History ,Legacy and the Shame of Media: NOW Statement on Hillary

[saracat]

History, Legacy, and the Shame of Media

Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy
http://www.now.org/news/note/060508.html

June 05, 2008

My daughters don't remember much about the 2004 presidential election, except for the "ReDefeat Bush" sign that decorated our lawn for two years. Now 12 and 15, they've been watching this long and unprecedented nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the frontrunners for their party's nod.

What their mother sees as historic and groundbreaking, they see as normal and everyday, and I'm now realizing that they'll never even remember a time when the only conceivable frontrunners were white and male. Hillary and Barack were their introduction to presidential politics, and that will be one of the great legacies of this primary season.

Not to say that I've been entirely sanguine about their watching the television coverage. I had hoped they would be inspired to watch these historic campaigns unfold, but as the blight of unspeakable media sexism has grown stronger with each passing primary, I started turning off the "news." The unprecedented level of misogyny unleashed by heretofore unlabeled sexists is another of the season's legacies.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton's campaign inspired millions of women across the country, and the increased female voter turnout has helped many women running for Congress or local office in those primaries - but will those women candidates now face a media gauntlet that is more about their gender than their qualifications?

Yes, Hillary Clinton persevered to win contest after contest, despite the ridicule, scorn and derision that was heaped on her by the frat-boy commentariat, and we salute her courage and determination not to allow the self-important pundit class to drum her out of the race with their endless name-calling. But will that treatment be the norm for women who run in the future? Has it become acceptable?

Television commentary on her voice, her laugh, her clapping, her clothing, even her ankles - not to mention calling her a bitch and a she-devil, and comparing her to a crazed murderer, a hated ex-wife or a scolding mother - became so commonplace that we came to expect it. And Hillary rose above it, as we knew she would, but it took a toll on her campaign and on all of us. We should vow today, here and now, that we will not allow the media to do it to any woman ever again.

The worst offenders, NBC and CNN, have been hearing from women who are fed up with their bias and sexism, but that's not enough. For my next column, I'm working on the sexist media "Hall of Shame" - and yes, you'll have an opportunity to weigh in with your own nominations.

Until then, a salute to Hillary Clinton, who said on Tuesday: "I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life."

Hillary, you have made a mark on history for eternity, giving little girls and little boys the full knowledge that women can compete, take risks, take the heat, make hard decisions, and be strong leaders. Whether you are President, Vice President, on the Supreme Court, serving as the Senate Majority Leader or just plain being the best-ever senator for New York and for ALL of us, we will be with you -- as we work together for equality for all, and a better, safer, more peaceful world for everyone, not just the privileged few. Yes, we will. Thank you, Hillary.

[Lucinda]

1. Thanks saracat!

[EFerrari]

2. Pew: Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride

Character and the Primaries of 2008
May 29, 2008
If campaigns for president are in part a battle for control of the master narrative about character, Democrat Barack Obama has not enjoyed a better ride in the press than rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.

http://www.journalism.org/node/11266

[saracat]

3. Must everything be about Obama? This is a Thank you to Hillary!

[EFerrari]

5. Ask Kim -- she wrote it. It is possible to thank Hillary without

painting her as some kind of victim. In fact, that would be much more respectful of her. Whatever.

[rodeodance]

14. Outlinging what indeed DID happen is not

making her a victim!! See this video for some enlightment


http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

[sniffa]

21. We're putting new covers on our TPS reports. Did you get the memo?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. Ummm, yeah.

If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on,
that will be great. And Uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another
copy of that memo Mmmm, Ok?

[hokies4ever]

62. Hillary's victim complex didn't sell as well as she hoped

She's even delusional enough to actually think that the night that Obama clinches the nomination should be her night. Deranged narcissist believing that Hillary losing is more important than Obama winning. :rofl:

[rodeodance]

82. She did not play the victim. That was/is in your imagination and others.

[hokies4ever]

88. Ready on Day 1 (as long as she doesn't get the first question)

:rofl:

[JoFerret]

96. She was always ready with the good detailed answer

as you well know. Obama repeated the answer. That is OK. Everyone has to learn.

Please do stop playing the sore winner routine. It is unnecessary.

[hokies4ever]

99. Do you support Hillary's gas tax holiday?

Just trying to gauge exactly how much Kool-Aid you've been drinking. :rofl:

[JoFerret]

108. My beverage intake is none of your business

Your taste in liquids in quite different from mine it seems.

May I suggest you try to get a more balanced view of life.

Try rhubarb juice. I have heard it is very purgative.

[PoliticalAmazon]

148. Her whiney comment about always getting the first question was not only a lie...

it made her look weak, and using pity as a campaign strategy.

If you don't want to discuss Hillary's issues, that's up to you. But if her issues are discussed, all opinions are going to appear. It's not a "sore loser." It's discussing an issue presented.

And, yes, I noted the pity card in your reply, too, implying that Hillary supporters are being picked on.

[JoFerret]

94. Be quiet and go away

Candidate supporters that live in glass houses should not grind their teeth on bitter herbs.(or something)

[hokies4ever]

100. "shouldn't throw stones"

if you're going to make fun of me, at least get it right. :rofl:

[JoFerret]

105. Lol

Gosh. I never knew that. Did you make that up?

[hokies4ever]

107. No, that's the quote

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Normally used to point out hypocrisy in someone's attack. Similar to, "The pot calling the kettle black" or even Jesus' parable about pointing out a stick in someone's eye when you have a beam in your own.

Next time you make fun of me, get it right on the first time. Your rendition of the quote was quite hilarious though. :rofl:

Just playing with you. :patriot:

[JoFerret]

112. This is all most instructive

Now is that the same kettle that the grandmothers suck fish in?
Or the one where too many cooks break eggs in the broth?

[hokies4ever]

113. Hold on, I'm trying to find a translator

so I can figure out the meaning of your post. :rofl:

I guess you're referring to two other adages I've never heard of.

[JoFerret]

117. One swallow

doth not make the drunkard.
But the grass is always greener in an empty vessel.

[leftynyc]

137. I have a question

Is it impossible for you to post without those infantile smilies?

[hokies4ever]

139. Yes

:rofl:

What's your problem?

[PoliticalAmazon]

147. I agree that she climbed on the cross at every opportunity, and, as a woman....

it was humiliating to watch.

Unfortunately, the Hillary Aerobics (climbing on the cross) trickled down to many of her supporters.

[saracat]

28. That doesn't explain why you had to interject an Obama article in this thank you.

You may disagree with Kim and that is fine but it would be nice if you left her tribute alone.

[EFerrari]

40. Excuse me? I didn't realize this thread was a tribute,

or I would have, saracat.

I thought it was a discussion about Kim's column.

[JoFerret]

97. Which is....?

what?

[hokies4ever]

102. One of the major points of this article focuses on negative media coverage of Hillary

and that poster linked an article challenging that assertion. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that... :shrug: :eyes: :rofl:

[JoFerret]

106. I agree. It was very negative

The sexism and misogyny was disturbing.

[EFerrari]

127. That's my high information bias showing again.

F3ck me.

lol

[apocalypsehow]

15. No, it's not: it's your backdoor way of snarking at Obama.

HE WON; SHE LOST. You need to wrap your brain around that concept, and get over it.

Christ, but Wednesday can't get here soon enough. :thumbsdown:

[rodeodance]

23. OP is talking of the media. stay focused and stop being paranoid.

[hokies4ever]

104. The Pew article talks about the media too

:eyes:

[LowerManhattanite]

25. A-freaking-men! n/t

[saracat]

30. You give a thumbs down to a "thank you to Clinton" from NOW?

Wow. What a classy poster.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

59. Excuse me? You call a "Thank you to Clinton" a "backdoor attack" on Obama

and give the OP a "thumbs down" and you are accusing me of misreading the post? I am responding to exactly what you wrote and nothing else.I have made no "blatant falehood about a DUers post".

[rodeodance]

66. its obsurb!!

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

131. The OP is a thank you to Hillary and you have to demean it. Figures. And

you threaten me in the process.

[apocalypsehow]

141. Ridiculous, on about every level. The OP is an attack on Obama, period. And no one

"threatened" anybody - another falsehood trotted out by another HRC booster. Figures. I pointed out that after Wednesday at noon ET attack on the Democratic nominee are no longer going to be tolerated. Your post above, disfiguring his name, is such an attack.

[saracat]

144. Since the OP is NOT about Obama, that is not so. NOW is thanking Hillary

and mentioning the "media" they though were unfair.Not everything is about Obama.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PoliticalAmazon]

149. NOW was inaccurate. Surely they have access to Pew's research....

yet they attempted to play the Poor-Hillary Pity Card anyway.

I've yet to read an article from any Obama supporter--or anyone, actually--whining about the fact that, by using the Rove/Bush tactic of complaining of media bias when none is present, they were able to get the media to turn sharply negtive on Obama.

[JoFerret]

93. Blah Baa Blah

.

[PoliticalAmazon]

146. By whining at the media, Hillary supporters caused Obama's coverage to turn sharply negative...

This part of the article is especially important because it demonstrates that, by using a Bush/Rove tactic (complaining to the media that their coverage is negative when it is not) worked for Hillary just like it worked for Bush Jr:

"...The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical—and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May...."

[Faygo Kid]

4. "Hall of Shame?" Why am I guessing Faux News will get a free pass?

That would indeed be shameful.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. Isn't it funny how there's no mention of FOX News?

But then, now that they're Hillary's new BFFs, I guess it's not so funny.

[rodeodance]

8. look at this video,

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

[sniffa]

22. We're putting new covers on our TPS reports. Did you get the memo?

[saracat]

32. Are they purple?

[sniffa]

34. Be careful, some people have taken leave of DU involuntarily

Who knows when that's going to stop.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. A little sensitive about the color purple, are ya? n/t

[Faygo Kid]

84. You mean the color of the Queen?

Royalty has been dethroned.

[saracat]

85. No. Our friend has an facination for this particular color! Snark!

Sniffa loves purple but in an odd way!

[golddigger]

39. Maybe when you go on vacation.

:shrug:

[LowerManhattanite]

42. I am even afraid to post this! n/t

[rodeodance]

119. "sniffa, my love" says Elspeth and thinks you should eat a donut

[sfam]

46. Funny thing - Fox News shows up 10 times, but doesn't get mentioned above...

While MSNBC had the bulk of the comments - mostly from Tweety, but some from Pat and Tucker, there were 10 separate cases on Fox, including some of the most damning sounding. CNN was only on a couple times.

So why again is Fox News getting a pass? Is it because of their 24/7 Reverend Wright coverage? Clearly the Reverend Wright Hour (formally titled, "Hannity and Colmes") benefited Hillary's campaign with hard working white voters. My answer: YES!!!


EDIT: BTW, guess how many Obama surrogates are shown giving sexist statements in this video? Go on...lets hear it...

[CaptJasHook]

74. Everyone already expects it of FAUX, the greater sense of betrayal is from CNN

and MSNBC. Think about it. How much worse it seemed when Hillary was using divisive tactics against Obama. We expected it from Republicans, to have Hillary do the same thing felt 10 times worse.

The same can be said about the feelings toward CNN and MSNBC, people (stupidly) had raised expectations of those networks. I don't know why. Maybe because the Left finally had an obnoxious mouthpiece (Olberman) just like the Right did. Maybe people got all caught up in Keith's outrage and snark and they started thinking of him as a journalist, as opposed to what he really is, which is a showman.

When you have expectations of behavior and they are not met, of course you feel frustrated, betrayed and angry.

[sfam]

81. So NOW shouldn't be concerned with FOX because we expect sexism from them?

That sounds suspiciously like the joke from the movie, Airplane..."Don't mention Fox, they'd be expecting that..."

If Fox is a significant participant in the sexism, it seems silly for NOW to omit them, especially if they don't include the wingnut caveat. If they had said something like, "We expect that from the racist, sexist pigs on Fox, but not on democratic bastions like MSNBC and CNN..." I might be able to understand their choices.

That said, I certainly agree with frustrations based on expected behavior that goes horribly astray. A case can be made for many Dems and newsies getting truly put off by Hillary's tactics, but no case can be made for the sexist characterizations. My question with that is because the 90s bashings of Hillary were tolerated, did this just sort of re-emerge today? I ask this because I sort of wonder if other women candidates would have fared much better due to not having that history.

EDITED to make title clearer.

[CaptJasHook]

87. That is not what I said.

I will repeat. The frustration is towards perceived allies. FAUX is already the enemy.

The ommission in the press release may have been an oversight or it may have been a shot across CNN and MSNBCs bow. I cannot imagine that NOW would be wasting their time trying to convince FAUX of anything, knowing how their words would get twisted into Limbaughesque outrage over feminazis.

I think it was a very controlled, accurate and helpful criticism. That said, it will probably make a difference for... oh.... maybe... 2 weeks, and then they will be back obsessing over Jessica Alba's swollen breasts or Britney's latest fuck up.

Throw our your TV, these people are the Circuses half of the famous Roman phrase... a distraction.

[quakerboy]

61. I looked at it

What I saw was a whole lot of Tweety and a whole lot of Fox. Which would explain why I never saw any of these quotes on the TV, given I don't watch that trash.

Can you find anyone here to defend Tweety and Fox? I just found out yesterday Tweety has a 2nd show? Or at least, there was some show on some other chanel with him hosing some sort of forum? whats that about? Why can't we get rid of that clown?

[Yael]

9. Because they are "fair and balanced"?

[rodeodance]

10. see this.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

[sniffa]

12. They let both Geraldine Ferarro AND Harriet Christian on their shows

That's fair to give the two unbalanced ones a forum.

[rodeodance]

17. The OP is focusing on

the sexism in the media for cnn and msnbc. lets stay focused.


see this video


http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. And I'm asking why that is, when FOX News is notorious for its sexism.

They've been quite vicious to Hillary Clinton, until very recently.

The video is great, maybe Kim Gandy should watch it a few times and realize that it's not all about Hillary.

[newmajority]

49. So, FAUX, the network that puts centerfold models on the air to read the news

...isn't sexist, but MSNBC is??

Hillogical as always.

[LowerManhattanite]

24. LOL!

[mod mom]

56. FAUX News was a friend to Hillary and thus gets a pass-it's really sad.

I guess supporting Hillary was more important than truth in broadcasting.

I'll only support NARAL now. NOW has shown their true colors and as a women their values don't match mine. Truth comes first!

[rodeodance]

7. REC

[PeaceNikki]

11. K&R

:thumbsup:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. The media plays the champion of whomever is losing.

It flopped back and forth throughout their campaigns in order to sow division. That is their corporate mission.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. A BIG K&R!

[rodeodance]

18. Thanks Saracat

[janx]

20. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "..a more peaceful world for everyone.." Hillary voted for war and cluster bombs.

Hillary is the American version of Maggie Thatcher. Waving the Stars and Stripes instead of the Union Jack.

[Seabiscuit]

27. K & R! nt

[bunnies]

29. What... No gang rape references this time?

They lost credibility with me after that.

[Yael]

LOL!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. In fairness, that was the President of NY NOW, and Gandy denounced the statement.

IMHO, Marcia Pappas should have been fired for trivializing the experience of victims of sexual assault like that, but at least the national NOW didn't accept her statement.

[bunnies]

60. I wasnt aware that the national NOW rejected it.

At least theres that. The statement was just SO absurd that I think of it every time I hear their name.

[rodeodance]

63. yes, it went overboard.

[EFerrari]

72. NOW had better find a way to court their women voters back

because in toto, their behavior during this primary was very disappointing. I bet you their numbers are down.

[saracat]

90. NAARAL is the one whose numbers are down.

[AuntPatsy]

35. Thank you

[JohnnyLib2]

37. K & R

I figure the history books will point out the basics of this OP, eventually.

[ProSense]

38. It's a good thing Hillary didn't win

Hillary isn't responsible for anything, not even her campaign. A Hillary administration and its supporters would have blamed her mistakes or any negative coverage on sexism.

This piece is fairly ridiculous. CNN was impossible to watch because they were shills for Hillary.

The lapel pin poll about Obama's patriotism that they pulled because people were outraged is an example. Who does online polling for CNN? The Clintons' buddy Vin Gupta.

[against all enemies]

43. Will anybody ever admit why Hillary lost? The Iraq vote and her

unending need to triangulate. If she had had the courage to vote no, she would be the next President of the US. It's her fault, nobody else's.

[Warren Stupidity]

IWR was the deciding factor for me

Obama was not my first choice, but when it came down to choosing between Clinton and Obama it was her IWR that put me in the Obama camp. I ain't alone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Some Observations

Hillary Clinton ran a great race despite having strategists who gave her fatally flawed advice...They should be ashamed of themselves...

She lost because of that advice and because of the byzantine DNC rules and her strong opponent...Sexism played a small role and to all you sexists;perform a physiologically impossible act on yourself...

She's my hero...I wouldn't be where I am at now if it wasn't for strong women...She rocks...

[Warren Stupidity]

45. You lost me on: "because of the byzantine DU rules."

Perhaps you meant the DNC's primary rules? They aren't byzantine. States select pledged delegates based on either caucuses or primaries. A bunch of unpledged super delegates, (the majority of the declared ones were for Clinton until late in the campaign,) also vote. The candidate with a majority of the delegate votes wins. It is not particularly complicated at the DNC level. As each state runs its own primary or caucus by its own rules, there certainly is a lot of detailed on-the-ground work to organize effective efforts in all the states and territories. The Obama campaign excelled at this. Clinton's fatal mistake was assuming that she would roll over everyone on super tuesday. She had no after 2/5 plan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. In Some States The Districts Were Weighted

For instance if a district went heavily Democratic in the prior election it's votes were worth more...That stands the principle of "one man, one vote" on its head...Plus, if you had winner take all the outcome might have been different...

It's water under the bridge now...


Thank you...I just noticed my mistake...

[Emit]

83. I know that is the case for Texas

but, what other states had these weighted districts?

[CaptJasHook]

47. This is all horrible, but why is it a shock?

I literally threw my TV out the door 6 years ago and have never looked back. Why anyone would be surprised at the Sexism, Racism, Patriarchical, Commerce driven, Corporatist, moronic, ratings driven drivel on TV is beyond me?

It's been in your face for years and you are only now getting upset?

I guess it is a good thing that some slower thinking Progressives are only becoming aware of it now. Just makes me wonder if this is a bunch of hyped up outrage.

You want to solve the problem? Throw your TV out the door, get a subscription to MJ and the Nation, get your news online and talk to your neighbors. Don't buy into Corporate media.

[anonymous171]

52. Amen to that. nt

[rodeodance]

65. I do think some-including myself did expect some professionalism from

the TV pundits when it came to a presidential race.

[CaptJasHook]

68. Why would you expect that? Didn't the treatment they gave Bill,

The cover ups for Reagan, the pandering to Bush on the lead up to war give you a CLUE?

These aren't journalists, they are not professional newsmen, they are Corporate toadies spreading propaganda.

They are professional all right. Just not in the way you think they are.

[rodeodance]

70. I know, I should have know better.

[CaptJasHook]

73. They will either turn on Barack next or go after McCain.

They will use the same subtle racism that they always use on Barack, just enough to paint him Black, but not enough to cause riots. And if there are riots, contain them in Watts, Bedford Stye and East St. Louis.

Or maybe they will slip into bed with Barack, dump on McSame and hope for good deals from the White House, like they got from Bill in the 90s.

Doesn't really matter does it? I keep telling people that the more you watch, read and listen to MSM the more outraged you get. The more outraged you get, the less of the little things you do to fight back. It all becomes one blur of outrage and indignation.

Throw out your TV before it throws you out.

[cbc5g]

50. I'd like specific examples of the "blatant sexism" that these channels gave

Calling her a bitch and she-devil, comparing her to a crazed murderer were COMMONPLACE? I don't remember hearing any of that at all and I watched MSNBC and CNN quite frequently. I think they are angry that they didn't pander and pump up Hillary like Fox News did. How about Geraldine Ferraro saying Obama is only where he is because he is black? Or Harriette Christian saying Obama is an "inadequate black male"? These were all aired on T.V. news broadcasts. This is a ridiculous assertion that these news organizations had it out for her. Especially after 2 months of non stop reverend wright and attacks on Obama.

Unlike Hillary surrogates race-baiting ... Obama surrogates never attacked Hillary because of her gender and you'll never find an example to give of it.

[EFerrari]

53. I for one will attest that Hillary Clinton WAS mistreated in the press.

There's no doubt about that. There was more than one thread here where we got together to email, fax and call to object to that.

But, so was Obama. And there was more than one thread here, too, where we acted to counter that, as well.

It was, in that sense, a level playing field.

[sfam]

57. No, I think there's some truth to the statement that Hillary got far more sexist treatment...

than Obama did racist treatment. I had posted a thread a while ago asking whether the fact that Hillary was pilloried in the 90s had anything to do with that - meaning that there was already a built-up acceptance to bashing Hillary. My question was whether say, a Sebelius would have received the same treatment had she run for President as Hillary did.

[EFerrari]

58. See my #2. But, I do agree about the Habit of Hating Hillary.

And, we'll see the same stuff directed at Michele from the right and their media -- we already are.

[sfam]

67. That study doesn't include Pundit horse race discussions, which is where...

the vast bulk of these sexist comments are found. And again, this is a different comment than whether Obama or Hillary received worse coverage overall. I think we can all agree that when Reverend Wright reared his ugly head, Obama got virtually non-stop bad press coverage. This is a different issue I think, than whether or not some of the comments against Hillary were sexist in nature, and whether they were accepted as part of the normal dialogue.

[EFerrari]

69. It depends on the umbrella you're using.

If the umbrella is "bigotry", we could do an effective comparison.

Chris Matthews apologized on the air (as he should have) for his remarks about Hillary. I don't recall anyone apologizing for their remarks about Obama, even though Buchanan, for example, said things like blacks should be grateful they are no longer enslaved. CNN did respond to our emails and cut out the Wright stuff after we threatened to call them the KKK Network when Wolf and Lou were really going at it. But they did not apologize.

[sfam]

79. I suppose can be made that the Wright stuff is an indirect reference to bigotry

I agree that if you include this, Obama comes out far worse for wear. Perhaps the reason I wouldn't include it is that its an indirect bigotted reference, whereas the Hillary stuff is rather direct.

Regarding Buchanan, I couldn't agree more. That guy, along with Tweety needs to be removed. Lou needs to be removed more for Hispanic bashing, but that's a separate discussion.

[sfam]

54. There's a number of YouTubes on this...here's one listed above...

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

Again, strangely enough from this video, its MSNBC and FOX that should be singled out, not CNN. More interestingly, other than Tweety, its mostly all right-wingers who are doing this stuff. Tucker and Pat on MSNBC get second billing to Tweety, for instance.

[rodeodance]

64. it was jj fr who race baited it NH. see this video for sexism in the media:

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

[1awake]

55. Nice post saracat! n/t

[OzarkDem]

71. Yes, she made history

and hopefully it will be easier for all women to follow. Let's hope its sooner, rather than later.

[ShortnFiery]

75. HRC *PLAYED* the M$M. I know sexual discrimination, up close and personal ...

after entering a newly integrated (WAC to Regular Army) military.

Clinton has USED these women ... she first and foremost was A Clinton, and as such, she was treated like political royalty.

Why did HRC lose? One word: ARROGANCE.

I saw "little to no" true discrimination.

DISCRIMINATION occurs when someone who's in POWER intimidates or dismisses you because of your gender.

HRC had all the breaks and PLAYED the Gender Card.

IMO, true women LEADERS do not use crutches such as claiming SEXISM.

As such "playing the victim" is NOT the actions of a RESPECTABLE LEADER.

HRC, IMO, shamed my gender by USING women as those whom she EXPECTED to automatically vote for her.

I don't recognize HRC as either "a leader" nor "a role model" for my young daughter.

I didn't endure numerous "cat calls" or "men's low expectations" for women like HRC who used both her husband's position and the GIMMICK that she's *ALL WOMEN* - to glean the Presidency. No, maybe a future women who rises to power on HER OWN vice her husband's coattails. It's not HRC.

[rodeodance]

76. your Hate continues.

[ShortnFiery]

78. No, not hate but resentment that HRC could not have played it "straight" instead of vacillating

between "the aggressor" and "the victim."

She ran a horrid and GOPesque "scorched earth" primary. I'm ashamed that she is a woman. I wanted the first TRUE WOMAN CONTENDER to have some semblance of a moral compass. .... Guess I'm just WEIRD that way. ;) :hi:

[rodeodance]

80. I am proud of her and you are still wrapped in Hate.

[ShortnFiery]

129. No, I'm wrapped in "the real world." You want to live "happily ever after" with political royalty

taking care of us like Mommy and Daddy.

"The End of Innocence" type Epiphany came to me in my early twenties yet, I fear, some people will not ever understand cooperation and compromise. Those two characteristics rarely were practiced by Clintonian Royalty unless they were dealing with corporations, i.e., media deregulation, NAFTA and welfare reform.

The Clintons are NOT our saviors. :(

[saracat]

89. Baloney. Bet you love Pelosi now don't cha? All is forgiven if one

comes to Obama?

[sampsonblk]

77. IWR, bad campaign, extreme arrogance. That's what did her in.

Hillary had all the advantages that a candidate could possibly imagine. She blew. Not because she's a woman. Not because of the media. She herself blew it. Bad strategy carried out very badly, early in the campaign.

Its time to stop blaming everyone else.

[TexasObserver]

86. Hillary mistreated the media, played victim, and got away with it.

She lost because she was a bad candidate, a weak manager, a bad executive and lousy with money.

[Diane R]

111. Yes. She was a bully, and I'm tired of hearing how the sisters need to protect her.

[TexasObserver]

114. It was one ill advised line of attack after another.

After North Carolina, she settled in on a scheme of attacking Obama, and trying to raise his negatives. She did, but in doing so, reminded many Democrats of the reasons they find her unacceptable. Her actions have really caused to me doubt her judgment and her commitments.

[mod mom]

91. I'm sorry but I teach my children the importance of honesty. I can't get over her repeated

mis-truths about Bosnia and other matters. I would rather my daughter support a man who stood for truth than any woman who had little regard for the truth when it meant to getting ahead. I'm sorry flame away but one decent speech doesn't win me over.

[saracat]

92. Funny. The opposition lies don't count? And I agree, one decent speech doesn't win me over either.

[Emit]

95. opposition lies?

I'm not sure I follow

[saracat]

98. Primary opposition. There are two sides to every story.

[mod mom]

110. What does primary opposition mean and does is absolve Hillary about Bosnia?

[TexasObserver]

115. Yes, but one side is true (Obama's) and one side is not true.

But you know this already.

Three days and counting, Saracat.

[saracat]

116. None is so blind as he will not see.There are no perfect candidates.

[TexasObserver]

118. Not perfect, but definitely better.

Can you say "I'm supporting Obama," Sara? And will you stop trashing the nominee of our party?

If you can't, why are you still here?

[saracat]

120. Because I am a Democrat and there are several forums I like.

I will be no longer particiapting in Presidential politics.I am done with them for this election cycle.

[TexasObserver]

122. If you were done with them, you wouldn't be commenting on this thread.

You're trash talking the nominee. How much more plain does it get?

[saracat]

123. Trash talking? This was a Thank you to Hillary. And the opreative word is I "will" be done.

And I will. I am working on downline races and disassociating myself from the presidential campign as is my right.

[hokies4ever]

101. Great point! Hillary is not a great moral example for little kids.

Lying, cheating, and changing the rules mid-game are not great values to pass on to kids.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seabiscuit]

109. K&R!

... before it gets locked thanks to earstwhile Obamanoids turning the thread into a flamewar, then complaining to the mods about the mess they created.

[rodeodance]

121. It did not take long at all. The Hillary Hate is back in full swing.

[saracat]

124. No kidding. This is trying to "unite " us when a thank you post is trashed?

[Breeze54]

125. Don't worry... the BHO supporters are just showing their lack of maturity.

They think the primary meant that you are supposed to annihilate the opposing DEMOCRAT.

Dumbasses. :silly:

[jgraz]

128. Hey, I'm just happy they didn't call it a "gang rape" this time

:eyes:

[rodeodance]

132. that was the NY Chapter. The National NOW dissed that comment. Educate yourself.

[jgraz]

138. How do you manage to miss every possible point?

That's some skill you've developed there. :eyes:

Since you seem to need things spelled out for you: The *point* is that we have yet another so-called feminist organization playing up the victim status of Hillary because she's a female. In other words: the Hillary candidacy has been moving women's rights in exactly the wrong direction.

[Major Hogwash]

133. Hahahahahahahaha! The first complaint (whine) from Hillary was it was a boy's club.

And NOW just reinforced why Hillary got her ass handed to her - it wasn't about putting the first woman on the ticket for the Democrats - it was about the issues.

Remember those things, girls.

Next time you won't have to worry so much about her hair and pantsuits!!

Hahahahaha!

[highplainsdem]

134. Thank you, saracat! K & R

[Independent-Voter]

135. NOW is completely out of touch and irrelevant. Onto the White House!

[saracat]

142. If you think that then you don't deserve to go on to the WH. I hope your candidate doesn't

feel that way.

[Independent-Voter]

143. NOW - ""Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President,"

Yeah, that sounds like a group that clearly has their heads on their shoulders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/now-head-described-treatm_n_84156.html

[SeaLyons]

136. Thank You, Hillary

K&R

[noiretextatique]

140. it was and is disgusting

:puke:

[SeaLyons]

145. Deserves another K&R