"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

[planetc]

In an attempt to shed some light on a few aspects of the controversy that is now generating more heat than light, I'd like to describe the state-of-play in the Democratic primaries as I see it. And before any discussion of discrimination, I feel we should take at least a quick glance at the odds of *any* Democratic candidate being reported on accurately by the MSM: the odds are nil to zilch.

First, both of the standing candidates, Clinton and Obama, are victims of the MSM's insistence on 1) glorifying the trivial, 2) reducing the complex to the simple-minded, and 3) wallowing in its own arrogant belief that it understands either issues or character or voters in this country.

The controversy over Pastor Wright's sermon(s) is an example of all three of these forms of malfeasant reporting. Pastor Wright seems to be a fine man, a fiery preacher, and I haven't seen him quoted on any statement that isn't well within the bounds of clear political/theological thought. That is, Sen. Obama should have been complimented on having such a pastor, not expected to apologize for him. But Rev. Wright trespassed one of the imaginary rules that the MSM are convinced ordinary voters follow, which is that they don't want anyone who is "out of the mainstream," whatever that means. Rev. Wright sounded all fired up on the occasion he uttered the words "God damn America", and in the context he was speaking in, those words were fully justified. Howard Dean sounded impassioned on one occasion also at the end of his presidential candidacy, and was instantly dubbed crazy (insanity being automatically outside the mainstream) by MSM, and dismissed as finished. Mr. Dean isn't, nor has he ever been, crazy, only capable of expressing his passion. But the MSM will continue to mis-define a few moments in a long political or religious life whenever it's convenient. And the enormous authority the MSM still carry, both with the general population and with members of this board, will convince many people that Howard Dean sounded crazy and Rev. Wright needed to be apologized for.

Now let us turn to the coverage of Sen. Clinton's campaign, which has been heavily colored with both sexism and anti-Clintonism.

I feel strongly that we should consider anti-Clintonism as a separate and equal pretext for the MSM to say awful things about both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as to invent such terms as "Clinton fatigue", and to allude to years of character assassination as "baggage". I personally observed anti-Clintonism in all its sordid glory for the full eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency. It was assuredly driven by members of the vast right wing conspiracy who were perfectly sincere in their irrational hatred of both of the Clintons. But all major newspapers subscribed enthusiastically to the belief that there was something *wrong* with both the Clintons, and went on about it almost every time an excuse for a column or an editorial came up. The NYTimes colored many a "news" story with Clinton hatred too. Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd were two of the most dedicated Clinton bashers. If I survive to retirement, I'd like to write a small book on their poisonous prose attacks on the Clintons. As McCamy Taylor, I think, has pointed out, it became an obsession to prove that Hillary Clinton lied, and Bill Clinton lied, and neither one made a legislative or policy move without consulting as many polls as they could find.

As for the charge of sexist attacks against Sen. Clinton, well, if you believe there is such a thing as sexism, and that it is alive and well in the USA at this moment (and I hold both tenets), then undeniably there have been sexist attacks on Sen. Clinton. All references to the "grating" quality of her voice, or the opinion that she had "in a weird way, pimped out" her daughter Chelsea, and other worse comments documented elsewhere on this board make it impossible to deny that sexism has reared its ugly head.

And since the MSM and Karl Rove have made serious inroads into our processes of thought, I want to point out that the claim that victims of discrimination are using their victimhood to solicit sympathy, and for other purposes, is assuredly a right wing talking point. The Rovian school of political thought holds that minorities and other protected classes are actually harmed by attempts to level the field they're playing on--that treating them as victims saps thier self reliance and turns them into parasites. Barbara Bush certainly thinks so. We don't need to.


I think discrimination against Sen. Clinton is coming from two sources: general sexism and specific anti-Clintonism. Charges from these two sources are being fed into the MSM's machine for getting practically everything thoroughly wrong. What worries me is why so many people here are buying into the lynching party. Among other things, it's a colossal waste of energy.

If we insist on wasting our time, can't we think of a less destructive way to do it?

[wrando]

1. no responses?

perhaps a little too reasonable

Bill from ct

[asjr]

2. PlanetC said it all very very well.

[cbayer]

3. Great piece but, I fear, it will not be heeded.

It is alarming to see how people are being used as tools by the MSM to further their agenda. I think that those that are buying into this hook, line and sinker have been co-opted in the worst way. They show no ability to critically analyze anything or engage in any discussion that does not involve the monotonous, mindless repetition of the media's talking points.

You will watch it unfold in response to your post, I predict. However, I really enjoyed your analysis and thank you for posting it.

[hfojvt]

11. there's no reason it should be heeded

There has long been hostility to the Clintons from the left as well, for example Ted Rall and Tom Tomorrow. In one sense we may share a common goal with the M$M, insofar as they have an agenda, at least if they are trying to derail Hillary's nomination. It seemed to me back in the beginning, that they were promoting her. Up until the Iowa caucuses they were pushing her as the probably inevitable front-runner.

[hedgehog]

4. I was thinking about this while making supper, and I think poor Hillary

is paying for her sins and the sins of the DLC. Ever since Jimmy Carter was talked into re-instituting registration for the draft, I've been disappointed in the Democratic Party. I've seen my government delivering less and less and watched as Democrats stood aside and let it happen. Why for example, was the Army allowed to continue to operate the School of the Americas all these years? Abu Garaib didn't spring up out of nothing. Being better than the Republicans is like bringing home a C instead of an F. I'm tired of being told what can't be done, what isn't prudent, what has to wait. Poor Hillary represents all of that to me.



Of course the fact that her campaign has consisted of a series of prat falls makes it hard to resist poking fun.

[Lisa0825]

9. "paying for her sins and the sins of the DLC." Yep,

That's it for me, and I think it is quite a fair thing to judge her on.

[JeffR]

5. K & R. Post more often!

You're perceptive and thoughtful, and I don't need to agree with everything you've said here to understand that you're very sharp.

[emilyg]

6. k

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I'm a Democrat, and a woman against Sen. Clinton

She isn't a good candidate. She isn't a good candidate for many reasons. One, because the right wing damaged her reputation, and it's been damaged to this day, and that's how the nation sees her. Not her fault, but it is what it is. She is intensely disliked as a result of the non-stop attacks by the right wing and the lies told about her. They became part of her image. Also, seeing how right wing this country had become, I knew expecting a woman to win the presidency was too much of a risk for us to take. We can't afford to lose to the right wingers again. Lastly, watching President Clinton be chummy with the father of the a-hole in the White House did not add to my confidence that I wanted the Clintons anywhere near the White House. Lastly, Hillary's compliment to McCain that he was more competent than Obama made me sick. Would I vote for her in a GE? Yes, but only as a last resort and very unhappily.

The corporate mass media destroyed my candidate, Edwards. It has been laying into Obama from day 1. I by no means believe that it has been exclusively attacking Hillary Clinton. The mass media is corporate and attacks all Democrats.

As for discrimination against women in this country, I know it's real because being a woman, I live it and I take special pains to be very aware of it, despite the fact that all women internalize a certain degree of discrimination. All the more reason to beware of having a woman trying to represent us at this moment, particularly a troubled one. There's far too much discrimination around for us to risk this election on a woman, particularly at a time when there are so many right wing extremists in this country.

[K Gardner]

8. oh lord god, here we go again.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. This is a wonderful post

And I will not be suprised if most of this community is too ashamed to comment. The party line is now that there is no sexism and if there is it really does not matter much.

[catnhatnh]

12. How did you become enmeshed in the "bowels of "Christ" may I ask?

You appear to be at best one more Christ crying moron, and worse, one from the lower intestinal tract. Why would Christian theology support Ms. Clinton???? Why should the bowels of a reported Jewish messiah which you beg from matter?

[Berry Cool]

13. I cannot speak for the OP, but I do recognize the quote.

Oliver Cromwell wrote it to a group of people he felt were being deceived. It is a favorite of Keith Olbermann's.

One need not be particularly religious to find it appealing, any more than one need be religious to say to someone else "For godsakes" or "for heaven's sake."

Don't worry, I doubt the OP is trying to whack you over the head with Christianity. It's just an intense way of saying "For the love of all that is good, PLEEEEEASE consider this."

[planetc]

18. Yes, it's the Cromwell quote, and I left a couple of commas out

Thank you Berry, for reading, understanding, and explaining my post. I appreciate it.

[planetc]

21. A note on Cristianity and Sen. Clinton and me

I find the phase "Christ crying moron" offensive. There are plenty of sincere, civilized, even saintly Christians around us, as there are sincere, civilized, even saintly Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, Hindus, Shintoists, and etc. The actions of a few branches of the Christian family of sects should not be used to tar the mental capacities of all. I would suggest that we would be much farther behind in our understanding of what did and did not happen on 9/11/01 without Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of Christian theology. And I recall that both the Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement were heavily populated by Christian ministers. One of them, of course, was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And I cannot think of any reason for Christians to support Sen. Clinton or anyone else. Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's."

I was myself a practicing Roman Catholic and then an Episcopalian, for about twenty years of my life. I ceased regular attendance at church more than 20 years ago--I found that going to church was interfering with the practice of my religion.

I hope you have a nice day, catnhatnh, and I do advise trying to get some control over your prose.

[TheDoorbellRang]

14. If Hillary had presented her candidacy differently

I doubt that "sexism" would have been a concern.

Let's look at Clinton vs. another woman -- Claire McCaskill.

I was living in Missouri when Claire was running against Jim Talent. I never heard her say that she should be elected because we needed more women in the senate. It just never came up. She presented her candidacy purely on the issues and won her senate seat purely on the issues. Gender was never one of the issues. Sexism was never a problem.

Hillary started her campaign with videos showing women getting the right to vote and oh-my-now-a-woman-can-run-for-president so-vote-for-me-a-woman and it-will-be-so-historic and yada yada yada...So she will get votes from some that support her ONLY because she's a woman, which to me is NOT "feminism," it's sexism. Someday I may vote for a woman as president, but it won't be because she's a woman, it will be because of who she is as a person and as a representative of issues that I support.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. "I am not bothered by occasional nagging doubts that I might be wrong."

Unofficial motto of GD/P.

Face, meet frying pan.:)

[Raejeanowl]

16. I Found One Thing Very Telling

That on the day Clinton released her White House diaries, three out of the four news service links to the story on the very first website I visited referenced entries about where she was and what she was doing on "blue dress day."

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Yeah. How classy was that?

I'm surprised no one printed a blueprint to the White House with every position marked. Our glorious, ethical media...

Ugh.

[boppers]

17. Accusing a woman of "pimping" is sexist?

That's a new one on me, didn't know women had made significant inroads into that particular trade.

[rodeodance]

20. Wonderful post. Many Obama fans will smear cause they refuse to admit

sexism is alive and well and they participate in it.

[planetc]

22. Sexism and racism are both alive, and I have both in me ...

We are born and grow up in a society that is marked, and marred, by both these distortions of perception. I think we cannot grow up without being influenced at all by both of them. I think I am less racist and sexist than I was when I was 18, but it is a long and difficult task to eradicate these kinds of ugliness from our souls. Best of luck to anyone who's working on tolerance and understanding and color blindness.

And I fear that there are many people who think they aren't racist or sexist, but who are mistaken.

edited for typo

[izzybeans]

23. I would distinguish between anti-obama/ anti-clintonism and sexism/racism.

Anti-candidate-isms stem from an inability to develop and maintain trust with (a certain proportion of) the electorate. There are often valid reasons for not trusting a candidate stemming from their verifiable actions. Then there are the real isms that masquerade as legitimate criticism. Sexism and racism are very real. We must all be wise when judging the source of a criticism. So far many of us have not been very wise.