Palefoot Front Runners

by Molly Ivors

Well, thanks for all your kind words on my last post, folks, but I've been reflecting a lot on this "you disagree on substantive policy issues, so you're a racist" line of thought, and I think we'd all better prepare ourselves for what's coming, by Super Tuesday if not South Carolina (schedule here). I will state unequivocally, as I have before, that I could and will easily throw my support behind any of the remaining candidates (with the possible exception of Bill Richardson, who appears to have had a Charismatic Bypass operation, and who, as my beloved Hecate notes, did fuck-all for energy independence in the sole Democratic administration of the last 28 years).  They're all charming, intelligent people with strong support, even if only some of us make it into the paper.

But.

Primary season is all about highlighting differences. Theoretically, each candidate could merely stump on their own merits and let the pundits figure out the differences, but in our current era of personality have-a-beer-with political analysis, that's just out of the question. Call it rampaging Dowdism.

Or possibly, the pundits are too goddamned lazy to figure out differences on their own, and they like it better when candidates attack rather than explain. That's only one of the conclusions to be drawn from this bizarre encounter, noted by the Washington Post the other day:

During a question-and-answer session with reporters after the speech, Matthews asked Clinton how her plan to get out of Iraq is different from Obama's. She started describing her plan. He interrupted to insist she distinguish it from her rival's. Here's how it went from there:

"Well, you guys can figure out the difference," she said.

"No," Matthews interrupted, "you tell us the difference."

"I'm not on your show," she retorted. "I'm trying to answer the question."

"Please come on the show," Matthews implored.

"I never understood why you're obsessed with me," she replied. "Honestly, I've never understood it."

Tweety watchers, among whom I decidedly do not count myself, have long noted Matthews' obsession with President and Senator Clinton. He hates them, trumpets every piece of bad news about them, even does a lame-ass impression of Bill, or so I hear. (In the desire to retain my soul, I don't watch him.) But begging in public is a little weird, even for him. Still, kudos to Senator Clinton for calling him out, both on his laziness and his creepiness.

I was thinking about this encounter while reading Gloria Steinem's thoughtful OpEd today, comparing the relative and considerable merits of Senators Obama and Clinton, and the clear difference in their treatment. Steinem argues that a woman with Obama's credentials could never be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, noting the pervasive and naturalized attitudes which plague gender relations in America: "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House."

Steinem notes that generally, in the race for equity, black men have clocked in ahead of women: "the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)." Which is not to say that it's an Oppression Race, just to note that American history does have precedent in this arena. Why?

The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.

As far as I know, no one has yet shown up at an Obama rally with a sign that says "Eat Watermelon," although a parallel event did happen at a Clinton rally yesterday.

SALEM, N.H. -- In an unprecedented display on the campaign trail, two young men interrupted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton here on Monday night, screaming: "Iron my shirt! Iron my shirt!"

Clinton seemed not to understand the chant at first, but when she finally heard it, replied: "Oh, the remnants of sexism, alive and well."

There's even a picture:

Think about this: were someone to do something equally offensive at an Obama rally, the public outcry would be deafening. And it should be. UPDATE: Made it onto Yahoo! (h/t blerb) and into the wingnut blogosphere, who are sure it's a plant. Or just some dumb kids. Whatever. Who cares? Wheee!

But the public outcry from the left should be deafening, too, and I'm seeing a whole lot more about the authenticity of tears than the patently offensive nature of the attacks on Senator Clinton. But the silence is deafening, isn't it?

Ultimately, Steinem offers a hopeful prognosis, tempered by some understandable worries:

[T]o clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

But what worries me is that he  is seen as unifying by his race while she  is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

Is entrenched sexism Obama's fault? Of course not. But neither should he ignore the fact that he might be benefitting from it (as well as from the corporate media's blind fear of economic populism). If invoking Johnny Mathis earns me a "slur" from a soi-disant liberal, then how can we countenance, even by silence, the repeated demands for and attacks on gendered behavior levelled at Senator Clinton?

UPDATE: Bad form, John.

Comments

[Captain Goto]

Good ol' Gloria...the old boys couln't try and write her off fast enough, but girlfriend has always had the chops. We don't hear enough from her...thanks, Molly I!

[SteveB]

not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

Well, I'm kind of lazy myself, so my impression of Hillary Clinton's "progressive policies" isn't based on reading the position papers at her website. It's based on eight years of experience with her husband, NAFTA, welfare "reform", all of it.

I'd define "Washington status quo" as the simple fact that corporations rule our government. Bill Clinton helped that along, and I suspect his wife will too.

Is it sexist of me to base my assessment of her policies on her husband's? Maybe, but what better indicators do we have? Remember, Bill's campaign lit in '92 (at a time when candidate's didn't have websites) was pretty damn progressive, too. And if the two of them have any serious differences about policy, they do an excellent job of keeping that from the public.

[madamab]

What an insightful article from Gloria Steinem. I always knew Hillary was going to have an uphill battle because of her sex.

Legislatively, at least on domestic issues, Hillary has been quite progressive. There is plenty in her record to support this assertion.

But by all means, ignore everything she's done in the Senate and base everything on her husband's record. That's not sexist at all!

[SteveB]

Please, tell me more. I've been mostly following foreign policy, so what I know of her Senate record is her vote for the Iraq war, her subsequent votes to continue funding it and her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, giving Bush a hand up in his effort to start a war with Iran. Oh, and the Patriot Act, too.

My main objection to Bill was that, most of the time, he simply acted as a tool for multinational corporations. So what I would tend to look for in Hillary is some evidence that she might actually oppose the corporate agenda. Any examples of this in her Senate record? (And I'm not being snarky here, I genuinely want to know.)

And I think the idea that it might be sexist to base one's thinking about Hillary on Bill's record was pointed out previously. By me, in fact.

[Jack]

As far as I know, no one has yet shown up at an Obama rally with a sign that says "Eat Watermelon,"

You're a fucking racist. You think this is appropriate for public discourse?

[Stuart Eugene Thiel]

Shouldn't we be making more hay out of the fact that the Winger could get that close to Hillary with his "iron my shirt" sign? A leftie equivalent would be doing well to be in the same town as Bush, let alone in the hall.

[Molly Ivors]

You're a fucking racist. You think this is appropriate for public discourse?

Not at all.

Nor is "Iron My Shirt."

Your point?

[whiskey girl]

I Look Like A Girl, but I'm really a tiger...

[nick]

You're a fucking racist. You think this is appropriate for public discourse?

Not at all.

Nor is "Iron My Shirt."

Your point?

Nice post.

Now get back in the kitchen and get me a damn beer.

[Thers]

Now get back in the kitchen and get me a damn beer.

You may have just made Molly's point.

[actor212]

Nice post, Molly.

No snark. I agree with much of what you said here, and where I don't, I find myself at a loss for having thought it all through.

And I'll get my own beers, thank you. I'm a man, after all.

[Raenelle]

The obvious sexism has been turning my stomach. However, I was also upset that, after Clinton made the point about Matthews obsessing on her, she then gave him a smile and a hug. She kissed a virulent sexist on the cheek. I haven't seen a more degrading make-nice since Sammy Davis, Jr. and Richard Nixon. This isn't a boo-boo like spilling your wine at a party. Matthews has been hounding her with sexist criticisms for years. And with sexism, it's not just about Hillary--it's about me, too, and I don't like seeing candidates soothe the bad behavior of people who ridicule my gender.

[tim quick]

Jeeze, I don't know who's kidding in this thread and who's not. Just goes to show you. . .

Nice post, Molly. I agree that, as difficult as it is to quantify, gender inequality is still a more powerful and pernicious force that racism (at least comparing within our society, if we start comparing say America to Africa it gets more complicated...)

I just moved back to St. Louis from the East Coast after twenty years and my relatives, when they are not trying to tip-toe around the feelings of Mr. Liberal former Professor Guy, openly proclaim they would never vote for a woman or a "niggar" to be president. On the other hand, a few have told me that they are going to vote for Obama (if they can) to help "heal" America. (So far no "healing" votes for Hillary. Surprise!)

Anyway, much as I'm supporting John Edwards, it's hard to resist wanting to see Hillary or Obama as the nominee just for what we are going to learn about where people really are now on race and gender. . .

[nick]

Now get back in the kitchen and get me a damn beer.

You may have just made Molly's point.

I was trying to at least re-inforce her point.

The joke was meant to be in bad taste. But I really did intend it as a joke.

The fact that the person before me could not make the connection between "iron my shirt" and "eat watermelon" was worth satirizing, I thought.

But maybe I'm just a schmuck.

Probably both.

[Molly Ivors]

nick,
no problem.

To avoid misunderstanding in the future, the preferred phraseology is "Fetch me an eclair, bitch," for reasons with a long and complex history involving Miss Havisham and our friend watertiger.

[acallidryas]

I actually saw Clinton's cheek kiss and pat to Chris Matthews as a condescending type gesture, not an apology. I might be wrong, though.

As to it being sexist to judge Hillary by Bill, it is probably sexist to judge a woman's opinions based solely on her husband's. But when Politician A uses Politician B in much of their campaign literature, has Politician B go on shows to talk them up, and repeatedly talks about their time working with Politician B as part of their political experience, it is only reasonable to assume that Politician A and Politician B have very, very similar political opinions. I don't think it's any more sexist to judge Hillary by Bill than it was to judge Gore by Bill. Incorrect, possibly, but it's a natural and reasonable assumption that they'll move in the same political direction.

[nick]

I would worry that Miss Havisham might actually be in listening distance.

eeeewwwwwwww......

although I does like me a good eclair...

[actor212]

To avoid misunderstanding in the future, the preferred phraseology is "Fetch me an eclair, bitch,"

I prefer "Leave the gun. Take the cannolli."

["Fair and Balanced" Dave]

The "Iron My Shirt" episode was stunt by two Boston radio "shock jocks". (And to think I thought "shock radio" had hit bottom with Imus' "nappy-headed ho's" comment.)

F&B Dave,
I saw that, but as the article I saw (from the Daily News) linked back to Hot Air quoting many Jammy Jams Media figures without irony, I didn't take it very seriously.

So it was intended to be humorous? Or to draw attention to themselves?

[Captain Goto]

So it was intended to be humorous?

Irrelevant if you are a shock jock.

Or to draw attention to themselves?

*Ding Ding Ding* There is nothing so smugly asshole-ish that it could be disqualified from consideration as a shock-radio publicity stunt...

[actor212]

F&B Dave,

Apparently, you didn't study the "Bababooey" incidents here in the city before Howard Stern hit it really big.

One time, during a major crisis (think it was a blizzard), a local news crew, very respected (headed by closeted wingnut, Chuck Scarborough), took an on-air call from a Con Ed spokesman who spoke very intelligently about the work the utility was doing, yadayadayada, and then shouted out "BABABOOEY!" live on air.

Worse, after the shuttle Columbia crashed, some idiot called in as a "Captain Janks" of the Air Force to Dan Rather at CBS and said that Baba Booey's teeth had been found in the wreckage.

So..."Iron My Shirts" is actually high class from that crowd.

[Molly Ivors]

I admit I have no patience with the antics of shock jocks, so this is all sort of mysterious to me.

Would they pull something comparable at an Obama rally?

[actor212]

Molly,

Hm. They might. That's hard to say.

See, as Steinem points out, poking fun at "traditional" gender roles is more palatable than poking fun at "traditional" ethnic and racial stereotypes. And safer. Look at Imus.

Where it took an actual sexual encounter in St Patrick's Cathedral to get Opie and Anthony thrown off the air, despite their "Whip'em Out Wednesday" theme, where "chicks" were encouraged to flash their tits to help men suffer their commutes.

That's the mentality you're dealing with and also the differential in acceptability.

Imagine if O&A had asked "negroes" to "pick they Fros Thursdays".

[Eric Martin]

Just wanted to say great post.

[trishka]

okay, in a similar vein to this, i saw recently in a store these hillary clinton - get this - nutcrackers. they were little figurines of senator clinton with nutcrackers for legs. you stick the nut in her crotch and - SHE BREAKS IT.

it was the must disgusting offensively sexist and misogynist thing i have seen in a long time.

and i was wracking my brain for some similar tchotchke that could be put forth for obama - NOT THAT I'M SAYING IT SHOULD - in a racist vein, and drawing a blank. an obama doll dressed in minstrel show garb maybe? eating watermelon?

and i tried to imagine something like that actually being for sale for real in a store somewhere. i mean maybe it happens and i just live under a rock, but i can't imagine it. honestly.

the way misogyny is expressed so openly in this country and without consequence, as opposed to racism, well, it's just really telling about where we are.

[TrishB]

Thank you for this post. I'm not yet sure where my vote is going in the primary, but the kind of sexism you've highlighted makes me want to scream. It seems that anytime someone is seen as defending HRC just by pointing to inherent sexism in media coverage, that person is dismissed as a supporter. One doesn't need to be a supporter to see sexism front and center.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Pitting racism vs. sexism is bad form. Open sexism is more acceptable, sure, but that doesn't mean that sexism as a force is more devastating than racism. Compare the salaries of women to black men, or the incarceration rates. That Obama gets more of a free pass than Clinton perversely demonstrates how racism is probably worse than sexism; the media types having shit fits over women in power are concerned that the bitches at home are agitating. But they aren't so worried about the blacks getting uppity, since most of them are mired in economic deprivation that makes it hard to effect real change.

[TrishB]

Amanda- I agree with you on the racism v. sexism issue. Neither should be accommodated at all. So far in the MSM, I've seen far less of racism than sexism . . . ah shit. There was the WaPo article on Obama's so-called religion, which of course fed into the whole pseudo-issue. There have some been some big hit pieces against Obama in that sense, which attack race obliquely. The ongoing digs seem to be against Clinton and her so-called balls in a far more direct way. For the moment.

[Molly Ivors]

The ongoing digs seem to be against Clinton and her so-called balls in a far more direct way. For the moment.

Absolutely. And today's Ball-Busting Bitch is tomorrow's Scary Black Man, and anyone who thinks that they're going to lay off Obama if he does win this is sorely mistaken.

[Jake T. Snake]

Bill Clinton-best moderate republican president this country ever had.

As to how much of Bill we will receive with Hillary...no one knows what goes on inside anyone else's marriage, but my wife and I tend to see the world similarly and influence one another's worldview. 15 years together will do that. She will have her own positions on issues, but in the main I would be hard pressed to believe that she would be a radically different policy maker than her husband. So the Faustian bargain before me, I suppose is do I want to elect a moderate corporatist republican or a radical, balls to the wall corporatist republican? While I understand that it is necessary to consider who a candidate is and how it informs his/her policy decisions, I must reiterate(as so many of you have done here eloquently, most especially Molly), that the real issue is what a candidate outlines as his/her policy or intent once elected. Nutshell version...if you tell me you intend to end the war in Iraq and implement a socialized medical system I will be your, you should forgive the expressions bitch/boy. I would vote for a convicted child sexual offender with these policy stances, sadly, he isn't running. I shall take another shot of Jameson's and chew on a bacon sandwich while considering my present somewhat unattractive alternatives

[arbitropia]

I was also upset that, after Clinton made the point about Matthews obsessing on her, she then gave him a smile and a hug.

As she approached him, but before she patted his face, he reached out and pinched her on the cheek. I repeat: TV gasbag Chris Matthews reached out and pinched the cheek of a woman who is a former First Lady, current Senator, and current presidential candidate, the same woman he's obsessively brutalized on his show for a decade. And Clinton seemed totally unfazed by it. Unless they're sleeping together (which would, of course, explain a hell of a lot), it struck me as an enormously sexist/infantilizing move, and I'm really surprised the blogs I've read on the subject have missed or ignored that moment.

[Molly Ivors Is A Racist]

The fact that the person before me could not make the connection between "iron my shirt" and "eat watermelon" was worth satirizing, I thought.

No, I got it. I think you're using a sexist attack as an excuse to hurl racist invective. Whether the two statements are roughly equivalent is not the point, the point is you're perpetuating racism and using the justification that you're attacking sexism. That is wrong. And you are a racist.

[Molly Ivors]

As she approached him, but before she patted his face, he reached out and pinched her on the cheek.

Holy crap. I hadn't seen that either.

MIIAR, a serious question: does it matter to you that these were "shock jocks"?

[Molly Ivors Is A Racist]

MIIAR, a serious question: does it matter to you that these were "shock jocks"?

Does it matter to you that one of the shock jocks is a Hillary supporter?

[Molly Ivors]

Does it matter to you that one of the shock jocks is a Hillary supporter?

By his own account, he was given the sticker that evening, which proves nothing.

[Molly Ivors Is A Racist]

Other than that Hillary's aides had seen him at their rallies before.

[nick]

The fact that the person before me could not make the connection between "iron my shirt" and "eat watermelon" was worth satirizing, I thought.

No, I got it. I think you're using a sexist attack as an excuse to hurl racist invective. Whether the two statements are roughly equivalent is not the point, the point is you're perpetuating racism and using the justification that you're attacking sexism. That is wrong. And you are a racist.

Except that is not what is being done here as both comments were presented as being completely infantile and despicable. The point, to be overly direct, as you seem incapable of handling more than one level of removal, is that "Iron My Shirt" is a disgusting statement of traditional "family values" bred sexism. The question was whether anyone would employ similarly traditional racist language and symbolism against Obama and why it was somehow more acceptable to be disgustingly sexist than it is to be disgustingly racist.

I utilized, and Molly utilized, shocking language because, among many other things, part of the joy of this blog is to take back The Shocking Language™ from those who employ it in service of (a) sophomoric humor or (b) truly venomous irrational invective or (c) some combination of (a) and (b), and employ it in the service of a humanist, progressive world-view which neither dismisses the human emotional reaction to language nor overly romanticizes the possibility of hurt feelings.

So fuck you.

[nick]

... not that there is anything inherently wrong with venomous irrational invective ...

[jstrick]

I keep going over this article in my head and this is just wrong. I'm not sure I can put this into words correctly, but I'll try. I realize that this is not an oppression race but am I really to believe that white women have somehow had a harder road than black men? I do realize that the pervasive sexism shown to HRC is horrible and they would not do that to any black person but to say that somehow Hillary's road is harder than a black man is ridiculous. Maybe I'm missing something but black men were lynched for looking at or speaking with white women during the half century before women had the right to vote but that doesn't matter, we could vote(yaaay!). Are white women somehow profiled by police? Do people believe that somehow white women are criminals until they prove otherwise? Again please do not tell me somehow a white woman can have it worse than a black man in America. I wish this was just a matter of asking why the press is being so sexist to Hillary and asking why more people aren't coming to her defense as we should but that's not the argument.

[trishka]

amanda, i agree with what you wrote about pitting racism vs. sexism and i did not intend to do that, though i can understand how it would appear that way.

and i also agree that while racism isn't presented as overtly as sexism, the covert effects are in many ways much greater.

but how do we talk about this? i admit to being at a bit of a loss here.

i do believe that the rampantly open misogyny that is directed at senator clinton is somethin that we should be collectively calling out into the open. when talking about the two front-running candidates, both of whom are members of historically oppressed minorities, how do we talk about this without getting into competetive suffering?

[Molly Ivors]

jstrick,
I'm sorry you see this an "oppression contest." That wasn't my intention at all. But overt sexism and misogyny SHOULD BE as unacceptable in public discourse as overt racism is, and right now, as demonstrated by the punditry and broad comments throughout the blogosphere, it just isn't. That's my whole point.

[jstrick]

Molly,

that wasn't my intent but of course I rambled quite a bit. You are absolutely right sexism should be unacceptable no question about that.

[Tarzanne]

Feminists have long been criticized for lacking a sense of humor. Perhaps Hillary Clinton's best response to the "Iron My Shirts" sign would have been to point, laugh, and say "Nice Try Guys!"

[nick]

Tarzanne -

How about point, scowl, and say "Eat me."

Really - there is no way to chuckle that sign off.

[zuzu]

Feminists have long been criticized for lacking a sense of humor. Perhaps Hillary Clinton's best response to the "Iron My Shirts" sign would have been to point, laugh, and say "Nice Try Guys!"

That's basically what she did.