American politics--a cautious enquiry

[avevale_intelligencer]

I'm seeing a lot of vitriol today against Obama and his campaign. (EDIT: clarification - this is on my LJ flist, from people I trust, not from the media which I would not trust to tell me pi to two decimal places.) And I've been seeing it for a while, but it seems to be coming to a head now that Obama has claimed the candidacy. I have to tread carefully, because of WMP and all that, but what I think I'm seeing is this: a large number of people who either are, or claim to be, supporters of Obama, or vaguely on his side, or Democratic in their sympathies, have been making horrible, offensive and unwarrantable remarks that bear on, or allude to, or can be related to, Hillary Clinton's gender. Neither Obama, nor any official spokesman of his, has specifically denounced any or all of these people, nor have they denounced misogyny in general. From this, it is concluded that Obama is a misogynist, or tolerant of misogyny, and would therefore be a bad president from a feminist point of view.

Is that a fair summation of what is being said?

Back when The West Wing was good, when Aaron Sorkin was writing it and it was about something and not just a generic dramasoap, what it was often about was the compromise between doing the right thing and doing the expedient thing. Sorkin's fictional President Bartlet and his staff were almost always perfectly aware of the right thing (though they didn't always agree on what it was), and took great delight in doing it whenever they could, but on many occasions they were hamstrung by the fact that if they did the right thing this time they would be prevented from doing it in the future, or there would be undesirable consequences. This attitude was contrasted with that of his political opponents, and sometimes his allies such as VP John Hoynes, which was to do the expedient thing now, to win whatever the cost, and pay lip service to the idea of doing the right thing some time in the future.

In not denouncing misogyny, it is clear to many that Obama has done the expedient thing rather than the right thing. He has shied away from alienating those of his supporters, and there are apparently many, who hold anti-feminist, or actively misogynistic views. An interesting question is, had he done so, would those misogynists have then supported Clinton, or done write-ins for some other candidate, or would they have abandoned the Democratic party altogether and thrown their weight behind the Republicans? (I'm not sure how these write-ins work, or how useful they are in getting the opposition out of the White House.) The answer to that question, I think, is crucial to knowing if Obama was silent because he wanted to be (because he agreed with those views), or because he felt he had to be, as a prospective candidate whose job was to gather support, not discard it.

One thing that both candidates seem to agree on, and that their supporters surely must, is the crying need to block the Republicans' attempt to hold on to the presidency. The question then becomes, if we are said candidates, how far are we prepared to go to bring this about? How much do we put up with? Ruling out assassination and coup d'étàt, and assuming for the moment that the Democrats as a whole are honest enough not to try to fix the election themselves (not a foregone conclusion by any means, sadly), that doesn't leave much wiggle room. We might have to deal with some people that we'd really rather not deal with. We might have to put up with some offensive remarks from people whose support we need. We might have to be silent when our conscience demands we speak out. And we might have to accept that some people will take this to mean we support things that we actually abhor.

Is doing the right thing now worth losing the election this time? Is speaking out against misogyny now worth another four years of Republicanism? Is establishing one's feminist credentials now worth no end to the war in Iraq, no move on universal health care, no change to the slumping economy?

Maybe it is. I wouldn't know. And maybe when either Obama or Clinton gets to the White House he or she will prove to be a Hoynes rather than a Bartlet, prepared to compromise with the Republicans all the way down the line if it means she or he can stay in power. And there will be no end to the war in Iraq, and no move on health care, and no change to the economy. And those who called Obama misogynist, or who called Clinton racist, will smirk and say "Told you so."

But I hope for a better future. And if to get to that better future we need to go through this, then I say go through this. Suck it up, deal with it, vote according to your conscience and let's try to take one step that may turn out to be in a forwards direction.

Comments

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

I would say it's not a fair summation.

There's a school of thought in a not-insignificant number of HRC supporters who think any lack of support for Hillary is misogynist.

I wouldn't go that far, but there has been sexism pointed at HRC -- though I don't think the Obama campaign has done anything in particular to her itself.

And it is not Obama's job to be the gender appropriate commentary police.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I meant a fair summation of what people were saying, not of the true situation. Sorry. I'll fix that.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

It is the job of the spin doctors to twist the words of the opposing candidates into something they never meant. It is the job of the media moguls to take that spin and edit it according to their bias. It's a shame, because when I took a journalism class in junior high the ethics at that time I was taught were to avoid bias. However, neutral commentary doesn't sell papers or cars during commercial breaks.
Each camp accuses the other of riding the ticket on something the candidate him/herself was born with and has no power to change, using it as a crutch as much as a stepping stone. It's a very unfair and blatant accusation. Just recently Obama refused the endorsement of a church official who stated that very accusation about Clinton in a sermon.
That doesn't mean I would vote for him. I'm still in wait-and-see mode.

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

I'm under the impression that if Obama was a misogynist, then he wouldn't let his wife do any public speaking whatsoever since he would be afraid that she would damage his image. And she's been doing a lot of talking on his behalf, particularly defending her husband against statements that he's "not black enough" due to him having a white mother and black father. She's a tough cookie, and I think misogynists would not let themselves marry strong women.

Just my opinion.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

In my humble, the key issue is that what we (especially the poor punters this side of the Pond, who (praise be) do not *vote* in November) "hear" or "read" is not what the candidates actually said but, as jahura says, what Other People want us to hear, whether it's their PR spinners, their campaign managers, the local or national journalists who want their by-line on a "hot" story, the editors who want to bend a story a particular way or (but we, of course, know it never happens) the owner of the newspaper or TV station who wants to see a politician say a particular thing in a particular way.

My only non-vitriolic aspect is that at least the candidates don't claim to speak with the authority of G*d or (yet) the electorate, so whatever they say (or are said to have said) is their opinion -- no "We begin bombing in five minutes."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Um. I listen to NPR regularly, get the New York Times blog and follow a couple of feminist blogs off and on, and I haven't seen much accusation of Obama being anti-woman.

I don't think it's a general perception.

[billroper]

I think there are some of Obama's supporters who are anti-woman, but I doubt that it's many of them. They'd have to be really, really loud before Obama would be expected to repudiate their support.

My problem with Obama is that -- as nearly as I can tell -- he's a creation of the Chicago Democratic political machine, which is as crooked a bunch as you can find. When given a choice between endorsing a reformer or endorsing a member of the Machine, he endorses a member of the Machine. And since he endorsed our new state treasurer (the one who seems to have Mob ties) and the corpse of the father of our Cook County Board president (who was installed as the Democratic candidate after his father had a stroke before our primary election here and who has proceeded to distinguish himself in many bad ways since then), I find very little reason to believe in his promise of "Change You Can Believe In".

Unless the change is from "their gang of crooks" to "our gang of crooks".

[howeird]

If that's the news coverage you are getting, then the news media on your side of the pond is even worse about creating their own "news" than the cretins on this side. There has been nothing said by Obama, his staff or supporters denigrating the Fair Sex, or their right to run the country. As a matter of fact, many of the people on Obama's short list for Vice President candidate are women.

Most of the people in the US who wouldn't want to give women the presidency are Republicans, they would not have voted for Hilary anyway. The same subset tend to be racist, so they won't be voting for a mulatto either.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

See the reply to catalana. I would have thought that too, which is why I find this so worrying.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

I have not seen a significant number of Obama supporters act misogynistically; I think this is a case where the media is blowing things out of proportion.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it isn't the media where I'm seeing it, it's my flist, which on the whole I trust more than I do the media (like, at all). Sober, sensible people like rozk and mamadeb have said that they see this, and I have to assume they're calling it as they see it.

[howeird]

After looking at their posts, rozk has taken a quote from former pres Carter and read into it far more than he actually said. All he said was he didn't think an Obama-Clinton ticket was a good idea. He suggested a white southern man as VP candidate. He did not say or imply any anti-female sentiments. She also pointed to a quote from an insignificant pundit which was found on a somewhat paranoid feminist blog. I don't see a trend here.

mamadeb must have her posts on the subject freinds-locked, because I don't see anything about the election on her LJ.

I stand behind what I said before. Obama and his staff appear to be pro-women, and what gripes they have about Hilary are personal, not sexist. As yourbob recently posted, one can dislike a woman but not hate women, one can dislike a black person but not hate blacks, one can dislike a gay person but not dislike gays. The media over here seems to think otherwise.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

This (http://mamadeb.livejournal.com/835325.html) is one post from mamadeb calling attention to what she evidently saw as a trend. And this (http://rozk.livejournal.com/204585.html) is the post from rozk I was talking about, in which she writes of "constant sexist media attacks" and quotes one example from, presumably, lots.

I can only go on what I pick up, and since I consciously avoid actual news in an effort not to exacerbate my depression, I may get an unbalanced picture. In which case I'm grateful for correction.

[howeird]

Well, IMHO it isn't correction, more of a gathering of information. I totally agree with the misogyny in the media articles mamadeb pointed to in that post - and repeat what she said - the candidates have no control over the media. I was looking at the same post from rozk which you pointed to, and stand by what I wrote previously. And I'll add that when I covered the feminist movement for my campus paper in '68-70, it was clear that some people saw misogyny under every rock, where none really existed. It detracted/distracted from those who pointed to where the problem really did exist.

[harmonyheifer.livejournal.com]

I will preface my comment by saying that I have gone from not caring all that much who won the Democratic nomination just over a year ago to hoping with all my heart and soul that the Democratic candidate was anyone but Hillary. I have been behind Obama pretty solidly for quite some time now, and I am one of the biggest feminists you will ever meet.

My drastically changed attitude about Hillary has been based on the way her campaign used every nasty sneaky, dirty Rovian trick in the book. She was very good at letting her "chorus" of supporters do the most outrageous insinuations, but I know darn good and well that her campaign was behind what they said. That is a trick that the Bush administration has perfected and it has been horrifying to see a Democrat I once had great respect for, use those kind of filthy tactics against a fellow Democrat.

Obama and his people haven't even come close to doing things that low and nasty, in spite of the way the right-wing dominated press wants to spin the contest as having been fought dirty on both sides. Obama never once told anyone that McCain would make a better president than Hillary. Hillary did that more than once, dismissing Obama and praising McCain up one side and down another. I will never forgive her for that little bit of spite. Her two guiding lights in this campaign were Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, who is one nasty piece of work. They all apparently decided that if Hillary couldn't win, then Obama shouldn't win either. That is the only explanation I can contrive for some of their more extreme scorched earth behaviors that damaged not just Obama, but also weakened and divided the Democratic party.

I have spent months waiting for Hillary to call a halt to the terrifying Republican ratfuckery that kept oozing from her campaign, and making excuses for why she would let Bill and Mark Penn lead her down a path that seemed awfully close to the one that Dubyah walked both in 2000 and in 2001. I took into consideration that her reluctance to bow out gracefully sooner rather than later was financial more than stubborn or spiteful, but it still didn't explain some of the choices she allowed her campaign to make. The two biggest were playing the race card over and over, because it worked, and unfairly hammering Obama as elitist. Hell, anyone who has compared their financial disclosure forms knows damn good and well that Hillary is a lot farther afield from the average working class American than Obama, and has been for a several decades. Barack and Michelle Obama were paying off massive student loans up until only a few years ago. When was the last time Hillary had to even pay her own bills, or buy her own groceries, or fix a meal, or put gas in a car? Talk about hypocritical.

And I heartily second the person who posted that Michelle Obama would never stand behind a misogynist husband. Michelle Obama reminds me of every strong-minded, independent, fiercely protective of her family women I have ever known, myself included. Barack Obama was raised by his mother and his grandmother. He was estranged from the male members of his family. He was raised by a single white divorced mother and his maternal grandparents. I've read both his books, pick up "The Audacity of Hope" in a bookstore sometime and just read the dedication. He is no more a misogynist than I am. If he was, Michelle would never have married him in the first place, much less let him father her two girls.

Don't believe much of anything the spinners spin. Yeah, there was plenty of misogynist crap slung at Hillary, but Obama wasn't the one doing the slinging. Look no further than the older white male media pundits that are threatened by a strong woman and scared to death to have one as a president, and don't believe a word those slimeballs say. They were the guys who told Americans that Dubyah was a good president.

[akicif.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It doesn't help that Clinton's still somewhat in favour of keeping troops in Iraq, or that there's a vocal minority of her supporters (about one in five or so) who would vote for McCain before they'd vote for Obama - I guess that makes them DINOs.

It worries me that calling the Clinton supporters on any of this seems to get you labelled a misogynist, and that some folk I thought were particularly sound on the general concept of war being bad, mmkay, are giving Clinton a pass.

[billroper]

Just to provide some actual data, here's a post from Ann Althouse, a Wisconsin lawyer who (if I recall correctly) voted for Obama in the primary there. It links to a compendium of "any cheesy remark Obama or a supporter may have made" by Jim Geraghty over at NRO.

I don't think the quotes demonstrate serious misogyny -- I do think that they illustrate that it's easier / more forgivable to say things that dis a woman using her sex than a non-white person using his race. Sadly, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Anyway, I figured some data wouldn't hurt...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Data's always useful. Thank you.

[billroper]

Glad to be of service.

By the way, the Republican leadership in Illinois appears to be in bed with the crooked Democrats here too. Here's John Kass' column discussing it today.

If it weren't for crooked politics in Illinois, we wouldn't have any at all. The last politician who did something that looked honest was our former Republican Senator, Peter Fitzgerald, who was responsible for nominating the U.S. Attorney who is busily chewing through our local corrupt bunch of yahoos. His reward for this was to be run out of the party on a rail, which helped pave the way for Obama's election to the Senate.

To my surprise, our Democratic state Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, so far appears to be honest. This is especially to my surprise, because she's the daughter of the Illinois House Speaker who I would find it hard to characterize as honest, although he hasn't been convicted of anything. (A frighteningly low standard.)

My local politics has been good for making me cynical about politicians, if nothing else.