Posted by Amanda Marcotte January 12, 2008 in Uncategorized, Assholes
I was finally in a good mood today, and then I saw this:
Yes, that was run in the Washington Post. In 2008. In case you weren’t sure that this was a sexist joke, Oliphant made sure to put a PMS joke in it. So that no one could run around saying, “Oh, I’m sure he’d say it about a man!”
96 Responses to “He’d make fun of a man for PMS, too!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2008/01/09/
Maybe that will help.
Gah. Oliphant is usually good, too. What is it with the toxic Hillary hate?
Used to enjoy Oliphant cartoons, but he’s suffering from a bad case of Chris Matthews syndrome (CMS). So long Pat, from now on, it’s Ann Telnaes, Luckovich, and Toles for me.
I hate the news media, which is it? Is she a cold, heartless bitch who had her best friend murdered and made it look like a suicide? Or is she a wussy crybaby?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Wait, am I confusing Tom Toles and Oliphant when I’m thinking of a cartoonist who’s usually good on this stuff? They confuse me by both having little talking people at very bottom.
“Is she a cold, heartless bitch who had her best friend murdered and made it look like a suicide? Or is she a wussy crybaby?”
She’s (painted as) whatever it takes for the Reichwing to torpedo her bid for POTUS.
If that means they portray her as a bleeding-heart serial killer, or a naive, inexperienced, cold and calculating political tool of the radical hippie agenda, who’s in the pocket of the Evil Corporations and will drive business out of America, so be it.
They’re wingnuts and their enablers - they don’t have to make sense…
Are these assholes aware that women have run countries before? Countries that were major miliraty powers even and went to war under a female leader?
shoot. “military powers”
Would the equivalent be the same cast of characters with Huckabee (in Hillary’s place) pushing the nuke button? Oh, and substitute pantsuit with we piss on your God.
I’d like to see that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22609844/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/10/
He’s not the only one; most of this week’s political cartoons on MSNBC are along a similar vein. This one is especially awful.
So, can we sign you up in the anti-Pat Oliphant circle? Amazingly, he appears willing to admit that Arabs can be in the circle of bad guys. He’s apparently come a long way from his 1970s anti-Israel hysteria.
Oliphant’s been smearing HRC for ages. He’s insane with hatred, near as I can tell. I removed him from my feeds after seeing this particular gem.
Did this actually run “in” the Washington Post? ‘Cause Oliphant is not a cartoonist they run in the paper; they just link to a wide variety of editorial cartoonists (and an even wider variety of comic strips) on their website.
Obviously, this cartoon is beyond awful, I’m just saying I have trouble believing the Post ran it.
He does know that women over the age of 60 (as a general rule) are past PMS?
Of course not.
God, it’s like the editorial cartoons from the Onion.
I really like how so many men come out on blogs or to me in private and say, “Oh but that really doesn’t represent me and my friends, you know its only a small minority of men who think that way, you shouldn’t be so angry.”
Ok, like I said on another blog, Mr. Male I’d Vote for Her and Mr. Manly Feminist Supporter, when the hell is this silent majority going to speak up and say, “Enough of this! This does not represent the male point of view at all!”
Because right now I’m not seeing that majority of males who don’t support this shit, so therefore, I hold my prior belief that most men, if not all, deep down hate women and will keep them subjugated for as long as they can.
I keep looking and looking trying to find the irony or satire. Trying to see that he is actually mocking the people who act like that. I don’t see it, he is dead-on series. What a jerk.
Bill Clinton can apparently cry a split second after laughing. The video shows Bill emoting to the camera immediately after the funeral of Ron Brown, Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce who died in a plane crash in 1996. Click on the link in the upper right of the page. It has to be seen to be believed.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011008/home.guest.html
Don’t feed the JimB troll.
The perma-courtiers are fussy lately, aren’t they? (Then again, they always hated the Clintons as not worthy of their place in the palace court.)
kate, I saw an extreme example of that today, when on a thread on another blog about that pregnant Marine who was found dead, a male commenter rushed in to the thread to finger-wag at us and remind us not to hate all men.
…Okay, so it’s sort of tangential, but kate’s comment reminded me of that anyway.
For some reason I get really angry whenever “PMS” is mentioned. Especially by a man. Maybe my perspective is different because I have never suffered from mensturation related symptoms in any major way, but almost every time PMS is mentioned I feel like it is meant to discount women’s feelings and agency.
It is especially rediculous when applied to a woman of 60 who is in all likelihood post-menopausal. It really exposes that he actually does mean to use it like I think he does. To discount the mental competence of all women at all times.
Yup, Hillary is not up to the challenge to “negotiating” with all of the “brown menaces” out their in the crazy old world.
Poor little Kim Jung Il, reduced to being that token asian (clean shaven and button nosed)…AGAIN…
Vladimir Putin would have looked so great, with a nice great-jacket and mirror-shades, or something…
The horror of that cartoon is not just Senator Clinton crying. It’s also about what the image the cartoonist projected as the President’s job…
Good thing ourt stalwart Republican men aren’t crybabies!
“I’ve got God’s shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot. I’ll bet I’ve shed more tears than you can count as president” -GWBush
“Former President George HW Bush broke down in tears”
” Inside the White House, a Marine Band played ‘’Auld Lang Syne'’ in the East Room as Nancy Reagan cried and Ronald Reagan blinked back tears.”
Good thing ourt stalwart Republican men aren’t crybabies!
“I’ve got God’s shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot. I’ll bet I’ve shed more tears than you can count as president” -GWBush
“Former President George HW Bush broke down in tears”
“Inside the White House, a Marine Band played ‘’Auld Lang Syne'’ in the East Room as Nancy Reagan cried and Ronald Reagan blinked back tears.”
If Oliphant had created the same kind of bigoted cartoon against Obama, don’t you think there would be a media shitstorm about it?
Gloria Steinem is 100% correct in her recent NYTimes editorial.
Reminds me of Eoin Colfer’s book, Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident. Holly is the first female officer, and when a red tape drone derided her as the ‘crazy girly captain’, she steadily pushed her case, until she has to threaten to buzz him for obstructing police duty (weapons smuggling, war pending situation). He said, “you wouldn’t dare”, and she reminded him, “I’m the crazy girly captain, Remember?”
Deal with wingnut attacks by turning it on them, the way that Pierre Elliot Trudeau ran with it when one of his French separatist opponents picked on his English middle name.
If they accuse you of being a Lady Macbeth, then draw them to the context of the play, because Lady Macbeth didn’t murder for herself, she did it for the good of her husband.
If they accuse you of being soft-hearted, accuse them of being hard-hearted against American families, reminding everyone that when cons talk about free enterprises, they aren’t talking TO the majority of America at all.
If they accuse you of being moody (implying PMS), firmly outline the BS of many current situations, and that yes, you are too short with it to calm down and play a violin, you are going to DEAL WITH IT while they twiddle their thumbs.
Nancy, as utterly strangelovian phallic that cartoon was, it really would be interesting what a cartoon with Obama would be like.
/me ignores the late Steinem defense (what will be said, has been said)
I would differ with Mercurical Georgia a bit here…
We’re dealing with *political* and *American* right wingers, they aren’t in a chain of command, nor are they Canadian, like you. They are dumb, ignorant, and shameless. They don’t give a shit about slandering people and being completely irrational and hypocritical to boot.
Wit.Won’t.Work.
Bill Clinton did the best work, and I’d follow his example. They are dumb, ignorant, and shameless. They believe in force and lack of integrity. That generally means they generally have no clue about the *appropriateness* of an action in terms of time and appeal. This means, plan your ground carefully, pack a bright red blanket, and give the country a show! Force the republicans into doing more and more contortionate behavior–the idea is to get the normal folks the incentive the shout down the crazies that support the wingnuts, and make it socially unacceptable to be blind supporters.
Of course Bill never followed through with anything like a leftwing or progressive agenda with his approval ratings. No party building, no program legacies or anything. We can do better than that.
Was not clear before…
What I meant by strangelovian was the whole precious bodily fluid narrative…
Everyone feels sorry for Clinton because she’s leaking tears, and it’s pointed about how she menstrates. So of course she loses her shit when faced with all them scary people. She’s not a man. None of that losing yin business for men! No Sirree!
Yes, it’s late at night and I’m semi-crazy ?:~)
But you won’t FIND one that’s as racist as Oliphant’s cartoon is sexist. And that demonstrates that Steinem is correct. It’s evidence that supports her position.
Not that Steinem-haters care about evidence.
“Of course Bill never followed through with anything like a leftwing or progressive agenda with his approval ratings. No party building, no program legacies or anything. We can do better than that.”
The way the Demos have been rolling over for Bush, are you sure of that?
Well, I did think about it. Most of the slandering for Obama emphasises that his name is “foreign”. Most political cartoons I can think of posits Obama as sort of Muslim Manchurian Canidate. I don’t really think you can run a cartoon that shows Obama selling out to muslim fanatics or something like that…it would have legal implications.
There’s other things like Obama’s lazy, or perhaps the jive thing, but I don’t see how you could make anything funny with them, because things like “lazy” and “shifty” needs a context for the audience to pick up. What is Obama lazy for? What question does Obama seek to avoid? You need a thing like “depends on the definition on the word ‘is’” to really make it work.
As for something suitably racist, well, of course there is going to be an outcry. I *do* think that oliphant cartoon is rather spectacular, though, no contest. Never fear, Nancy, Obama will get his as well. It just comes differently.
Stop thinking of these things as labels, and think of them as patterns of behaviors. White people get in trouble because they think of racism as a label, mostly. The Game is: Avoid the label, and it’s O.K. So Obama will be getting lots of innuendo and dog whistle attacks, much like the South Carolina job Rove did. It stays outside of the media (unless it’s covered by another label, like tough on crime/drugs).
While Clinton has the frustration of dealing with open sexism, she also has the benefit of open sexism to deal with directly, instead of a thousand shaded bee stings coming from everywhere/nowheres.
I always did prefer dealing with the racist-and-they-know-it crowd than the racist-when-pressed crowd. It does make my life easier, and I can overcome or avoid as needed. I showed up teachers who didn’t think I should be allowed to compete intellectually, just by being better than any of their pets. I couldn’t deal with teachers who were nice to me on face, but (when reading reviews after graduation) who were constantly concerned about me being around white girls with little reason.
Gah. When I first saw the image of Hillary crying in front of evildoers I kinda chuckled, because I thought it was a parody of crappy, lazy editorial cartoons, along the lines of the Onion’s Kelly. Then I saw it was Oliphant, and seriously, what the hell? Oliphant isn’t some talentless hack, but this is the lazy, stupid and sexist crap I’d expect from a Chris Muir.
Eric, Clinton did a number things, like NAFTA, and other laws (especially anti-union) that economically deprived lower-class people.
On top of that, Clinton constantly was smearing the differences between him and the Republicans on there basic policy matters. Brand Identification matters. Nobody is going to want Republican-lite when there is a real Republican around. While this did not affect Clinton, it certainly depressed races downticket.
Ah, forgot to mention.
The main reason the Reagan era wasn’t as bad as it *could* have, and oh, my, god, it could have been even worse, was that the Democrat paid quite a bit of attention to their base. The Southern Re-Alignment was slowed quite a bit, even as the Reagan Democrat phenomenon occured.
Of course he couldn’t resist the PMS reference because he’s too busy trying to bludgeon everyone with the idea that PMS=irrational and woman=PMS, ergo woman=irrational. That’s why I fucking hate PMS comments.
They are doing everything they can, aren’t they, to MAKE SURE every last one of us Vagina-Americans carries HRC on our shoulders into the White House. Cheering.
They just don’t get that this sort of thing MOBILIZES voters, do they?
“They just don’t get that this sort of thing MOBILIZES voters, do they?”
It certainly is this kind of epater les bourgeouses- schandenfreude that would make me downright chipper voting for Clinton in November, that and the positive of actually electing any woman to the Presidency. Unfortunately I am pretty sure that among Democrats at any rate she would be the US version of Margaret Thatcher. But I’ve hoped, against the evidence, for better before and as I’ve said elsewhere nothing good will happen anyway without a deep and wide grassroots populist movement.
This is why I hope that Obama will pull back ahead, as I think he would be the best President to have in that context–but I still am voting for Edwards as a way of empowering that kind of movement, and who knows, he might still pull ahead–at any rate at this point even if the overall race keeps the same form, he’ll bring a lot of bargaining chips to the Convention.
But I do think that while it is totally unrealistic to hope Clinton herself will want to lead a populist progressive movement, and will resist one forming more than the other two, at any rate if it forms despite her (and electing a woman President may well give that very movement all the more momentum) she would probably shift to walking in front of that parade if we form it, and find herself happy to do so.
At any rate, it will feel good, if she is in fact the nominee, to throw her in the Republican machine’s face. Not so good if she then does not win of course…but if she loses in November it won’t be because of me.
(Except that I do tend to be an electoral jinx; generally speaking the candidates I have supported the most enthusiastically have died at the polls. Perhaps I should consider fleeing the country for the greater good?)
And by the way–in the absence of a populist progressive movement of some magnitude, I really don’t think we have much to gain trying to minimize the downside. Clinton would be the most Republican-lite, but then again Obama has tried hard to earn that title while avoiding committing to it (with his foreign-policy hawk-bloviating, and his issues with gay folk, and avoidance of any economic populism specifics) and Edwards would be facing organized hostility in Congress (even if the Dems make gains, which they won’t without some serious populism) and the MSM. We all know what that looks like. I do think it would be worse still with any R sitting in the Oval Office. The organized right-wing hostility and program we are sure to have no matter what; only some countervailing progressive populism can answer it, for anyone we like or even can stand.
So this election (assuming that is that we actually have a real one come November) is ours to lose, and we have nothing to lose and real hope of some gains by supporting whatever Democrat is nominated.
If it weren’t for her politics I’d always have liked Hillary Clinton as a person anyway.
shah8–It was Harry Truman who said, “Give them a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they’ll vote for the Republican every time.”
So if it is Clinton–here’s hoping for “New and Improved Hillary Now With Left-Wing Content!” for November. And sooner than that if she wants to win the primaries.
I saw that today too, and had the exact same reaction. Lack of a God, what a sucking chest wound these media idiots have become. What a sucking chest wound on our body politic. Can’t these third rate excuses for clowns do a single fucking thing that isn’t totally clownish, lame, childish and sexist?
Both sexism and racism are serious problems in our society. But one of the differences between them is that it is much more socially acceptable to publicly display one’s sexism than to publicly display one’s racism (and thus Steinem was partially correct in her op-ed…though she makes the mistake of concluding that racism is less of a problem than sexism merely because public displays of the former are less acceptable).
If any of us had forgotten how acceptable misogyny is in our society (and I actually think it’s generally pretty hard to forget this if one is paying attention), the crap flung at the Clinton campaign serves as a useful reminder.
In case you didn’t catch it, note this video, which nicely illustrates the relationship between misogyny and (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
I’m not sure I’m part of a silent majority (indeed, I fear that I am not), but as a white male (who incidentally cannot stand Clinton’s brand of centrism posing vaguely as progressivism), I heartily denounce all the misogyny aimed at Clinton and commend bloggers here and elsewhere who continue to call out the media and rival campaigns on this garbage. I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton is not our next president, but my aversion to her politics has nothing whatsoever to do with her gender.
One of the aspects of the “crygate” that hasn’t been pointed out yet: Hillary didn’t show a soft spot when under any kind of adverse pressure (like her opponents or the foreign regimes shown in the cartoon): she responded to empathy. I’m pretty damn tough, I don’t break under the most withering kinds of harassment, but if someone comes up to me afterwards and says a kind word, that’s when I’m most vulnerable.
It just annoys me that everyone is translating this non-event into “doesn’t hold up well under pressure” because it is actually the reverse side of the coin of “holds up to tremendous amounts of pressure”.
I guess I might be damned as a gender-essentialist for saying this, but I actually do think that for whatever reason, biological or cultural, that women are in fact saner and more realistic on the whole, integrating more balanced considerations into serious decisions, and that all other things being equal, we’d be better off with a woman than a man in the positions of highest authority. I think that’s true pretty much across the board, even in fields that masculinists might hold out as “a man’s turf” like say military generalship. But especially true for a position like the Presidency of the United States, where any necessary brinksmanship (which BTW is highly overrated) ought to be offset by considering less macho alternatives. That’s not a weakness, it’s a strength, one we would do well to use.
As I’ve said above and elsewhere, alas Senator Clinton has generally done her best to offset and hide any actual advantages her gender may give her, and of course there are a fair number of cautionary horror stories from other nations–Thatcher being the example that comes to mind most readily.
But if she wins the primary and the general election, it is in fact her gender that I would put the most hope in for her to be a great, or at least good, President despite her frequently stated and demonstrated conservative allegiances.
Gender essentialism aside–darn it, she has been savaged for at least a decade and a half now, by the very cliques and interest groups and blocs I wish she’d get away from. And gender has been a huge part of it.
(This is true of women in general, of course, at all levels of society, whenever they venture out of their socially defined ghetto-roles, and the extra toughness and ability that must be developed to accomplish anything under that kind of fire may well account for any observable female superiority.)
As with her husband in ‘92, if only she would side with the people most likely to really side with her. If she gets in, I will forbear in the hope that that penny drops with her.
But since I figure she is hella smart, I have to suppose she has already figured her odds and made her choices. So it is outside factors–like say, the emergence of a strong grassroots left in this country–that would tip the balance.
Since I’ve been rooting around with the pigs here with my suggestion that perhaps menz and wimminz is different after all, I’ll round it out by saying that I’ve always thought she was Teh Hawt as well.
God, it would be great if she wins and then shapes up as a good President. I might get me a real US flag to go with my Woodstock era Peace Flag.
That’s it! I don’t know what in the hell are some people smoking, but this is ridiculous. You don’t like Clinton for her policies but support Obama? They have the same policies with vague differences ( her healthcare is better and she is not afraid to vote).
So let us cut the bullshit. Steinem was right, while racism still exists, it is no longer socially aceptable to display it in the society.
A black friend of mine asked yesterday an interesting question: “how many of these people would pay attention to Obama if he was white?”
Oliphant did a bunch of cartoons supporting Imus, remember, mocking the “black overreaction” to him in a very typical way (not failing to bring up Tawana Brawley by his invocation of Rev. Sharpton in at least one that I saw). And he never hesitates to take either the jingoistic simplistic “America Good/Foreigners Bad!” position, either. And yes, sexism against HRC and Pelosi has long been part of his shtik, too.
He’s very typical of the old-guard sexist/racist Blue Dog Democrat Anglo-Irish guys from Boston who were my high school teachers in the 80’s - anti-Republican, anti-war, anti-rest-of-the-world, anti-woman aging-hipster jerks who could never resist a sexist slur or a jingoistic comment, or patting themselves on the back for how much they weren’t racist, while making snide comments about how obviously people were ‘different’ because well, you didn’t see any black geniuses did you?
Just because he hates Bushco doesn’t make him a Good Guy™ - the enemies of my enemies !– automatically my friends.
man, yer not gonna defend Hillary effectively that way.
rule of wit:
The first whining party lose.
gotta outwit, out maneuver and top the joke.
Tho’ to be honest, I don’t know why anybody wants to defend Hillary. She is way to hawkish to be considered “progressive”. It’s like saying Margaret Thatcher is advancing woman cause. (yeah if you still get a job after she is done screwing your pension)
Same with Hillary, yeah, she’ll be good for women, if you are not her bomb target or still have social safety net after she is done with her pro corporation move. (eg. how is she planning to pay for war and her health care? without raising tax across the board including working family?) Talking about a person defending ruling class/patriarchy interest using feminism gambit.
This is the part I usually say: feminism online crew isn’t smart enough to defend self interest in grand scheme of thing. Always too busy for gimmicks and trivial ideas.
What got me, the moment after I said “how stupid and offensive” is that the outcome being depicted in the cartoon is actually the best possible thing that could happen for US foreign policy.
Quite frankly, I was undecided about my choice of candidate until the woman-haters ramped up their efforts.
The opposition and catch-22s slapped against Hillary are what women professionals daily face, only writ large.
In this light, it’s easier and easier to ignore any differences I have with her positions.
Squashed, I’m defending myself and all women against sexism. This post, you’ll notice if you’re paying attention, is not arguing for Clinton’s hawkish ways or corporate ass-kissing. It is saying that the argument that a woman can’t be a leader is bullshit.
Do you agree or disagree that women should be summarily excluded from power? Because this isn’t about Hillary Clinton, but all women who get this sexist crap.
Exactly, so basically the strategy works. It appeals to women’s emotion. Call her pussy, skirt, bitch and she’ll go vote the other way, contrary to her own interest in grand scheme of thing. So set up a spiele where Hillary can cry sisterhood. Easy.
This is democrats version for GOP’s reagan democrats’ abortion, gay marriage, etc. It’s no fail button to call out a segment of base.
Even if no sane observer can see how Hillary’s Iraq strategy will work, how it will fit within context of international geopolitics and national budget, the campaign gag will basically get her in.
It’s like Bush “no nation building, spreading democracy, sustaining pax americana post-soviet collapse” It sounds good to rightwing libertarian and cowboy nationalism. It’s not going to work. and it’s contrary to the idea of libertarian in general since it will basically put national budget in a bind and commit the nation to unpredictable long term military adventure.
The actual analysis is not important. It’s all about emotional appeal.
And people wonder why democrats as a whole keeps loosing election in the past 20 years. Cheap political trick kills.
“Do you agree or disagree that women should be summarily excluded from power? Because this isn’t about Hillary Clinton, but all women who get this sexist crap.”
No capable woman should be excluded period.
And of course this is about Hillary. It is about campaign season in general. Just like Edward is a sissy boy with expensive haircut or Obama is drug addled dumb negro.
It’s sucky part of campaign game. Unfortunately it is effective. It draws the base and it matters in thin margin game.
“Do you agree or disagree that women should be summarily excluded from power? Because this isn’t about Hillary Clinton, but all women who get this sexist crap.”
No capable woman should be excluded period.
And of course this is about Hillary. It is about campaign season in general. Just like Edward is a sissy boy with expensive haircut or Obama is drug addled dumb negro.
It’s sucky part of campaign game. Unfortunately it is effective. It draws the base and it matters in thin margin game.
And people wonder why democrats as a whole keeps loosing election in the past 20 years. Cheap political trick kills.
But expensive political tricks pay off in spades. Just ask Karl Rove.
I’m concerned with all the “I’m voting for Hilary because the menz are attacking her” people. Not a good enough reason to vote for anyone. I don’t like it, but I don’t like her republican-lite voting record more.
My conspiracy theory is that the MSM and the repugs want her in the general election for two reasons: they think she is beatable and they think if by some strange chance she wins, she is close enough to being a republican that it won’t matter.
What got me, the moment after I said “how stupid and offensive” is that the outcome being depicted in the cartoon is actually the best possible thing that could happen for US foreign policy.
True — from what they’re saying, it looks like everyone but Kim Jung-Il is feeling apologetic and will agree to do anything she asks to get her to stop crying.
Hillary gets bin Laden to surrender himself for trial by using her womanly tears? Hey, all of our manly-man dick-swinging militarism hasn’t managed it, so why not try something new?
Horrible cartoon on gender. Like Cassie said, the context of the tearing-up episode was nothing like “people being mean.” It’s as though Oliphant merged the old brouhaha over Clinton’s people saying that the male candidates were trying but failing to beat up on her and the more recent “tears” event in order to say that Clinton is crying about being beaten up on. And that completely skips over the other moment that was much psychoanalyzed, when Clinton got pissed off about Edwards siding with Obama as agents of change and raised her voice slightly to make a case about what she has accomplished. So arguing, anger, and empathy are all in one bag, “getting emotional,” and the only way Oliphant can see a woman “getting emotional” is with tears flying from her face. Repulsive.
Very peculiar on race and ethnicity too. Isn’t Musharraf supposed to be a US ally, at least by conventional Washington standards? Yet there he is among the axis of evil and the rest of the foreign bogeymen.
Cassie’s point is well taken We haven’t seen Hillary tear up where the troglodytes say she will–under attack. Se’s absolutely prepared, fearless and hard as nails. No, this is a pure PoMo attack (post modern as well as post Maureen Dowd): They no longer need a gaffe or a breakdown–they’ll just make one up and attack on that.
I like Edwards because of his positions and his aggressiveness. But I’m sick to death of people attacking Hillary for bad reasons. “How is she going to pay for the War and health care “without raising tax across the board including working family”? Read her positions. She has an answer for that. And the arguments against experience? Last I looked, Dean Acheson was not running. (Nor, alas, was Al Gore.) None of the Democratic candidates have vast experience, and the only experienced Republican is one of the Keating Five.
And it’s also that the issues facing the US are not tricky, as far as I can see.
Out of Iraq.
National Health Care.
Fire every Republican.
These are not stupefying puzzles. They can all do it. They said they will.
Right now, I’m happy. I either get my pick as President–or I get the first woman president–or I get the first black president.
It’s all good.
Didn’t Bush just cry at some memorial in Israel?
But one forgets - the tears of male leaders are monumental! They are insights into their noble hearts!
What this cartoon does point to is the incorrigible, evil, filthy notion that we should have some testoteroned up warrior in office. You’ll notice the fantasy that our “evil” enemies are actually in physical proximity to our President/King. That’s why our president king has to be tough, like an action hero, like a GI Joe doll!
In one way, this cartoon is good. It hits the trifecta of patriarchal/ruling class fantasies - anti-women, the toughness ethos, and continuing America’s post wwii binge of perpetual war. Sadly, I’m sure that Clinton’s worst response, the one that would bring no respect, is to say that toughness is complete b.s., a quality that no president really possesses or has ever possessed, it should be utterly peed upon and left behind on the ashheap of false virtues.
What is the situation for postmenopausal women? As one person mentioned upthread, PMS is not really an issue for Hillary. Which really means they’re not speaking of HRC specifically but also women in general.
It’s not as if men don’t overreact emotionally while in office, but reckless endangerment is perceived as strength when men do it.
I’m concerned with all the “I’m voting for Hilary because the menz are attacking her” people. Not a good enough reason to vote for anyone.
It’s incredibly condescending to think that it’s the sole reason for anyone. Do you think women breaking to vote for Clinton in reaction to the sexism haven’t given a moment’s consideration to her other policies? You think they’d vote for her if she wasn’t pro-choice, for instance? Of course not. Part of the sexism of all this is the ridiculous assumption that women voting for Clinton and citing her femaleness as a reason are simple-minded and don’t have other reasons.
But if she wins the primary and the general election, it is in fact her gender that I would put the most hope in for her to be a great, or at least good, President despite her frequently stated and demonstrated conservative allegiances.
Your utter contempt for Clinton, and all other women, as individual autonomous human beings is noted. Maybe you could send her one of those “Who needs a brain when I have these?” t-shirts as a gesture of campaign support.
I mean, I don’t know how to tell you this, but the whole “vagina-American” bit is a joke.
I guess I might be damned as a gender-essentialist for saying this
Had you considered worrying less about anticipating people calling you a sexist, and worrying more about not being one?
Amanda: Part of the sexism of all this is the ridiculous assumption that women voting for Clinton and citing her femaleness as a reason are simple-minded and don’t have other reasons.
Yeah, seriously. To the people who self-righteously declare that THEY will never vote for Clinton just because she’s a woman: yeah, it’s a good thing she’s far and away the most qualified candidate in every other way, then, isn’t it.
Anyone here every heard of Ed Muskie?
But none of those critiques are really about the candidates they are used to attack. The brouhaha about Edwards haircut was about misogyny and homophobia, hatred and disdain towards women and gay men. It was an attempt to discredit Edwards by identifying Edwards with two groups who are common targets of social disdain. It was just as much about mocking people seen as effeminate (usually women and gay men) as it was about Edwards. Sure it was put forth as an economic criticism (how dare he spend so much money on a haircut!) but the story would never have caught on if it had been about him spending $400 dollars on a new gun rack or a single ticket to a football game or something appropriately “masculine”.
And playing up Obama’s past drug use is clearly about stereotyping African Americans. Both our most recent Presidents have histories of drug use. Clinton admitted to using marijuana and it basically became a joke (I didn’t inhale, haha). Although Bush never admitted to drug use in as straightforward a manner (I think he’s made veiled references to youthful indiscretions) but the fact that he gave up drinking, presumably due to alcoholism, is common knowledge. In Bush’s case it is put forward as a narrative of redemption, of overcoming personal problems. In Obama’s case it is used against him. Didn’t the Clinton operative who made the comments bring up the possibility that Obama might have “given other people” drugs? When Bill Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana, no one instantly assumed he might have been a pot dealer. Using that against Obama isn’t just about him. It’s about stereotypes of African-American men…it is just as much about them as it is about Obama as a candidate. These tactics only work because they are about more than the candidate.
This one’s worse:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22609844/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/5/
I’m not sure I’m part of a silent majority (indeed, I fear that I am not),
Ben, I have no idea if we’re a majority or not, but there are a lot of us. That is all we need, as far as I am concerned.
Then there’s this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22609844/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/9/
Please note the map of New Hampshire. And this guy’s from New England! Sheesh!
Can reasonable people please agree that Clinton and Thatcher are, in fact, very different? If that were a valid parallel, Clinton would actually be in the Republican party, with a lot of conservative men admiring her.
I’d also like to have a president who’s more progressive than Clinton. But that doesn’t mean that Clinton is for the Republican agenda. If she were, conservatives wouldn’t have been trying for years to bring her down so viciously and consistently. They don’t hate her just because she’s a woman; they hate her because she’s a woman who’s not on their side.
Isn’t Oliphant the guy who keeps drawing feminists as Wagnerian battle-axes, with breastplates and horned helmets?
Can reasonable people please agree that Clinton and Thatcher are, in fact, very different? If that were a valid parallel, Clinton would actually be in the Republican party, with a lot of conservative men admiring her.
Yeah. I like this blog, but get frustrated by some of the commenters, who seem to think that the more extreme they comment, the more good they do. Hillary Clinton is not my first, second, third, or fourth personal choice for president. But I realize that there is an actual difference between her and Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Her centrism sucks, but not as badly as the straight-up War and Jeebus Madness on the republican side.
As soon as what you consider Obama getting his happens, you be sure to let me know. I guarantee it won’t be from someone in the “liberal” media establishment - and if the bigotry Oliphant displays about gender is anywhere near the bigotry about race, you can bet that there WILL be a shitstorm and probably someone will lose a job.
Nobody loses a job through blatant misogyny. In fact the MSM pays women good money to express blatant misogyny all the time, just ask Flanagan, Dowd, Coulter, Malkin, Collins, Paglia and a whole slew of others.
The Oliphant piece is just more blatant than usual. But is his contempt for women really that much different than Dowd and Collins agreeing in print that the reason that the op-ed columns are male territory is that women just can’t handle batting out opinion pieces very well?
If by “this” you mean the Oliphant cartoon, then no, you’re wrong.
The PMS crack is aimed at all women. As someone else pointed out, HRC is beyond the age of PMS.
Oliphant used it because it’s a cheap shot against all women.
And Clinton didn’t even cry. The asshole press was just waiting for Clinton to do anything unusual. Then they blew it up out of all proportion.
The MSM is trying to Gore Clinton with the likes of Maureen Dowd once again leading the way (see The Daily Howler for details.) The only way to avoid a repeat of 2000 is for us to make an issue of our shitty media. Every time they try to Gore a Dem, we make them PAY for it.
I saw that, hbsweet, and could only think that either he’s a complete idiot to flip NH to look like VT, or that he was making some odd sort of point of how NH flipped for HRC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14851926/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/9/
Sorry; thought you meant THIS one. Serves me right, commenting w/o looking first!
Squashed
January 13, 2008 at 11:11 am
So should incapable men be excluded too? Should we set up a capability commission and kick out all the incompetent politicians from the Whitehouse, because it seems to be over-run with them.
Your agenda is clear through the use of that word. My guess is you would think most women incapable of leadership.
Last I checked, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan were all in Asia.
You know, now that I think about it, if all the foreign leaders we’re currently struggling with can be that easily disarmed and manipulated by some crocodile tears, then why not? Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!
Fuck it, let’s skip Hillary and elect Chelsea instead. If bin Laden feels sorry for a weepy Hillary, imagine how moved he’ll be when it’s cute little Chelsea sniffling bravely in the face of these mean old men.
I COMPLETELY agree.
@ louise:
It was cartoon #9 I was referring to in my second post–and yes, he did flip New Hampshire,either to show how Hillary turned the whole primary upside-down (I guess), or because he is, in fact, an idiot (the one I’m going with). Sad to say, the cartoonist is from my home state of CT, and should know what the hell New Hampshire looks like. If he did reverse it on purpose, he didn’t make his point clear enough visually, which may mean he’s not actually an idiot, just a shitty cartoonist. Either way, I am not proud to share the Nutmeg state with him. Of course, I’m still trying to live down Holy Joe Lieberman…
Well…
I am not voting for Clinton because she’s a centrist hawk who can’t seem to commit to pushing to overturn DOMA, a piece of legislation that directly hurts me. It’s not easy for me to ignore my differences with her positions, and I don’t think it should be.
I’m not voting for Obama because I think he lacks experiences, is more style than substance, and has shown that he’s more than willing to throw the GLBT community under the bus when push comes to shove.
I’m getting really tired of the suggestions that voting for someone other than Clinton makes me a bad feminist, or that voting for someone other than Obama makes me not black enough–although I’ll note that I’ve heard much more of the former than the latter.
Fortunately, there are more than two people running in the primaries–so can we please get over this assumption that not voting for Clinton means you’re voting for Obama, and vice-versa? Especially when it’s pretty much a given that progressives aren’t going to vote for the Republican in the general election, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is? Can we maybe concentrate on making sure that we have a voice in building the platform that said nominee will run on?
WTF? That NH ‘cartoon’– just W.T.H. ??? It doesn’t even seem to make any sense at all.
BTW, I hope all the feminist blogs are watching their football coverage: some losing running back (?) called “T.O.” (?) was all weepy about how his team got knocked out of the playoffs.*
Thrusting their crying sports stars in their faces might make
alla few of the nitwits shut up about Hillary for a minute or so.*BFD.
As an antidote, read Krugman’s column today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven’t said a word about their hairstyles.
Don’t worry, hbsweet- we gotta plenty of buffoons here in Maine, too!
And to the person who brought up Ed Muskie, YES we do remember him- his hometown of Rumford ME is less than 50 miles from me. He passed away within the last decade and was a remarkable man.
And Eric, I’m a huge Giants fan- saw them beat Dallas, including Terrell Owens/ TO. Also watched every other playoff game this weekend. The pundits won’t say a damned thing about TO’s tears behind the glasses; they will focus more on the fat that ELI and not PEYTON Manning is moving forward, as well as possible Dallas management changes. His tears will be a blip and forgotten.
Amanda Marcotte January 13, 2008 at 10:50 am
Squashed, I’m defending myself and all women against sexism. ”
No, I would argue it is not the case. It’s more a knee jerk sisterhood type of reaction. (yeah I know. I am known for that. But I take pride for having the last guy who can say I told you so.)
Idiotic jabbing aside. What I am trying to say. Hillary couldn’t careless what woman and feminism are when it’s hard slog. It’s just another polling parameter. It’s all electorate strategy and tactic. Taken together her actions don’t make sense.
As you observe she is dragging BET, the head honcho of Booty ‘en Thugs network, to attack Obama. Highly predictable.
… seriously. BET? The most eff up network that key leaders in hip-hop community have urged to change it’s content?
This is from Hillary, the senator who is whining about violent images in video games? Then there is the awol senator defending women reproductive right.
So I have gone beyond skeptical when it comes to Hillary. It’s all political calculus to her. It counts when it adds up to votes. Nothing more. She is not going to fight when it hurts her chance getting vote. (ie. the so called moderate/center right. The whole republican lite disease.)
Well anyway .. my position, women are screwed and will continue getting screwed. Because the people who suppose to think independently turn out to be just part of the larger machine. Push come to shove, I put my bet on beltway boys making womens group running in circle.
That’s how wingnut crew can use pseudo feminism group to stop women reproductive right or as a device to prop up bad leaders.
Anyway, just being loud as usual. I’ll come back with I told you so two years from now after Hillary is in office. I’ll be saying..”.Hah, so was I right that women concern is pretty low in her priority list. ”
I put my bet on pharmas, HMO and rightwing think-tank any day over woman causes when it come to Clinton’s calculation table.
In my high school NY Regents exams, we were always asked to interpret historical editorial cartoons in light of what we had learned about that period of American history. This would be an excellent one to use. Initially, my disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist’s delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS. One of the great things about turning 60 is that both PMS and menopause symptoms are a distant memory. Hillary is an excellent exemplar of the postmenopausal zest of older women that the anthropologist Margaet Mead spoke about. Women my and Hillary’s age would be the best guardians of the nuclear button if the US could summon up enough courage to watch a woman age each and every single day.
The more I thought about it, the more I suspected the cartoon has been completely misunderstood. According to Wikipedia, Oliphant’s trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the cartoon. The PMS remark is an important clue. Hillary is depicted as an old women and people still rant about PMS.
In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant’s caricatures were racist and misleading. That is important to know. Oliphant is criticizing sexist media attacks on Hillary by equating them to the rapid misogyny in some of the Arab world. After all, the world leaders repeating the US media attacks.
The demand of some liberal bloggers for Oliphant’s firing is far more offensive than the cartoon. Pat Oliphant is 72 years old. The New York Times has described him as the”most influential cartoonist now working.” In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.
The responsibility of political cartoonists is to offend us enough to shake up our knee-jerk assumptions and reactions. When a cartoonist with such a superb reputation produces something at first glance so offensive, we owe him the respect of thinking about it. My 31-year -old daughter instantly “realized that it was completely tongue-in-cheek and making fun of the idea that some people actually think this is what it would mean to have a woman president.”
In my high school NY Regents exams, we were always asked to interpret historical editorial cartoons in light of what we had learned about that period of American history. This would be an excellent one to use. Initially, my disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist’s delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS. One of the great things about turning 60 is that both PMS and menopause symptoms are a distant memory. Hillary is an excellent exemplar of the postmenopausal zest of older women that the anthropologist Margaet Mead spoke about. Women my and Hillary’s age would be the best guardians of the nuclear button if the US could summon up enough courage to watch a woman age each and every single day.
The more I thought about it, the more I suspected the cartoon has been completely misunderstood. According to Wikipedia, Oliphant’s trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the cartoon. The PMS remark is an important clue. Hillary is depicted as an old women and people still rant about PMS.
In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant’s caricatures were racist and misleading. That is important to know. Oliphant is criticizing sexist media attacks on Hillary by equating them to the rapid misogyny in some of the Arab world. After all, the world leaders repeating the US media attacks.
The demand of some liberal bloggers for Oliphant’s firing is far more offensive than the cartoon. Pat Oliphant is 72 years old. The New York Times has described him as the”most influential cartoonist now working.” In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.
The responsibility of political cartoonists is to offend us enough to shake up our knee-jerk assumptions and reactions. When a cartoonist with such a superb reputation produces something at first glance so offensive, we owe him the respect of thinking about it. My 31-year -old daughter instantly “realized that it was completely tongue-in-cheek and making fun of the idea that some people actually think this is what it would mean to have a woman president.” My three other grown daughters agree with her.
The demand of some liberal bloggers for Oliphant’s firing is far more offensive than the cartoon. Pat Oliphant is 72 years old. The New York Times has described him as the”most influential cartoonist now working.” In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.
So what? If he’s 72 years old, and the most influential cartoonist in the biz, then he will either just quit and rest on his laurels, or just find a gig somewhere else? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? “Oh, that poor old man, he can’t help saying sexist bullshit.”
Also, it’s not the cartoonist’s job to be offensive. It’s his job to be funny and incisive. The fact that he is neither is just more evidence that he should stop.
The more I thought about it, the more I suspected the cartoon has been completely misunderstood.
Given Oliphant’s record on anti-Hillary cartoons, uh, nice try, but no dice. And that only covers the last three months.
I ran into this today. Given how Scott usually portrays Clark, I wouldn’t have assumed it was misogynist, but YMMV.
Since our current president did panic in the face of one of the cartoon figures - Osama bin L - it would have been interesting if the cartoon made fun of that. You know, Bush hiding under his desk, peaking out fearfully from his copy of My Pet Goat, blubbering y-y-y-ya aren’t gonna hurt me, are you? I just have 10 more months! or something. A reminder of how brave sir george, he ran away, he ran away all day on September 11, 2001. And he’s been frozen in shame about that panic ever since.
I prescribe these great cartoons, stat.
I’ll give you something to cry about!
ARE AMERICANS READY FOR A WOMAN DRIVER?
Leaving an impression of strength, with a touch of femininity…
HILLARY FIGHTS JUST LIKE A MAN
Is Hillary Likable?
Hillary and Obama throw everything, even the kitchen sink, at each other.
And on the subject of that last cartoon, SERIOUSLY, Clinton and Obama and their respective supporters, STOP USING RACIST, SEXIST BULLSHIT AGAINST EACH OTHER ALREADY!
I prescribe these great cartoons, stat.
I’ll give you something to cry about!
ARE AMERICANS READY FOR A WOMAN DRIVER?
Leaving an impression of strength, with a touch of femininity…
HILLARY FIGHTS JUST LIKE A MAN
Is Hillary Likable?
Hillary and Obama throw everything, even the kitchen sink, at each other.
And on the subject of that last cartoon, SERIOUSLY, Clinton and Obama and all of their supporters, STOP USING RACIST, SEXIST BULLSHIT AGAINST EACH OTHER ALREADY!
Well my daughter thought it was misognyist shit.
I’d say more, but other people covered the points pretty well already.
Breaking the POTUS glass ceiling WILL benefit all women. End of story. It would be nice if she does other pro-women stuff - and we can be reasonably sure she won’t put an anti-choicer on the Supreme Court - but just becoming the POTUS will help.
And having the best POSTUS of the last 50 years as her main advisor is an added bonus.
But here’s a news flash for you - politics are a nasty business and leading in a democracy is full of compromise. No female candidate is going to be any different and still be a viable candidate. We live in a tough world - get used to it.