So Hillary is out. Or will drop out. Or has been voted out. Or is sticking it out. Or has outstayed her welcome.
So many lenses through which to view this historial event. Pundits, journalists, politicians, voters and every blogger in between has two cents to share.
What do Shameless readers think? When you look at this event, what do you see?
Plus: How to get published, pay for school, and bind your own books.
Save time and money. Get Shameless delivered straight to your door.
Sign up for e-mails about big Shameless news and events. We won’t give out or sell your address to anyone.
Shameless is an independent magazine with a very small budget. In addition to purchasing a subscription or back issues, you can support us through donations.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
13 comments
Recently, whenever the topic of Hillary Clinton has come up in discussions with friends, the overriding sentiment seems to be simply "why hasn't she dropped out yet?" Why drag it out so long? Why keep running when the admittedly close race nevertheless seemed out of reach?
I don't think Clinton's campaign was particularly problematic until recently, as the pressure on her increased to drop out. The Florida/Michigan delegate debacle is a case in point: Clinton compared the fight to get the delegates seated to the civil rights movement, an assertion I found particularly troublesome. But some of her supporters ran with it, turning the DNC rules committee hearings into a shouting match and producing some frankly disturbing video. It wasn't until I watched that video that I came to realize one of my friends was right: as much as people in the Obama camp may dislike Clinton, there are Clinton supporters who absolutely hate Obama.
And yet, inflammatory comments aside, on principle I think she should have the right to call the race when she wants to, and not a minute before. Is her continued candidacy ruining the party? Yes—but how much of that is really her fault and how much of that is simply to be expected from any candidate who continues to compete for the nomination? I don't know. It was a bigger problem when Clinton was still actively attacking Obama and generally trying her level best to drag down the level of discourse, but I don't think that necessarily absolves Obama supporters of blame either—after all, the underlying current of "when will she just quit already and leave us to do the real business" is not really to my liking either.
Posted by Wesley
June 3, 2008, 10:53 PM
I will say the same thing I've been saying on this blog before which is that true feminism does not encompass or ignore racism on any level, not even to progress the "greater woman's agenda", and Hillary has been nothing short of racist.
Nope, I won't tolerate it as a feminist.
Also to mention that Hillary is pretty conservative on many other fronts I would not be okay with as a progressive living in the U.S. (i.e. universal healthcare, the war, oh and Indian Health Service and tribal sovereignty which I'm guessing most people haven't heard about, so look that one up for sure)
That is not to say that Obama has a clean slate, and to be honest I would not vote for either of them if I actually lived there.
But I'm not sad that Hillary's out (or I should say another middle-to-upper-class, selective-oppression recognizing person) and I certainly would not vote for her just because she is a woman.
Since I recognize that for myself, that wouldn't matter on a lot of her positions.
Posted by Jessica Yee
June 4, 2008, 1:24 AM
One thing about this Democratic race that bothers me a lot is not really related to Clinton or Obama directly. Rather its the amazing violence that Clinton, as a candidate, as a representative of all women (not necessarily by her choice) has experienced from the media. I had read about it before but recently watched some YouTube montages from CNN and Fox news that really scared and saddened me.
I'm not trying to wade into the "who's oppressed more" debate. But I really fear that this kind of very public sexism may have a huge impact on women watching this race who have had thoughts about entering into politics.
Posted by tuval
June 4, 2008, 12:13 PM
I agree with Tuval. The way the mainstream media has treated Clinton is appalling and I think will have a lasting effect on the reluctance of women to enter into politics.
I think it's impossible not to admit that how she was depicted had some sort of effect on her campaign in general. Regardless of how I feel about her as a candidate, a democrat, a feminist, a person, I am consistently amazed at how acceptable it is for CNN and MSNBC reporters and on-air pundits to call her names like bitch, hag, nag, witch, etc:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XEl4KMN...
Posted by Stacey May
June 4, 2008, 12:53 PM
As I've watched the race unfold, I haven't just been watching as a feminist, I've been watching as -- gasp -- an American. There have been aspects of both campaigns that I've found troubling, but three things continue to haunt me.
1. The assumption that support is based solely on demographics. That if I support Hillary, it's just because she's a woman. That if I support Hillary, I'm (in some form or other) racist. That if I support Obama, I'm required to explain that I am not going to support Hillary just because she's a woman. That if I support Obama, I probably don't know the issues, I'm just falling for some youth-targeted music video ideal about hope. None of these stereotypes allow for the possibility that I am a critical thinker and I analyze my political choices. They all assume that I am a passive consumer of political fashion.
2. As Tuval and Stacey May have mentioned, media coverage has demonstrated that a disgusting level of misogyny is socially acceptable. I do believe that if a similar tone had emerged about Obama and race, many TV pundits would have been fired immediately. This does not mean that American culture is more sexist than racist -- I don't believe this to be true (or particularly revealing). But anyone who denies that this is a major factor in how the campaign took shape is ignoring a major lesson here.
3. That there does not seem like a clear way out of the divisive, sensational language with which we continue to see the presidential race. I do think that a joint Obama-Clinton ticket might be a good step. We have to move forward, people!
I'm uncertain -- for complicated reasons I won't go into here -- whether or not I will vote in November. But I continue to watch in horror and fascination.
Posted by Megan
June 4, 2008, 1:57 PM
Megan:
I do believe that if a similar tone had emerged about Obama and race, many TV pundits would have been fired immediately.
It hasn't emerged - it's been here all along. But it's been less in the media than Clinton's, and more in the warring grassroots themselves.
TMK, the Obama campaign has no Geraldine Ferraro who's been making nonsensical comments about Hillary's gender. I also don't know of an Obama blogger analogous to the nutjob Larry Johnson, who expresses palpable fear of Obama's blackness. I think that racism and sexism are simply occurring in different places; sexism in the mainstream media, as a sort of backdrop to the conversation that is this campaign (sexism is always the backdrop in the media, I guess), and racism as a concealed weapon carried by whitefolk on the front lines.
Posted by Thene
June 4, 2008, 3:59 PM
Here's a really interesting recap of the sexism that Michelle Obama has experienced at the hand of the media. This post also questions why the feminist blogosphere has been silent about gendered attacks on M.Obama while sounding the alarm on gendered attacks on Clinton:
http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2008...
Clinton has experienced a lot of sexism from the media. Period. In and of itself that is terrible. We don't need to go looking for whether or not there Obama has experienced racism in the media (which he has, conveniently enough some examples of it were compiled by commenter Jaye for us on this very website: http://www.shamelessmag.com/blog/2008...)
to emphasise that point.
Posted by Thea
June 4, 2008, 4:24 PM
Truthfully, I think Obama will be a great president. Yet, what I've seen most clearly throughout the primary season is a media that is hostile and lazy. Hostile in that it invents drama and fights that don't exist (or wouldn't without constant prodding)just for the pleasure of watching for blood, lazy in that it would rather pay pundits to yell and smirk than journalists capable of doing real research.
Posted by habladora
June 4, 2008, 4:50 PM
Just to clarify, I was talking about the language used by mainstream media, which is why I mentioned TV pundits specifically. The point I was making was about the tone used by media in the discussion.
Thea, thanks for mentioning the Oppression Olympics post, which fueled strong debate. But again, Jaye's examples are mostly the words of other politicians, not journalists. And as a media professional, I'm annoyed when the media doesn't act, well, professionally.
My point remains, though, that we have to find common ground here, and stop trying to compare wounds. Is there less racism in America because it wasn't splashed overtly across CNN headlines? Of course not, that's a ridiculous statement. But it's not evidence of privilege to examine misogyny, either.
BTW, Thene, when I am a "whitefolk" on the front lines, I'm on the front lines of anti-oppression, anti-racist, inclusive feminist causes.
Posted by Megan
June 4, 2008, 5:28 PM
I'm honestly exhaustified (if that's a word) of having to intersect racism and sexism for people, why does one have to trump the other??? I can't help but see them being interrelated and I have to echo Thene's words and also say that it's interesting how much sexism has been cried out about Clinton's treatment BY women of privilege and power (which you do have, and it's time to acknowledge that) and if you really want to go head-for-head in terms of who's been slandered the most in the media, I think they are both pretty much at the same level.
Which begs the question, why is it that WOMEN must rush to the defense when gender is at stake and PEOPLE OF COLOUR when race is at stake? Why can't it be the same and we all EQUALLY take action on it being bad for humanity? (and not it leave for the "other" group to take care of)
Last time I checked, I still raise the red flag where sexism is concerned in unison with others, but I don't necessarily feel that these same people have been coming down to help in the trenches when my skin colour is being discussed (other than briefly stating they know it and ya it sucks)
Which is also why the celebration of pluralism is so important, because I have multiple identities and I'm damn proud of it too. I don't pick one or the other to decide how active I'm going to be on the level of standing up for it.
Posted by Jessica
June 5, 2008, 1:38 AM
Hey, Jessica, right on. I'm with you and Thene on this one. It is unbelievable how rare it is for white folks to engage with racism in their analysis. I mean ENGAGE, not just mention it and then move on to "more important" or "more fundamental" or "more pressing" issues and then never go back to it. Racism has forever been on hold in feminist movements, and it is no wonder that the term has become irrelevant to many - and not just because young women think that feminism is a thing of the past. Plenty of young women see, feel and taste the racism they experience everyday as interrelated with sexism. I think many don't relate their resistance to oppression as necessarily feminist because the face of mainstream feminism doesn't include them - and who wants to be involved in a movement that continually denies your experience? Who wants to get involved in a movement that feels like your oppressor, one that is just another exhausting fight instead of a supportive and loving community?
I think it is important also to not just point fingers at the mainstream media for racism and sexism but to acknowledge and own it in our own lives, work, blogs and activism. This is painful and difficult because it not only gives meaning and words to the ways we've been oppressed but also asks us to question how the skills, jobs, opportunities, even personalities that us whitefolk have are not uniquely due to our individual brilliance and hard work. Instead these privileges were developed in an environment of constant and ongoing theft of the resources, ideas, bodies, labour, and culture of racialized and marginalized people.
How are we going to really acknowledge that?
Posted by piKe
June 5, 2008, 11:13 AM
I was just wondering why some of you have decided that they would or are not voting at all. Wouldn't that just give the Republican party more chances of winning?
Posted by Helene
June 5, 2008, 9 PM
Some brillance, here:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/06/1...
Posted by piKe
June 13, 2008, 11:34 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.