If I had cable TV I would unquestionably go on a homicidal spree.

Subtle, Kraab, very subtle.

Boy did I get creamed for (sort of) making this argument the other day.

did I get creamed

Misandrist.

1 is why people just end up watching Daily Show and Colbert Report. You're getting just as much news, and it's more entertaining.

video's not working for me (probably my signal) is this from the daily show?

5: See, the thing that's even more telling, I think, is that you get way more news on the subjects that are covered on the comedy shows. On the other hand, as Eric Alterman will tell you, the Daily Show and Colbert can't exist without the msm to provide the joke fodder.

Try going directly to the page.

7: The thing that's really telling is that Keith Olbermann, of all people, has metamorphosed into a serious newscaster, while the Very Serious Newscasters... haven't.

9: Yeah, this goes back to Ogged's point about the recent evolution of Jake Tapper, I think. People want news that they can trust (fuck you, CNN). And people trust people who admit that they have opinions. Who trusts the blowdried blowhard who claims to be objective but obviously isn't? That dude is both boring and obviously a fraud. All of that said, I don't actually like Olbermann very much. But I do like Stewart. Because he's a Jew. Like you, Golda.

that worked, thanks. Great clip. You should also check out the Daily Show's piece from last night. Not as serious, but funny!

I'd link it if I could figure out comedy central's page for the daily show.

Here: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=171493

13 was not me. i was continue to be unable to navigate their stupid web page.

i was continue to be unable to edit

2: That's my middle name!

hey, it's the same for any issue to get the public to think what the ruling elite want them to think.
It's the same for racism, which can easily be blamed on blacks.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17846

Unless you can afford it, there's no way to get the contrasting, "people's" opinion over the mainstream puppets.

I miss TV every now and then, until I see some.

This is totally fair. On the other hand, I bet you could compile a clipfest of completely stupid, unpleasant, stereotyped comments from the same range of news shows about Obama or even McCain. What would change is the nature of the discourses or narratives that are being dredged up from the slimy recesses of the consciousness of various talking heads, and therefore of course the social power of those discourses. The first thing these clips reveal is not "Clinton was uniquely mistreated" but "The 24/7 news cycle has unleashed a fucking plague of shameless idiocy upon our nation".

Right, it's also this guy. And Pat Buchanan! Stop the presses!

"Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables, and The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth. Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O'Reilly Factor."

I'd say Mr. Rudov and those two shows were made for each other.

18: I miss TV every now and then, until I see some.
There's some good things on it, though. Compared to some alternatives, at least.

RAYETTE: There's some good things on it, though.
SAMIA: I beg your pardon?
RAYETTE: The TV. There's some good things on it, sometimes.
SAMIA: I have strong doubts, nevertheless I wasn't discussing media...

I bet you could compile a clipfest of completely stupid, unpleasant, stereotyped comments from the same range of news shows about Obama or even McCain. What would change is the nature of the discourses or narratives that are being dredged up from the slimy recesses of the consciousness of various talking heads, and therefore of course the social power of those discourses. The first thing these clips reveal is not "Clinton was uniquely mistreated"

You don't think it's relevant that no clips exist tearing down McCain or Obama by way of their gender? Or is the phrase "the social power of those discourses" supposed to take care of that?

23: I'm guessing that "what would change is the nature of the discourses or narratives" is supposed to address that.

You don't think it's relevant that no clips exist tearing down McCain or Obama by way of their gender?

With Democratic men, it's all that they're Faggy McFaggertons who paint their nails and can't throw a football. There doesn't seem to be a similar process for Republican men.

25: There doesn't seem to be a similar process for Republican men.

Well, d'uh! Maybe because they aren't fags! I can tell how much TV you watch.

The comments on Clinton's appearance in particular were awful. She's sixty goddamn years old! When is it okay for her not to be a sex object?

Never! McCain is a fucking hunchbacked, yellow-toothed, cancer-ridden troll, but you won't hear anyone point it out on TV.

When is it okay for her not to be a sex object?

When she's dead. The sex object thing seems to happen to men, too, though it gets applied and discussed much, much less often. Another difference is the vast disparity in the standards. Remember Fred Thompson, the sexiest shriveled prune around?

(I hope none of this comes off as suggesting that the anger ogged references isn't well motivated. It is.)

I need some coffee.

There is a standard for men's appearance, but it's different enough that it's hard to say that it plays out in anything close to the same way. Edwards looking like a seven-year-old, maybe. But it's certainly not about (well, most of the time) whether the voters want to fuck them.

With Democratic men, it's all that they're Faggy McFaggertons who paint their nails and can't throw a football.

Any deviation from the ultramasculine norm is laughable. "Mannish" women, "girly" men, and femmy women (those shoes!)--all may be freely and openly ridiculed. And it's not just Fox news, either--there's Maureen Dowd reinforcing this rule on the oped page of the NY Times. It's fucking depressing after all this time.

She's sixty goddamn years old!

Uh, well, you know, the people talking about this aren't exactly 25.

More complicated than simple media misogyny, but ogged didn't want to get into arguments about why Clinton lost:

35: Dog whistles, like Bush dropping obscure hymn lyrics into speeches.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 9:16 PM

37
36: I so want to be that dog.

Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 9:17 PM

38
That's just it. You are. He is really, really good at it.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 9:20 PM

Directed inclusion is exclusion. There are obviously generational signals. More ontopic, there was discussion in some women's forums about the paradigmatic younger man getting promoted over the older woman. With the help of dirty jokes, high-fiving, golf saturdays, barhopping?

31: The same basic sexism is at work through out, obviously. Thompson's hottness via his trophy wife, Edwards the fag, and Hillary the ugly cow are all of a piece. McCain the hunchbacked troll does not figure in this system, because manly men don't have any gender, just as only black people have race.

But it's certainly not about (well, most of the time) whether the voters want to fuck them.

But see Tweety re: Mission Accomplished.

I'm not denying the charged discourse here. A lot of what was said is about her -- Sen. Clinton the individual, with her individual baggage -- not about everywoman, though. This isn't pretty either, but given her husband's proclivities, her appearance/sexiness/whatever has slipped into the public discourse in a way that it hasn't (and won't) for Mrs. McCain or Nancy Pelosi.

I'm not saying that Tweety is right that her whole career is based on her having been wronged, but on the other hand I don't think her public persona is separable from that. Certainly wasn't in 2000, nor to a significant slice of the populace now.

McCain the hunchbacked troll does not figure in this system

McCain's wife also pretty attractive, so maybe he's getting Thompson points for that. I think it was made more explicit in Thompson's case because (a) he's a movie star (or star-ish), and (b) there weren't any strong standard reasons to prefer him as a candidate, so you end up having to go with something else. As a general rule, it appears that the attractiveness of male candidates is not discussed except to make jokes about the candidate or what a stupid standard that is to be discussing. See Edwards and Qualye. So basically the exact opposite of how it's treated for women.

her whole career is based on her having been wronged

One of the things I found interesting is Clinton's image among women of her generation. She wa a fucking star. I remember the story of the friend who pleaded with Bill not to take her away to Arkansas.

Among that generation, the narrative of the powerful women taking a break from her career for husband or family and then not being able to get back on track is enraging.

The media may have alienated these feminists, if you want, but it is Obama and his supporters who will have to get them back.

"Get over it, and join the team" see 34, they have heard that before too. Where's bphd or Mary Catherine? I'm feeling lonesome

A lot of what was said is about her -- Sen. Clinton the individual, with her individual baggage -- not about everywoman, though

Lots of divorced women out there don't enjoy the "Bill cheated because Hillary's a bitch, plus look! fat ass!" story, and lots of non-divorced women don't care for "She stayed with him because she's cold and calculating". The women who were so enraged by the way HRC was treated identify with her individual story and baggage. If they haven't gotten the treatment, it's happened to a friend; just in their personal sphere instead of on FoxNews.

I watch Olbermann regularly so I sometimes see Matthews. Matthews isn't the most Republican guy on TV, by far, but he's intensely driven by weird sex and gender obsessions. He's genuinely bizarre. It's not one person or one episode, he's always like that. And he hates the Clintons.

Olbermann is a Bush-basher and I love that, but when he slipped to Hillary-bashing I liked it a lot less. He's really top dog over there now, not Matthews any more, but when he started ragging on Hillary he fell into Matthews mode. Earlier there seemed to be some friction between them, and he called Matthews out at least once. Hopefully he won't drift farther Matthewsward.

Whether or not its sexist, both Thompson and McCain have gotten the kid gloves treatment. They're both homely old men (Thompson is absolutely grotesque) and both are riddled with character flaws and political liabilities, but there is /was a gentleman's agreement to treat them favorably.

Sexism and Republicanism overlap. Mrs. McCain and Mrs. Thompson didn't "slip into the dialogue" because of the Republican reason. Trophy wife, heiress -- I said it, TV didn't.

You never really understand how sick this country is until you start watching TV and listening to talk radio. Olbermann is severely flawed, but he's exponentially better than any other regular on the broadcast or cable networks.

One thing I especially like about Olbermann is that he gets mad. He doesn't do the meta "How will this play?" thing that all the process liberals on TV (supposed liberals, counterintuitive liberals) do. The guy that follows him (Abrams) is an utter dweeb that way.

I think men found Thompson alpha-male-esque from his movie and TV roles, and they assumed their desire to do his bidding would translate into women finding him attractive.

This isn't pretty either, but given her husband's proclivities, her appearance/sexiness/whatever has slipped into the public discourse in a way that it hasn't (and won't) for Mrs. McCain or Nancy Pelosi.

And what a lucky break Obama got being black.

The sex object thing seems to happen to men, too, though it gets applied and discussed much, much less often. Another difference is the vast disparity in the standards. Remember Fred Thompson, the sexiest shriveled prune around?

The point here is that sex is used as a bludgeon against Democrats (especially women) and as a method of promoting Republicans - no matter how implausibly. And I disagree that Fred gets his alleged sex appeal from his hot wife - they'd be saying the same things about him if he were single.

I thought this, by Katha Pollitt, was excellent.

On the other hand, I bet you could compile a clipfest of completely stupid, unpleasant, stereotyped comments from the same range of news shows about Obama or even McCain. What would change is the nature of the discourses or narratives that are being dredged up from the slimy recesses of the consciousness of various talking heads, and therefore of course the social power of those discourses.

And so there is never a reason to discuss sexism, because "sexism" is just garden-variety jerkiness that men do to each other, to a woman.

heebie is right. also, god I hate television.

44: The Pollitt piece is really good.

44, 47: Yes, really.

On the other hand, I bet you could compile a clipfest of completely stupid, unpleasant, stereotyped comments from the same range of news shows about .... McCain.

Just plain not true. The opposite of the truth. A million miles away from the truth. McCain (and Thompson) have gotten absurdly favorable coverage in every way. Thompson faded because a.) voters didn't like him as much as TV people did, and b.) he turned out to be extremely lazy, stupid, and inarticulate. But the media were the last to know. And McCain gets tongue baths all the time.

By and large, Obama has gotten pretty good coverage, in part simply because he was running against Hillary.

Hillary had four strikes against her: she's a Democrat, she's a Clinton, she's not Bill (no schmooze artist), and she's a woman (and the wrong kind of woman).

And remember, I'm a Hillary-hater of sorts, because she's a DLC hawk.

I would just like to say that Ari is totally right in 3.

It's incredibly important for Clinton to do the right thing and rally these women to Obama, and I wish I felt surer that she would rise to the occasion. ...Pollitt

She can help, but Clinton like had a history of defending men against charges of sexism that may mean she will not be effective. And her 2nd wave feminist base strikes me as independent thinkers. Just as Obama rarely responded directly to racism, I think Clinton only drew attention to the sexism late in the campaign. And just as subtle racism against Obama was an issue motly promoted by his base, so I think Clinton reluctantly followed the perception of her base.

The gap between 2nd wave feminists and younger "Post-feminist" women has been documented for years, and I think in this campaign was a problem for Clinton and an advantage for Obama. I am guessing Obama can reach out to the 2WF's without alienating his youth vote, but I am not sure he wants to. It is part of the, I think critical, "putting the 60s behind us" justification for his campaign. Obama is ok fine on the issues, but he has reasons for his priorities and emphasis.

Whatver and however Obama feels he needs to handle it. But it is up to him.

PS:I oppose a female VP as a feminist gesture.

A lot of what was said is about her -- Sen. Clinton the individual, with her individual baggage -- not about everywoman, though.

It is, though. I mean, how would you tell me, or any other youngish* woman to go about avoiding having my ass discussed on TV when I'm in my sixties? Besides not being in a position to go on TV?

It is true that in Clinton's case, a lot of this stuff was around long before she decided to run for President. But it's not just all because her husband's a philandering oaf.

I wasn't actually expecting such an on-topic thread for this message, but:

Congratulations, Obamaphiles. Iris is downstairs weeping inconsolably because she heard on the radio that Hillary is quitting today.

So, if your goal was to make a little girl cry, then your hero is right: Yes You Can.

PS - We've been telling her for months that Hillary wasn't going to win, so we didn't actually expect this response. OTOH, considering how well I take Pirates losses (which are, ahem, a bit more predictable from the outset), we shouldn't be surprised.

Cavuto, Matthews, Matthews, Matthews, Fox reporter, Luntz, Malkin, Hitchens, Matthews, Cavuto, Rudov, Robertson, Barnicle, Carlson, Beck, Rudov, Fox pundit, Matthews, Matthews, Rudov, Carlson, Rudov, Robertson.

That's certainly a wide range of political ideologies being represented. In acknowledging the (very real) sexism in the media, why don't we also recognize the sources?

Awwww. Poor Iris. (And seriously, JRoth, the Pirates? Have you been crying non-stop since 1992?)

Matthews counts as a liberal, by media standards.

55 was me.

Also, the male attractiveness thing from these very sources derives directly from perceived power; see flightsuit, Bush

57

So does Hitchens, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

And so there is never a reason to discuss sexism, because "sexism" is just garden-variety jerkiness that men do to each other, to a woman.

Heebie is always right. I would only say that in assembling clips to show vicious misogyny it's useful to sort out the instances where it really is 'garden variety jerkiness' -- which does exist -- and three of Emerson's four strikes. Professional sexists making sexist remarks -- as I said above, stop the presses.

If they haven't gotten the treatment, it's happened to a friend; just in their personal sphere instead of on FoxNews.

Sure. This, however, is a little too close to being the obverse of the when-Hillary-talks-I-hear-my-wife-asking-me-to-take-out-the-garbage coin for my comfort. I understand that people want to vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, or the woman who's been through a lot, but I'm not sure there's a more reliable formula for heartbreak and disappointment.

54:Post-post-feminists like Iris carry the hopes for the future, along with post-post-racial liberals and post-post-partisan partisans.

(And seriously, JRoth, the Pirates? Have you been crying non-stop since 1992?)

No, the best part is - I rooted against them in '90, '91, and '92! I laughed When Sid Slid, because it made a classmate whom I dislike (to this day) sad. I didn't start rooting for them until they were 3 years into this morass.

My wife is incredulous that I manage to get unhappy about losses. But I do.

53 -- I don't believe I've ever heard anything about Sen. Mikulski's ass. Nor, when she was running for governor (or any other time), Lt. Gov. Townsend's ass. I guess we're not counting Rep. Morella's ass, because she's a Republican, but I never heard anything about it either.

That's just picking the local politicians, because I've been exposed to them, and reaction againt them. Further afield, I don't know because I don't live there, but I doubt there's much of this kind of talk about Sen. Stabenow or Gov. Granholm.

It's true that none of these women went where Sen. Clinton has gone -- nor indeed has anyone else in the history of the Republic.

62: It's OK, JRoth. I sobbed like an infant when the Cubs lost the NL Championships in 2003. Not kidding. Totally disconsolate. And my evil Yankee fan brothers laughed at me. (I'm totally over it though. Really.)

Mikulski is frequently referred to in terms suggesting that she's a bull dyke.

Oh, and PS on Iris. Oh dear. I feel a little bad. Read her the Phye story from Herodotos. She'll totally dig it. (Only use of "anthropos" with the feminine article "he," so far as I know.)

Yeah, I've never heard much of any remarks down here relating to Elizabeth Dole's appearance or gender, either.

65 -- Different strike.

I do stand corrected, though.

64: Did I mention that the Cubs were my #2 team when I was a kid (my dad grew up in Logan Square, a mile or so from Wrigley, and was born in one of the houses across Sheffield)? I took 1984 extremely hard. 2003 upset me, but maybe not so much.

Oh, and in the '70s, when my sister was a Steelers fan (thanks to my mom), I rooted for the Giants.

Really, you'd think I would take losing in stride at this point.

66: Anywhere I can find it online? I found a one-sentence quote that seems a bit skimpy.

We've been doing the Menlaos/Proteus story the last few days - I think she likes that Helen is in it, if only in a side role. Mostly, of course, she likes the shape-changing.

I thought this, by Katha Pollitt, was excellent.

I liked that article a lot when I first read it, but I can't help wishing that there were more "Reload" arguments being made by women. Perhaps it's much too soon after the Clinton loss, and perhaps it's unseemly to be seen moving on from such a recent champion. But I think too tight a tie between feminism and Clinton is much more to Clinton's advantage than to feminism's--even if only restricted to 2nd wavers--advantage.

Iris is downstairs weeping inconsolably because she heard on the radio that Hillary is quitting today.

Apparently I reacted the same way when Ford lost. And I don't even like golf.

I doubt there's much of this kind of talk about...Gov. Granholm.

I'm sure that's wrong. Granholm's great looking, and I know I've heard comments to that effect.

I oppose a female VP as a feminist gesture.

I'd vote for the right woman, but not this one. I'm sure she'll come along one of these days.

I bet there are lots of really talented women in the pipeline who will step forward into leadership roles in the next few years.

Weighing Clinton's gender seriously is really a kind of sexism.

69: Really, you'd think I would take losing in stride at this point.

Sadly, PTSLD (Post Traumatic Sports Loss Disorder) tends to be cumulative.

I understand that people want to vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, or the woman who's been through a lot, but I'm not sure there's a more reliable formula for heartbreak and disappointment.

Sure, but it's possible to note the rampant sexism of the media, and see how the narrative might just as easily apply to you (should you happen to stick your neck out), without thinking "Golly, I've got to run out and vote for Hillary!"

70: Check your email in a second! It is a short little thing about a woman dressing up as Athene -- something to which Iris can relate! (The story then goes on to talk about the tyrant Peisistratos laying with his wife in a manner that was ou kata nomon, so Iris can skip that part!

Weighing Clinton's gender seriously is really a kind of sexism.

Wait, I thought not weighing Clinton's gender seriously was a kind of sexism.

75 -- I like her, would be happy to have a beer with her, and would have voted for her in the general. And I'm glad I don't have cable.

weighing Clinton

Sexist.

I bet there are lots of really talented women in the pipeline who will step forward into leadership roles in the next few years.

Ummm, Nancy Pelosi is more powerful than anyone else in the Democratic party except for Obama, and is third in line for succession to the Presidency.

Iris is downstairs weeping inconsolably because she heard on the radio that Hillary is quitting today.

My daughters, on the other hand, are delighted with Obama's victory, because they're post-feminist.

Can we box "post-feminist" like a bad cylon?

I had to Google 'cylon', oud, you nerd. BTW, I hope you're taunting your evil Yankee-fan brothers daily, seeing as how we're well into June and their beloved team is still under .500.

Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, can we all agree she should hurry the fuck up and give this speech?

||

Gonna watch the Sox kick some Mariner ass at Fenway this afternoon, with any luck!

|>

Right, it's also this guy. And Pat Buchanan! Stop the presses!

That's too much like the "Oh, that's just Ann being Ann" defenses of Coulter. Regardless of the reputation of the people saying it, it's still being said on national TV. And the decision to bring on a professional misogynist to comment on the election is itself objectionable.

As for other women politicians not getting the same kind of treatment, I do think there's something to that. Like I keep saying, I think hatred of women politicians that's motivated by misogyny is actually pretty low (otherwise it would be more consistent) but hatred that's expressed as misogyny is unacceptably high (this is, of course, of a piece with my refusal to stop calling Althouse a "crone." I don't hate her because she's a woman, but I call her a crone because I know it hurts.)

||
85: How the hell do you score tickets all the time? I can't even watch online, because mlb.tv has decided that I'm in the Mariners' media market.
|>

87: low cunning.

I don't hate her because she's a woman, but I call her a crone because I know it hurts.

I don't get it: isn't that hatred that's expressed as misogyny [which is] is unacceptably high?

Am I misreading this? Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take shots at Althouse in sexist terms, then? (I don't feel the need to argue about this; I'm just not getting it. Maybe I need some coffee.)

88: That's a funny way to spell "Craigslist".

Is it unacceptable or acceptable to take shots at Althouse in sexist terms, then?

Unacceptable. But people still do it. Because it works.

can we all agree she should hurry the fuck up and give this speech?

Here she comes. Two thoughts: 1. Bill looks haggard. 2. Such a great building.

92: It really is a great building.

And did they really just cut to a black person in the audience when Hillary said "and sometimes argued with your neighbors"?

91. Oh. Um. I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance, but uhhh .. okay.

Iris is downstairs weeping inconsolably because she heard on the radio that Hillary is quitting today.

One of my friends, now a staunch Democrat, apparently cried in 1984 when he found out his parents voted against Reagan because he couldn't figure out why they wanted the President not to have his job any more.

This has been a really good speech.

Concession speeches always tug at my heartstrings.

94: If it helps, think of it as a shifting in the usual order of one's priorities: what is right vs. what works. You can look at the Clinton campaign's race-baiting in the same way.

86, 89, 91: Right. Rules are for other people, not for ogged, or pro sports players taking steroids, or Republicans.

(Misspelled that as "steeroids" at first.)

98: You misspelled "shamelessly selling out your principles for momentary advantage," but whatever.

I thought it would be tonight. I was out mowing the lawn so I would appreciate a link when one is available.

I am not comfortable with the intricacies of youtube.

Wow.

McCain policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin now argues that it is Senator Obama - not McCain - who wants to continue Bush's fiscal policies. Obama's budget "is dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything," he said.

The first thing these clips reveal is not "Clinton was uniquely mistreated" but "The 24/7 news cycle has unleashed a fucking plague of shameless idiocy upon our nation".

It's not either/or, you know.

I thought her concession speech was quite good.

73, 77: And the moral of the story is . . . . sexism exists, and you can't escape it. Welcome to the world.

102. Very Rovian: attack your enemy at their strength, not their weakness. Fortunately, Obama hasn't shown much propensity to stand there blinking like a stunned monkey at those kinds of attacks, so I'm actually hoping McCain sticks with the strategy as long as possible.

"18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" was a nice line. Affecting.

Boy did I get creamed for (sort of) making this argument the other day.

No, you didn't. You got creamed for quoting, at full length, and calling "thoughtful," a post that said a whole bunch of other things in addition to this. Nobody disputed the thrust of this argument, which is that there are a lot of blowhards who get away with saying truly awful misogynist things in the mainstream media.

101: Keep checking TPM. It will be up in a few minutes.

I don't hate her because she's a woman, but I call her a crone because I know it hurts.

This is fine on the surface. The problem is that it hurts people besides the target, and it does so in a very predictable and easily avoidable way. Is the collateral damage really worth it?

Is the collateral damage really worth it?

Hard to say!

B, you're a woman so you can't possibly understand how much more satisfying it is to drop the babykilling cluster bomb of "she's a crone" instead of employing the sniper rifle of "she's completely fucking gender-neutrally batshit insane".

Plus, the first makes for much better television.

105:Or attack your enemy at your weakness, inoculating yourself. Obama may be running on fiscal discipline, but I really don't want to hear it.

A commenter at Krugman's speculated that Krugman (and Delong?) are defending Bernanke and an inflationary monetary policy because they expect the Obama administration to run both an inflationary monetary policy and an inflationary high-deficit fiscal policy.

In terms of monetary policy, if Bernanke decides to Volkerize Obama, Obama should have support for firing the plutocrat's best friend and going Burnsian.

I terms of fiscal policy, the choice will be very close to high deficits or no new programs. No peace dividend for years. There is a quasi-liberal deficit hawk over at Obsidian Wings, there may be many more in the party. I wish Sawicky was more active.

Or we can declare class war.

109: At least part of the problem is a worry about whether the other side is policing itself, and whether you're unilaterally disarming. (I think Republicans sometimes run into this problem, particularly on "media" and "elite" criticism.)

110: My use is knowingly ironic.
Your use is thoughtlessly hegemonic.
They are hopeless sexists.

113: As a general rule, no, the other side isn't policing itself, and yes, you're unilaterally disarming. You have to fucking earn moral high ground.

Have any of you people ever played Hero System RPGs? "A disadvantage that doesn't limit the player isn't worth any points."

You have to fucking earn moral high ground.

After thirty years of conservative dominance, we have learned the lesson that the moral high is the most valuable territory in elections?

Was that the lesson of 1980, 1996 or 2004, I can't remember.

You have to fucking earn moral high ground.

This isn't really applicable to the sexism issue--I'm hard pressed to see the fight that justifies sexism, given the way the parties sort out on women's issues, or the presence in most cases of arguments that will get a fair hearing without it--but sometimes it's better to win. The time of the Democratic party as the party of high-minded noble losers is long past.

In the end I'm really not sure how far you get thinking about sexism with reference to these individual token figures. (Even though this thread is clearly a late stab at compensation for y'alls vicious sexism in refusing to respect Hillary at all while drooling over Obama's suave manliness). Everyone has a weakness, for women that weakness will get a sexist spin. But as people get to know someone for their accomplishments, for who they are, their gender identity fades.

Like, Condi Rice was by the race/sex standard the most progressive cabinet appointment in U.S. history -- a black woman appointed to one of the three cabinet positions that really matters (Treasury, Defense, State). But Bush gets no left-wing credit for it and Condi doesn't get much sexist heat (unless you count the stuff about her being "too weak" at the NSC to police the Rumsfeld+Cheney vs. Powell conflicts, which I don't quite because it's so true). That's because it's so obvious she's just another Bush apparatchik of the type we are all too familiar with. Liddy Dole was briefly thought of as a serious threat in the Republican primaries, but who gives a shit really?

On the Dem side, Pelosi is powerful and will only get more so. She faced lots of sexism coming up but maneuvered around it quite successfully. The Republicans explored a few sexist attacks on her when she became Speaker, but dropped it fast because if anything that stuff backfires with her -- the fact that she's a woman with a dozen grandchildren helps her play hardball more effectively, not less.

I really think the thing with Hillary is that she came into public life in a really gender-inflected way. First, she had this ridiculous position of being the national model wife, then she was the national Wronged Woman. She never really replaced all the insecure BS that stuff created with an image that was about her as a leader.

Bottom line, she never really found herself as a leader. Her strengths are mastery of detail, tireless committment to the nuts of bolts of progressive domestic social policy, patience, and discipline. Those things are great for the Senate, great for being Bill Clinton's advisor or someone's chief of staff. But they are too quiet, too behind-the-scenes to give a Presidential image. Plus being forced into triangulation strengthened her natural caution until it became almost pathological. She had every opportunity in 2001-2005 or so to step into a role as a major progressive leader, but she never did it. She was always nervously looking over her shoulder. She never took on a public role that would have made the lesbian bitch nonsense seem irrelevant.

But Bush gets no left-wing credit for it

Cumulatively, we'd seen it before.

116, 117: I'm talking about high minded noble winning, but you guys go ahead and kick that strawman's ass.

Shoot, my memory is so bad these days. There was a guy, Democrat, good speaker, and he kept appealing to people's hopes instead of their fears. Took the high road more often than not even when his opponents went negative. Did really well in the primary, surprised everyone by upsetting the front runner. Can't remember how he did in the general. African-American guy. Kinda big ears, but good looking. Anyone remember his name?

This has been a really good speech.

It was a good speech, but the booing at her proclamation of support for Obama was not so nice.

My parenthetical about "crone" wasn't meant as an excuse; I just wanted to note it to save someone the trouble of saying "you do this too!"

122:I just wanted to note it to save someone the trouble of saying "you do this too!"

Nah, no trouble at all. We'd do it even if we weren't paid to.

My attempt at proactive inoculation is sympathetic.
Yours is pathetic.
Hers is monstrous.

Bottom line, she never really found herself as a leader. Her strengths are mastery of detail, tireless committment to the nuts of bolts of progressive domestic social policy, patience, and discipline.

Anybody here an age or knowledge base in 2nd wave feminism?

My guess is that these are the qualities already apparent in 1970-75 that made the feminist believe she could be President. I was trying, with my own limited knowledge, to remember the inspirational leaders and firebrands of the movement:Abzug, Jordan, Jong, Greer. Shows how little I remember.

I am not saying that a non-confrontation style would seem the only viable early feminist postion, although I think pre-Roe it was much tougher to be Obamish on women's issues.

121: I felt the same way, but the cheering very quickly drowned out the boos.

124 gets it right.

Michelle Cottle's TNR article a couple days ago introduced us all to the possibly-apocryphal story of how HRC's classmates and feminist cohorts of the time wanted her to not become a "political wife" because it would be a waste of the unique talents that might make her the first female president. Maybe they were right.

120: 10 points or 25 EV's by October 1st. Otherwise start kneecapping McCain. Bring back zombie Atwater.

As far as Rice and Gonzales go, I was never able to rid myself of the idea that Texas planters were not averse to having non-white house-servants. AFAICT, Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld were the only ones who ever counted. Any one else (e.g. Addington or Yoo) got their importance through one of the four.

127: Obama should be able to kneecap McCain without being sleazy about it. Truth should be damaging enough. And if he can't counterpunch quickly and accurately on the smears, going negative in the last month isn't going to help.

129: maybe, if the press would ever finish the epoch-long blowjob they've been giving McCain. Otherwise, he'll be seen as "going negative."

Fuck. Thinkin on it a bit; remembering the strident bra-burners and the struggle of moderate 2nd wave feminists; the visceral hatred of Bella Abzug (You think You've seen political sexism? Sheeet); the painful racism/sexism disputes inside 2nd wave feminism; the dismissal by the post-feminists and that young post-feminists are a core of the Obama campaign...this must hurt like hell.

I'd go visit the feminist sites, which I deleted back when politics was hurting, but I'm scared the ones I used to read would be all pro-Obama.

What happened needs more analysis.

128: Semi-OT. I see via TPM that Abu got a gig as an assistant to special master on a patent case. Pretty lame gig, Abu! If you were a white guy, you'd be raking in millions via some kind of lobbyist scam, or at least getting decent amount of wingnut welfare from a "think tank". Look at Ashcroft for God's sake! Think about what Rove and Cheney really thought of you, doesn't it make your hot Hispanic blood boil? Go for the Full Scottie, his was stuff was lame outsiderish BS, you've got the real goods! I see a massive book deal in your future.

Kinda big ears, but good looking. Anyone remember his name?

It's on the tip of my tongue - the guy with lots of friends in AIPAC, right ?

(Okay, that's a cheap shot, but in my defense, I couldn't resist.)

And it isn't just "No you aren't owed for past efforts, nostalgic old boomers"

What was the message of the post-feminists?

"The fight is over & won, fightin time is over?"

I think the 2nd wave feminists probably disagree, as do the rest of us boomers on a lot of issues.

Maybe we're wrong.

124: Male politicians face this too -- they have to be non-threatening as well -- but certainly it's easier for them.

I've been interested in Nancy Pelosi lately. Despite being as "second wave" as anyone (she's about Hillary's age), she never appears the slightest bit uncomfortable about her gender. (E.g. she took the oath as Speaker surrounded by all her grandkids). Hillary always seemed really personally haunted by the question of how to combine power and femininity, or at least painfully self-aware about it (maybe it was the horrible beating she took in Arkansas at a young age).

Pelosi is just so fluent and relaxed with those issues. Here's an interesting article from The New Republic about her (the interesting gender stuff comes in after the beginning part about the primary squabbles). Of course, part of it is that Pelosi worked her way up from the back bench and had a huge background and history independent of being anyone's wife (although she started out as someone's daughter).

||

Where did anyone (Brad?) ever get the idea that Tedra Osell and Scott Eric Kaufman are the people to go to to find out if someone is trustworthy?"

He could have asked me, or McManus, or Stras, I suppose.

|>

131: The new Bob:

Analyze, analyze, Burn Shit Down!, analyze.

I don't think that Gonzales realized that he was in the disposable class of lackey.

138: Well I sure as hell hope he realizes it now!

Brad's post, and this one, too, are indicative of how comfortable the liberal boybloggers will be acknowledging the misogyny, now that Hillary is safely out of the race. I expect something similar from Yggles, if he hasn't done it already.

Third Wave Feminism so far pretty vague and incomprehensible, but I'll work on it. Maybe even visit the pro-Obama feminist blogs.

The fucking war fucked everything all fucked up, darn it. Can I find a third-wave critique of HRC that isn't based on the war? Would I really be able to understand it?

140: I'd be damned surprised if they denied the existence of it during the primary. And who knows, after November, the same crew might acknowledge that some of the age-related rhetoric was out of line, too. (I saw that EOTW has a jump on that, though.)

I don't know bob. Could you play the piano before?

Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "fucking whore"? Man I hate Randi Rhodes. Number one reason I can't listen to Air America for more than 2 minutes at a time.

Gail Collins has a surprisingly good piece in the Times today. Herbert, too, without the surprise part.

Not that surprising. Gail Collins is really sharp.

such a relief from Brooks, Dowd, Herbert, Rich et al.

. Gail Collins is really sharp.

I agree. I don't know why people don't like her.

Good column, though I'm not sure that failing to contest fifteen or so states should be considered a "tactical" error.

One problem is that the term sexism covers a lot of very different behaviors, and I think there is still a gulf between Clinton and Obama supporters about what was and wasn't sexism.

On some things, nearly everyone who reads a blog like this is likely to agree. Matthews was a pig when he asked that woman to get closer to the camera. I mean really, oink.

But a lot of blog-people have also argued, hotly, that Hillary would not have been asked why she isn't dropping out except for sexism, or that if you think Hillary is more willing to twist the truth than most politicians, it must be because you hate strong women.

Am I, maybe, wrong? Because most of what I've read on this thread I agree with - it's mostly the nonpolitical stuff. A lot of TV commentators feel entirely too free to talk about whether they're sexually attracted, and the standards for non-young women are ridiculous. We've got to work on that. I have a harder time seeing deeper sexism, especially of the kind that was still pretty common a generation ago.

Matthews was a pig when he asked that woman to get closer to the camera. I mean really, oink.

Once at a Charming Hostess concert, Jewlia Eisenberg requested all the women in the audience to come up to the front of the stage and show her their tits. I found that pretty charming, lemme tell you.

147: I thought that when I started reading her, but then she went Dowdesque and snarky. If I weren't on my phone I'd go find some examples. I'll be glad if she's returning to form.

i saw this week the yahoo news title, it was up maybe 1hr or so
'planB:Clinton's strategy to exit' something
and thought how sexist
those yahoo news editors really have strange sense of humour

Collins, though, is dead wrong about why Sen. Clinton's acheivement isn't appreciated in the way Obama's would be if he'd run and lost. If he'd spent the last 8 weeks of the campaign running negative spots, saying the country is too sexist, and that although he can't win outright, he'll stay in because she's going to stumble, we all know it, the response to his concession would be the same.

Clinton and her supporters went around saying that 'she can't win, and she's hurting the nominee by the way she's running her campaign' was sexist. It wasn't, and the charge degrades her, and does no favor to women who have to face real sexism.

Clinton and her supporters went around saying that 'she can't win, and she's hurting the nominee by the way she's running her campaign' was sexist.

I think you underrate the extent to which she and her supporters really and reasonably believed that to be true. Part of the problem with the various invidious -isms is that they offer an alternate explanation for the way things went wrong that can't quite be dismissed, whatever the standard explanation offered is. Often enough the -ism gets smuggled in under cover of a reasonable explanation. If, as Collins mentions, you'd spent your life having your concerns--concerns we all now admit are legitimate--not addressed but instead fobbed off with seemingly reasonable explanations, you might well be suspicious, too.

I remember the story of the friend who pleaded with Bill not to take her away to Arkansas.

This reference just reminds me of what I did and do like about Hillary. As someone who supported Hillary early and then switched to Obama, I've embraced the idea that to win the presidency it isn't enough to be smart or prepared or have paid one's dues, one has to be the right person at the right time. Many stars have crashed seeking the presidency.

Which made me think, about what the idea of the presidency does to people. I have a question for anyone who remembers Teddy Kennedy's run for the presidency -- a run that I have never though about much, but which has been referenced in this campaign.

How does someone watch two brothers get shot because of deciding to run for president and then go and run yourself? I understand, when Teddy ran, there wasn't much threat, but emotionally what does that do to someone. If he'd won, what would have done? Would he have sat in the West Wing most nights and had a drink for Jack and one for Bobby and what would have thought? That he wanted revenge?

It's a silly question, in some ways, but it just made me think about what someone's committing themselves to when they decide to run.

In this, as in so many things, only I am man enough to admit that I have played the Hero System RPG.

I think at some point Clinton lost sympathy here because she was self-evidently running against us. Hell, to this day I'm still not sure if I prefer Obama to Clinton (I voted for Dodd), and yet 80 percent of Clinton's remarks over the past few months have driven me into a towering rage.

154 -- I get you Tim. It's pretty rich, though, coming from the people of the kitchen sink and the 'psst, did you notice he's black?' campaign. There's no better way to get legitimate concerns unfairly dismissed than to overreact to reasonable criticism.

I'm done with this, though, altogether. I've said I didn't think the swiftboat business actually cost Kerry a single electoral vote -- it just showed what kind of people the Republicans were. Let's hope the losing narratives from April and May 2008 play even less of a role in November.

I am man enough to admit that I have played the Hero System RPG.

I'll admit it, though I prefer GURPS.

115 was brilliant.

I'm into reconciliation and all, but I'm actually going to have to work to convince my realively apolitical / centrist Clintonista sister (and even my other sister) to vote for Obama. I believe but am not sure that the dirt she got about Obama came through an AFSCME or AFT surrogate.

I agree about the sexism of a lot of the anti-Clinton sentiment, but I've also seen the effects of the Clintonista anti-Obama dirt around here (two people, probably, in addition to my sisters.)

now that Hillary is safely out of the race

That's at least a little too cynical. If the Obama campaign had been gender-baiting, I think more people would have spoken up. That said, I think it's natural and not even really reprehensible that people keep their yaps shut if they're trying to back the other candidate. Life is complicated: I could do a post every day about something horrible the Iranian government has done, but I don't, because feeding the war machine is worse.

...adding...there are limits to one's forbearance, of course.

That said, I think it's natural and not even really reprehensible that people keep their yaps shut if they're trying to back the other candidate.

I agree this is natural, and not necessarily hugely reprehensible (within limits, of course, and depending on context) on the part of garden-variety supporters of this or that candidate. The problem is that the media -- including the "alternative media" and not excluding those big-league bloggers who want to be taken seriously as political analysts -- are supposed to adhere to certain standards of fairness and balance and etc. I don't mean that bloggers should not take sides or not endorse, or that they should claim to be completely impartial or whatever. But to basically ignore the issue of misogyny throughout the campaign, and then to finally address it only in an atmosphere of Clinton campaign post-mortem posts...well, it may sound cynical, but I think Gonerill's point is dead-on.

the media -- including the "alternative media" and not excluding those big-league bloggers who want to be taken seriously as political analysts

I think you should name names and specific things that bloggers should have addressed but didn't.

Brad's post, and this one, too, are indicative of how comfortable the liberal boybloggers will be acknowledging the misogyny, now that Hillary is safely out of the race. I expect something similar from Yggles, if he hasn't done it already.

Come on, Saiselgy was pretty open about pointing out Clinton was getting the shaft from the press. Here's a couple example posts regarding "Cleavagegate" and the crying B.S.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/cleavagegate_the_madness_conti.php

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/fake_stories.php

I think you should name names and specific things that bloggers should have addressed but didn't.

Digby, though she was good on sexism and misogyny, so she's probably not one of the ones MC is thinking about. To be fair, Digby did explicitly reject attempts at fairness and balance as foolhardy.

163: I think you should name names

I was going to say "SAVAK would have been proud", but that would have been wrong (last phrase spoken pointedly in the direction of the hidden microphone).

This is a pretty high standard to ask for a blog comment. (Though with time I suspect MC could come up with the examples.)

164: The July MY item is hardly relevant, and the tone of comments from the "crying" one (unremarked upon by MY) hardly add to the point on the general climate in the blogosphere. (I have no idea what the various front pagers said or did not say, but DailyKos was about 1/3 reprehensible fever swamp.)

165: Your mention of Digby in this context is pretty incomprehensible to me given her position and the flack she took (maybe it's just me not understanding).

The July MY item is hardly relevant

What? It's relevant to a claim that Yglesias was ignoring misogyny during the campaign, unless we're interpreting "enough is enough" in a post titled "Cleavagegate" as approving of such things.

Also, "he didn't remark on the tone of his comment section" is some weak brew.

From EK there was the pre-emptive defensiveness at at the end of this post. But to his credit the post immediately after addressed sexism more seriously.

Your mention of Digby in this context is pretty incomprehensible to me given her position and the flack she took (maybe it's just me not understanding).

As I said, she was good on misogyny and sexism. Race: the only times I saw her address allegations of race-bating by the Clinton campaign were times when she specifically denied it was happening. Fairness and balance: she took Obama apart of the Reagan rhetoric, but--at least to my recollection--made no mention of Clinton and Scaife, or the McCain as C-in-C trope of Clinton's. All while maintaining that she was neutral on the candidates. As I said, she did say that attempts at "fair and balanced" posting was foolhardy (and was one of the things that had led the MSM astray).

It is, of course, wrong that much of the criticism was apparently leveled in sexist and misogynistic language. And she even picked up what sounds likes a cyberstalker. That's much more than simply wrong; that had to be sort of scary, and that's just awful, particularly for someone who for so long liked--perhaps for just this reason--her anonymity. I genuinely feel sorry that she suffered either the language or whoever that bastard was.

But she has to be considered a major blogger, I'd think, and I didn't see much fairness and balance. Perhaps I missed it--said sincerely--as I stopped paying quite as close attention to her stuff a while ago.

I actually don't think fairness and balance is required--that is, I differ from MC there--but the claims of neutrality were a bit much for me.

Ogged, I'm too incapacitated by the 95-plus degree heat at the moment to put together a synoptic analysis of statistical data from the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report of 2007 and also from ongoing studies by the Center for Women and Politics at Rutgers University. But I'm willing to do that, once the weather has turned, if anyone is interested.

The point is: when it comes to the political representation of women, the US, for all its much-vaunted status as "world's greatest democracy," is not only not a world leader in the field, but even lags quite noticeably, not to say shockingly, behind a very many other countries. The fact that Chris Matthews still has a job is just a symptom, I guess.

What has struck me quite forcibly during this campaign season is that too many liberal boybloggers still think of "women's issues" in "ladies auxiliary" terms, as value-added options, more or less, with an emphasis on the optional. Sorry, boyos, but that's just not how it works. If you're committed to "progressive" or whatever you want to call it, goals and policies, the laydeez are not just optional, or not just a pleasant diversion: where they're at, and where they'd like to be, is, or should be, one of your main roadmaps, I almost want to say. If you care about "progressive" or whatever politics, I mean.

Yeah, I'll name names. Markos, Marshall, Yiggles, for starters. But I'm not really interested, libertarian-like, in personal journeys and personal triumphs and the "personal accountability" of the heroic, rest-of-the-world-defying blogger. I'm really talking about larger structures.

A couple of blog posts, more or less, that said, "I'm for Obama, but these crazy, kooky misogynistic attacks on HRC make me understand why we're only 31 in the political representation in the entire world" would have meant something, maybe.

Howard Dean quoted today in the NYTimes on the "wounds of sexism" just about makes my head explode, but also makes me laugh, frankly. Jesus God, don't bother. I'm not interested in "wounding" and "healing," I want to know why the US lags so noticeably behind the rest of the western world in "progressive" or whatever policies, and why the boys keep stopping those goals in the name of "progress."

170: OK, fair enough, I really just did not know what you were referring to.

167: July 2007 is irrelevant to the main point of contention, which is how things went down when the campaign really heated up between Clinton and Obama.

Ygelesias in July wasn't Yglesias in January-June. I think that was the point above. That said, I don't think I saw very much overt or pointed sexism from big-time bloggers (other than Sullivan, that unhinged asshole). Maybe that's because I don't spend any time at Kos. Still, most pro-Obama bloggers didn't do as much as they could have to tamp down the sexism in their comments sections or to call out the msm for its misogyny. I think this made some, perhaps many, feminists feel like these same progressive bloggers weren't taking women's issues very seriously. Which strikes me as both fair and totally regrettable.

Boy did MC pwn me. This is what happens when we let womyn into the public sphere.

This is what happens when we let womyn into the public sphere.

'The life of a citizen in the hands of a woman,' darling. I'm still all 18th-century about these issues, even though the Habermasian public sphere has totally let me down, and left me jilted at the altar, even.

Yglesias's comment section has always been weird and unpleasant. He has a laissez faire philosophy or something.

His comment section is also both impossible troll, and impossible to get a laugh out of. I see it as dominated by Ivy politicos, mostly young, for whom everything is political grist, who worry that the slightest misstep or levity might come back to bite them.

176: That may be, but many other pro-Obama progressive bloggers also didn't say much of anything as their comments sections turned toxic. Feminists, even those who weren't voting for Clinton, had every reason to feel like their ostensible allies were stabbing them in the back.

Let me be clear: I'm not calling Yglesias, or Marshall, or Klein, or Kos, or anyone else sexist. I'm saying that the pro-Obama blogosphere was decidedly not welcoming to feminists over the past few months. Which sucks on grounds of both decency and expediency. We need the womyn. That is all.

A couple of blog posts, more or less, that said, "I'm for Obama, but these crazy, kooky misogynistic attacks on HRC make me understand why we're only 31 in the political representation in the entire world" would have meant something, maybe.

I don't think pissing off Chris Matthews is a good enough reason to pull the lever for Clinton, but I can certainly understand the impulse.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/clinton_comeback.php

Still, most pro-Obama bloggers didn't do as much as they could have to tamp down the sexism in their comments sections or to call out the msm for its misogyny.

The latter I'll agree with (though most mention Matthews), but the comment section thing, well... look, Yglesias' comment section, for example, generally includes Steve Sailer arguing that all black people smarter than him are actually genetically dumber, about 600 Als, and Petey being unhinged. It ain't moderated, and to point to that as evidence they all tolerated sexism suffices to argue that Yglesias also tolerates racism, sockpuppets, and unhingery beyond his comments.

As for sexism generally, plenty of it came at female Obama supporters, too. Too young, too dumb, too starstruck to really recognize how stupid they're being, don't you know.

Yglesias didn't tamp down his comment section when one of his trolls started mocking his mother's death. It just seems to be something he doesn't do.

put together a synoptic analysis of statistical data from the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report of 2007 and also from ongoing studies by the Center for Women and Politics at Rutgers University. But I'm willing to do that, ... if anyone is interested.

I'm interested. Actual data is always interesting.

We need the womyn. That is all.

Mars needs women!

I seen what happens when Mars needs women and I en't convinced it's not all just about tentacles.

Bob at 141, if you're still around. "3rd wave" is imho, a confused locution (for various reasons). Actually, on close examination, so is 2nd wave. But those are both stories for another time.
That said, here's how my feminist critique of HRC would begin:
1) yes, all that was sexist. appallingly. yuk. Says terrible things about the talking heads that said such things. Says nothing either way about HRC herself as a candidate. Is NOT a reason to vote FOR HRC.
2) We are not the lavender menace, HRC. And so long as you support DOMA, and Obama rejects it (BOTH prongs) that makes him, to that extent, more a feminist than you.
3) same goes w/regard to women w/disabilities (see, e.g. Berube's essay on crooked timber)
4) HRC's choices with regard to BC are/were hers and hers alone to make. Having made them, however, she does not get to count her time as "first lady" as "experience" relevant for the office of the presidency, indeed as experience so relevant that she gets to claim that she has volumes more "experience" than Obama...

Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn...I confess I've never quite understood just what the hell planet I'm supposed to be.

Yglesias didn't tamp down his comment section when one of his trolls started mocking his mother's death.

Jeebus.

I hear Pluto is nice this time of year. Cold, unlike my apartment. Bad wireless access, tho.

186: Plus no longer classified as a real planet.

That's the secret. It makes it one of those destinations that only those in the know know about. Neptune is so tired these days. Pluto has a vibrant alternative, uh, rock scene.

185: Maybe he just doesn't know how to read his comments. Computers are complicated.

There's an H.P. Lovecraft story in which the "discovery" of "Pluto" plays an important role.

ia! ia! shub-nyggurath!

179: I've said elsewhere that I don't know that bloggers -- not just Yglesias, by the way -- have any obligation to police their comments sections for misogyny or racism or whatever. But that doesn't mean that a failure to do so, on an ongoing basis and when the toxic comments are coming fast and furious, isn't going to alienate some feminists or brown people or whomever. Is that fair? Maybe not. Are there other issues about the public sphere to be considered? Sure. But the progressive tent had better be big enough, and also built carefully enough, that there's room for feminists inside. If feminists feel like they're being pushed out, that's a real problem. Maybe not Ygelsias's problem, or Marshall's, or Klein's, but certainly the movement's problem.

As for being told that you can't be feminist and also support Obama, you know that I think that's utter bullshit. In fact, I think there are good arguments for why Obama was the feminist candidate. But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the other point.

191: Racist.

179.2: That wasn't sexism; male Obama supporters got that shit too.

Ari's #192 makes the key distinction, I think. If you have an anything-goes environment, some people will be offended, and will have grounds for saying "you're tolerating this". "I'm tolerating everything" is only a very partial defense, and the older I get, the more I loathe the whole Internet Tough Guy mentality that demands we pretend words are somehow trivial when transmitted via HTTP or NNTP or whatever.[1]

[1] The single best comeback to this I know is one I've seen people use in World of Warcraft groups when someone insists that since "that's so gay" is just words, nobody should object to it being homophobic. "Since it's just words, then you won't have any problem finding ones that aren't insulting all our gay friends by comparing them to junk. Oh, now you think words do matter, because you don't want to give that one up? Come back when your story makes sense."

put together a synoptic analysis of statistical data from the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report of 2007

Well, I ask for names and specifics because otherwise it just hangs as a smear on all male liberal bloggers. Yglesias, for example, has been very good on this, particularly given how angry he's come to be at Clinton. I don't read Kos at all, and Marshall only rarely, so I can't speak about them.

I'm really talking about larger structures.

Ok, I expect there's a lot of agreement about this, but your comment at 162 was about "big-league bloggers," and since that really means about five or ten people on the liberal side, often with very different approaches to the gender issue, you have to make the distinctions.

Well, I ask for names and specifics because otherwise it just hangs as a smear on all male liberal bloggers.

And I gave you names. Both Yglesias and Marshall allowed their comment sections to become Hillary hatefests, with all kinds of stupid sexism thrown around. That's their right to do so, of course. But the blogger/siteowner is responsible for whatever rules and standards of discourse he or she chooses to maintain. If you allow stupid sexism at your site, don't be surprised if readers come to associate you and your site with stupid sexism.

MC, this isn't exactly a defense if Yglesias, but he also allowed his comments section to be taken over by and ex-friend troll named Petey, whose posts consisted in the end entirely of denunciations of Matt himself for being a trust fund Ivy League elitist. Matt simply refuses to monitor his comments, and I am no longer a regular there for that reason. The same used to be true of Drum, whose comments were dominated for a long time by a tag team of Republican idiots, but Drum has cleaned it up some. I've never spent much time at all on Marshall's comments so I can't say much about them.

The comments certainly do reveal a nasty sexist streak within the mass of male self-described progressives, but I don't think that it's fair to take them as typical or dominant. As I've said, right now I'm dealing with the after-effects of Obama smears coming from Clinton surrogates. My sister was never more than centrist, possibly center-right, and she's quite capable of staying home or even voting for McCain.

Peripherally, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake seems to be of the "women can't be sexists" philosophy. See her remarks on Kate O'Beirne.

That wasn't sexism; male Obama supporters got that shit too.

They didn't have Steinem writing a major editorial about how they were letting down the side. They didn't have people quietly tut-tutting about these young feminists (30 is the new 18) who just didn't understand solidarity.

I do agree that 'it's only stupid young people voting for Obama' was certainly part of it, which was why it got ridiculous when 'young' started being defined as 'under 50.'

192: Just that sexism's all over the place, and that it was hardly limited to Obama supporters. We're a sexist country, and that's in part what makes this so hard.

I had more to that comment when I left it, but like I said on your site earlier, one of the hard things about the treatment of Clinton is that quite a lot of the stuff said about her wasn't at the level of 'a woman hath not the penis to defend against the jihadi horde' but 'gosh, she just doesn't have a winning personality and seems kind of tough.' The latter is probably more pernicious, and a lot harder to moderate.

Not everyone views their comment section as a conversation.

194: If you have an anything-goes environment, some people will be offended, and will have grounds for saying "you're tolerating this".

Sure, but I think the claim here is that Yglesias (for example) tolerates sexism in a way he wouldn't tolerate racism, anti-Semitism, etc.

in a way he wouldn't tolerate racism

He hasn't banned Steve Sailer.

They didn't have people quietly tut-tutting about these young feminists (30 is the new 18) who just didn't understand solidarity.

No, I saw some of that. Erica Jong was one. NY NOW. Ferrarro.

201: I think Cala's point is that the charge that you're betraying your own is different from the charge that you're acting against a group or ideology you, as an outsider, pretend to support.

Erica Jong specifically used the betrayal of feminism by women argument. I think that NY NOW did too.

He hasn't banned Steve Sailer.

His behavior toward Sailer is pretty solicitous, if you ask me.

And for what it's worth, I think his tolerant approach to Sailer is an entirely legitimate one. (Banning him would be another entirely legitimate approach.)

We live in a country of racists and sexists. If you're going to host a forum open to Americans, you're necessarily drawing from a mixed bag. There are a lot of valid reasons not to have open forums, but a lot of good reasons to have them, too.

On the 'what are you griping about with liberal bloggers' front; I'd still have to go looking for specific examples of what I'm talking about, but the sort of thing that made me cranky in blogs I read and generally approve of was less straightforwardly sexist rhetoric directed at Hilary, and more "My goodness, the sexism directed at Hilary in the media is deplorable. But certainly not the sort of thing that has any important effects, and her claims of victimization are an inexcusable form of playing the gender card." That sort of thing is a hot button for me: sure, the fact that other people are being sexist about her is not a positive reason to vote for Hillary, and shouldn't be. But don't go telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing, or that I'm irrational for thinking it's having an effect on the electorate.

200: I wish there were some way to describe Sailer than "racist." He really does seem not to have the animus I usually associate with the word. But, given his convictions, and the fastness with which he holds them, I cannot think of a distinction I can justify for very long.

203: It appears that you and Cala agree. I guess I don't understand the "No" in "No, I saw some of that."

Here's a post from Josh Marshall talking about Hillary gelding Mark Penn; probably an unfortunate image for someone trying to avoid sexist tropes.

I misread Cala.

That sort of thing is a hot button for me: sure, the fact that other people are being sexist about her is not a positive reason to vote for Hillary, and shouldn't be. But don't go telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing, or that I'm irrational for thinking it's having an effect on the electorate.

I don't want to deny this or suggest that it all comes out in the wash, but the same thing happened on charges of race-baiting. Except that I think most Obama bloggers at least acknowledged the sexism if denying the effect; the Clinton bloggers (or seeming Clinton bloggers; some were neutral) that I could bear to read either left the charges unaddressed or denied it. Which, fair enough: people have different opinions, and the other person's might even be right.

Maybe this was always going to happen, as groups separated out for different candidates, especially two that faced unique challenges along familiar lines. And the effect was probably exacerbated by the closeness of the race: I think that there was probably a sense on both sides that we/they weren't going to put down their gun (here, acknowledgment of sins, I guess) until the other camp did the same.

Stephen Kaus in the Huffington Post (he's no one particular, but the H.P. is generally part of the liberal blogosphere, no?) calling Hillary humorless and cynical for objecting to the "pimping Chelsea out" incident.

I don't want to deny this or suggest that it all comes out in the wash, but the same thing happened on charges of race-baiting.

I don't think so. I saw arguments about what the meaning of particular incidents that were characterized as race baiting was (who was responsible, like that Drudge thing, or how bad they were, like Bill's Jesse Jackson comments.) I didn't see the Obama campaign's reaction to any such incident turned into a separate basis for attacks on him or on the rationality of his supporters generally.

Obamabots? Whirly-eyed? Hoping for the messiah to save all of America's sins?

This word, how you say, 'rationality'?

Accusations of a cult of personality, yes. Accusations specificially of an irrational belief that their candidate was suffering from racist attacks, much less so.

211: I think I'm not understanding your point, for some reason. I read arguments about what the meaning of particular incidents that were characterized as race baiting was (who was responsible, like that Drudge thing, or how bad they were, like Bill's Jesse Jackson comments) as examples of denial by Clinton supporters, and I guess I assume that such a denial is a claim that Obama supporters were overreacting or seeing something that wasn't there. That seems like a charge of irrationality.

I didn't see the Obama campaign's reaction to any such incident turned into a separate basis for attacks on him or on the rationality of his supporters generally.

I don't really remember many responses by either campaign to such incidents. I have a sense that Obama's campaign brushed such incidents against his race off, at least when it was speaking for public consumption. I have a sense that the Clinton campaign engaged the issues slightly more, but I don't remember anyone attacking the campaign's response. (It's entirely possible that such things happened and I just don't remember them.)

I don't know of anyone who I would consider worth the conversation arguing that Clinton suffered no sexist attacks at all.

I think the disagreement is more on the level of whether a) sexism cost her the election or b) 'periodically', 'kitchen sink' and 'Hillary' were sexist or c) whether sexism or racism was worse during the campaign which lead to a lot of weird comparisons, like Yglesias' comment section with Ferraro.

Perhaps the difference in the way things fell out came from the fact that Obama was fighting for the white vote, and taking the black vote (which is only ?25%? of Democrats) for granted, whereas Hillary was trying to maximize her share of the much larger woman's vote (?60%? of Democrats, including black women). So the battlegrounds determined both the strategies and the coverage.

On the "But absolutely none of the sexism directed at Hillary was coming from the Obama campaign" front, Jesse Jackson Jr., Obama's national campaign co-chair, talking about Hilary tearing up in NH as 'crying about her appearance' when she didn't cry about Katrina.

(Once again, I voted for Obama, I think he's the better candidate and will be the better president on the issues.)

217: Fair enough, but I think that's an example of one camp not admitting or acknowledging the sins of their own side, or sins that were helpful to him. Which is something that I think happened in both directions. And that it happened in both directions made it hard for either side to acknowledge the sins that advantaged it.

216: Just using the CNN's 2004 election results as proxies, I get a little over 19% for African-Americans and a little over 55% for women.

One thing about Sailer in Yglesias's comment section, is that he always gets called down by the other commenters, to the point where just about any post he comments on turns into a "Sailer is a racist" flamewar. Ditto Chris Ford.

Whereas I didn't see that kind of behavior among the commenters toward sexist anti-Clinton comments.

Hm, has the Unfoggetariat been raptured?

While I thought that Obama was smeared by individuals and by Clinton surrogates, and in a way not unrelated to American racial politics, I don't think that Clinton-supporting Democrats resorted to the gross traditional racist steroetypes (watermelons, etc.) Whereas some of the personal attacks on Clinton by Obama supporting Democrats (not just media shits and Republicans) did resort to the grossest misogynous stereotypes about harpies and castrating bitches and hysterical women and fat butts and cleavage and so on.

I've been discussing this with some of my favorite internet people, and I think that this is what's at issue.

On the media front, I think that part of the reason for the relatively favorable treatment Obama got was Hillary-hating.

And I gave you names.

Yes, I was just explaining why I asked for them.

Yglesias and Marshall allowed their comment sections to become Hillary hatefests

How much or whether comment sections should be patrolled has always been a subject of debate. Yglesias pretty clearly almost never reads his comments, and I doubt Marshall does either.

If you allow stupid sexism at your site, don't be surprised if readers come to associate you and your site with stupid sexism.

So now you've backed all the way down to "some people will conclude..." Ok, I can agree with that.

222: If you don't think "shuck and jive" or "drug dealer" or someone like Wilentz calling out Obama as "playing the race card" fits a previously existing stereotype of African-Americans, I don't really know what to tell you.

Were Clinton Democrats saying "shuck and jive" and "drug dealer"? If so, i suppose you're right. But what Wilentz said was part of American racial politics, but not a racial smear. Some of the stuff people were saying about Hillary was old-style standard misogyny.

Shuck and jive.

Drug dealer.

Perhaps. For me shuck and jive is race-neutral, but probably not in that context.

225: Cuomo on the first, Bob Johnson (BET founder and the person apparently tasked with talking to Obama about Clinton as VP) and the husband of the governor of one of the NE states (IIRC) for the second.

So now you've backed all the way down to "some people will conclude..."

No. This is not what I've said, and it's not clear to me from what exactly I am supposed to have "backed down." What I said was "readers [will] come to associate you with...", which is different than your vaguer "some people will conclude."

Obama was not race-baited. Raising the question of whether someone with Obama's background can be elected in the general is not race-baiting. As Emerson said, you would have had to have drawn caricatures of Obama eating watermelon and playing Stepin Fetchit to equal what Hillary got.

Really, though, beyond the whole racist/sexist thing, it was the pure personal hatred shown toward Hillary. If someone could have come up with a way to call her a horrible evil monstrous bitch that wasn't actually sexist, I still think that would have been pretty offensive (others may differ). Of course, when you really hate someone you will reach toward the most atavistic and primal insults you can. There was this hysteria shown by Obama supporters toward anyone who got in the way of their shiny new darling.

I liked the debate during the primary that focused on Hillary's genuine flaws, especially her failure to provide real progressive leadership against Bush and her first time failure with health care reform, whether it was time to move on from the Clintons, whether Obama's experience qualified him as a candidate and (yes) his connection to Pastor Wright. (Anyone who isn't grateful the Wright connection came up early in the Democratic primary rather than in October is a fool). Those to me were all legit issues.

Then it just got all crazy and personal. I guess you can chalk it up to the fact that Democrats tend to be political romantics. Obama is young and good-looking and an appealing figure to project romantic fantasies on. This was clearly coming from Obama supporters rather than the man himself (one of the things I like most about him is his cool rationality and composure). When it showed signs of infecting his campaign (as with Samantha Power) it was quickly taken care of.

It was predictable, from the start, that things would fall in by early to mid June with a concession and an endorsement by the losing candidate, and the speed of the modern news cycle would allow enough time to heal the divisions that had come up during the campaign. All the hysteria was way premature.

Obama was not race-baited.

Hard-working Americans, white Americans, wouldn't stand for it.

It's not that I would say he's a Muslim, either, not really knowing his heart.

The November election is an Obama gimme, no fun at all. I say let's refight the primaries instead.

Here is Obsidian Wings Publius comparing Clinton to Richard Nixon, and when called on it, well, I will let you read the comments, which were more interesting than usual. Funny, some of the women and Clinton-defenders seem more outspoken now. Some irrational loathing continues.

Misogyny & sexism...whatever. Obama supporters went way too far against Clinton, often in subtle or simple ways.

PS:I could have said, after reading those comments, that Publius, strong Obama supporter, thinks Obama is very much like Barry Goldwater, 1964 version. Does that mean racial separatist, or a closet nuclear hair-trigger, or wow, wanting to kill Social Security?

But I would never twist people's words that way.

234:Jesus, John, you no way hate Republicans enough. That there will be an election at all is not a gimme, but only probable.

Joke. I don't want to replay the primaries.

PPS:I have suspicions about Nixonland. Max Sawicky at TPM, I think it was Max, called Perlstein out on focusing too much attention on Hoffman and Rubin as the face of the far left in the 60s, instead of noting street level activity like draft counseling. Perlstein countered that Hoffman & Rubin were the faces on TV. So I wonder if >i>Nixonland is in part a more subtle variation on "DFH's wrecked the party".

Much of what bothers me in the blogosphere is much more subtle than what Jonah Goldberg does. The Clinton=Nixon isn't even as subtle as what bugs me.

231.2 seems incontestable, with the interjection of "some people" here and there, e.g. "some people will reach toward the most primal insults," and "hysteria shown by some Obama supporters toward anyone who got in the way". In the way of things, those people were noticed, and it was damaging to the Obama campaign in some ways.

Over now, though.

235, 238: I can't tell how many layers of irony you're using these days, bob. Are many people really unable to distinguish "there are parallels between Clinton's situation today and Nixon's situation in 1964" and "Clinton=Nixon=Evil" ? Because if so, there's not much point in anyone ever trying to get a point across with words, ever.

Because if so, there's not much point in anyone ever trying to get a point across with words, ever.

I don't want to refight the campaign either.

Of course there is a point, like helping get someone elected or selling soap. But nothing is to be trusted, everything must be deconstructed, and even a set of universally accepted facts has been edited, at least by omission, to serve an agenda, point-of-view, bias, prejudice, or many povs, sometimes unconscous. All is polemic.

This post by ogged, by focusing on the media & sexism, turned attention away from other things.

241: turned attention away from other things.

Yeah, like the discovery of the Fountain of Vermouth!

241 was not intended as a criticism of ogged, who I imagine had the best of intentions. I just approach everything I read critically, with a radical skepticism.

I would read Nixonland looking for what was wrong about it, not for fact-checking, but for major & minor themes, emphasis, etc.

When I read the famous Yglesias article about the "incompetence dodge", my first and primary question was why he wrote it, not whether it was a good argument or not. Good argument or flawed, it would likely have had the same influence on the blogosphere. Facts, arguments, reason don't matter much. I am still working on that why. Killed HRC's first line of defense, didn't it?

I liked the debate during the primary that focused on Hillary's genuine flaws, especially her failure to provide real progressive leadership against Bush and her first time failure with health care reform, whether it was time to move on from the Clintons, whether Obama's experience qualified him as a candidate and (yes) his connection to Pastor Wright. (Anyone who isn't grateful the Wright connection came up early in the Democratic primary rather than in October is a fool). Those to me were all legit issues.

Then it just got all crazy and personal.

So the race was calm when it was about whether Obama was an unqualified black male, but then it got personal? How does that work?

I believe the idea is that those questions (about Obama's experience and his connection to Wright) were about his electability, and were not personal.

244: saying that someone who is black is unqualified is not necessarily racist -- it's quite different than saying that they are unqualified because they are black.

Hillary never did the slightest bit to encourage the scurrilous lies about Obama being Muslim (she actively denied them), which arguably were race-baiting.

Hillary never did the slightest bit to encourage the scurrilous lies about Obama being Muslim, as far as I know.

saying that someone who is black is unqualified is not necessarily racist

I don't think that's the argument.

Hillary never did the slightest bit to encourage the scurrilous lies about Obama being Muslim (she actively denied them)

After the revelation about Penn's desire to emphasize Obama's "non-Americanness," do their continue to be doubts about the campaign's connection to the turban photos?

248.last: My, I hadn't heard about that. Not surprising, is it, as a campaign strategy, assuming that one is out to win (hurt, damage) no matter what, regardless of the tactics used, as long as they work.

The rehashing here is a little tiresome, but the question of when dirty tactics are acceptable will always be live, it would seem.

242: Say what you will about the Weekly World News, and sure, I know they're a little over the top on the whole "Jesus is a Bat Child in a Flying Saucer" thing, the Fountain of Vermouth is an important story, and I don't think anyone else is covering it. So thanks, WWN!

it's not clear to me from what exactly I am supposed to have "backed down."

You started in this thread by claiming that big time bloggers "basically ignored" the issue of misogyny. Then it was pointed out that Yglesias hadn't done that, and the claim became that you were really talking about structural issues, or maybe you were talking about not policing their comments, and finally you stopped claiming directly that they were in the wrong, and said that some readers would conclude that they were.

do their continue to be doubts about the campaign's connection to the turban photos?

Yes, I have doubts. Only Drudge ever showed up with them as "from the Clinton campaign". I don't believe the Clinton campaign intended the pictures to be circulated publicly for electoral advantage(I do believe a staffer might have sent them around internally), I think Drudge got hold of them and saw an opportunity to screw both Clinton and Obama.

I don't know that this is sexism rather than just Clinton hating, but I've been thinking that the hairtrigger willingness to believe the worst of her was at least weird. I couldn't see any reason why so many people were convinced that she was going to take the fight to the convention in an attempt to cripple Obama so she could run in '12 -- that's an incredibly low odds move (not crippling Obama, she might have been able to do that. But even after an Obama loss, the idea that she would have been the '12 frontrunner would be a very, very long shot.) and one that relies on her not giving a damn at all about the real world consequences of a McCain victory. It's not impossible that she could have been both that deluded and that evil, but I find it weird that so many people sounded certain about it.

I couldn't see any reason why so many people were convinced that she was going to take the fight to the convention in an attempt to cripple Obama so she could run in '12

Because of the way the campaign's tactics got rougher and rougher and passed certain lines as the campaign wore on. If you don't think the campaign's tactics got rougher, or passed unexpected lines, that's not going to be very convincing. But I think that's the primary reason, along with a longer term assumption that the DLC knee-capped Dean in '04 and tried to do the same when he became DNC chair. (I seem to recall claims by the Clinton campaign that it was going to Denver, too.)

willingness to believe the worst of her was at least weird

Why is this weird? She race-baited, she claimed that she and McCain were qualified and he was not, her campaign made a series of laughable claims about which states should count, and a bunch of other absurd stuff. At a certain point, saying "well, she wouldn't cross that line" just seems naive.

I think Drudge got hold of them and saw an opportunity to screw both Clinton and Obama.

Yeah, that's just a disagreement about what's more likely. Before it became received wisdom that Drudge was for Obama, it was received wisdom that Drudge was for Clinton and was a useful site for them to leak information. (Michael Crowley made mention of this in his LA Times opinion piece today.)

I should really stop arguing about this.

Unfogged is love. Enjoy your Sunday, everyone.

253: Any increased roughness made perfect sense as a continuing attempt to win this nomination (unfairly or not) rather than a "destroy the Democratic candidate now, for a Clinton victory in '12." And the '12 plan really would have been both improbably evil and improbably stupid (stupid largely because evil -- like people wouldn't have noticed and held it against her?),

255: When did it stop being received wisdom that Drudge was a Republican tool?

254: One-dimensional demonizing can be just as naive as assuming people have a reasonable sense of their own self-interest. The '12 plan is unlikely not just because it's improbably evil, but because it's incredibly stupid -- coming back from a primary loss is low odds, and coming back from a primary loss when all the high-information voters blame you for losing the last election is very, very low odds.

You started in this thread by claiming that big time bloggers "basically ignored" the issue of misogyny.

This is still my claim, nor have you refuted it with your one example from one blogger, whose comment sections are full of sexist attacks on Clinton and Clinton supporters. I have acknowledged that bloggers/siteowners have the right to set whatever policies they see fit. If their policies encourage the creation of a sexism-rich environment in their comments section, then I see them in the wrong (while acknowledging their right to be in the wrong), because I see them as actively contributing to an atmosphere of ugly misogyny.

like people wouldn't have noticed and held it against her

Some would, some wouldn't. Look around: some people don't think she crossed any lines in this campaign.

I think, broadly, people expect either Clinton--maybe particularly Bill, but it gets imputed to Hillary--to do what it takes to survive, on the assumption that any fractured relationships can be repaired. If she went to Denver, presumably her first choice would have been to get the nomination this time. Her second choice would have been for Obama to lose so she had another shot in '12. I don't even think you have to imagine her to be peculiarly ambitious for her to want this. The question was whether she could survive doing such a thing, and I find it telling that mainstays like Hillary Rosen and Charles Rangel started indicating publicly that it was time to wrap it up. I think was to signal to her that she wouldn't survive it, as I have a hard time believing either would have made such public comments unless they felt it was necessary to encourage her to wrap it up.

hen did it stop being received wisdom that Drudge was a Republican tool?

I personally think he's a mini-Murdoch: prefers Republicans to Democrats, but prefers the powerful to Republicans. I seem to recall claims that Clinton was leaking stuff to Drudge that appeared well before the turban photos, though I can't recall anything specific.

259: I think "ignoring the issue of misogyny" as manifested by comments by irrelevant anonymous idiots in blog comment sections, as Yglesias seems to have done by failing to delete things and ban people from his comments section, is a much less serious crime than ignoring the issue of misogyny as manifested in actual campaign strategies and actual press coverage of the campaign, which is something that Yglesias did not do.

I mean...I go into the blog comments section, and I see a bunch of idiotic comments there, and I think "what a shame, only idiots seem to have anything to say about this." I don't think "Yglesias is to blame for creating an atmosphere in which idiots are dominant". It only takes a few relentless idiots to make a milieu unenjoyable for non-idiots, after which it can take a long time to make it non-idiotic again.

Her second choice would have been for Obama to lose so she had another shot in '12.

To think that "Another 4 years in the Senate with a Republican president keeping me from racking up any legislative accomplishments, followed by a miniscule chance at the Democratic nomination" is preferable to an Obama win for her, which puts her in a powerful position in the Senate, you really have to think she's fairly dim, or insane in a manner that keeps her from calculating odds.

Charles Rangel started indicating publicly

I saw Charlie Rangel make a wisecrack on Thursday or Friday, at a point where it was public knowledge she was going to concede, Was there something earlier I missed?

I should drop this -- I'm not going to convince anyone who doesn't agree with me already.

NYT on Drudge-Clinton campaign relationship, from 2007:

But, typical of a campaign with a reputation for exploiting every advantage and trying to neutralize every disadvantage, Mrs. Clinton's communications team, led by Howard w-lfs-n, is not leaving Mr. Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Mr. Rhoades in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official, who has established a friendly working relationship with Mr. Drudge -- and through whom Mrs. Clinton's campaign often worked quietly to open a line of communication.

That effort has helped to mix some positive stories in with the negative fare about Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Drudge still serves up regularly, they said, though Ms. Sefl's fingerprints are usually impossible to spot.

In April, Mr. Drudge scored exclusive access to a first round of Clinton fund-raising figures. In later months, he highlighted a campaign strategist's prediction that Mrs. Clinton would win over even some Republican voters, polls showing her lead widening and articles chronicling her success in winning over previously skeptical voters.

Though liberals say the site's ideological imbalance remains plain, Republicans, who viewed the site as theirs in campaigns past say they are noticing what they believe to be more Democratic driven -- often Clinton driven -- items on it. And, as New York magazine reported recently, Mr. Drudge sometimes mentioned Mrs. Clinton favorably on his syndicated radio program, even if no one really knows whether his comments reflected admiration or simply a recognition that keeping her in the news is good for his business.

has helped to mix some positive stories in with the negative fare about Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Drudge still serves up regularly,

This does not make it appear improbable to me that Drudge would seize the opportunity to smear them both. Look, hindsight is 20-20, but as it turned out, the Drudge item probably did her as much or more harm as it did him (certainly more harm in the eyes of voters like you). You have to assume (A) that Drudge is her tool, but (B) that both Drudge and the Clinton campaign are too stupid to see that publishing the photos with her name on them would inspire backlash. She might be both evil, crazy, and stupid, but it seems unlikely to me.

To think that "Another 4 years in the Senate with a Republican president keeping me from racking up any legislative accomplishments, followed by a miniscule chance at the Democratic nomination" is preferable to an Obama win for her, which puts her in a powerful position in the Senate, you really have to think she's fairly dim, or insane in a manner that keeps her from calculating odds.

The above suggests that she doesn't think she has a shot in '12 if Obama loses, irrespective of whether she sought to win in Denver. I think that's pretty plainly wrong. She was, as her supporters mention often, damn close to being the nominee. And she wouldn't have been the one that lost. I have no idea why she'd have a miniscule chance at the nomination. She starts with her 18 million voters.

And I thought Rangel made the comment on Wednesday. I could well be wrong about that. If so, retracted.

This does not make it appear improbable to me that Drudge would seize the opportunity to smear them both.

You could be right. It's not clear to me that you're more likely to be right. I remember the campaign's claim that none of their people was associated with it as pretty carefully worded.

She would have been the one that lost to Obama. A loser is a loser. And some of her voters are, like, not monomanics (oh, say most of them are. But some are just regular Democrats), and would be pissed about her putting McCain in office: she'd really have to believe that no one would notice or blame her for it.

(You might be right about the timing of the Rangel thing, though. I found something pressuring from Rangel on 6/4, which was Wednesday, wasn't it?)

Again with the 20-20 hindsight: evil and line-crossing and whatever you think of her campaign as it got to the end, do you really think it did Obama a lick of damage long term? I don't -- if she was really trying to kneecap him, I don't think she's very good at it. Which means that I really think she wasn't trying to destroy him, just trying to win this nomination longer than she had a real shot at it.

This seems to suggest it was Wednesday. A snippet suggests to me that he was unclear about whether she was planning to go to Denver:

In fact, Rangel said he was surprised by last night's speech.

"Basically in talking with her I had the idea that, one, she wasn't going to take the fight to the convention. Two-- that she was just calling her friends and supporters in order to share her views and to get our views on what should happen. And it was abundantly clear to me last night that she was going to do all that she could to make sure we have a victory in November. And since we have only one candidate for that victory in November, I had assumed she would be endorsing Obama."

I may be misreading it or the reporter misreporting it.

Yeah, that was what I saw; the wisecrack I was thinking of "with her to the end, but we weren't sure when the hell the end was" was Thursday, I think. Not strong evidence that she would have done anything different in the absence of Rangel's statements.

She would have been the one that lost to Obama. A loser is a loser.

Or she would have been a Democratic Reagan (with appeal to Reagan Democrats, even!) to Obama's Jerry Ford. Depends who gets to tell the story.

do you really think it did Obama a lick of damage long term?

Don't know. Let's see what (a) her supporters do, (b) what the Republicans do with her obvious pull quotations, and (c) whether Obama wins.

I don't -- if she was really trying to kneecap him, I don't think she's very good at it. Which means that I really think she wasn't trying to destroy him,

Or there were other goals that also had to be served, like not getting blamed for it, which makes it harder.

Not strong evidence that she would have done anything different in the absence of Rangel's statements.

Evidence, I would think, that Rangel was at least a little less sure than you are that she wasn't going to Denver.

Or there were other goals that also had to be served, like not getting blamed for it, which makes it harder.

This sort of thing is what seems weird to me. Doesn't the incredible difficulty of what you think she was trying to do count as evidence that she wasn't really nutty enough to be trying to do it?

I'm not saying it has to be persuasive evidence, but it seems like you're not considering it at all.

I'm not saying it has to be persuasive evidence, but it seems like you're not considering it at all.

I think one of the things we disagree about is precisely how nutty it would be. For example, I think her campaign did race-bait, but others disagree, so it doesn't look incredibly difficult to me for her to do a bad thing and not get blamed for it. As her supporters point out, she got almost half of the party's support.

For example, I think her campaign did race-bait, but others disagree, so it doesn't look incredibly difficult to me for her to do a bad thing and not get blamed for it.

This doesn't work. 'Not getting blamed for it', in a way that would leave her with a viable candidacy next time, wouldn't mean that some people didn't blame her, it would mean that almost no one who would otherwise vote Dem would blame her. If any significant portion of the electorate blamed her for a McCain victory, her chances next time would be toast.

276: I'm afraid I'm not understanding your argument. She crossed a number of lines this time around and almost won the nomination. I'm not sure why it would be so much less likely she would win the nomination four years from now after crossing yet another line. She doesn't need "almost no one" to blame her. She needs her present coalition, which presumably either doesn't blame her or doesn't care about the lines crossed to date, plus a few more. I don't think it's at all clear how much of her present coalition would blame her if she went to Denver and Obama lost.

I mean, a significant part of the Democratic electorate holds her war vote against her, but that didn't stop her from almost getting the nomination. Nor did it force her into renouncing her vote.

I don't have a lot of energy for this argument, but it bears mentioning that Gore was not seriously considered as a candidate in '04 and Kerry was not in '08. Make of that what you will.

Whatever lines she's crossed (and whatever particular events you're thinking of, a lot of the votes were cast before those moments, so you can't use those votes as evidence that her actions didn't damage her with the voters), she hasn't put a Republican in the White House by assassinating the character of the Democratic nominee. That's the sort of thing that pisses people off in a big way.

Hm, has the Unfoggetariat been raptured?

Raptured to the beach! It was awesome, though the water was frigid. But I got in twice!

278: But Edwards was, both times. And McCain wasn't in 04, etc.... I'm not sure there's a general lesson to be learned here.

she hasn't put a Republican in the White House by assassinating the character of the Democratic nominee. That's the sort of thing that pisses people off in a big way.

That assumes that's how the story would be read. Maybe we decide she valiantly did everything she possibly could to prevent the Democratic party from making a very bad mistake: selecting Obama as its nominee. The party didn't listen and Obama lost, as she warned. I think that's a reasonably fair estimation of the position her campaign took when asked why she continued to campaign. Why her supporters wouldn't be willing to believe it if she went to Denver isn't at all clear to me.

I don't think HRC will try again. The narratives that would evolve from an Obama loss would help him for the 2012 primary more than hurt him.

I mean, c'mon, after 4 years of McCain, Democrats wouldn't run Obama again because of racism and militarism? He would be a lock. I would say he could spend the four years focusing on the economy, but he hasn't used his Senate time for that so far, so probably just more goo-goo stuff.
And hope. Lots of hope.

Cough circular firing squad cough.

Understand of course that the above shouldn't be read to say that Obama is an empty suit. I most definitively do not believe so, I just think he mostly wants to look like an empty suit.

By the way, isn't "whirly-eyed' kind of a gendered term?

I spent most of the day with, inter alia, a youngish woman who's very disappointed that Clinton didn't win. She won't vote for Obama -- there's the sexism, but then the real reason is that he's in favor of unilateral disarmament. Complete unilateral disarmament.

That's a new one.

No, that's a perennial.

Since Obama's "win" on Tuesday, 100% of the people who have expressed misgivings to me about Obama did so on the basis of the "National Journal"'s rating him the #1 most liberal Senator.

Does the "National Journal" even exist? The last time I heard the name "National Journal" mentioned, it was in the news stories in 2004 about how the "National Journal" ranked John Kerry the #1 most liberal senator. My assumption is that it is some sort of front publication for press releases by the Republican National Committee, but maybe it's just a really out-of-the-loop political magazine.

Since in both instances the "#1 most liberal senator" had been something like #15 the previous year, but then while campaigning for his party's nomination decided not to make any votes against his party's leadership on closely divided issues.

You'd think that if the "National Journal" was actually a journalistic entity, they wouldn't do this.

289: but apparently she thought Clinton was not in favor of said disarmament?

Tim, I'm missing some element of your argument here. I hear you saying:

1 - Hillary has at best a small interest in the well-being of the country or the Democratic Party, except to the extent that those things serve her interest.
2 - With her repeated crossings of various lines, she demonstrated no scruples of any kind during the campaign that would have kept her from going to the Convention.
3- It would have served her narrow, selfish interests to go the the Convention.

Yet she didn't go to the Convention.

For a long time, a key piece of evidence against Hillary has been her clear intention to take the fight to the convention. Is anyone going to re-evaluate at least that aspect of their Hillary-hatred now ?

289: Are you calling her a flower? sexist.

280: Someone is not clear about their Unfoggetarian responsibilities.

Cough circular firing squad cough.

96 in the shade at 7:40 pm. Strawberry smoothie, everyone. A pint of strawberries, a bit soft now since harvest, a cup or so of pineapple juice, a few teaspoons of vanilla Spirutein, maybe some soy milk (if I think so). Ice, maybe?

LB is right here in 279: she hasn't put a Republican in the White House by assassinating the character of the Democratic nominee. That's the sort of thing that pisses people off in a big way.

The prospect that people will blame Clinton if Obama loses to McCain calls for a lot of scrutiny, should the latter event come to pass. It's already in the making, and it looks like scapegoating. And ... I shouldn't talk about this.

The prospect that people will blame Clinton if Obama loses to McCain calls for a lot of scrutiny, should the latter event come to pass.

I think it depends on to what degree, if at all, the McCain campaign uses quotes from Clinton's campaign against Obama.

Clinton handed them a big quote, but there's so much time between now and November during which she will be busting her ass for Obama, that I think that even should he lose, it will be hard to take seriously that it was a quote in March that did it.

Clinton would be a uniquely bad VP nominee exactly because of all those videos of her saying "Unlike John McCain, Obama doesn't have the experience or the gravitas to be president". You can be guaranteed that as soon as Tim Russert says "Senator Clinton, I'd like to know whether you've changed your mind completely about this since then, and if so, why it took you so long for Obama to convince you of his qualifications"...there is no good answer.

it will be hard to take seriously that it was a quote in March that did it

Fair point. 'Course, won't stop the media from saying it.

And ... I shouldn't talk about this.

I don't think there will ever be a point or purpose to that discussion. I can possibly imagine a November loss that might be considered partly Obama's responsibility, organization, turnout, strategy about concentration of resources, but after the tail end of the primary season, there is no way his supporters will imagine adjusting his message, style, policies. There will be too much room for excuses.

Besides, I think the demographic fight within the party was inevitable, and will be unavoidable for a long time. For instance, young urban creatives and suburban blue-collar boomers just are competing for the same scarce resources, in any kind of moderate liberal framing.

A loss would tear the Party apart, as 1972 tore it apart. And then, although Obama would be the favorite for 2012, we might see an obscure center-right rural Governor like Sibellius get the nomination.

Much better not to lose.

299: Depends on what they're laying pipe for. America Too Racist After All; Young Hero Brought Down By Wife; Youth Fails to Triumph Over Boomers.

If Obama loses, the narrative will be that America wasn't ready to elect an African American president, not that the primary campaign damaged him. It might or might not be true, and there won't be any way to prove either one, but that's the easy storyline and the primary campaign will already be dozens of media cycles in the past.

Just for grins, I'm going back to look at 1972.
1972 Primary Map

Obviously a mess, but at first glance, I'd say blacks did not go for McGovern. I'll say it again, wars make Democrats crazy.

Umm, note Mississippi vs Alabama. I always say Miss is in play for Dems.

302 is probably right, but if Obama loses, heaven forfend, an audio clip of the booing at the mention of his name during Clinton's speech yesterday will likely figure into the telling of the story.

Well, George Wallace WAS the governor of Alabama.

I bet Chisolm had won there too if Wallace had been a plain ordinary racist from somewhere else instead of the hometown racist with a powerful machine working for him.

238: So I wonder if Nixonland is in part a more subtle variation on "DFH's wrecked the party".

It didn't come off that way to me, and it's a great read. (I actually read a late version of the manuscript and haven't yet read the published version, but I'm really looking forward to it.) Highly, highly recommended, as is Rick's first book Before the Storm.

Not to say that there aren't legit criticisms. It was Gitlin at TPM who made the point bob cites.

292: Whether she went to the convention or not depended upon whether she would do irreparable harm to her career. "Irreparable harm" would mean either abandonment by (a) her eighteen million voters, or (b) her support in the Dem campaign structures. I don't know that her eighteen million voters would have blamed her. I think it's reasonable, if not necessary, to believe that the threat of abandonment by people in the Dem campaign structure changed her assessment of the risk of irreparable harm. See the public chiding by Rangel and Rosen after the Tuesday speech. Such public chiding suggests to me, perhaps wrongly, that neither Rangel nor Rosen were sure at the time whether she was going to continue or not.

Maybe she was never going to go to the convention, and the lack of a concession in the Tuesday speech was much ado about nothing. But I don't think that whatever evidence existed on Wednesday morning clearly demonstrated that.

302 and previous: I am so relieved to hear this. (Because one did hear a lot, in the primary, and does still in the post-mortem, about Clinton's campaign being inexecusable for her damage to Obama in the general.)

bob's 300.2 seems right, and pains me. I don't know if I'd frame it in quite the same way; but the generational fight is irritating in the extreme. We need to work on this, take it seriously.

308:I mostly blame the Republicans for this, by cutting the federal revenue stream and shifting the budget priorities. It was part of the plan. The 1975 budget was way cool. Bill Clinton didn't help enough, but he had a hostile Congress.

In a more radical liberal framing, the urban creatives can get a haunch of plutocrat, the boomers hams, blacks the delicious internal organs...there would be plenty of barbecued hedgefund trader to go around.

The 1975 budget was way cool

Not something you expect to see in print.

Look, I said several times over these months that if Hillary stayed in past early June, if she did push it to the convention, then my assessment of her as a person was wrong, and I'd vilify her as much as anyone.

In other words, I was open to the possibility my beliefs were wrong, and ready to reassess them on the basis of new evidence.

Anyone here willing to reassess their view of Hillary on the basis of her giving up and falling in behind Obama right at the time the party needed her to?

Obviously a mess, but at first glance, I'd say blacks did not go for McGovern.

No way at all to get that from the map. There's no predominantly-black state in the U.S., it was a multi-candidate race with plurality winners, and McGovern did win Georgia.

I had forgotten that Chisholm won LA and Alabama.

311: It's somewhat moot because her supporters were deserting her. Some of the stuff coming out of the campaign, and the militants still, made it look like she might do that.

Anyone here willing to reassess their view of Hillary on the basis of her giving up and falling in behind Obama right at the time the party needed her to?

Yes, when the facts change, I change my mind.

I assume most rational people will, as well.

312:I did go looking for a better breakdown, but Roper goes back to 1976. There are good exit polls for the generals around.

I was looking at the states Humphrey, Muskie & Scoop Jackson won, and that Humphrey got the majority of votes cast. McGovern did win NY VA, & Georgia.

I am not really sure what point it would prove. From the McGovern map, for instance, does it mean that an anti-war libertarian Rocky Mountain West could be in play in this year's general, or was it just that McGovern was a westerner?

I am not anti-Clinton, but she fell in behind Obama well after her party needed her to. (Actually, I think it would have been fine if she kept up her campaign through all of the primaries; it was the way that she campaigned that was bad for the party. She fucked up.)

Yes, when the facts change, I change my mind.

The fact is that Clinton has given up her bid for the nomination and publicly endorsed Obama. Whether or not she was going to give up and endorse Obama or take it to the convention was never a matter of fact, always a matter of speculation.

Also, when the speculations become facts, I change from having opinions based on speculations, to having opinions based on facts.

And my no 1 overwhelming advice to Obama and the DN and the DCCC is to look to Clinton's move for IN.

Gasoline. I will bet the 1980 ad with Tip O'Neill going dry on the highway won Reagan five states. That commercial never offered a solution.

I don't care what Obama does with it, maybe just start every speech with a yell: "4 dollars" "5 dollars". Everyone listening will know exactly what he means, and it could mean ten house seats and 5 Senators. Landslide.

But do it emotionally, not intricate wonkery. It's a killer.

||

Go watch the game and feel like a real American.

>

The fact that Clinton has dropped out of the race and endorsed Obama has made me dislike her more. Because I am that contrarian. With that kind of qualification, I should be a front-page poster.

Oh, and pictures of Bush with Abdullah. This will work, I guarantee it. Gasoline.

I can't figure out what 320 refers to, since football season is long over.

I was amazed when Kerry didn't try to make hay on Bush's connections with the Saudis.

bob is right. The time wasn't right for Michael Moore to be elected president in 2004, but he could do it now.vwm.4yuo

Walt Someguy, funny guy. Y'all, give PGD a break. The translation of 311 is: I'm irritated! It's fucking 100 degrees!

100 fucking degrees is right. 100 fucking degrees, humid and sunny, and then around 5, Nature decides we are not tender enough, so bastes us with a thunderstorm and then continues to braise us.

East coast people, please. It's still raining here, and it's not going to break sixty for the next couple of days.

323: I spent a whole month gathering dirt on Bandar Bush, etc. -- 90% of it from legit. mainstream media. because of Mary Beth Cahill, the Kerry people refused to deal with that. Not sink to their level, etc. There was just tons of stuff on that.

I also spent a couple of weeks going through the 9/11 report around the time of the 2004 convention. The report didn't connect the dots, but there was a lot of evidence that Bush had been remiss (compared to Clinton) before 9/11, and not competent afterwards. Richard Clarke was not the only Bush intelligence guy to support Kerry. But Kerry and his crew seemed unwilling and unable to capitalize.

Sometimes the weakness of Kerry's campaign, both offensive and defensive, made me believe that he was taking a dive, perhaps because he'd been plausibly threatened.

I just looked at the 9/11 report again briefly, and the fix was really on. Hamilton, Kerrey, Gorelick, and Zelikow all had secret agendas or conflicts of interest to say nothing of a lot of the others. Ben-Veniste was the only fairly strong one, IIRC.

Jesus McQ ... oh, nevermind. Lovely, really.

Eh, I'm irritated for other reasons (mainly cuz I'm sick), my air conditioner is working fine. But I'm leaving my irritation behind. It's going to be fun to watch my bright shiny new candidate for the next five months.

Weatherwise, DC/MD is pretty amazing right now. It's like a sauna. That's not a violation of the analogy ban. Not figuratively like a sauna. Literally. Sitting outdoors on the stoop at night, it almost gets comfortable, in a warm bath sort of way. Where's my mint julep?

The giant waterbugs running around kind of mess with the peaceful feeling, though. They love this.

Edible giant waterbugs. Sort of like shrimp. They can nip you, though, so be careful when gathering them.

East coast people, please. It's still raining here, and it's not going to break sixty for the next couple of days.

Show some toughness, please. Portlanders aren't allowed to complain about constant mild drizzle, grey skies, and 40s-60s temperatures. It's what you signed up for. Keep this up and we'll move you to Buffalo to experience real weather.

'bout 80 and sunny here today, nice ocean breeze. Sure, you can beat me to death, why do you ask?

Wobegon has been Portlandesque for the last week. Cloudy, drizzly, cool, with near-tornado conditions thrown in one day. People around here complain bitterly.

334: just don't brag about your sports teams. The country is weary. You can brag about anything else you want.

Unless you're a Harvard grad, then that's off limits too.

People around here complain bitterly.

While clinging to their religion and their guns. But Obama's not just going to talk about the weather he's going to do something about it. Yes we can!

In MN we grumble about our sports teams even when they're doing well.

336: I prefer to be gracious and humbly appreciative about the recent dominance of Boston sports teams.

333: Summer in Portland is glorious, actually (that's supposed to be kind of a secret, so keep it hush-hush). It's just not happening, that's all. On the plus side, holy crap is it green around here. Green green green.

Contentious weekend thread, now defused by weather chat.

Randy Moss could have won the Superbowl with a good team.

Sitting outdoors on the stoop at night, it almost gets comfortable, in a warm bath sort of way

True. I stayed up until 2 a.m. last night enjoying the relative coolness, almost reluctant to retire; I can't do that tonight (fuck work, fuck schedules). My air conditioner does not work.

There's a too-hot month, though, mostly in August.

339: "Kill the Tweety! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!"

and it's not going to break sixty seventy for the next couple of days months.

But no 100s in Dallas yet, neither temperature or heat index. 95,95,95,95,95,95,95,95,95,95...October

On the plus side, holy crap is it green around here. Green green green.

Oregon is a spectacularly beautiful state. I visited when I was considering a job there. Late spring and rainy. I walked in the lush emerald green woods, sat on an enormous, moss-covered fallen cedar by a tumbling waterfall, and thought to myself that it hardly mattered how much it rained here. I might have changed my mind after six straight months though.

My son was born March 15the and my father came to visit about a week later. It rained for the whole ten days he was there. He thought it was a sign of the Apocalypse. Nimbostratus is the key word.

Nimbostratus as foreseen by Nostradamus?

346: I have the same feeling every time I visit the Pacific northwest. I'm not sure I would get tired of it.

On top of everything else, the high desert, the mountains, and the ocean are all an hour or two away from Portland.

I prefer to be gracious and humbly appreciative about the recent dominance of Boston sports teams.

Speaking of which, the way this series is going, certain people around here may be featured on the Dead Cred blog.

I'm not sure I would get tired of it.

You're making me feel churlish. By the time June rolls around, a person can be forgiven for going around the bend.

I found Oregon beautiful and very pleasant to be in, but wasn't consumed with a desire to live there. I'm always curious when I visit a place however different what its everyday work life is like, and would like to work in a place like that for maybe six months to a year for the experience. As a tourist, I don't feel I've learned much about it.

351: better'n going through Bend.

Speaking of which, the way this series is going, certain people around here may be featured on the Dead Cred blog

I think the Lakers are trying to kill me.

353: So I hear. I haven't been there since before my kids were born, and it's been sprawling insanely for the past few years. It was a pretty awesome place for a New Englander to visit, though, the first time I went, what with the lava beds and coyotes and sagebrush and powdery snow and all.

I think the Lakers are trying to kill me.

That might explain why they can't seem to focus on killing the Celtics.

POWE!!!

354: I'm sorry for you. But that's what you get for rooting for the bad guys (no matter what Ogged says). Anyway, it's not over.

Holy crap. Are the Celtics trying to kill me?

I'm sure that the Celtics have their own point of view. Let's not rush to judgment.

353: After we get tired of Reading Pennsylvania and Wheeling West Virginia we're going to Bend Oregon.

In Oregon there's a Failing School and a Going Street.

I live one door down from Going. Failing Street is a few blocks south of here. There's a halfway house of some sort down there named "Succeeding House"; they must have figured that the name of the street was kind of a downer.

There are a lot of things named Combee in Lakeland, Florida.

Here's something from Kos on the Hillary-sexism controversy (specificallt the Hillary nutcracker). The point here is that this was sold without controversy in neutral business venues (e.g. airport shops) as a novelty, whereas the "Curious George" Obama stuff was recognized as offensive and was sold by Young Republican / KKK types.

From the above:

....Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was deeply hurt by a casual, mainstream sexism that earned far less of a backlash than one would have hoped when she entered the race.

And too much of this casual sexism came from Democrats.

I'd characterize Anne Applebaum's arguments here as being more-or-less uniformly incorrect.

Are her arguments sexist, though ? This one strikes me that way:

I've always thought Hillary an apalling role model for young women ("Lesson No. 1: Marry the right man").

Oops. Applebaum here.

She spelled appalling wrong, at the very least.