Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 770 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@ Joan Walsh on misogyny vs. racism
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I’d like to address another, related issue here:
I’m not sure if you’re aware of it or intending it but I see an alarming double standard in your writing on the campaign. I understand why you or anyone would be taken aback by the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton. You seem to be less concerned with or sensitive to the racism directed at Barack Obama. That’s probably more about relating to Hillary more directly- I get that and it is not the issue for me though. The issue is the suggested remedy to these things.
It seems to me, looking over your blog history that when you talk about sexism – it is a problem outside of HRC’s control. It is something that needs to be dealt with, something she needs to be defended against. You’ve even been upset on multiple occasions claiming that Obama should come to her defense when those in the media- not his surrogates, mind you- but others in the public view (mainly the pundits) say something inappropriate.
On the other hand- when it comes to racism to you the question seems to always be- how will Obama deal with it? In fact, that seems to be your answer for all of the challenges he faces. That he needs to regain the trust of women, woo the white working class, and win over Appalachia…Too some extent I agree.
Any candidate has to gain the trust of multiple constituencies. That is obviously easier when you’re the ‘default’ of white wasp male. Any woman or minority knows – or should know that the reality of our culture means you’re going to have to work harder to prove yourself against the strange prejudices people hold- some consciously and probably even more latent, under the surface, unexamined notions we all hold. This is, of course, not fair but it is true and no one ever said life, or especially politics was fair.
So then, why didn’t HRC have a battle plan for sexism? I’ve heard her and particularly Bill Clinton complain on multiple occasions about the boys bullying her. Did she not expect this? How has she addressed it?
I saw Barack Obama stand up in Philadelphia (my hometown- rife with racial tensions) talk about the issue with a thoughtfulness I’ve never seen in politics before. Maybe you weren’t moved by that- I was inspired to see a politician stand up and take on such a thorny issue in a nuanced way.
Conversely, I saw Hillary respond at the debates with passive aggression (“maybe we can get Barack a pillow?” “I don’t know why I always seem to get the first questions” etc.) and was not only unimpressed- I was ashamed that rather than take on this issue she would use it to her advantage. I was chagrined knowing this is setback for women and feminism.
Sure there is a fine line between addressing these issues and exploiting them. But I’ve never seen HRC stand up on this campaign trail and talk about the difficulties of this – I’ve only see her complain and her supporters try to protect her. I don’t think that advances her personal cause and it certainly dismisses the work and victories of serious feminists – men and women – who fight for equality not special treatment.
I would really appreciate if you could consider this and perhaps respond to this. I think it remains an important question. While I put policy above identity, I too would love to see a woman president in my lifetime. I think we will but I don’t think Hillary’s campaign is doing the first woman commander-in-chief any favors by complaining the big meanies who want to push her out and claiming real criticism is misogyny. It does us all a disservice. I know you care about this so I’m hoping you’ll consider this issue in the wider debate.
-
@ sorenreport
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Slate has had their Death Watch column for as long as I have been reading the site - going back a couple of years. Prior to HRC they were watching Alberto Gonzales
Here is just one column from their coverage: http://www.slate.com/id/2168318/
It was never meant to imply the death of the person- it is the death of their career or campaign.
Olbermann stepped over the line with his comment and promptly apologized. He goes after Clinton, mainly about the war- something I appreciate since lots of other outlets treat this great national shame as just another ‘issue’ for voters.
Not sure about the Matthews quote you site about a she-devil but I wouldn’t be terribly surprised. His analysis is about personality and it all is very sophomoric – what he and Joan Walsh bring to the table are similar in fact. Just opposite sides of the coin. There is something valuable in the perspective they bring since it is probably similar to what people who don’t pay much attention and just go with their guts and identity for their votes think.
I don’t get what was so wrong about Samatha Power’s monster comment but she was fired over it so HRC got to draw some blood.
Anyhow, it seems silly to get fired up over every metaphor (see above- politics is full of bloody ugly metaphors!). You can if you want but it is still much different than the reference HRC made.