Tempest or Teapot?

Much has been said about the contentious primary battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the past few months. I know we are all happy it's now history. As an early Edwards supporter, I was neutral when it came to the other candidates. But I was very disturbed when their supporters started demonizing each other. On the Obama side of the blog community, you had the sort of Clinton bashing you'd expect from dittoheads. And on the Hillary Clinton side, there was the sort of divisive politics Karl Rove has spent his life perfecting. In the end, I believe that Clinton's early support of the Iraq invasion,  and her campaign strategy of praising John McCain's qualifications for the presidency while belittling Obama's, turned many undecided Democrats against her. You see, as much as I don't care for the current GOP mindset of party unity at all cost, sometimes it's just the right thing to do. One's desire and desperation to become the party nominee should never trump the real goal of winning back the White House. And Hillary Clinton would have expected that same restraint from Barack Obama had he been trying to catch up to a Clinton lead.

Now I am not here to scold my fellow Democrats like an angry parent. But I think we can learn from this experience and grow from it. We should be focusing on the policy differences, not identity politics. To bash fellow Democrats during the primary season is self-defeating. The party must come first especially when so much is at stake. For months angry Clinton supporters railed against the "obvious" media bias for Barack Obama. They bristled at the idea that anyone could dislike Hillary Clinton for reasons other than simply being a woman. And, yes many of those sexist attacks were ugly. Blake Fleetwood at Huffington Post had no trouble convincing me that "sexism is alive and well in America." In fact, I've been bugged by it for years. And his May 18th post was rather evenhanded:

To be sure there have been many racist incidents in this heated campaign as seen by Kevin Merida article in the Washington Post earlier this week which drew 2100 comments and much media attention.

However, the embedded eight minute video not only show cases vulgar and tasteless invective aimed at  Hillary Clinton, it also condemns Barack Obama for not speaking out against the attacks. At the start of the video, a quote from veteran journalist Tom Watson is cited:

[U]nless Barack Obama speaks out, his campaign's chilling acceptance of the gender bias stirred by our national media will remind many of Ronald Reagan's race-baiting southern strategy--because if Obama accepts the presidency, at least in part, because of abject sexism, a brutal gender attack on a female rival -- the most famous female Democrat in history--he will set feminism in our country back a generation.

The assumption that Obama is obligated to attack every talking head, columnist and blogger who happens to stir sexism into their arguments seems a bit of a stretch. In fact, the vast majority of commentators did not resort to such cynical and backward attacks. Most Democrats are liberal, open-minded, and certainly not sexist. (I would love to see a list of sources for the worst offenders showcased on this documentary. My guess is that most represent the dregs of the right-wing Neanderthal movement.) And the very idea of his non-action setting feminism back a generation is laughable. Because if we really want to end the acceptance of sexism in the media, we must start a letter writing campaign against the offending pundits, authors and their publishers. We must all fight back together and demand a change in attitude.

Claiming that somehow Obama would owe his win to the sexist invective of small minded people like is mind-boggling. It just smacks of political desperation--especially when you consider that Clinton took full advantage of the conservative white males who would not vote for Obama because he's an African American. And as far as "The most famous female Democrat in history" is concerned, it's hard to call. So what is the current status of Eleanor Roosevelt as an inspiration for women in America? I will assume he meant the most famous elected female Democrat in history, because that is certainly true.

I know Tom Watson is a loyal Democrat and has called on his readers to support Barack Obama for president. But I just want to make sure we never go down this destructive road again. We can support our candidate and still keep our eyes on the prize at the same time. The consequences of failure are far too great--especially if you care about advancing women's rights.

Comments

[Tom W.]

Destructive road? You're kidding right - I hope so. Because you and I witnessed a great Democrat who happened to be a woman utterly debased on a daily basis in the so-called mainstream media, not by right-wing neanderthals but my so-called left-leaning outlets like MSNBC.

The attacks on Hillary Clinton are part of history now and I support Barack Obama. It's fascinating that Michelle Obama now agrees with me, Ralph. The timing is interesting, of course - nonetheless, I'm glad she and Katie Couric and Howard Dean and others are starting to speak out.

This is never going away - who knows if it was THE factor that cost Clinton the primary; probably not, in my view. But it was utterly horrific for this Democrat - and for his daughter, his wife, and his mother.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Tom. I never said that Hillary Clinton was not attacked because she's a woman. I never said it wasn't a problem. I am saying that you crossed the line by trying at every turn to sabotage the rival Democrat's chances in the general election. Why do you think so many of your readers were lambasting Obama and saying they could never vote for him. They repeated all the bullshit claims that he snubbed her, that he flipped her the bird, that calling a reporter 'sweetie' means he's a sexist pig... then the idea that he must defend her against the media when she wouldn't even admit he was qualified to be president. Can't you separate the two issues? Yes she was unfairly attacked. And no, Obama is not 'one of them'. You know this in your heart our else you wouldn't be supporting him. It went too far and you cannot admit that you exploited the sexism to attack Obama.

[Michael]

Ok the Democratic primary is over and now we are facing a new world. McCain vs Obama. I was recently watching two stories McCain in Mexico City. In this case I had the advantage of actually being in Mexico City and seeing the local news casts, as well as, CNN. On the other hand we are now witnessing Obama on his trip to Afganistan.

First McCain attacked Obama for not traveling as he did. Now he is attaching Obama for traveling and using it as a political ploy.

Well after witnessing McCain on his knees in front of the Basilica de Guadelupe in Mexico City he has absolutely no right to critize anyone. It really was a shameful performance and one that had nothing to do with respect for the Church or the Religion, but it was a clearly staged message that was aimed to appeal to Latino Voters.

The news coverage in Mexico was simply unbelievable. So the question is why did he go to Mexico City to do this and not go directly to a large Hispanic city in the US? Well McCain knows that Mexico is important to show his pressence in another country, but also to demonstrate to the Hispanic population in the US that he is willing to visit Mexico, meeting with President Calderon and talk about immigration reform.

So when McCain critizes the Democrates he needs to remember his political visit to Mexico city before he speaks.