Most of the spin about the closing stages of the campaign has been about Hillary tearing up. Amanda at Pandagon calls the coverage of this for the sexist crud it is, and anyone who remembers Bob Hawke’s habit of crying might be interested in how when male politicians get all teary, they get praised for it.
Voting in the primary is currently underway, and the first results from two hamlets are in. The Concord Monitor is going to be liveblogging the count, but given the time difference, there won’t be much to see there for quite some time.
Ezra Klein has some interesting posts up on racism
and misogyny as they relate to Obama and Clinton respectively.
The interesting thing about Hillary getting teary is that Edwards was prepared to exploit it, as reported on the ABC tonight, and, so far, anyway there have been no howls of rage. Nor do I think their wiil be. She’s made her point. She’s actually got a heart. One of the things that always fascinates me about the US system is how pollies from the same parties beat up unmercifully on each other during the Primaries, but unite once the candidate is chosen by the Convention. Whereas here, our pollies hate for life – eg Howard/Costello, and there are plenty of other instances. At this stage, though its really far too early, I’ll go out on a limb and predict a Obama/Edwards ticket for the Presidential election. Republicans far too early to call – most of them aren’t even really in the game yet.
Phillip Adams says: Obama must be wary of the assassin’s gun
It happened to Bhutto, but it’s almost unthinkable.
“but it’s almost unthinkable.”
The list of attempted and successful killings of high-profile US pollies is too long to lay out here.
On the other hand, and by all accounts, the Secret Service is one of the best performing arms of the US Federal Government these days. They haven’t lost anybody since K2. Although admittedly Ronnie only survived because Hinckley was a lousy shot. Not enough time at the gun range.
And America’s only got whackier and more heavily armed since then yet no one’s got close enough to take out or even startle a President or presidential candidate with an unanticipated question for the past 26 years.
Obama and everyone else in the race now live inside state-of-the-art bullet-proof, bomb-proof and idea-proof bubbles.
The Russians have the right idea these days when it comes to political assassinations. Sly doses of radioactive materials. Your target slowly withers away in a way that doesn’t make for effective martyrdom while you have weeks if not months to muddy the trail. And shit like Polonium 210 just won’t show up on your standard SS geiger counter.
No wonder Dubya’s never publicly dissed Putin.
Those in USA must work for every vote, even supporters votes, whereas in Australia they wait for all us sheep to turn up for shearing.
USA Republicans or Democrats seem not locked into following party herds when it comes to voting on issues, needing remain focused on pleasing those who vote for them.
IF our party candidates needed so demonstrate local support for themselves in a similar fashion, would we get better or worse candidates ?
Commentators are right to get stuck into Hillary for tearing up because it was so clearly a moment of self pity.
‘Oh poor me for losing in Iowa’
Why shouldn’t people comment that the only time she has shown any signs of grief in public has been in relation to her self.
Otherwise, I agree comments that she has ‘cracked under the pressure’ are implicitly sexist.
At the risk of some-one pointing out that GWB doesn’t seem to have a great deal of self-worth, and has managed to make a very bad situation worse in the world because of his desperate attempts to regain his father’s approval, do we really want an ego-less President in the White House. Most of these guys wouldn’t go for the job if they didn’t have an ego as big as a house.If Hillary fails, which I think she will, it will be because of her past record, not because of her gender. I’m waiting to nsee how the primaries play out in the South before I come to any conclusion about ther impact of race on Obama’s campaign, but I suspect it will be minimal anyway as said states usually go to Republicans nowadays, don’t they?
Trouble is hat Pandagon doesn’t acknowledge that there are productive and there are unproductive public emotional responses to any situation. The sexism that should be noted here is that it is generally assumed or implied that there are a different range of emotional responses permissible from female public figures as contrasted with male public figures.
Remember Howard Dean’s odd shriek during the 2004 primaries. He copped heaps from the media on the suggestion that it demonstrated an imbalance of mind. Perhaps Dean should have thought about that response before he exercised his tonsils. However, there was nothing to suggest that Dean’s mind had become unbalanced. He just forgot the rules of the game momentarily, to his cost.
Politics in general, and the US political system in particular, are strange artificial worlds wherein consenting adults give up being human beings with a full and honest range of emotional responses in return for an opportunity to wield power over others. That is a distasteful bargain in my opinion, but probably unavoidable.
On the general issue of Edwards’ comments about the range of emotional response appropriate to someone acting on behalf of the nation, he is correct. There are many times when a leader should not say what she is thinking and there are many more times when a leader should not act out how she is feeling.
During campaigns candidates parade not only their policies but also their ability to cope with pressure. Pandagon is correct to observe that the emotional vocabulary for aspirant women is much more restricted than for men. But that doesn’t relieve Clinton of the task of working very hard to find the productive emotional response.
Her backers have given her $100m in the reasonable expectation that she will get it right. If she gets it wrong they’ve done their dough.
Hilary’s got her work cut out for her now. The Obama horse has well and truly bolted. I’m not sure how she is going to turn perceptions about her “insider-ism” around, but the fate of her campaign rests entirely on her ability to do just that.
Katz, I disagree that it is a matter of her getting it right. I think the point Amanda at Pandagon was making is that it doesn’t matter what she does, it will be constructed by the media as wrong.
Paul at #6, what we would get would be only those candidates who could afford (or raise, from who knows what sources) the necessary billions. I was congratulating myself only yesterday on living in a sane country whose leader doesn’t need to have been a squillionaire to get to first base. Apparently Mitt Romney spent over $600 for every vote he got in Iowa, and I would very much like to see that kind of batshit craziness stay on the other side of the Pacific.
So how important are the media?
If they aren’t important, then it’s not critical what they think.
If they are critically important, then how do you explain why many people gave Clinton the biggest war chest of them all to help her win. You are implying that these backers had no idea about the impossibility of Clinton winning. Are these backers stupid? Don’t forget this was money from the big end of town, not $5 donations from true believers.
I didn’t say any of this and am not implying anything of the kind. I was clarifying what I thought was a misrepresentation of a point being made at Pandagon, which used the specific instance of Clinton to also make a more general about the way media constructs women. It was not about money (my comments on money were directed at a different commenter and quite separate from the Clinton/media thing) or the importance of media representation as such, which I don’t think any serious person would dispute.
But I do think your chain of reasoning has at least one very weak link. We are talking about media representation of Clinton yesterday, not before she raised all that funding. You’re also assuming that all media, backers etc are singing off the same page, which is demonstrably not the case.
My paraphrase of Pangagon’s point is accurate. However, it requires further elaboration, which I omitted in the first post.
I agree that Pandagon said:
I said:
Here is the elaboration. Pandagon overstates the difficulties faced by women in general and Clinton in particular. If the media merely tut-tut about Clinton and the public pay no heed at all then the media’s verdict is immaterial. Now, we all agree that that’s not true. The media do have some impact, perhaps a lot of impact. But the question is how much impact. Pandagon’s formulation, as you have paraphrased it, assumes that the media have a critical impact.
But unless one asserts that the media have absolute impact then it is incorrect to say it doesn’t matter what Clinton does. She can win despite the media.
And there is an additional point. Pandagon’s formulation implies that Clinton has received no positive media reportage at all. There are thousands of stories wherein clinton is portrayed not as “wrong” but as “right”.
I didn’t misrepresent Pandagon’s point. I disagreed with it.
No I’m not.
However, you are assuming that these people who did donate to Clinton had only a vague idea of the kind of obstacles that she would have to clear to be successful. Only Rip van Winkle would have missed the hate campaign endured by Clinton since her rise to national prominence in the early 1990s.
While I do think the coverage of Clinton’s campaign has been quite sexist, I’m not sure I’d consider this crud. As much as we’d like to aspire to the ideals of equality, politics has a necessity to deal with messy reality. The messy reality is that society’s (or at least the media’s portrayal of) view of an ideal candidate is one that falls between the stereotypical male and stereotypical female on the emotional scale. This leads to emotional out burst by a male candidate pushing them towards the ideal, while for a female candidate it pushes them away from the ideal.
Sexist? Yes. But so is reality, and so is the general view of the masses (which is what democracy is all about). That said, I barely noticed the media coverage on Clinton’s teary, most of it just covered the fact that Obama was leading the democrats.
Nabakov
It was my understanding that one of the virtues of the New Hampshire primaries is the exceptionally low numbers of voters force the candidates to basically deal with voters one on one, and talk about the issues that the voters want addressed.
Paul @6, at least they’d be accountable to their electorate. No one votes local MPs in and out these days, it’s all about the leadership. Bring on the Additional Member System (Mixed Member Proportional), hence decoupling who wins parliament from who makes up parliament, and you’d see a lot more than sloganeering along the lines of “Working hard to get more done locally” when in actual fact the local members are just seat-warmers and parliamentary vote guarantors.
Its obviously true the media treats women candidates showing emotion far more viciously than men, but I think the comparison with Hawke isn’t entirely valid. Some of the difference is about Australia being better than the US on this stuff. Granted it was longer ago, but consider the case of Ed Muskie – about as well credentialed a candidate as you can find, brought down because he appeared to be crying, but might just have had snowflakes melting on his face. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Muskie
Still, I’d agree with the point that America is, in regard to candidates at least, more sexist than racist. And like Amanda I’m thinking of shifting my support (for what it is worth) away from Edwards over his comments.
“I told you that America is far more sexist than racist, which is why Hillary could never win. Progressives are not much better than the general population in this regard.” (a commenter at pandagon)
“On misogyny, though, I’ve been shocked in the other direction: it’s been more overt, more odious, and more unashamed that I could have predicted. The serial depictions of Clinton in the media (and yes, in blogs and op-eds both right and left) are a veritable hit parade of stereotypes about women: She’s humorless. No, she cackles. She’s a cold robot. No, she’s a hysterical crybaby. She wears ugly pant suits. No, she’s showing too much cleavage. Virgin, whore. Ballbreaker, weakling. Chris ” from Ezra Klein’s site.
I think this will be the really interesting race in American politics. And I believe that racism will fall before sexism ever will.
I noted on the salon in July that the African American feminist, bell hooks, in her book, “Ain I A Woman?” had raised this issue of sexism vs racism in a patriarchal society. hooks pointed to the right to vote being conferred on African American males around 1870 but to white women only in 1920. Which says something. hooks commented on the provisionality of racism which could be set aside when required but of the more stubborn nature of sexism. In a patriarchal world, proressive or conservative, a man is a man is a man, after all. Toni Morrison also alluded to the ease with wich racism evaporates in times of need, ie the shared spaces of war. Sexism on the other hand is monotonous if only for its infallibility in all times and spaces.
I think issue is now unfolding here, as Hillary (like Julia Gillard by the way) begins to be critiqued for crying, for not crying, for the clothes she wears, etc, etc, etc.
Good post Kim.
12% counted.
Clinton 39% 13, 618
Obama 36% 12,860
Edwards 17%
McCain cruising for the gop.
Kim: [Amanda at Pandagon calls the coverage of this for the sexist crud it is,...]
Sure seems that way to me.
“When Edwards almost gets choked up and talks about how personal XYZ person is on the trail, he’s just passionate. When Clinton does it, she suddenly becomes a hysterical weak woman.�
Worth a squizz in below link is celebrity fuck-wit, Michelle Malkin’s heartfelt interpretation of the Fox studio idiot board, as are the examples of the political alpha guys who give the lie to “big boys don’t cry”.
MICHELLE MALKIN: “….look you’ve Bill out there, and Hillary dragged her mother out there, and Chelsea to remind everyone that she’s got a womb, that she’s a woman, she’s a human being….and look there were tears in her eyes…she’s not the glacier that everybody thinks she is….um……but I think….you know….politically speaking it does remind people that….errr….that..that..this woman is all about calculation!”
Way to go, girlfriend!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/07/clinton-tears/
I like this analysis…
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/01/other-white-meat.html
McCain takes New Hampshire!
Rudy battling for fourth with Ron Paul. How embarrassment.
Well Hillary Clinton is not afraid to play the terrorist card back, when she suggested that Obama would be less able to handle an attack than her. I mean it might be sexist to decry Hillary’s tears, but then she swings a handbag full of bricks right back at them.
Megan, I dont get it. Obama refrained from making any comment on her tearing up, it was Edwards who suggested she was weak. So Im not sure what the analogy is. I read this post as about powerful women and the backlash of sexism from the patriarchy and the commentariat. Of course Clinton will strike at Obama’s inexperience, thats politics, but are you saying thats racist politics?
I read somewhere that Clinton is well aware that Bill’s administration effectively threw away the first two years of his term because they didn’t have a clue what they were doing and that’s where she’s coming from on this.
Feministing is doing a sexist asshattery against Clinton watch day:
http://feministing.com/archives/008362.html
thanks for clarifying…
Feral Sparrowhawk.
I had seen that bit about Ed Muskie brought up on a couple of US websites. Seems he was a real contender for the nomination when his minor loss of control cost him his chance.
Clinton wouldnt have choked up without a poll the night before suggesting she should do it. Has there been another time (including Bills infidelity) where she has shown anything like that?
It may be cynical but the lady (and Im sure other nominees on both sides have as well) has been caught out a couple of times with “plants” in the audience asking questions to which she can give carefuly scripted “off the cuff” answers.
I think he biggest problem is her profile, she has been in the spotlight as first lady or senator for many, many years now. To present herself as a change might be a bit to much for most people to stomach.
Interesting how the American “media” – the most diverse and dynamic on the planet -is reduced to “the media constructs women.” Yet not a peep on how the media has treated George Bush over the past 8 years, and thousands of other prominent people, male and female.
Come on. I think we have all moved from the 1980s reductionist “the media did it” riffs. We are not talking about North Korea. In societies, such as the US and Australia, the media acts as a cultural broker, not isolated in some cultural galaxy far, far away.
Nabs, this is rather offtopic, but I think you’re flat wrong on the Litvinenko case.
Polonium is a hugely expensive, spectacular, and very public way to kill somebody slowly and painfully.
One can only draw the conclusion the public, slow, and painful part of Litvinenko’s death was the intention of the assassins.
Obontopic: here is the CNN link to the latest result.
Looks like a cliffhanger between Hillary and Obama for the Democrats. McCain won the Republican primary comfortably, if not exactly in a landslide.
An interesting question now is what Edwards plans to do. Barring a massive screwup by either Hillary or Obama he’s clearly not going to win.
And as a couple have noted, the US democratic system is far, far more robust, locally accountable, and on-the-ground than Australia’s. We’re talking two full years of Maxine McKew in Bennelong multiplied.
And let us not forget the invidious role played by the bourgeois US feminist movements outlets – such as NOW and Ms. Magazine – when they went into meltdown over Clarence Thomas vs. Anitta Hill – but went quiet on Bill Clinton.
Noise volume does not mean accountable elections, John Greenfield.
JG: Only if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire.
“Interesting how the American “mediaâ€? – the most diverse and dynamic on the planet -…”.
Heehee, that’s funny. I wonder who is laughing more, Rupert Murdoch or the execs at AOL-Yime Warner..?
“In societies, such as the US and Australia, the media acts as a cultural broker, not isolated in some cultural galaxy far, far away.”
Ow, JG, stop, heehee, its hurting!
Whatever the relative functioning or position of the media in different societies, the simple ‘media effects’ model has long been discredited in media research. Media consumers are not dupes, and tiresome as it is to put up with sexism in the media, we have to look to other indicators as well to determine the prevalence or effectiveness of sexist attitudes.
Shorter Klaus:
The media is not the cause of sexism.
Klaus
Indeed, far from media consumers being dupes who can only be saved by Cultustduies “affects mediators,” it is media outlets who spend 24/7 trying to understand and atrract “the masses” as they are so charmingly dismissed as above.
Well, it’s not. The media reflects and refracts in complex ways social attitudes, as well as channels them in different directions, consciously and unconsciously for different reasons. And people react to and read these signals differently.
I’m sorry if jinmaro wants everything to be reduced to dumb-assed simplistic sloganeering so she can return to her boring attack on ideas that might be complex.
“The media is not the cause of sexism.”
Indeed, it is not.
“Indeed, far from media consumers being dupes who can only be saved by Cultustduies “affects mediators,â€? it is media outlets who spend 24/7 trying to understand and atrract “the massesâ€? as they are so charmingly dismissed as above.”
This is true to a degree, but you go too far in the other direction to assume that the media simply reflects the wishes of the people, however those companies may see their work. BTW, your position on media effects is currently the dominant one in cultural studies.
Oh dear, I hope John didn’t “absorb” it from a “first year Cultistudi tutorial in a Dawking university”.
Meanwhile, Pandagon reports that AP but not CNN has called the primary for Clinton:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/08/new-hampshire-open-thread/
Klaus K
Good to see they are catching up to what the rest of us have long called “common sense.”
Kim
Come on, you’re use of “sexism” and “misogyny” are so slippery, so opportunitic, so inconsistent as to make both words meaningless, and the invocation of their authority pretty much invalidates any argument relying on them.
“Most of the spin about the closing stages of the campaign has been about Hillary tearing up.”
And it seems to have worked…..
My point is that Klaus’s writing explained a banal, if commonsensical cliche, using far more words than necessary for the benefit of who, precisely?
Offering a critique of media content is a perfectly valid pursuit, even with all of the qualifications I would make. It’s just a limited project which needs to be complemented with other activities, like looking at the political outcomes where they are otherwise measurable, as well as (and this is more important than is often given credit for) examining the words and actions of politicians and other public figures.
Well, Hillary seems to have a large lead among women, and perhaps the increased turnout isn’t just about Obamamania.
Whether or not it was calculated, though, that’s the question. It’s worth mentioning that it came at the end of a televised session where she’d spent over an hour answering questions from undecided voters. She may well be sincere, and very tired after an intense campaign. Just because the Clintons have a rep for being highly calculating, doesn’t mean it was calculated.
For the Misogyny Here, Racism There set, how do y’all call Oprah’s backing Obama? Further evidence that the US is more misogynist than it is racist?
Yeah, and you’ve made your point about a thousand times. We’ve got the message. Why repeat it endlessly unless you’re just trying to needle Klaus and start another fight on your ground?
Bored now.
How about you use your linguistic powers for good not stoushing? Contribute something constructive for once not an ad hominem critique of another commenter. And you wonder why people get sick of your predictable tricks?
You get bored easily, Kim.
“Indeed, far from media consumers being dupes who can only be saved by Cultustduies “affects mediators,â€? it is media outlets who spend 24/7 trying to understand and atrract “the massesâ€? as they are so charmingly dismissed as above.”
Oh really? Anyone here ever been asked what they want to see on TV?
well it looks like Clinton will scrape through in NH. With the discussion here about media construction, it will be interesting to watch Clinton called the “Comeback Kid” with all the momentum, etc. Funny how long a day is in politics – Obama gains 10% in a week and goes backwards, because before the vote he seemed to have gained 20%.
And all over two tiny states with about 0.01% of the delegates needed to win the primary.
I thought you’d be busy working for Edwards this time round, Josh?
Edwards seems a pretty good fit with Obama as VP, but I wonder if he could be VP to Hillary, or if indeed she would have him. I may be wrong but I’d be surprised if Obama put himself up for VP if Hillary continues to win and secures the nomination.
Hard to know, Mindy. There’s been huge bad blood between candidates before and the Veep nomination has still been offered to the candidate who’d most strengthen the ticket – the classic case being Kennedy/Johnson.
Actually Mark I’m conflicted – and I reckon my namesake would be too. Can you imagine Josh going past a strong woman candidate? Or for that matter a strong black candidate (who sounds at times like he’s auditioning for The West Wing)? Symbolic politics is huge. But Edwards is the most progressive candidate (if we have to rule out Kucinich and Richardson) – ‘the real deal’.
I think Josh would go for the long shot underdog… but yep, it’s a tricky one.
In other news, publius at Obsidian Wings has a post up called Gender and New Hampshire (Part One):
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/gender-and-new.html
i know that i am a little late on the ed muskie referance, but wasn’t it Ibogain that produces the “moisture” not tears or snowflakes?
So Hunter S. Thompson claimed.
Muskie’s campaign was actually in free fall before he started crying, and I believe he became incoherent and appeared disturbed, rather than just getting a little emotional.
Chaos on the “Sunshine Special”:
“Muskie Campaign Train Collision Kills 34;
Demo Candidate Blames “Crazy Journalist”
“There was no doubt about it: The Man from Maine(presidential candidate, Senator Ed Muskie) had turned to massive doses of Ibogaine as a last resort. The only remaining question was “when did he start?” But nobody could answer this one, and I was not able to press the candidate himself for an answer because I was permanently barred from the Muskie campaign after that incident on the “Sunshine Special” in Florida.
http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/hsthomp.html
More and more, I’m starting to think that the next US president should just be a baked potato. Or maybe a nice roast beef sandwich. Or a bag of rice, since it probably wouldn’t go bad. The office of president has become far far far too valorized and vested with importance, both bogus and real (if regrettable), as well as real in the Spanish sense. It needs to be lowered many notches, and restored more to the homely idea of functionary-at-the-end-of-the-line, rather than El Supremo Magnifico, which is both ridiculous and highly un-American. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like fiery rhetoric or great oratory (or even the kind of oratory that only thinks it’s great, or passes for such). I don’t want an inspiring amazement-making leader; I want a guy (or gal) who’s basically a glorified dishwasher repairman or subway conductor. Someone who just knows how stuff actually works, and when to leave it alone.
Maybe it’s just low expectations, but I’m feeling pretty good about all 3 Dems in contention. Also it’s nice to see Hillary being pulled back to what passes for Teh Left in America, which is of course her natural turf until recently. She’s much more Part Of The System than the other two but she does have some impressive runs on the reformist board.
Edwards is the most progressive and really understands poverty – hoping for more “2 Americas” speeches from him, if only so people are forced to think for 10 seconds. Interestingly he rates the best in head-to-head polls with the Rep candidates, presumably because he’s a southern white evangelical man (which also means he won’t turn out his opponent’s base come November).
“Obama embodies the changed reality of America”, as Jesse Jackson says, and his approach to Iran is a lot less scary (when did talking to your enemies become so radical? It was core policy for Reagan for crying out loud!). But he’s no Dr King. And nobody going by the name of Josh Lyman could take his feel-good bipartisan crap lying down…
Sounds like a pitch for Eugene McCarthy in 68, j_p_z.
That was more or less his argument.
thanks for the link EC, all my Hunter S got lifted by a housemate from hades a few years back, i’ve had to consol myself with his alter ego Uncle Duke.
Whingeing Feminazis are very quiet following Hitlary’s NH Bitchlapping of Obama. Run back to Judith Butler for orders, perhaps?
Que?
having Hilliary in the White House will be OK as she knows her way around so to speak. Bill was a good President was he not and he will be able to help his wife a lot.
Princeton University reveals how GOP steal elections.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/princeton-university-reveals-how-gop.html
Matt Taibbi from the National Affairs Desk of Rolling Stone mag. has also written at some length about this minor aberration in American democracy. But he’s only a journo so nobody took any notice. Pretty sure Keith Olbermann had a lash at it too. But he’s a bleeding heart liberal, so what do you expect? This time the message is being delivered via a sandstone bluechip. Wonder if anybody notices?
Whingeing Feminazis are very quiet following Hitlary’s NH Bitchlapping of Obama. Run back to Judith Butler for orders, perhaps?
Yes, the Fascist octopus has indeed sung its swan song. Wait until Super Tuesday when the jackboot gets thrown into the melting pot.
Mark, on reading that Richardson is pulling out of the Dem primaries, I looked him up properly for the first time. Without a doubt, he’s the Josh Lyman pick. Ticks both symbolic (he’s Hispanic) and substantively progressive (health insurance for all kids, higher minimum wage, high clean energy targets) boxes – plus has a serious CV including stints as Ambassador to the UN and Energy Secretary.
I also recall he met with anti-nuclear peace activists last year for a few hours to hear them talk about closing Los Alamos, and gave a fairly sympathetic hearing.
Shame he had to pull out really.
Does he have a gorgeous blonde wife and is he a fighter pilot?
It’d be interesting to know why Richardson never went anywhere – could it be that there’s room for only one Clinton era candidate? Is he a boring speaker or unappealing in some way?
According to Crooks and Liars, great resume, lousy candidate:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/10/and-then-there-were-five-richardson-to-bow-out/
And the post intimates that he’s not much of a progressive either.