Heather Michon

Heather Michon
Location
Virginia,
Birthday
June 25
Bio
Follow me on Twitter @heathermichon

MY RECENT POSTS

Editor’s Pick
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 12:51PM

The Lipstick Revolution

Rate: 14 Flag

Well, the roar of the crowd has faded away, the stadium lights are out, the Styrofoam Greek columns have been hauled back to the studio lot, Andrea Mitchell has been released from her balloon prison....and silly season has officially returned.

The latest kerfuffle is over lipstick.

Both Joe Biden and Barack Obama felt the need to visit the rhetorical Clinique counter at events this week. Biden said of the McCain campaign: "There's no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick." At a seperate event, Obama noted: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."

Now the McCain-Palin camp is feigning outrage, and the Obama-Biden camp is swearing up and down that their candidates were not riffing on Sarah Palin's line about hockey moms and pit bulls.

On the surface, the whole thing is just eye-rollingly stupid. Biden and Obama were throwing out uncreative, unproductive little scraps of red meat for their audiences. Now McCain and Palin can take it and turn it into chum for their own audiences. Campaigning 101.

But there is a real danger here, and it's clear that the Democrats are only beginning to figure out that they have stepped into a big old moose trap.

You do have to feel somewhat sorry for Obama and Biden. They were most likely expecting to face off against something like a McCain-Pawlenty ticket -- the electoral equivalent of watching white paint dry on an already-white wall.

Instead, they got Lipstick.

In a normal election cycle, this wouldn't have been a insurmountable problem. Obama would have just come out of a primary season where his opponents were the same six or seven white guys that always seem to think that this, finally, is their year.

Instead, he spent months defeating a certain junior senator from New York.

I don't believe for a moment that Barack Obama or the Democratic Party leadership that favored him over Hillary Clinton set out to run a primary campaign based on misogyny. To their credit, they did try to stay away from overt displays of sexsim. But it quickly became clear that sexism is everywhere in our society, and it eventually oozed into every aspect of the discussion.

So, while they didn't directly participate it in, they certainly benefitted from it -- and consequently did very little to stop it or speak against it.

The net result was a breathtaking sense of indifference to pro-Clinton female voters within the Democratic Party. Women who resisted coming fully into the Obama camp -- even when this resistance was based not just on their preference for Senator Clinton as a person, but on concerns about Obama's seeming shift to the center on FISA, faith-based inititives, Iraq, and several other key issues -- were dismissed as dead-enders, women too "emotional" to understand the real importance of winning this election.

There wasn't any substantive discussion about the underlaying issues--  just the presumtion that once the ladies calmed down....maybe had a couple of Cosmopolitans and bought a new pair of shoes or a nice dress or something.... they'd come home. After all, where else do they have to go?

Republicans were clearly taking notes through all of this mess. Their choice of Sarah Palin wasn't a sop to disaffected Hillary voters. Governor Palin is there for the millions of conservative, pro-life, and evangelical women that John McCain couldn't hope to win on his own -- women who, in all likelihood, would have stayed home on Election Day.

Now, the same Democratic Party that scheduled Senator Bob Casey -- one of their most vocal pro-life members -- to speak on the night supposedly set aside to celebrate not just Hillary Clinton's historic accomplishment, but the participation of all women within the party, and the same Democratic candidate that didn't even bother to pretend to consider Clinton for the vice presidency, expects her and her supporters to swoop in and pull their huevos out of the fire, now that this mean girl is picking on them.

And they probably will. For committed Democratic women, there really isn't much choice but to stay with the party. But it may be too late.

To beat Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama had to make her life and her experience seem less significant than his own much-slimmer resume. To do that, he had to strike directly at the heart of the modern American womanhood: no matter how hard we work, no matter what we accomplish, it's never enough, and it's not that important.

The tactic worked in the moment. It might not work this time.

Sarah Palin is woefully inexperienced and ideologically somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun. But like Hillary Clinton, she is also a symbol of something larger than her own life or beliefs.

Attacks on her, however justifiable or accurate, are going to be seen as attacks on womanhood itself. All the Republicans have to do is cast everything the Democrats say as sexist, and they will hold their base. Every time they can bait someone -- the notably gaffe-prone Biden, for example -- to say something nakedly biased, they'll pick up votes.

So there you have it: In their zeal to defeat Clinton, pro-Obama Democrats just spent a year tailoring a Teflon pantsuit for Palin.   

Everyone thought that Election '08 was going to be a referendum on eight years of Republican rule, or on four centuries of racism in American. It's not.

Exactly eighty-eight ears after winning the right to vote, the fears of the anti-suffragists are going to be realized....because it's looking increasinly like women will be the deciding factor in this election. Millions of those women are not ideologically committed to either party, and millions of others feel dissed by the Democrats. Almost three weeks after Governor Palin entered the race, the Obama campaign has yet to find an effective way to counter her momentum. They only have seven weeks left to undo a hell of a lot of self-inflicted damage.  

And, sorry guys, but lipstick quips just aren't going to do it.  

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I really like your writing. (gush)

The worm has turned on Obama and his failure to defend Hillary against media misogyny is biting him on the keister.

(rated)
B.S.

Attacks on Palin are attacks on someone who hides, lies and betrays her Christianity with those lies. Remember that many of the women you are talking about are also Christian. If Republicans want to talk about character issues, it follows that they should get hammered for what they are doing. To argue from your premise is to say that women are stupid enough to fall for this cynicism and the failure of the McCain campaign to have any policy, not to mention HONOR, and I think that is a perverse & sexist argument in itself.

I believe that women have stronger B.S. meters than that!
God, this argument is just going to drag on forever, isn't it? There was nothing sexist in saying that Hillary's claims of 35 years experience were more than a bit exaggerated. Was Hillary more experienced than Obama? Of course ... but she didn't need to claim her years at the Rose Law Firm as vital public service work to make that point. Hillary created problems for herself by not telling it straight.

And any way you cut it, that's not swiftboating. Swiftboating would have been the attacks on her cattle futures trades, the return of Vince Foster whispers and Travelgate, which is exactly what McCain would be pounding on now if she'd won the nomination. It would be unfair and over the edge, that's why it's swiftboating. Obama went very easy on Hillary -- and it annoys me that the same people who claim he was such a brutal, vicious ogre six months ago now claim he's too wimpy to win.
Nice article, but I still really don't get how sexism played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton or how her supporters were treated so badly. She actually pissed me off during the convention by keeping so much of the attention on her and her husband for the first two days. She should have given a unification speech on Monday and then sat down. I really would say the same thing if the runner up were Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Edwards or any man.

I'd be interested if anybody could send me an article that best articulates why Hillary and her supporters were wronged. I'd love to listen, but I just don't get it yet.

Regardless of what happened in the primary, I find it interesting how Republicans are so quick to claim racism or sexim themselves. Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh feign sexim? Yet the media takes it seriously. Don't you think this would be happening regardless of what happened with Hillary during the primary?
I don't think Obama Swiftboated Hillary, but I don't think he really beat her, either. The Democrats, in the way that Democrats always do, handicapped themselves by creating a primary process (proportional delegates, not winner take all) that was guaranteed to pick the candidate least likely to win the general election.

That, of course, is in the past, and we have to elect the candidate that we've got. Right now McCain and Palin are Swiftboating Obama and they have got to be stopped.
If what happened to Hillary in the primary had not happened, Palin would still be just a governer of a small population state.

And how is her experience in the Rose law fir working for civil rights any different than being a community organizer?

And I don't believe you when you say you just want a convincing argument sent your way. Search clinton and feminism and sexism on google, you lazy man. Find your own information. nobody owes you a thing. Something that a lot of men need to learn right quick.

This post resonates with every fiber of my being.

I am glad to hear someone else say it so I know it isn't just me.
Hillary Clinton spent the vast majority of her billable hours at the Rose Law Firm working corporate law, not civil rights cases. What really makes me mad about this is that I like Hillary Clinton, I have absolutely nothing against her. But her supporters are just as bad as the most rabid Obama supporters, you've deified her beyond all belief. Hillary was at the Rose Law Firm earning the family money because Bill was making only $35,000 a year as Governor of Arkansas. There's nothing dishonorable about anything she did ... but it's still factually wrong to say that it's a form of public service. It's not, and clarifying the record is not some kind of unfair political attack.
One more thing ... it's truly absurd to say that whatever Obama did to defeat Hillary Clinton is responsible for Sarah Palin.

No ... I can see Obama's defeat of HRC leading to McCain picking a highly qualified woman, as Clinton herself was, such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe. Then, Obama would be getting back what he deserved.

Pulling this political blank slate out of Alaska is no one's responsibility but McCain's. Obama did not earn this.
Oh goody! I'm inspiring discussion and debate, even if I'm not winning a lot of converts! Excellent.
I actually don't have much of a problem with your analysis, Heather, it's probably accurate. My argument is more with the extension being made in the comments section.

But let's be clear about something ... if Hillary Clinton had won this very close, very tough contest, it wouldn't be all sunshine and light in the Democratic Party. It would be African Americans who would be arguing that they had been treated unfair and McCain probably would have responded by putting Bobby Jindal on the ticket and we'd be in the exact same spot.

Read "Nixonland" -- what Republicans have done best for 50 years is pit Democrats against each other. We finally had a historic election where either women or African Americans, two cornerstones of our party, would finally get their due. It was inevitable that whichever fell short would feel slighted in the end. You know what would have been the safe response to this? Picking another white male.
they picked her in part BECAUSE of her inexperience. Everytime the dems attack her on it, they are reminded of Pbama's inexperience.

She is f'ing teflon because of the way Hillary was treated.

Her service work and civil rights volunteer work were done WHILE she worked at the Rose law firm.

You just hate her for some reason and love Obama. you are just working on emotions.

The Republicans don't have emotions when it comes to politics. The DNC really needs to learn this soon.
Okay, ePriddy, enough. To say that I hate Hillary Clinton is a disgusting lie and I'm not going to stand for it. I've never written anything negative about her on Open Salon or anywhere else for that matter. You can say whatever the hell you want about Barack Obama or anyone else in public life, but I will not stand for being slandered like this.
Fannie and Freddie down, Lehman next
Russian bombers land in Venezuala
Every institution sinking
praying the overpass wont collapse
Iraq Iran Afghanistan Georgia

and in the sandbox we throw sand at
each other

We dont deserve Empire

Is that criticism a criticism of equality
debate?

You are shooting your friends till there
are few left

We dont deserve Empire
Jerked your chain, huh?

Yeah. That is the problem in a nutshell. I am tired of you jerking my chain as well.

Let's leave each other alone. eh?
Dan Conley:

"But let's be clear about something ... if Hillary Clinton had won this very close, very tough contest, it wouldn't be all sunshine and light in the Democratic Party. It would be African Americans who would be arguing that they had been treated unfair and McCain probably would have responded by putting Bobby Jindal on the ticket and we'd be in the exact same spot."

I'm sure you're right about the way that McCain would have responded, but I don't think Clinton would be as flummoxed by it as Obama.

Obama needs to get back into the game by hiring a speechwriter like you: someone not afraid to tell the truth, get to the point, and hit back hard.
Here we go again. When are we going to stop fighting the primary battle?

1. How did Barack Obama strike at the heart of womenhood? Specifically, how?

2. It is NOT sexist to use the word lipstick, to make a word play with a word that Palin herself introduced. This is no different than Palin playing with the word "bitter" or "arugula" or whatever else they can come up with that Obama introduced and mock him royally with it. It may not be nice, it may be crowd-pleasing fluff--but it is NOT sexist.
If I may, ePriddy,

I think perhaps some are blurring the line between what Obama "did" and what the media, Hillary detractors, and Republican trolls did in the primary season.

Some of us are a bit fatigued at drawing this same distinction over again. Obama did not mistreat Clinton. You may be right that Clinton's treatment--by said detractors--as well as her own manipulation of that particular theme directly led to the selection of Sarah Palin as VP for McCain. In addition, I happen to believe that Palin would not have been selected at all if Clinton had been named VP.

All of that notwithstanding, please don't forget that whatever weapons are currently being used against the Democratic nominee would not be in play at all were Hillary the nominee. A different set, meant to disable her, would be out in full force.
Also, ePriddy,

Like Dan, I have always liked and admired Hillary Clinton. It has been increasingly difficult to persuade those who voted for her in the primary that some of us liked both candidates but chose Obama for myriad reasons. This conflation of "voted for Obama" with "hates Hillary Clinton" demonstrates perfectly the kind of excessive personalization of the election that Obama's supporters are traditionally accused of. It feels Orwellian to me.

(I'm not sure what you mean when you say "something men need to learn right quick." Are you assuming it's only men who preferred Obama to Clinton? That's not true, of course. I myself am in the supposed Hillary demographic of baby boomer white woman. If that's not what you meant, then what is it about men, in particular, that needs being taught? How do you defend that statement itself, given its sexist assumptions?)
Attacks on her, however justifiable or accurate, are going to be seen as attacks on womanhood itself.

Don't buy it. Of course, the McCain campaign is going to try to play it that way (they already have) but it's still bullshit.

How is it in any way a feminist position to suggest that a woman can't or shouldn't be attacked on her record in the same way a man can? Why are Obama's criticisms of Clinton (which are to be expected--for Christ's sake, he was her opponent) sexist?

While I absolutely agree that Clinton took an undeserved beating, I blame right wing pundits for that (who were the first to describe her as a "bitch," which is a loaded word, for sure, but I say McCain is a bastard and that's not sexist, is it?)

Really, I think we need to stop banging this gong and stop it now. Palin's record, her remarks, everything about her is absolutely fair game.
I think what we learned in the primary is women for the most part are much less predictable in their choices than men. That is to say they won't just vote for a candidate because they are a woman, and many take pride in it--at least in so-called liberal circles. The "millions" your refer to as fundie voters is actually widely estimated at 30 million, and they are predictable as to who they are going to vote for. That's the problem, and I wonder what your solution is.
Heather,

What a fantastic post that has generated such a spirited discussion! You go, girl. More, please! :-)

(rated)
Priddy, the GOP playbook is well-known -- find a wedge and exploit it. So yes, the fact that sexism was an issue in the primaries is now being exploited with the Palin pick. Now there are two things in here that we need to parse through.

1) It is not Obama's fault that the GOP decided to exploit the wedge.
2) Obama did not create the wedge (as much as you don't like the guy, even you have to admit, he was never sexist towards Hillary. Blame the media if you want, blame random supporters, but Obama himself is not a culprit.)

This is a tactic. We need to stop taking it personally and start figuring out how to defuse it. Dan is right -- it wouldn't have mattered what happened in the primaries, they would have found a tactic to use. And their tactics are all the same -- all about whipping people up into an irrational fervor so that they don't see the facts, or what is in their own best interests. Yes, the issue of sexism in the primary made this tactic available. But every tactic has a countertactic.

I think Obama's response is actually a good one: Calling things by their right names. Once you expose that someone is using a tactic, it becomes harder for people to be duped by it, you take away some of the emotional power inherent in the tactic.

We need to get over the primaries already and fight the battle in front of us.
Hi again, all. I was just reading an article in WaPo about Palin's visit to Virginia today, and one of the women who was not really a McCain supporter was quoted as saying that Palin's entrance into the race was not so much a movement as "a sleeping giant that had been awakened." These are women who feel like there has never been anyone out there who represents them, much as many Clinton supporters felt during the primaries.

The article is short, but interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903045_pf.html

Whether you agree with it or not -- and however we got here -- here we are. But the sleeping giant is awake now, and we have to figure out how to handle it.
Lordy lordy. If Sarah Palin is a "giant," I'm turning in my ovaries.

Look, I really believe that women are smart enough, as a group, to vote ISSUES and not GENDER. It's demeaning to suggest anything else.
I've taken another look at this as a result of the discussion, and saw: "He (Obama) had to strike at the heart of modern American womanhood...no matter how hard we work, no matter what we accomplish, it's not important..."

This is ideology speaking. Feminist victim ideology, which has led to the usual liberal bickering that looks like blame. I fought for Hillary because I thought she'd make the best president, and now I am fighting for Obama for the same reason. The ideology of feminism to me is an impediment, but watch: the right will even be more faithful to it. I discussed the greater problem in my blog today of liberal perfidy and disagree with the fundamental analysis upon which this post is based.
Ben -- I disagree that my view stems from feminist victimology.

The feeling that we, as women, are held to impossible standards by the culture in which we live, and are often disrespected for falling short of those standards, seems to cut across political, racial, and socio-economic lines.

I don't see myself as a victim -- far from it. I do think that, as a voter, a tax-payer, and an active participant in the democratic process, I am worthy of respect from fellow citizens.

And I do believe if we could harness this sense of frustration so many women have today, and use it to establish ourselves as political power-players after decades of allowing ourselves to be put on the back bench, all this fuss and feathers will have been worth something.
Somebody help me out.

Just exactly how was Senator Clinton treated unfairly?

She was the heiress apparent to the Democratic nomination and Obama, a dark horse candidate (yes, I get the irony, no, it's not racist), came out and glowed brighter. It got ugly on both sides. They tore each other down and made McCain look like a uniter. Clinton campaigned in states she vowed not to. But even with Michigan and Florida (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) counted, she still lost.

She tried to wrangle superdelegates to rescue her failing campaign, in spite of the clear will of the majority of voters that they wanted Obama. It didn't work.

Don't get me wrong. I think Sen. Clinton would have made a dynamic nominee, an a very capable President, and I would have been proud to have her at the top of the ticket. I am a huge fan, and a great admirer. She ran a great race, she fought hard, scrapped as well as anyone could have. But in the end, the way I see it, the voters spoke. She lost. Bang. Done. No more to discuss really. She's accepted it.

So why are so many women of America crying foul sexism? When a woman loses, it isn't necessarily sexism-- it could just be that her opponent ran a better race, strategized better, struck a stronger chord, and won. Why can't her supporters let it go?

And as concerns Palin, the lipstick remark was the equivalent of throwing down gender as a gauntlet. And if you remember the custom of gauntlet throwing, the opponent is supposed to pick the gauntlet up, and slap them with it.

She's reaping what she sowed.
That nobody "owes" men anything. That is what should be learned.
I said that, not roving reader.
I had to log out and then back in.
I was working on the code for that blog and
accidentally posted as that blog. Sorry.
Thomas, I will try to explain this. I am an Obama supporter, was a Clinton supporter, switched to Obama before Super Tuesday. I agree that much of the reason Clinton lost had to do with her own problems with strategy. However, that is not to say that she wasn't subjected to sexism during the campaign.

The media constantly went after her in a way that was not entirely even-handed. Many Obama supporters (not members of the campaign, and not Obama himself) used sexist invective in discussing Clinton's candidacy. Many of the word choices made by pundits came dangerously close to sexist rhetoric.

Now, I do believe that Clinton was subjected to sexism, but I have never been entirely comfortable with how Clinton used that charge to bolster her campaign. None of that changes what was levelled at her, however. The reality of the aftermath is that many women in the post-primary period find that women are not as equal as they thought they were in the political process, and they are hyper-aware of anything that smacks of sexism, and quick to respond to it negatively. This is the wedge the GOP is exploiting with Palin.

And make no mistake, they would do it with ANY woman, not just Palin. The fact that it is Palin makes it particularly insulting, since she is blazing a tokenist's trail that doesn't open nearly as many doors for women as it should, and in some respects sets them back.
I think Clinton was treated unfairly, but not by Obama. I think pundits, like Chris Matthews (who insinuated that Clinton parlayed her role as a "victim" of her husband's infidelities into a political career, for example) were the ones doing the treating.

And of course, the (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) "Beat the Bitch" rallying cries of Republicans was repugnant. But they hated her, and weren't going to treat her--or Obama, for that matter--fairly no matter what.

I think Obama was fair. (I recall Geraldine Ferraro saying something along the lines that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he weren't black, which is pretty low, and it was a charge leveled in support of Clinton's candidacy, however.)

A lot of people had (and have) a lot of very strong opinions about Clinton. They were often expressed in a sexist way, because they were meant to inflict damage. But the PARTY isn't to blame here.
ePriddy, I sometimes wonder who you're addressing? What makes you think anyone commenting on this thread--male OR female--believes that men are owed anything?

The acrimony of some of these debates is starting to get on my last nerve.
While it is offensive and demeaning to think women would vote gender over issues (just as offensive I might add to use the word 'man' in the same way Republicans use the word 'liberal', as an insult) the American public in general has disappointed me in the last 8 years with their voting record. That being said, I think Heather is right, we should prepare for this possibility, and we should take active steps to counteract it.
Now McCain and Palin can take it and turn it into chum for their own audiences.

I'm troubled by this statement. It implies that Obama made some sort of error by saying "lipstick on a pig." The McCain camp's claim that statement had anything to do with Palin is pure and unadulterated dishonesty. I watched the clip, there's no mention of Palin and it boggles my mind how anybody could reasonably make the link. The expression "lipstick on a pig" far predates Palin appearance on the national scene.

There is no way to prevent one's political opponents from deliberately lying about about what a candidate said. Lies are by definition inventable. If the American public falls for this kinda of pure and outright deception, we deserve the leaders we get.
You write: " But it quickly became clear that sexism is everywhere in our society, and it eventually oozed into every aspect of the discussion. "
I agree with you. I have rarely been as shocked in my life as I was at the commentary that was allowed on public airwaves against Hillary.
@Thomas: If you are unclear about sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, please click on sexist commentary for a detailed post documenting the most insidious of the remarks.

If you are still confused about sexism after that, then all I can say is that for some portion of the population, an understanding of sexism remains mysteriously elusive...
Leigh, I'm developing respect for your thought process in reading your comments and posts. There's a fundamental fairness and wisdom that comes through.

HRC was indeed the object of sexist attacks. Obama is the object of racist attacks, and they'll only get worse before 11/4. Palin has been and will be the object of sexist attacks, alongside legitimate questions about her views and experience. Obama may very well lose because in the privacy of the voting booth, enough Americans will not be able to overcome their hard-wired racism. Why is there such amazement and righteous indignation at these predictable tactics and possible outcomes?

We're "shocked", after Watergate? After Ford's full pardon of Nixon, a month after he took office? After the 1988 Willie Horton ads and Dukakis photgraphed in a tank as "Rockie the Flying Squirrel"? After Bill looked us all in the eye and soberly stated "I never have had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky!"? After the 2000 election debacle--with hordes of elderly Jewish voters in Florida voting for Pat Buchanan (even he thought that was over the line), and thousands of eligible Florida black Democratic voters being illegally removed from registration lists-- ended by a transparently political Supreme Court decision that gave us George W. Bush? After Gore and Kerry each conceded arguably stolen elections without so much as a public peep, "for the good of the country"? (I bet those two concessions had Orwell spinning in his grave). After the 8-year parade of charlatans, liars, dissemblers, incompetents and bootlickers that've populated the first and second Bush administrations?

Although Camille Paglia in her essay on main Salon accuses Bill Clinton of long-term misogyny, regarding his documented serial infidelities, he remains a glamorous, charismatic figure among many female Democrats, while John Edwards is ostracized from the DNC, and becomes virtually invisible, for engaging in one revealed affair. What is the moral relativism, the standard, at work there? Who speaks for the millions of voters who supported Edwards all along? Answer: Obama, the winner! It was a competition, a race, and he won. End of story. Now we're in a new story.

Paglia says Palin is a new kind of "frontier" feminist. Whether you agree with this or think Paglia has lost it, the fact is millions of admiring females out there may buy this package, not because Palin is a woman, but because she (supposedly) believes in the things these women believe in, because she looks and sounds terrific, like they'd want their mother or sister or best friend to look and sound, and because she seems to "have it all", the Holy Grail of Feminism: a bunch of kids, a loyal, attentive husband, a successful career, and now the opportunity of a lifetime, political stardom (if you can't make it in the movies, politics is the next best thing, n'est-ce pas?) She's following in the recent footsteps of the captivating Olympic swimmer Dara Torres, without the 20 years of intense daily workouts (and only a couple of years older). She's a ROLE MODEL!
Or at least that's the Schmidt playbook.

$64,000 Question: Will It Stick? If it does, Obama is toast. "Issues" may never again have any reasonance in presidential politics, and the old axiom will have been realized,
"Washington is really Hollywood for ugly people...and Sarah!"
You may not see yourself as a victim because it is no longer fashionable to do so, but it is embedded at this point in the ideology and a distraction from what is happening now. The focus needs to be on political reality, who will benefit from the candidates and who will not--in a real world--not the world of "establishing ourselves as political power players." If the only reason you backed Clinton was because she was a woman you are no different to me than the ideologues on the right who will do the same tired routine with Palin. It's time to think outside the box and retire the rhetoric itself. We got the message, everybody got the message, the Neanderthals got the message, it's time to move on, but the new message won't even be heard when the old one keeps drooooooooing on.
Stonecutter: Camile Paglia is con artist. She calls herself a Democrat to suck in the unwary, but she is a devotee of Rush Limbaugh. If you look at my file on Salon, I document case after case of when she did no more than dump on Hillary in ways that defied fair play. You can find better reference points for your thinking reading Mad Magazine. (If they still publish it.)
Stonecutter, thank you. I appreciate your kind words more than you realize, I think.

And I don't dispute this:

HRC was indeed the object of sexist attacks. Obama is the object of racist attacks, and they'll only get worse before 11/4. Palin has been and will be the object of sexist attacks, alongside legitimate questions about her views and experience.

But I also don't see a concerted Democratic plot in the attacks on HRC as I do with the GOP.

This in-fighting is ridiculous and smacks of real bitterness, and I can't get behind it. I very, very happily cast my vote for HRC in the primaries and I was proud as hell to do so. I voted for in part because she was a woman, as I believe that a woman will bring a certain perspective to the White House that I share (unless that woman is Sarah Palin, whom I cannot imagine sharing much at all with).

I was disappointed that Clinton lost, proud that she lost by such a narrow margin, and very pleased that, if she had to lose to someone, it was someone of Obama's calibre.

Of course McCain's camp will decry any criticism of Palin as sexist--we all know that. But that doesn't mean it will be sexist, or that we have to take that bait. Obama didn't today, and he was right to "call a pig a pig," so to speak.

We are so not sunk yet. Obama's team will hit back and hard, and without resorting to sexist attacks. He didn't resort to it with Clinton, he won't do it now.

She's small-minded, mean-spirited, ambitious and unprepared. It will show, I'm sure of it.
Stellaa, please. Please please please don't tell me you're actually buying into the notion that the Obama campaign are so controlled on language that they were hoping to indirectly call Palin a pig and have that be some kind of dog whistle that no-one would pick up on.
Fellow Women:

Excuses and lies to disguise rank racism. It comes down to this - if you believe in shared prosperity, equal rights, the Bill of Rights, the right to choose, the right to privacy, environmental protection, the integrity of science, fair trade, honesty, integrity and civility, there is but one choice, and it is not McCain and the wolf/moose/bear butcher Palin.

Any woman who claims she supported Clinton but will now vote McCain because of Palin is a liar, traitor, and betrayer. To hell with them.
Stellaa - I agree with you. Obama's "lipstick" statement
was deliberate. The word lipstick is closely associated
with Palin, because of the joke she made. And men love to call women pigs. This is typical Obama, whenever he gets called on his bullshit he declares that it's a distraction to do so.

Dan Conley - "Pulling this blank slate out of Alaska
is no one's responsibility but McCain's" well, from
most indications McCain's choice was a brilliant
move.

Shellouise: it's going to be all right. Take a
deep breath.

Stonecutter: I rarely agree with Paglia, but on most
of her recent Salon regular post she is spot on, 'cept
when it comes to Hillary.

Heather, the WaPo article was very interesting, I
especially liked the statement by the Repub woman
regarding it being a "man's world" and how sick
she was of that fact.
It seems to me that the only thing to do is to do what the Republicans are doing and totally ignore things they don't want to address, (which in their case would be real issues), and ignore Palin until/unless she comes out of "hiding" and speaks to them. Even then, Obama/Biden must only address her in terms of issues and with courtesy and tenacity persist.
If she goes off subject, she must be brought back.
If the other side sulks and screams sexism, they must be ignored and the question asked again.
PERIOD.
Other than that they need to ignore her existence and deploy "camp" spokespersons to deal with frivolous issues and then do so in a frivolous manner.
The country is truly in trouble--that means all of us--to waste so much time on schoolyard nanner nanner is dismaying to say the least, wherever it rears its nasty little head.
" 88 ears "
A misprint ?
Freudian slip ?
Backhand slap @ Barrock ?
I liked your piece, but would disagree that Palin is not a worthy candidate. There can be no doubt now that sexism is running wild in this country and it comes from both genders. A good example of unintentional sexism is Joe Biden introducing his wife as being incredibly good looking. He seemed so proud of that fact. What does that mean? That he chose well. That they look good together. That somehow she is pretty because she chose to be pretty. That looks matter how? He did throw in later that she is also a professional, but seemed to mumble about that as if it was secondary. People are born with looks, good or bad. Christie Brinkley was born "good looking" and capitalized on that fact. Along with that she had an out-going personality that helped her career. However all that did not help her pick good mates. Joe Biden constantly notices hair, women body parts, as if somehow in politics that matters. Hillary was dogged for years for hair style, again as if who gives a darn. I never did. I didn't care if she chose a pink pantsuit or a blue one. I cared that she help bring healthcare reform to this country. Sometimes the Hillary package was quite lovely, and sometimes not. Big deal. This time around it was an aged Hillary running and she was deemed part of the old establishment with the media once again picking on her feminine traits as if that mattered. I am a republican but I found myself HUNDREDS of times writing notes in support of her and pointing out how sexist our media and country still is. I knew that Barack would not pick her. What I really objected to about him was his silence when he knowingly saw sexism applied to Hillary. His pastor slammed Hillary and he said nothing. Topping that silence off he chose to ignore the millions of women that stood behind Hillary believing they would buck up and get into line like good girls and vote for him. If you recall in the very beginning of this campaign cycle many black women were behind Hillary. It was Michelle Obama campaigning in MISS that told those women to not vote their gender but instead vote their race. I was furious about that and still am. If I had an open mind about the Obamas it shut that day. Hillary worked very hard for many years as a woman on women's issues only to be slapped across the face by another woman insisting that race trump gender. We should not be at all surprised that sexism is alive and well in this country when sisters work against each other. At the same time, I can now understand why the black community will vote for Obama based on race and not job experience. I understand their pride seeing a bi-racial man campaigning for the top office in this country. I really get that now. I get that because that is how I feel when I watch Palin talk. I feel an energy I have never felt. I see a sister. I see a frontier woman making her mark. Yup, I get it.
Hillary Clinton, with the help of the media, tried to cast the primary as a battle of the sexes. Just as she tried to say that Obama was being deified by the media, Obama was unelectable because he didn't appeal to white working class voters, Obama wasn't ready to lead on day 1, etc., etc., etc. It all did nothing to mask the mistakes and miscalculations made by her campaign, her advisers, and her husband. There was no consistency or clarity - every other week the campaign became about something else.

Everyone should know by now that Sarah Palin in not what she says she is and she is certainly no Hillary Clinton. She called Hillary Clinton a whiner, not Obama. This is girl on girl crime. Just like all of the millions of women voters who for some reason still think that a woman is not able to overcome victimization (real or imagined) without first becoming the victimizer.

I give women more credit. I think it is possible for a capable and accomplished female candidate like Hillary Clinton to win without going on the attack if she runs a tight campaign, which Hillary did not. I think by now she has seen and acknowledged the mistakes and moved on. So should all of her loyal and well-meaning supporters. And I don't mean move on to John McCain and Sarah Palin.
It's not just the tone deafness, there's seems to be a certain spinelessness in the campaign. Weak ears followed by weak knees.
I think they need a pitch perfect attack dog, to wit: the Ragin' Cajun.

I can just about hear James Carville following up "lipstick on pigs" with: " An' fuddermore, if pigs could fly, Johnnie Maverick hyah wouldna have been ditchin' planes in Nam."

Axelrod and co. seem to have dozed off in smug or exhausted satisfaction after "beating" Hillary. Speaking as a Red Sox fan, it's like teams celebrating after making it to the playoffs. (Rewind to 2003) Wake up, goddamit, it's been 86 years since we won the World Series.

WOOF
@Ben Sen
I'm no expert on Paglia, and was unaware of your contention that she's a devotee of Rush. Notwithstanding, she writes cogently and scores literary and substantive points on many issues. She obviously has bones to pick to with Hillary and Gloria Steinem, and sees herself as a "dissident" feminist, which, in the context of her defense of Palin and her blunt acknowledgement of her own atheism and libertarianism, must mean alot more right-leaning than the mainstream feminism represented by Salon. I'm no ideologue, so I appreciate her for the things she says that make emminent sense, and discard the stuff that feels off the wall. BTW, I happen to enjoy MAD when my son passes it along to me, and find the satire there often far more enlightening than some of the stuff here.

To Leigh: My own sense of Palin is that she's riding a predictable wave at the moment, but there's a vapidness to her rhetoric, maybe even to her as an individual, a repetition of stump platitudes that echoes McCain's own sedative oratory, and will wear thin. Having said that, I have little faith in the mass of voters out there to discern her shallowness and re-focus on the issues. Rebecca Traister of main Salon wrote anxiously today,

"What Palin so seductively represents...to the general populace, is a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women. It's like some dystopian future ... feminism without any feminists."

I'm not sure I agree with the main point of this quote. Palin may in fact be tapping into the collective psyche of most ordinary American women, for whom "intellectual" pursuits and political activism are not even on the radar. There a millions and millions of these women. I'm not one of them, of course, but my male intuition tells me that Palin has stuff they like, they admire, they'd want to emulate if they could. They don't relate to pedantic jargon like "they don't upset antiquated gender norms", a phrase Traister uses in her contemptuous condemnation of Palin's list of obviously popular female retro-traits.

To employ a cherished Yiddishism, Traister is "farblondjet." She's rocked to her foundations, and trying at once to both figure out how her brand of feminism has been forced to retreat, and to recover the high ground through Palin's deconstruction. Is she the perceived real deal for millions of American women and men, or just a brilliant firework, exploding in the night sky this week and then...pffftt! Time and revelation will tell.
Leigh Bailey asks:"ePriddy, I sometimes wonder who you're addressing? What makes you think anyone commenting on this thread--male OR female--believes that men are owed anything?"

Can you say misandry? ePriddy exemplifies it.
Stellaa, not to canonize the Cajun or anything, but the first night of the Dem convention he asked trenchantly: "Where's the beef?" Exactly. Dems had been lollygagging for the last two months and they were lollygagging then.

I think he instinctively realized that the Republicans going second had an advantage, which the Dems HAD to negate by seizing the initiative, framing the terms of the debate first, create straw men, if necessary, and then ATTACKING the straw men.

Instead, the Dems spent four days "defining" themselves. Well, who's defining now?

Too despondent to woof.
The reasons it'll be difficult for Obama to win are several...not just the gender overlay...but the newly re-emerging reason is that the Democratic Party split the day Hillary got bounced.
We now have a significant minority of Democrats who want to see Obama "get his".
It's fatal.
This woman's a kook and should be exposed as such.But when we as a people lose sight of the shitty job the Bush Treasury Secretaries have done,the neo-fascist way in which his Attny Gen has operated,the Dr Strangelove Defense Secs,the torture, Katrina,the old boy collusion on the denationalization of Iraqi oil fields..on and on....so we can settle an intraparty score,we deserve everything we get next November.
And pretending that every candidate in the race has not used the "lipstick" quip and afixing it to Obama to expose your anti-Obama lean won't get it done,either.
Show me anything that the actual Obama campaign did in the primary that even closely resembled this and I'll give the sexism arguments a little more weight. The fact of the matter is that Hillary was the victim of sexist attacks by individuals, certain media outlets and hundreds of fowarded chain emails. Neither Obama nor his campaign ever attacked Clinton because of her gender.

However, Hillary and her "the ends justify the means" Rove-ian tactics deliberately and systematically attacked Obama using racist arguments. Thankfully, she lost and we are a better nation for it.
Did Hillary defend him from jingoistic/racist attacks? Did Hillary, say, refrain from saying that "John McCain and I are ready to be president, Barack I don't know about?"

Perhaps he should have read her talking points in his ads?

Obama never said her accomplishments and experience "weren't enough" - he said they didn't constitute an overwhelming edge over his, that she was making too much of them, and that in any case that was offset by the fact that she was a) too wedded to existing entrenched interests and b) didn't have the right approach to bring about any of what we all want in the existing political climate. Nothing sexist.

I can understand being pissed at the sexism that surfaced, but punishing Obama for it is an asshole thing to do.

I mean, this really gets me:
"Attacks on her, however justifiable or accurate, are going to be seen as attacks on womanhood itself."

So she gets a free pass and them's just the breaks, because the sisters are too prone to the "rally around our fellow victim" sop to listen to anything bad or truly frightening about this woman? Sorry, be pissed and insulted all you want - that.will.not.fly.

She's a public servant and will be judged on past performance and statements like everyone else - and also on personal example like everyone else.

Are we allowed to say how much she resembles Dick Cheney in her vindictiveness and lack of commitment to accountability? Or is that a sexist attack, somehow meant to de-feminize her by comparing her to a repellent old man, thus basically calling her a hag? (me can play this game!)

Are we allowed to talk about her Dominionist, Joel's Army ties? Or is that demeaning to... I fail to find a fit for this one.

Are we allowed to talk about her lies regarding earmarks and the bridge? Or does one not tell a lady she's lying?

What can I say? Y'all vote for Sister Sarah. I give up.
I do not quite understand the people who argue that, if it were not for the mean spirits of the Obama campaign, Clinton would have won and would have easily beaten McCain.

It seems to me that the inability to beat Obama boded poorly for any general election campaign. Or, to put it another way, if you thought _Obama_ was playing dirty and nasty, and if Hillary Clinton was vulnerable to _that_, how can we think she would have fared any better against the inevitable slime that the Republicans would have used?

You simply cannot have this argument both ways. Either Hillary Clinton's campaign was killed by sexism in the primaries, in which case she would have been doomed from the start in the general election, or she was a candidate who could have easily brushed aside the inevitable general election smears, in which case she should have been able to do so in the primaries.
"Any woman who claims she supported Clinton but will now vote McCain because of Palin is a liar, traitor, and betrayer. To hell with them."

I really don't think any more needs to be said.