Misogyny on the left

Back in the 60's, some "movement leader," who posed as progressive and open-minded, was asked the position of women in the anti-war movement.  He famously said "prone."

I was thinking of this today in regard to some of the reaction to McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee.  The pick has been widely criticized by nearly all the progressive and liberal bloggers, which is fair enough, but the tone of the criticism has been disappointing. 

Yes, she's inexperienced on the national stage, but what some people see as "inexperienced" others see as "fresh."  Besides, criticize her for inexperience and you invite comparison to Obama who was in the Senate for about three months before he took off and ran for president.

She's a token.  Of course she is.  Vice presidential picks typically are.  Obama picked Biden at least partly as a signal to Catholics and working class voters.  Face it, folks, whether we like it or not, this is an election about identity politics.  McCain saw that Obama was leaving women voters on the table, and he stepped in to try to pick them up.

Speaking as someone who has been directly involved in the Clinton campaign for over a year, I am proud to say that not one time--not one time in thousands of encounters--did I ever hear a racial remark made about Sen. Obama.  In my encounters with low-level Obama supporters however, the misogyny was palpable.  I'm trying to remember if a single day went by that I didn't see or hear Hillary Clinton referred to as a b*tch or c*nt.

The problem with the High Liberals is that they're so righteous that they can't imagine there could possibly be an area of personal or political life in which they are not morally superior.  They couldn't possibly be misogynists because misogyny is bad and they are good.  (Denial is not just a river in Egypt.)   

It's not clear whether or not Sarah Palin can operate effectively on the national stage.  We'll see.  But if she can, there is a lot in Palin to like.  She has an independent streak.  She has one child with Down's Syndrome and another in Iraq.  She rides a motorcycle.  Frankly, if she proves up to the mettle, I regard McCain's choice as politically smart.  In any case, I regard the dismissive tone of the blogosphere as politically dumb.      

Comments

[Hypatia]

Couldn't agree more. Such criticism plays right into the Republicans' hands. Palin's resume actually compares decently to those of others in both parties who were up for VP. McCain had no really great choices and he was behind. So he took a chance.

I saw her speech and she's not going to be an easy candidate to hate even if you disagree with her. She could still turn out to be an empty suit candidate in the style of Elizabeth Dole, but I don't think so.

It was also clear from the Obama campaign's initial ungracious reactions that they didn't see this coming. Hadn't a clue.

[Greenconsciousness]

I am putting this on all the blogs I link to, suggesting we do not have to be slaves to the places they push us.

Who are you voting for?

I am Writing-In Hillary

http://www.writehillaryin.com/

and joining the New Democrat PUMA party.

Listen to the Aug 29th radio show on your computer from the PUMA people who went to Denver.

I called in at the end of the first hour.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/no-we-wont

[gormenghast]

At least it has made clear the lie the lying liars shouted from the rooftops "it's not women -it's just THAT WOMAN!" No it's all women they hate!

If John McCain and the RNC come out swinging and knock some heads in defense of Sarah Palin, unlike the do nothing, say nothing, DNC and Obama, they still will not get my vote, but they will get my life-long respect.

Greenconsciousness: I too joined the NDP (have been a PUMA for a while). Unfortunately, we do not have the ability write in
candidates in my state and have draconian ballot restrictions to keep third party candidates out of play, so I will vote for down ticket Dems (1) and then go for a long walk.

[John Petty]

Just so we're clear: I'm a Clinton Democrat and I'll do what Hillary says, which is vote for Obama.

But I will also feel free to get on Obama's case, and that of his supporters, for their primitive and thuggish behavior.

[lillianjane]

John,

I increasingly look to your posts for the reasoned response.
gormenghast, I don't want to vote for McCain or Obama either, and in Washington I can't write in Clinton, so I am voting for McKinney. I think it's a perfect time to support a third party. In past years I haven't because the Democrat has been good enough and also had a chance of winning. I think she is a great alternative to that long walk.

[John Petty]

Thanks for the plug, Lillian. Just so we're clear, I'm following my leader, Hillary Clinton, and voting for Obama.

[Andrew]

Throughout the primary, I heard (and still hear) comments from Clinton backers regarding Obama's race. A recent letter to the editor of my local paper from a Clinton backer told the readers how she was having a hard time supporting Obama "even though [she is] trying hard to concentrate on his white half". That's typical of the buzz in my community -- not just from Clinton Democrats.

Misogyny and racism both exist within Democrats and Republicans alike. No matter who the Democratic candidate would've been, the party has to deal with *both*. Maybe you're spending too much time reading the more vitriolic Obama supporters, the ones that the majority of Obama supporters tend to ignore. Just like I shook my head and ignored the letter writer, knowing she doesn't represent the typical Clinton supporter. Give Obama supporters a break and recognize that the vast majority of us are not misogynists, and please stop drawing attention to the very small minority who are.

[John Petty]

You're right, of course, that most Obama/Clinton supporters are not racists/misogynysts.

The pro-Obama sites I'm talking about, however, are not "fringe." They are dailykos.com, TPM, and HuffPost--arguably the three biggest sites in the blogosphere.

[Andrew]

Yes, but by taking about how you read comments "every day" which you would label as misogynic, you give the impression that there's more Obama supporters who are misogynic than there actually are, and this adds to the idea that Obama Democrats are generally sexist. The comments you read were likely from the same blowhards day after day.

Look at some of the other people who have commented here on this post. After the past eight years, some Democrats still haven't learned the lessons of 2000 and are going to express their unhappiness by voting for third parties! After this accidental president, who would certainly not have been made president if unhappy Democrats in Florida would've just voted Democratic instead of a third party and given Gore an unquestionable margin of victory!!! This, in an election where we can expect the winner to likely add two new justices to the Supreme Court to replace two liberal justices. I know you've stated you're going to vote for Obama, but you're certainly not helping the Democratic Party by repeatedly calling attention to some of the more idiotic minority opinions within Obama supporters. We know they're there, and we should just ignore them. Don't give people a reason to not vote Democratic this fall.

[lillianjane]

But Andrew, in 2000, Al Gore was the Democratic choice. Obama's no Al Gore, and Cynthia McKinney, unlike Ralph Nader, has legislative experience. I consider it the optimal time to support a third party.

[Andrew]

Yeah, lillianjane, and Gore was no Bradley. But go ahead and vote for McKinney. Then spend four more years complaining about the direction of the country, and how unfair this primary season was, and how you really wish the Supreme Court had more progressive views on abortion, gender issues, workplace issues, and the environment.

You're repeating the exact same mentality that anti-Gore voters had in 2000. I know, because I was one, and I've regretted my "optimal" third-party vote in 2000 every day since then.

[John Petty]

Gotta side with Andrew on this one, Lillian. I've spent the past eight years ticked off at the uber-liberals for ditching Gore in 2000. So, turnabout being fair play, I'm not going to pull the same stunt in reverse.

I disagree with Andrew on this though: The lower levels of the Obama campaign was absolutely horrible in their dissing of women.

[Andrew]

"Dissing women" is of course horrible (did I say otherwise for you to "disagree" with me?), but I didn't see anything of the sort from the "lower levels of the Obama campaign." Maybe I missed it...(?) All I've seen that would qualify as "dissing women" has been from a small number of blowhards in blogs -- about as official as the letter writer in my paper or the neighbor to whom you referred in a different post.

The vast majority of Obama-supporting blogs haven't stooped to that level.

[John Petty]

I'll name the ones I (used to) read, and they were ALL guilty: dailykos, TPM, HuffPost, The Note, American Prospect--the largest blogs in the blogosphere.

I'm exempting salon.com because, even though there were comments there also, there were also others who took them to task.

[Andrew]

Again -- not officials with the Obama campaign, and all blogs of personal opinion. Much like a letter to the editor, but with a wider audience. And, a small number of individuals -- hardly a pervasive opinion among Obama supporters. Given the amount of attention you bring to them (and keep bringing to them), I would've expected more.

Yes, it's disappointing that there are idiots out there that have this opinion, but please stop tying that opinion to the Obama campaign and the vast majority of Obama's supporters who reject this view!

[John Petty]

Those blogs together get well over 100,000 hits a day, and thousands of comments.

Plus, I could add more, like the Obama delegate who told one of our Clinton delegates, "They let you in?" Or the Obama delegate who snarkily said to me, "Who's she?" The list could go on and on.

[Andrew]

You're right -- both sides have been rude to each other, and that rudeness has occasionally degraded into racist and sexist comments by small-minded people cheering for their chosen candidate. Now, what are you going to do about it? Keep the wound open or help it to heal so we can actually win and advance a progressive agenda in 2009?

You're certainly not helping the Democratic Party and the causes you say you believe in if you keep posting about Those-Sexist-and-Misogynic-Obama-People and giving the impression the the campaign is sexist and/or misogynist. You're certainly not persuading any of your readers to vote for him in the fall when you keep this wound open and festering. If you truly support the Democratic platform and its progressive causes, you will try to mend fences, not just keep pointing out that those people on the other side of the fence broke the parts you saw.

[John Petty]

You should write for dailykos. Tell them! Even as we type, they're posting all kinds of weird sexist nonsense about Sarah Palin.

Is that baby really hers? How can she campaign and be a mother, unless she's a bad mother. Trailer trash!

Is it even possible for the left to be any more clueless?

[Andrew]

Sometimes I'm convinced certain Democrats are doing their best to turn off as many people as possible with their hubris. I stopped reading DailyKos years ago because of the arrogance of many of the postings there. I found it more of a waste of time than enlightened reading...

Luckily, I don't think the majority of voters in America read DailyKos, either...

[John Petty]

Me neither. I used to like it, but, after awhile, it started seeming pretty juvenile--especially when a couple of them, both front-pagers, started calling me names.