May 30 2008
Media Watchdogs Manipulate and Mislead Public
We have reached a new low in prejudice, bias, and manipulation. Not only is the Obama campaign introducing a divisiveness America hasn’t seen since the sixties, it is steadily increasing its contribution to the erosion of professionalism across the board. First it was the University of Chicago, now it’s Harvard and the Pew Charitable Trusts, both of whom just published a report claiming that:
Barack Obama did not enjoy more positive press coverage than Hillary Clinton at the height of the primary season, at least when it came to the candidates’ personal narratives. [source]
The above quote/claim can be found in Harvard’s Shorenstein Center press release on the report, and the Pew Charitable Trust financed Project for Excellency in Journalism (PEJ) online edition of the report.
Having consistently (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc) posted empirical evidence of pro-Obama/anti-Clinton media bias throughout this Primary, and having taken time to read the new PEJ/Shorenstein report - I can unequivocally conclude that the above quote is factually wrong, and misleading.
Towards the end of April I observed that our “independent” media watchdogs had succumbed to Obama-fever and could no longer be relied on for information regarding media bias in this Primary. Mediatenor, had forfeited its credibility with a premature and baseless declaration of a change in Obama’s media coverage in mid-March. A few weeks later, their own data exposes the immaturity of the error. Medichannel, which had supported Mediatenor’s error with sophomoric articles from the Huffington Post - has now reached a new low, when it reposted a piece from Salon, titled Clinton and Obama on Al Jazeera.
Did the editors of either Salon or a leading media monitoring website fail to notice, that nowhere in the entire piece will you find even the mention of Obama? So why reprint it under a completely misleading headline? How is that, for incompetence?
With such incompetence run amok, It shouldn’t come as a surprise when the Project for Excellency in Journalism (PEJ) -which I last criticized for refusing to release information on the tone of Primary coverage- publishes a report formulated together with Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Journalism, proudly proclaiming that the media treated Obama and Clinton equally.
I personally regret that institutions which rely on public trust, are willing to sacrifice it for political prejudice. To claim that Obama and Clinton were privy to equal media treatment because of a single measure of “personal narrative,” is akin to suggesting that corn syrup is the same as Coca Cola, since it is a key ingredient of the soft drink! As Jamal put it yesterday its pure Kosher Parve BS!
Having read the report, I was puzzled - how could its content be so at odds with its conclusions and logic? The work reiterates time after time that Clinton enjoyed more favorable morning news coverage than Obama, as if to prove no media bias existed. It repeatedly insinuates that the candidates’ “personal narrative” was the coverage of the candidate himself/herself, and that Clinton had greater control over such coverage than Obama. The report off-handedly insists, page after page, that narrative tone is akin to media tone, and that this tone was positive for both Clinton and Obama.
I don’t know what planet the Shorenstein and PEJ centers are on, but failing to provide names of the report’s authors, only deepens the mystery. While the memorandum loves to dwell on Clinton’s favorable morning news coverage, deep within its bowels is briefly mentioned that Obama enjoyed incredibly better talk radio coverage than even McCain (we are talking predominantly right wing radio), dominated the internet, and did better in newspapers and the network news coverage, where both McCain and Clinton were often lambasted. Of course, who bothers with page 30, if the press release claims otherwise? Not the report’s authors, obviously.
Since when is it possible to say in the English language
…Barack Obama did not enjoy more positive press coverage than Hillary Clinton at the height of the primary…[source]
when your own statistic on page 19 looks like this?
If 35% of positive stories about your “personal narrative,” come from the media, along with only 19% of the negative ones, doesn’t comparing this to 25% of positive stories about Clinton vs. 33 % negative, all coming from the media, mean that there is a significant pro-Obama bias among journalists in the media?! Since when does the “media coverage” direct object “media” become the indirect object of either the Clinton/Obama campaign?
Let’s do the math here 35 > 25 + 19 < 33. Um- no media bias there?
61% of negative stories about Obama originate from the Clinton camp, while nearly 40% of the negative stories about Clinton originate with Obama. How is that, for politics the new way? While the Media were giving Obama a free ride on his “personal narrative” (and the other 90% of what passes for “campaign coverage”) the Clinton camp had to fight hard to even make itself heard - hence fully 54 % of positive “personal narrative” coverage in the media, originated with the Clinton camp.
Besides having a poor handle on language, the PEJ/Shorenstein report also has a poor handle on reality. The memo claims that rather than proving that the Clinton camp was more reliant on itself because of biased journalism, the 54% statistics mean nothing (this is implied by the wording) because on page 18 we read that that it was the Press, and not Clinton, that said she was “human after all” when she broke down and “cried.”
Ok, so Harvard’s Shorenstein Center and Pew’s PEJ, are saying that the media’s ability to manufacture a moment that never happened, i.e. Clinton “crying,” is somehow proof that their owns statistics of bias are meaningless? Or do the staff at these two “august” institutions really believe that having the media interpret an emotional moment as “tears” is an example of a positive “personal narrative”? This is coming from Pew and Harvard!? Um… desperate, whiner, cry baby? Or did PEJ forget, how the Obama camp spun the tears as a Racial insult!?
But wait, that’s not the worst of the missing logic. The report’s anonymous authors state on at least two occasions, that most pro-Clinton coverage they came across in the media, actually originated from undercover Clinton surrogates! Without pausing for a second to reflect what this means for their own conclusion that “Barack Obama did not enjoy more positive press coverage than Hillary Clinton” the word “surrogate” is not even defined, nor the data backed up! Readers are led to believe that Clinton had more surrogates in the media, than Obama, without anything to prove it.
Asking an average somnambulist voter who bothered watching at least a minimum of the media coverage of this Primary to believe that “Clinton surrogates” were running amok on Fox and MSNBC, is like asking us to believe in Santa Claus - belongs in kindergarten; as does the idea that Clinton controlled more of her coverage, than Obama!
So much so is stated bluntly throughout the report - and it bluntly contradicts research by the Center for Media and Public Affairs in New York, which found that the Obama camp had uncanny and heretofore never seen control over what was being said about its campaign and candidate in the media. How Shorenstein and PEJ can square their results with that of the CMPA, is beyond me. They have to rely on media pandered ignorance, to get away with this sewage level “research”.
Then there is the outstanding statistic in the report, which claims that the number one story of this Primary campaign, has been Jeremiah Wright- implying that it was entirely “negative” for Obama and somehow unfair to him. That Jeremiah was suppressed for more than a year - matters to either Harvard or Pew, about as much as the overall tone of the coverage doesn’t matter. Who cares - you wont get our tone data. Whitewash, what’s that? Obama’s inability to come clean, to answer, to be honest - bury it, ignore it, forget it - give the guy a break - he’s black, he’s first, he’s a victim.
Remember, we started out website with a focus on Wright, as our Obama Basics proclaimed in February, and we know better than most that the Jeremiah story saw the light of day, only thanks to the honesty and integrity of Jeremiah Wright himself! It wasn’t the honesty or integrity of journalists, reporters, or the media, who took any interest in Black Liberation Theology. It was too Racial, and hence off limits to their conformist, pro-Obama minds. In the meantime, the myth of “trans-racialism” was sired and nurtured by them, 24/7 - and don’t you dare question it - closet Racists and Bigots!
Good thing that instead of shutting up and going away the mockery of an American decided impetuously, but honestly, to demand “White” America apologize for his privileged upbringing! To use this part of the campaign as an example of anti-Obama media bias, is tantamount to saying that a vote against Obama is by definition racist. Its unjustifiable Nonsense. Talking about Wright, had no anti-Obama intent, but not talking about him amounted to suppression of truth, and had a deep anti-Democratic component.
The most glaring error found in the PEJ/Shorenstein pretense to a “research,” is the repeated insistence that Obama did not in fact really enjoy better media treatment than Clinton because they both had a 68%/67% favorable “personal narrative.” I honestly wonder, did the authors cherry pick their data, so as to come up with this cute number? It seems like the very concept of “personal narrative” allows one to zero in on data that is limited to statements about a candidate’s image, which can only originate from three places: the campaign, the media, and surrogates. As a concept, “personal narrative” is perfectly capable of producing such magic numbers as 68/67.
Back in March I touched upon what it means for a candidate to have access to the media, let alone enjoy favorable treatment. I pointed out that Clinton had virtually no control over her message. When she released 11,000 pages of documents as First Lady, they were shredded for a stained Blue Dress. Not so says the PEJ/Shorenstein paper. Voters were polled and consistently stated Clinton was more experienced than Obama. This is proof that the media were unfair to Obama on experience.
Anyone with at least one eye open, will remember how the Bosnia story burried Clinton’s aspirations to discuss experience and policies. The media ruthlessly duped the American public that good Judgment was independent of Experience, and ingrained in our minds, that there was no need to compare the competency and resume of Clinton to the vapid and slim CV of an Obama, because the two were virtually indistinguishable on everything from politics, to skill.
Media monitors often mislead their clients into believing that bias is about what has been said, because admitting that most bias is about what has not, or cannot be said would actually require them to dig for truth and facts; it wouldn’t sell, because of the costs involved. Experts, and ultimately society, pay the ultimate price for this, as we are stuck with inferior products, on which to base their analysis of current events. In the case of voters persistent exit poll impression that Clinton is more experienced than Obama, we have the failure of the media, and the success of the American people, and not vice versa as the PEJ/Shorenstein report would have you believe. While Clinton desperately tried to explain her credentials to the American public, the media threw mud in her way and beat her blue. The American people didn’t like this, just as they didn’t like the media telling them that Clinton should quit. Pew documented this a month ago, so why could it not document that when the media tells American’s that Experience does not matter, but voters tell pollsters that it does, this is a victory of Americans, not of the media!?
in my Reality of Brutal media bias, Framed by Axelrod back in April, I outlined what the latest Shorenstein(Harvard)/PEJ(Pew) claims as untrue. I stated that for more than a year, without even one fact to back up their narrative the media have framed Clinton as an evil wench bent on seizing power. Dishonest, ambitious, sleaze-bag.
Now we are being told -explicitly in the PEJ/Shorenstein report- that the media didn’t need to do any framing of “Clinton the Bitch,” because the frame was already there - Clinton had been despised from the get go the report claims. This is more revelatory than any other part of this pitiful work- Clinton was already hated- the media simply reflected this.
Question for the authors - are you suggesting that media “objectivity” is tantamount to accurately reflecting “public” sentiment/prejudice/stereotypes? Or are you just suggesting that Pew and Harvard can finance “research” which doesn’t even bother to back up its claims with statistics of pre-election perceptions, with statistics from in utero perceptions? I would like Harvard and Pew to explain how the media trash-talking Clinton back in November reflected her popular support among 70% of African-Americans while most of them had not even heard of Obama who the media was already praising as the Messiah!? “Objectivity” as “public sentiment” - that’s a line from the Third Reich.
***
Journalist coverage of Obama and Clinton, is not equal or equivalent to journalist coverage of the candidates’ “personal narrative”. While I disagree 100% with how the PEJ/Shorenstein report measure “personal narrative” this is secondary compared to the subsidiary role that “personal narrative” has in overall Primary coverage. By subsidiary I mean no more than 20 to 30 % of overall campaign coverage.
Issues such as “electability” and “personality” and “campaigning” and “likability” and “values” and “trustworthiness” had Obama up by miles over Clinton. Had PEJ/Shorenstein done their “research” as honestly as Jeremiah Wright does his believing, they could have accessed recent Pew reports which document simple word associations for Clinton vs. Obama.
Out of five most common words associated with the candidates, for Clinton, four are negative, for Obama, four are positive. Such impressions are not the result of some inherent qualities of the candidates, especially when compared to associations made about the candidates, back in 2007, when their visibility was inverse.
Till present, Obama supporters cannot name a single proven instance of Clinton dishonesty, perfidy, and negativity except Bosnia (which they exaggerate or mangle). At the same time, the entire American public, according to the Pew association data, cannot come up with any negative trait for Obama, except “inexperience.”
Considering our work at Stop-Obama I think the case is closed on pro-Obama and anti-Clinton Media Bias in the 2008 Democratic Primary. When you have 80% favorable word-associations for Obama, vs. 80% unfavorable for Clinton, and decades of research proving that in elections Public Opinion trails media coverage, added to the virtual invisibility of Obama prior to 2007, coupled with empirical data on negativity/positivity/neutrality for the entire Primary - there is no room for debate, the Verdict is in. Without media bias, Clinton would have been the Democratic Presidential Nominee by the end of February.
The Shorenstein center of Harvard, and the Pew Financed Project for Excellency in Journalism, have a lot to answer for. As with the University of Chicago, which has smeared the credibility of every University in the country by claiming that a part time instructor is equivalent to a University Professor, so too with Harvard and the Pew Charitable Trust.
The Obama slime, divide, vilify, and degrade tour of contemptible America, doesn’t recognize any authority. There are no mountains high enough for this megalomaniac to climb. He will become Dictator at any cost, even if it means tearing down everything our society stands for. After all, this society, does not have the same meaning to Obama, as it does for most of us - and as I stated before, instead of understanding us, and accepting us for what we are, Obama will insist, and will impose on us, that we understand and emulate him. That we become what he wants us to be. This process started the day he announced his candidacy, and it has not stopped since. PEJ/Shorenstein’s latest ignoble debasement of “research” and the institution of “watchdogs” is a foretaste of the enthusiasm Obama inspires. The enthusiasm necessary for the relentless self-censorship of self-evident facts and the denial of the most basic of human liberties, the right to discriminate skills, experience, merit, and value…not to mention the right to vote without being labeled or incriminated a racist, bigot, or retrograde.
24 responses so far
I just stopped by your blog and thought I would say hello. I like your site design. Looking forward to reading more down the road.
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
[…] Sam Graham-Felsen wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNot only is the Obama campaign introducing a divisiveness America hasn’t seen since the sixties, it is steadily increasing its contributing to the erosion of professionalism across the board. Harvard University and the Pew Charitable … […]
[…] Continue Reading […]
I discovered your homepage by coincidence.
Very interesting posts and well written.
I will put your site on my blogroll.
Former CIA Director, William Casey, once said:
“We will know we have succeeded when everything the public believes is false.”
IMO, for the last several decades, perhaps starting after the JFK assassination, our government has been slowly turning our democratic process into a fascist state. That is primarily accomplished by propaganda being spewed on a daily basis via the news media and the buiding up of a consumer-run society, living on credit and financially strapped and dependent on corporations for their daily “consumer fix”, that has been evolving to include their very livelihood and, thus, their total dependency on corporate control.
The fever pitch within the media which we are witnessing now is the final stages of the completion of the “coup”, which has been culminated by the anointment of Obama by the DNC as the democratic nominee. Their achilles heel may be that they fully expected us to “go along” with this “plan”. If ever there was a time for a second “American revolution”, that time is now.
I think those who recognize the writing on the wall as to the reality of what we are dealing with here, by our unwillingness to blindly follow and believe what is false (Obama as an agent of change), but rather recognizing the overtaking of America by a power elite more akin to what we once called “Nazis”.
IMO, the news media has culminated similar propaganda techniques used by Goebbels during Hitler’s rise in Germany in order to convince the German people that they must go along with the exchange of their democracy for Hitler’s dictatorship.
The similarities of the takeover of our democratic process by dictatorial forces is both breathtaking and frightening.
Fortunately, there are many who have not drunk the kool-aid and see the truth of what’s happening and are forming groups all over the country to counter the utter destruction of the grand experiment called America.
This website is greatly needed to help wake America up before it’s too late.
Hey I bet she would get better pres if she started winning. She should try that!
Kathleen, great post. I agree. We will take back our party and get rid of the trash including Obamation. Go Hillary.
The fact that the MSM and so-called media watchdogs are in tank for Bozo shouldn’t be a surprise since many of those people come from the same demographic that supports Bozo - namely white college educated liberals.
And boy do they have axes to grind and agendas to push.
Oddly enough also the very same people who cheer leaded us into the Iraq war.
At the end of the day neither the MSM or its supposed watchdogs can be trusted.
The media is no longer the Fourth Estate that a democracy must have in order to surive. It has become merely a propaganda tool for those who own and control them for the express purpose of taking total control of this government and ultimately build a “one world government” of powerful few and the enslaved masses.
It is this tool which will be either be the cause of our final undoing or the impetus for that will awaken us in time to stop the takeover.
I find it extremely amusing that the so-called “progressive community”, who support Obama, have bought the media’s bildge about THE ONE, hook, line and sinker!
The very same progressive community which, once upon a time, never believed a word the media said or wrote and protested them every chance they got.
What hypocrites.
God bless Geraldine Ferraro but she must not have seen this report!
Ferraro: Reagan Dems find Obama campaign ‘frightening’
May, 30 2008 cnn
“…She called on Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy to conduct a study, which she and other women would fund if necessary, to explore whether either of the Democratic candidates’ campaigns engaged in sexism or racism; whether Clinton was treated unfairly by the media; and “whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate. And if they did to suggest ethical guidelines which the industry might adopt.”
[…] « Media Watchdogs Manipulate and Mislead Public […]
Bob Somerby
http://dailyhowler.com/dh052208.shtml
FLOWERING JUDIS! Journalists threw their support to Obama, Judis says, in a vast gaffe:
“…in this passage, Judis explains the conduct of the press corps in this Democratic campaign—and, by inference, in so much of the startling campaign coverage they’ve authored, to our ruin, in the past.
Just try to believe that he said it:
According to Judis, the Clinton campaign failed to “appreciate” something that journalists did understand. They failed to see that Obama “was history” (in a good sense)—that he was in a different category from all the regular pols. It was one thing to go negative on McCain/Romney/Clinton—and it was a “different” thing to do this to Obama! And according to Judis, “members of the media” understood this. “As Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.”
Good God! That’s just a stunning statement. And yes, that is what he said. According to Judis, “members of the media” knew that Obama was a special case—a more important historical figure than Clinton. “And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they…threw their support to him.”
Once again, go ahead. Just try to believe that he said it.
Judis makes several remarkable statements in this striking passage. First, he makes it explicit: In his view, it’s more important that Obama become the first African-American president than that Clinton become the first woman. “Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history,” he writes—“the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s.” We don’t disagree with that quoted statement. (Though, of course, there were other upheavals during the 1950s and 60s.) Still, it’s striking when a high-ranking scribe states the conclusion which Judis states—that our tortured racial history makes Obama’s candidacy more important than Clinton’s. But it’s where that judgment takes Faire Judis that makes his piece so remarkable…”
YOWZA!
I am losing my mind.
Or lost it.
I love reading the posts here but I get so annoyed because I can’t pass them on dammit.
Don’t ask. I’m sure you get it.
Anyway, one of the things that struck me long ago… it seems like years already.
I think it was after the SNL piece spanked the bastards that Tim Russert said, as he’s sitting around with more of the talking heads
“Well, its easier to criticize (or attack?) a white woman than it is a black man. isn’t it?” murmurs of assent.
My jaw dropped, my head, independent of my will started slamming itself against the wall.
He had that big head grin of his.
I wondered how the woman on the panel felt. Its all a big blur right now. I’ve looked for that clip over and over and cannot find it.
Wionder if it was scrubbed?
Today I read Naoimi Wolf say that yes, there has been sexism but Clinton shouldn’t talk about it.
Now that was shocking.
I mean I know why but I wouldn’t expect her to say that.
WTF?
be a good little girl and don’t say anything or the boys will pick on you even more honey.???
Please!
The big disappointments to me was the ghastly silence by the “leading feminist voices” the silence from the women in the DNC as well as the congress, and the mealy mouth acquiescence with whispers of “wellll, maybe but…” by female journalists and pundits against the blatent media bias, the sexim and the misogyny.
P
I don’t care who you fricking support. There was a huge injustice done and you stand against injustice.
Poor Geraldine Ferraro.
They don’t want the boys to hate them so they keep their mouths shut.
LUS the lack of coverage of the misogyny that was poisoning the atmosphere.
When race came up it was covered, it was important.
Misogyny… not so much.
Perfect example was the curious george Tee Shirt story of the day.
All day the story was covered about a protest outside a redneck bar that was selling teeshirts with a picture of curious george and Obama 08 on the front.
OK, I get the offense and I don’t have a problem with protesting, with covering the story.
But here’s the thing.
That same bar had a marquee outside that said “I wish Hillary had married OJ.”
What The FUCK?
this wasn’t news worthy?
This misogyny is bad enough but not covering it, particularly when you are right there is beyond my understanding.
Then a few days ago when Cinton was asked in an interview about Sexism she said something to the effect that yes it was there, and no, it really wasn’t covered the way racism was. And certainly there was some virulent misogyny going on.
The media takes that and every one of them presents it as Hillary clinton blames sexism in the media for losing.
\Again, hate to repeat myself.
BUT
What the FUCK???
And it went on and on.
Hellloooo?
I could go on and on too but I don’t want to hijack your blog.
I started my own a while back but didn’t really do anything with it because I was so busy reading and commenting on everybody elses.
I keep thinking I should get back to it. Even if I just post my comments from elsewhere.
I’d at least have a record of how fricking piissed off i am.
LOL
Keep up the good work.
“Today I read Naoimi Wolf say that yes, there has been sexism but Clinton shouldn’t talk about it”.
…………………………………………………………..
In other words, Wolf is just another obama cultist. This from a woman who has written books on feminism and has been an outspoken feminist. But here in the name of supporting hussein, she is willing to eschew her own ideals.
I think we should talk about sexism in the media, especially since it was glaring, but we should not use it in the way Hussein tried to use Race-Baiting. We need to point out sexism, and present our case, but we must not build our case for Clinton on her being a victim of it. Rather, we must bill her as someone who can overcome it. Frankly, I believe it wasn’t the sexism which hit us hard, it was the sexism which was a marginal part of the outright contempt with which the media treated us.
Wofl’s quip that running for president you shouldn’t expect fairness, is brain-dead. I never liked her books, because they were brain-dead, there are many better ones, written by lesser “celebrity libs”. I hope Wolf can parlay her “cool” message to the Hussein0 camp next time they have a premature ejaculation over some picture of their prophet in Somali garb, or attack Bill Clinton for a perfectly legitimate Jesse Jackson comparison.
But she wont go there, will she. Hosama’s campaign is historic, because he is a victim no one can touch, ours is ahistoric, because we are victims everyone can shit on. Got it Naomi, thank you.
It’s too bad Ferraro recommended Harvard to study the media. So they came up with a conclusion that Clinton supporters didn’t want to hear.
All together now: awwwww.
“I think we should talk about sexism in the media, especially since it was glaring, but we should not use it in the way Hussein tried to use Race-Baiting…”
I agree with you so much, Juanita. It’s not the sexist men that get me but rather the pitiful women that do me in. The Naomi Wolfs and Nancy Keenans and the group of “100 NY feminists” that came out in February to endorse Obama…there the ones that disgust me the most. They’re not even feminist enough to call the MSM to the carpet even if they don’t support Clinton.
But Juanita’s right. Clinton can bulldoze herself through any amount of sexism. It’s the race-baiting that’s the real issue. The thing is, Obama didn’t have to do it. This was a conspiracy hatched out by the DNC and a large body of powerful politicians in Washington before the primaries even began. Obama never had to inject racism. I’m maintaining my belief that if it wasn’t for the media bias, DNC bias and some other reasons, Axelrod would have run obama’s campaign into the ground.
I think it’s time for women to come to terms with exactly what just went down in this primary between this unqualified black man and this extraordinarily qualified woman.
Women are not valued and are still considered to be “less” than men, no matter how accomplished they may be. As has been stated by Gloria Steinem, were Obama a black woman with the exact same qualities and qualifications, “she” would have never been considered at all as qualified to be president.
Another example of how unfair women have it in society — the AA community can have black men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are allowed to yell at the top of their lungs and get in the media’s face and complain and complain whenever they suspect any hint of racism against a fellow AA and they are also allowed to continue to complain until something is done to rectify the perceived problem.
Women, on the other hand, would never be allowed by the power elite to have this kind of representation and support in forcing society to face up to the reality of sexism which is pervasive, deep rooted, oppressive, suppressive, violent, and is still universally accepted in all societies.
I’ve also learned that vying for positions of power and prestige have never been about “qualifications”, which men have always sworn was the reason why women have not been elected to high office or promoted to positions of power in business, or awarded tenure in academia. No, on the contrary. It’s all been about the male sense of entitlement to these exalted positions of power, money and prestige that maintain their total control over women in perpetuity. Which explains the vitriol, hatred and outright violent-like response to Hillary coming so close to becoming the most powerful person in the world. My God! A “woman” as the most powerful person in the world makes a large faction of men shack in their boots and hold on to their “package” out of fear that were this to happen, would women treat them the same way they’ve treated women? Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that women would oppress men in the same way they’ve happily oppressed women. Nonetheless, it’s very clear to me, by the way they’ve treated Hillary, that they absolutely are determined to do whatever is necessary not to let that possibility ever happen.
Perhaps, these power hungry men also believe that once women reach the pinnacle of power men have enjoyed since the beginning of time (whether they were worthy of it or not), I believe such a sea change in the hierarchy of power in society would be of such a magnitude that it would also change the standards for every position of authority, at every level in our society, forever.
Which goes to the heart of why Hillary must never reach the White House. It is because, as a rule, women have always been held to a higher standard than men, in order to tilt the playing field in men’s favor and thus far, it has worked swimmingly in favor of men obtaining and maintaining the lion’s share of power and control. The manner in which the DNC, in this case, has conducted its plan to “anoint” Obama as the nominee, no matter what the people want is clearly an example of the lengths these guys will go to keep the kingdom safe from control by a woman. Therefore, the patriarchy must maintain the status quo of lower standards in order to ensure the continuation of male dominance at all costs.
With a woman as extraordinary as Hillary in the White House, those standards, which have served men well in keeping them ahead in the game of power, politics and money, would forever be changed and the playing field would finally be leveled to the point that women would finally have a real chance at achieving whatever goal’s in life they choose to pursue. That, IMO, is what scares the s__t out of these so-called men of power and why they have literally exposed their bias against Hillary in such an arrogant way.
In their zeal to keep women, any woman, out of the White House, it’s become clear that they would rather destroy the village, than have a woman in charge of it.
It is for these reasons that women must decide to continue this fight even beyond Hillary’s fight, because if we don’t, we will have missed the greatest opportunity to ever achieve equality with men and I don’t think our world can survive much longer under patriarchial rule.
Kathleen, even though the sexism has been over the top throughout this primary, Hillary Clinton was still able to take out 7 other men with little effort. The sexism, although totally unacceptable, hasn’t stopped her from winning the majority of votes. If Clinton took out Obama along with the rest of the male candidates and the race-baiting wasn’t an issue in this contest, would sexism prevent her from beating McCain? I don’t think it would. She’s maintained a healthy lead over McCain in the polls despite the racism AND the sexism.
“…I believe such a sea change in the hierarchy of power in society would be of such a magnitude that it would also change the standards for every position of authority, at every level in our society, forever…”
I agree with you.
Sorry Kathleen I do not entirely agree. Clinton is minimaly a victim of any male conspiracy or inherent misogyny. She is fist and foremost the victim of Race-Baiting and outright Hatred. Yes, this hatred may take the form of misogyny, but I think she is hated more for being a Clinton, for being too smart, for being successful, than being a woman.
Males may, indeed posses an inherent drive to dominate. But Clinton has been more dominant and powerful than either McCain or Obama, and this has attracted enormous male support! I see it everywhere. Males have been as inspired by Clinton as they would have been by Rambo. They see Obama as a sissy, and feel pride in voting Clinton. They may not have a feminist agenda, but I disagree with your view - in which you polarize women from men.
Let’s fight the hate at its root, not its occasional form. Form divides us, and distracts us.
I think this is an extremely important piece of this puzzle folks:
http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf
…scroll to page 4 and read through to page 6.
From page 7 of the above cited document:
http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf:
“Disproportionate impact of caucus votes in relation to convention delegates. Though voters in all 13 caucus states
have cast only 3.2% of the total 33.5 million votes so far those votes control 15.3% of the pledged delegates and
16.4% of the Super delegates sent to the DNC Convention average 15.5% of the total delegates [626 caucus / 4047
total]. After all remaining primaries the total votes could easily top 36 million, dropping the caucus vote to 2.9% of the
total. In that event, 1 out of every 34 votes will determine and control 1 of every 6.5 delegates. Bottom line: caucus
voters will have a grossly disproportionate role in determining the 2008 Democratic nominee.”
This does not include Michigan’s votes (adding that would make the case here that much stronger).
Juanita and IJane,
I respect both of your positions, however, were Hillary a man, Obama wouldn’t have even made it past the other 7 males who lost!
You cannot take out of the equation that she has had to live up to much higher standards than either McCain or Obama, plus deal with a fixed primary by the DNC and a fawning media for her opponent and yet continues to hold her own. Give credit where credit is due…Hillary is probably the most qualified candidate who has run for president in our lifetimes. I do not believe that her being a “Clinton”, as you say, is the primary reason that she is being attacked in the way she has. After all, the republicans hated Bill Clinton with a passion and he still won a second term.
As for the other 7 males that did not make it. Remember, a large number of them have run before in an all male contest and didn’t win then either.
If Hillary were a man, and HE had her same qualifications, experience and knowledge of the issues, HE would have won the nomination back in February!!!
I agree we cannot be distracted, but, as women, we cannot continue to fool ourselves that once men get into power, they cannot be counted on to show the same support for a woman vying for power than those men who are not in power, who have supported and voted for Hillary.
For example, note that her primary support from her colleagues in the Senate has come more from the women than the men.
Once in power, men become more determined to keep it and the presidency is the last male bastion. Once a woman makes it to this pinnacle of power, the entire hierarchy of power, as we know it, will be changed in ways that will enable women to finally be on the road to equality with men.