It’s not about dog whistles, it’s about dismissing HRC with careless sexism. If you’ve never been told you are “ruled by your emotions” in a professional capacity, you probably wouldn’t get it either.
But shit, you know how women are.
For the record, this is #2.
UPDATE: GR explains it further,
If this isn’t intended to be a dog whistle, why didn’t he just say that Hilary Clinton always goes negative when she’s behind in the polls or something like that? Instead, he specifically talks about her ”feelings”, as if he knew anything about them. Moreover, even if we don’t make the obvious connection, the word “periodically” at the very least insinuates that Hilary suffers from a recurring pattern of mood shifts. So what he’s saying is that Hilary is “feeling down” at regular intervals and then starts to do crazy and hysterical things.
Dog whistle, “periodic”, whatever. I don’t get why so many people can’t see this alone as problematic.
Eh, if she can’t take it, what’s she doing in the arena? I’ve been surprised how *little* sexism there has been directed against her by other Dem candidates. I’ve also been surprised at how thin-skinned some of her supporters have been.
It’s politics. The man I supported for the last eight years has been called a drunk, a murderer, a criminal, a thief…and that’s just by his allies. (Rimshot.) If HRC can’t take it, then maybe she should get a job somewhere where “taking vitriolic abuse with a smile” isn’t one of the job qualifications. Because it is, here.
I think “taking vitriolic abuse with a smile” should be the number one bullet-point on HRC’s resume.
My beef is about the beef: there’s so much true believerism in the Obama camp that reasonable folks seem to suspend any kind of healthy skepticism that says he may not be the messiah in a blue suit and red tie, and as such, they bend over backwards to excuse away anything about the guy that might be unflattering.
“I’ve been surprised how *little* sexism there has been directed against her by other Dem candidates.”
I’m not. The sexism that we’ve seen has been unscripted, for the most part. The racism as well.
It’s the casual, everyday bigotry that leaks out.
Eh, if she can’t take it, what’s she doing in the arena?
Except she appears to be quite capable of taking it. None of the blog discussions about it feature appearances by Hillary Clinton herself or, even, any of her major campaign staffers. The people discussing it are just ordinary citizens. None of these blog posts or comments are a reflection on Clinton’s ability to take the abuse. She has proven herself, during her days as First Lady, as eminently able to deal with vitriolic abuse.
My beef is about the beef: there’s so much true believerism in the Obama camp that reasonable folks seem to suspend any kind of healthy skepticism that says he may not be the messiah in a blue suit and red tie, and as such, they bend over backwards to excuse away anything about the guy that might be unflattering.
I’m not reading that. I agree that a lot of my fellow Obama supporters are bending over backwards to excuse this away, but not due to true believerism. I think we’re also witnessing casual, every day sexism in that as well. More of the typical “you women are over-reacting, as per usual; why can’t you just cut us guys some slack.”
I don’t think anything in Obama’s comments dismisses Clinton’s skills remotely as explicitly as Clinton’s claim that Obama offers “speeches, not substance,” which I think by this standard is unambiguously racist. (Perhaps you believe that it is; I disagree on both counts.)
Scott, perhaps there’s a reason that so many women are put off by the statement and similarly put off by the dismissal of any underhandedness by otherwise reliable allies.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
What do you expect? It’s politics / the Internet.
So criticizing a woman is automatically sexist now?
I judge people solely on their own merits.
You’re too sensitive.
I DON’T HAVE TIME FOR THIS CRAP
What I’ve learned from this debate:
* Men are the only credible judges of sexism.
* Women who don’t agree are just crazed extremists.
* Campaigns would never dream of using coded language!
* Obama is above ambition and all other human temptation. He’s so much bigger than our petty complaints.
Learn it, love it, live it!
perhaps there’s a reason that so many women are put off by the statement and similarly put off by the dismissal of any underhandedness by otherwise reliable allies.
You are right on target. I had this experience this morning talking about it with my co-blogger. I was trying to explain that this kind of comment is like nails on a chalkboard, and is the kind of thing that I’ve heard or experienced my whole life. He just didn’t get why something that might be interpreted as a dig at “hormonal women” or what have you would be so irritating. And I got more irritated as I tried to explain it without success. Clearly it is hard to communicate the feeling of being dismissed, underestimated, and reduced to your biochemical processes. And I wasn’t doing the best job of it, but eventually he accepted that although he didn’t really catch the vibe that didn’t mean it wasn’t there. Going through this on the larger scale (“dismissal..otherwise reliable allies”) is really frustrating and discouraging, not to mention that it rubs an already raw nerve.
Adding to this … what exact shade is a SHADY socialist?
Lauren,
I found you via Feministing.
I wanted to let you know about a pro-Clinton grassroots network and blog: The Hillary 1000. We’re a group of women in CT and MA who are trying to raise $$ for Clinton through our networks. I’m the blogger in the bunch, and am trying to raise awareness of our efforts as well as provide a positive space for Clinton supporters on-line.
I hope you’ll check us out, consider donating, and spread the word!!!
http://hillary1000.wordpress.com/welcome-to-hillary-1000/
Thanks!
Best,
Leigh
a.k.a., Redstar of The Redstar Persective
I don’t think anything in Obama’s comments dismisses Clinton’s skills remotely as explicitly as Clinton’s claim that Obama offers “speeches, not substance,” which I think by this standard is unambiguously racist.
Scott, I’m really surprised by this comment. There’s nothing “unambiguously racist” about noting that Obama makes a lot of speeches that don’t have much policy content. He does. His supporters tell us to look at his website, but websites aren’t even necessarily read, let alone written, by the candidate, and it’s what he says in public that matters.
Obama’s comment most certainly does dismiss Clinton’s insight; he’s dismissing the existing content of her words.
Obama frequently uses divisive language while talking about unity. He talks about “the Social Security Crisis”, he disses Wellstone while wanting to “reach across the aisle” to people who have a deliberate program of hurting blacks, women, and working people in general, and we’re not supposed to notice.
The fact that I don’t like Hillary does not blind me to the fact that Obama doesn’t like me. He knows damn well he was accusing Clinton of being on the rag. And so are any of us who notice he’s doing it.
Eh, if she can’t take it, what’s she doing in the arena?
Is that supposed to excuse it? Oh, please. No white man ever gets excoriated for being a white man in the “arena”–they don’t have to prove they can “take it.”
It’s politics. The man I supported for the last eight years has been called a drunk, a murderer, a criminal, a thief…and that’s just by his allies.
None of which is insulting to anyone but himself (and other drunks, murderers, criminals and thieves). Whereas sexism is insulting to all women. Any sexist insult thrown at Hillary implies that women aren’t fit for the job, not that Hillary isn’t fit for the job.
I’ve also been surprised at how thin-skinned some of her supporters have been.
It’s politics. If you’re hit, you hit back, and you also simultaneously claim that your opponents are scum for hitting you like that. If her opponents can’t take that, what are they doing in the arena?