the illegitimate child of Malcolm X. Of course they're going to say that Hillary is an over-emotional ice queen robot.
I find it quite fascinating to watch the misogyny play out for public figures like Clinton because it's just so obvious. When this kind of no-win situation happens in my life or the life of someone I know, there are always harder-to-measure factors at work.
It's easier to blame the patriarchy when it's so obviously the patriarchy's fault.
Thanks for posting. I realize that my position on Hilary Clinton is similar to Heebie's -- I'm suspicious of her politically but I also am also basically sympathetic to her.
After I sent in the link, I did have another thought about what I think the significance is. I remembered Robert Scheer's profile of Jimmy Carter (still one of the best pieces of political journalism that I know of) which includes this anecdote (emphasis mine):
One afternoon I was visiting Carter's sister Gloria and her husband, Walter Spann . . . Carter's mother had told me that Gloria wasn't doing interviews. When Gloria walked in I asked her if she'd make an exception. She shot me a look and said, "I'm not talking to any reporters unless they have jeans, boots, and a beard." I had two of the prerequisites.
"Look," I said. "I'm only wearing this suit because I thought that's what you do when you go calling on Southern ladies."
She laughed and said, "Well, I ain't no Southern lady, but you finish here and come by and see me and Walter. I'll give you bourbon but no interview."
...
Gloria said that she had always known Jimmy as a vibrant, adventuresome person. She said that as a child he was givin the nickname "Hot" by his father . . . (the other family nicknames she mentioned seem appropriate as well. Gloria, the family free spirit, was called Gogo. Billy, the self-conscious redneck was Buck. And faith healer Ruth was Boopy Doop.)
Gloria said it was "bunk" that Hot, or Jimmy, should be considered cold, ruthless, or unemotional. It was true that he had always taken himself seriously, but that political life had made him become more guarded. At this point, late in the boozy evening, Walter broke in and said, "You reporters aren't going to get to know Jimmy because he's onstage. He's been onstage ever since 1966, when he ran for governor."
To which Gloria added softly but with affection: "He's been onstage longer than that."
The point of which is that (a) that politicians are kind of nuts, and that most people wouldn't be willing to be onstage for that long and (b) the article is a reminder of just what it means that Hilary Clinton has been onstage since the late 70s
1: Personal attacks are standard, but she has been the focus of completely unhinged hatred in a way that emphasizes how hard it is to be a woman under public scrutiny. It's not that the attacks are unusual; it's that so many are targeted at topics that would be hard to gain traction if she were a man with the same resume. Her ankles? Her hair? (John Edwards' $400 haircut was a tiny percentage of the beatings she took every time she changed her style.) Her laugh? Her name?! I mean, I think she took more shit about how she preferred be named than the president for his name. (I guess you can argue hers was a choice, but still.)
4 is well said (though I think the teasing about Edwards' hair did have a fair amount of traction).
You mean calling him the Breck girl? Not exactly a ringing refutation.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/de/ef/c0deef82d76e81c4b8c4fef2d873f049.jpg
Intensity seems like it has been greater (even though she has been in the public eye for longer) but the general illogical no-win nature of the attacks is SOP.
Yes, the attacks on Edwards were clearly misogynistic -- painting him as effeminate -- and I thought about that as soon as I posted my comment.
I assumed it was one of Hillary's strengths that she's already been the target of every misogynistic insult in the book for 20+years. I don't see how you can score points with that stuff anymore except among people who were never going to consider voting for her anyway.
It's funny, I've been seeing so much from left-wing people about how the triad of Sady Doyle, Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte have descended into complete hackery out of their love of Hillary, using the "Like her because you hate her enemies" strategy to concoct the whole concept of the "Berniebro" whose support for Bernie is unrelated to policies and issues, and finely parsing all statements from the Bernie campaign in a desperate hope to find anything that looks like sexism.
It'll be a relief for all of us when the general election starts and all can agree that the Republican sexists are a hundred times worse.
When I get tired of the petty sniping between Clinton and Sanders supporters, I try to dredge up memories of the collective meltdown that the liberalish internet went through back during the Clinton-Obama primaries. Things now are positively sedate compared to then.
Really? Twitter barely existed back then.
I abstain from both twitter and facebook. Maybe that's why things seem comparatively calm, most of the freakouts are happening on social media where I don't see them.
"I'm not talking to any reporters unless they have jeans, boots, and a beard"
A job for heebie's friends' husbands?
. . . memories of the collective meltdown that the liberalish internet went through back during the Clinton-Obama primaries. Things now are positively sedate compared to then.
I've had the same feeling -- that it doesn't seem as acrimonious this year. I don't know if that's (a) that I'm just missing the heat on twitter/fb (b) if my memories of '08 are based on that fact that it was a notably contentious issue on unfogged (c) that this is a much less competitive primary race so there's less reason for people do really dig their heels in.
13: You really don't remember? You are a lucky man.
14:
IMO Twitter is 100x more depressing than Facebook. On Facebook I see people who I know are childish being childish. On Twitter I'll see columnists/bloggers whom I had really admired acting like total children. This just leaves me feeling hopeless, for some reason. I'd rather not have known.
I haven't found any use for Twitter, but my perception mirrors that of AL and Walt here. I think the blogosphere (remember when that was a thing?) was much more sensitive back in those days; Hillary did have that Iraq vote; and the world seemed genuinely on the brink. The stakes seemed quite high.
Meanwhile, some of Bernie's more visible supporters really are crazy/ignorant/stupid in a way that Obama supporters were not, so some of us Bernie guys are forced to be a little more restrained than we otherwise might be. And many Hillary's boosters were excoriating her eight years ago, so they are a little more humble, too.
I haven't read any Valenti lately. The OP links to the first thing I've read from Doyle in a long time, and it's quite good - at least in the sense that it mirrors the feeling I have. (Certainly the feeling I had in 2008, even as an Obama supporter.) Marcotte is provocative and interesting, even when I think she's wrong, and I'm glad she's out there doing her thing. She's what contrarianism would look like had it not long ago been rendered disreputable.
Clinton was busting on Saunders for being in favor of single payer. Fuck that. Clinton sucks. Hooray for our first female president I guess but I think we could elect a progressive this term if we wanted to.
Yeah, are we allowed to not like her because she's spent her entire adult life at the center of whatver economic and political power networks were around her and will, whatever her primary campaign rhetoric, govern in a way that never threatens the interests of those networks?
Is Sanders building the kind of popular movement that is necessary to knock Clinton out of the race, again? I don't think so. It's not fair to call the people who do think so deluded, but they do seem more than a little drunk on their own whiskey. We'll see -- I'm certainly wrong about stuff often enough.
I think, though, that you really have to be looking for acrimony in this race to find it, and that this is because my view -- which might well be completely mistaken -- is very widely held. Indeed, I think Sanders himself believes it, and that thinking that occupying the White House as the only form of victory for him is something of a misreading. If Clinton wins and Dems take back the Senate, Sen. Sanders can introduce a bill for single payer. Does anyone actually think Clinton wouldn't sign a bill that got to her desk? But then, does anyone actually think a bill could get through the House between 2017 and 2021? Doesn't think give a certain angels on pins character to the discussion of whether single payer is, or is not, a good idea? A certain strangle Baby Hitler je ne sais quoi?
I'm going to vote for Sanders. The race will be long over by the time we vote in June, but I want HRC to see herself as living on the right fringe of acceptable opinion not, as she saw herself in the 90s, on the left fringe.
Or is the Sanders Movement supposed to be so all pervasive that it wins the House. I so wish I was wrong that it isn't going to happen that way.
22.2: My sense is that what acrimony there is this time around is less organic than in 2008 and more deliberate. With the rise of the gawker empire and related media, I get the sense that there are more people who make their living as professional trolls than there were 7-8 years ago.
There seems to be a steady stream of more or less by the numbers "If Clinton gets the nomination then real progressives will vote for Trump!", and "Anyone who supports Sanders is a misogynist neener neener!" articles that have been coming out for the last few months. These pretty much seem like the work of trolls who have gone pro.
Speaking of medical care, my dad can fall down an entire flight of stairs without injury. It's impressive at his age, not that my brother sees it that way.
22: Does anyone actually think Clinton wouldn't sign a bill that got to her desk?
Wrong question
The right questions, assuming a troglodyte House: Will Clinton go through four years vetoing everything, and signing nothing? Will the troghouse go four years without passing any legislation? Or will Clinton beat Ryan and the House into submissive wetting? Will Clinton in frustration turn ambitious adventurous in foreign policy?
What kind of deals will Clinton make? What concessions? What or who, for the sake of some Democratic priorities, are Democrats willing to sacrifice?
Is Bernie Sanders more likely to be comfortable in 2020 saying: "Well, I got nothing done, but at least I stopped them?"
What's really funny is how the discourse will shake out after a Clinton-Ryan deal.
Dems:" Well, it wasn't everything we would have wanted, but we really rolled them, and it's a really good bill. Thousands of lives have been saved or improved!"
Repubs:"We have been betrayed! Ryan gave up everything and got nothing! This bill must be reversed!"
Rich get richer and the poor get poorer, ain't we got fun.
Yeah, are we allowed to not like her because she's spent her entire adult life at the center of whatver economic and political power networks were around her and will, whatever her primary campaign rhetoric, govern in a way that never threatens the interests of those networks?
Sure. The question at that point is whether that's a reason to generally distrust all successful politicians, or if Clinton seems bad in a notable way, but there are other people you like -- and I'd believe either of those perspectives.
Personally, I don't think Clinton precisely matches what I would be looking for in somebody to hand power to. But I don't think it's just lesser-evilism to say that among the people who have the connections/ambition/commitment/luck to be able to put together a strong candidacy for the presidency* she seems likable in some ways** and less objectionable the many.
I've been saying to friends for a couple of months that, while Obama has been disappointing in many ways, he was also an exceptionally good candidate in many ways and that it is likely that whoever follows him will be not as good as Obama -- just based on regression ot the mean.
The question is whether that's a comforting thought (in its way) or if it's reason to feel profoundly depressed about the world . . .
* Yes, obviously the long term project is to figure out how to expand the pool of people who have the potential to become national political figures.
** I will say, one thing that one thing which makes me genuinely curious about the possibility of a Clinton presidency is that she's had a close look at two different administrations. Both that should give her some sense of how things function (and what it looks like when it's not functioning) and, perhaps, a different perspective on figuring out what her goals would be and what she would want to accomplish.
Honestly, I don't see any reason at all to think that the ultimate compromise domestic legislative results from Sanders would be any different from Clinton. Or Obama for that matter. The forces in play are too big for the minor differences between these players to matter. It doesn't matter how 'uncomfortable' any one of them is with the inability to get legislation passed: ability and comfort are independent.
Did anyone else see the debate last week? I though it was quite interesting how the candidates interacted with each other.
I watched it. I felt like Carcetti screwed up pretty bad. He had a prepared talking point about Hillary and Bernie bickering which they weren't. There was a little more debate in this debate but the moderators broke it up whenever it threatened to become interesting.
Yeah, agreed, especially about O'Malley. He seems to be flailing about with increasing desperation to find a justification for his candidacy.
Yeah I wish he'd drop out but I'm afraid that since it would be good for Bernie it will never happen.
29: Interesting response
For the record, I am not at all a supporter of Sanders, would vote Clinton in the primary if I saw a reason, and have little interest in this election. You're right, it's about the forces at play, none of which are progressive.
I fear the coming legislation, and dread the fucking conversation about it.
I just noticed that I'm still shaking with frayed nerves from the event in 25.
25, 35: I should think you are. Can you do or read or listen to something calming?
I'm trying alcohol and meditation.
Any good party trick will leave a lasting impression.
Valenti and Marcotte aren't exactly uncontroversial figures in feminism. Valenti's website was ok as feminism 101 for college students, but it caught a lot of heat for being oblivious to much beyond issues that straight white middle class girls dealt with. And Marcotte has been boycotted by feminists of color for racially tone deaf illustrations in her book and her petty dismissive response. Doyle also has not been free from controversy. These issues are complicated and again there has been some leftist circular-firing squad aspects to them, but as someone who's been reading the "femosphere" for the past 10+ years, including Valenti, Marcotte, and Doyle before they got famous, I'm not willing to take any of them a priori as arbiters of correct thinking on all issues feminist.
Clearly Hillary would be worlds better than any Republican and has faced ridiculous levels of sexism in her decades in the public sphere. She's had the most private and humiliating parts of her personal life and marriage dragged out in public and been horribly mocked. That she has psychological lead-plated armor up is understandable. OTOH, I feel really strongly it's offensive and unfeminist to make any disagreement with her politics an issue of sexism. I support Bernie because he is to the left of Hillary, and I am to the left of Hillary. I don't trust her politically, I'm not keen on a political "dynasty," and I was an active political critic of the first Clinton administration. It has nothing to do with who I would rather have a beer with. There's also an issue of sexism in that, as a woman, a lot of these types of articles imply that I have to support the female candidate otherwise I'm simply trying to be a cool girl and impress my "bros." I support the candidate who most represents my political positions, and right now that's Sanders. I'll vote for H Clinton in the general because she'll represent my views far better than any of the Republicans, but I won't be super enthusiastic about it because I'd prefer someone more to the left.
Kevin Drum has a response to the Sady Doyle article which finds a good tone.
Also, I suspect that this:
I'll vote for H Clinton in the general because she'll represent my views far better than any of the Republicans, but I won't be super enthusiastic about it because I'd prefer someone more to the left.
Is the default position on unfogged.
It's more or less my position. With the note that while I'm not super enthusiastic about Clinton's politics, I'm slightly more sympathetic to her personal narrative.
Whether or not it's the default position, quite a few of us have said more-or-less the same thing.
40: Yeah, Drum's response to Doyle is basically to nod in agreement. This is also my response.
