It’s 2008: Will Democratic Platform Condemn the Media’s Sexist Bias?

1960s feminist icon Gloria Steinem must be shaking her head at how long it takes for so-called liberals to wake up and call the media to account.

People, it’s 2008. Can you believe that after all these years the political party that has long claimed the mantle of liberalism has to be prodded to even acknowledge the sexist assaults Hillary Clinton endured from a blatantly biased media throughout the Democratic primary?

Part of the problem has to be the subtext here: Democratic Party leaders colluded with the media for months in their efforts to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, even warning her - while she was still a contender - not to be overly critical of her opponent. As Gloria Steinem and others have since pointed out, this is the first presidential race in the nation’s history in which the media had the gall to repeatedly ask a serious candidate to drop out.

So here we are on Aug. 1, 2008 linking to an article in the Los Angeles Times that sounds as if it might have been pulled from the paper’s 1960s archives. Written by staff writer Peter Nicholas, For Clinton supporters, it's a gender issue begins:

‘“WASHINGTON -- As her chances of becoming vice president recede, some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters are pushing for the Democratic Party's new platform to state that the primary elections "exposed pervasive gender bias in the media" and to call on party leaders to take ‘immediate and public steps’ to condemn future perceived instances of bias.

“The push for the plank in the party's statement of principles reflects a lingering unhappiness over Clinton's treatment during the Democratic primary, and over what her supporters say was an inadequate response from party leaders.”

Nicholas continues:

‘“Some Clinton supporters have complained of jibes against the New York senator by TV talk show hosts, off-color novelty items and incidents such as the time when hecklers yelled ‘Iron my shirt!’ at a Clinton rally.

“A Democratic committee devoted to writing the platform is to meet today in Cleveland to hear presentations from policy advocates, then draft the document.

“There were so many examples in the media of sexist comments where we never heard from the party leadership or Barack Obama,’ said Stacy Mason, executive director of a political action committee called WomenCount, which claims thousands of members. The group ran newspaper ads in the spring urging Clinton to stay in the contest.

‘“We're focused on why the Democratic leadership was so silent about it during the campaign,’ Mason said. ‘It was their obligation to come to the defense of one of their own primary candidates, and they didn't. They stayed silent during the campaign, and that's not OK.”’

To read more, go here.

Edwards’ indictment again triggers memories of the 2008 Democratic Primary

I’ve been trying hard to move on from the 2008 Democratic primary, but every so often a recent event triggers memories of the endless weeks of idolatrous worship of Barack Obama and the simultaneous misogynist attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Today’s indictment of John Edwards did it for me once again. The AP reported:

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted two-time presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday over $925,000 spent to keep his mistress and their baby in hiding during the peak of his 2008 campaign for the White House.

The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts, including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements.

I could not resist reposting my response to Edwards initial confession of his marital infidelity on Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008:

 

Flashback to John Edwards’ Endorsement of Barack Obama

(first posted on Aug. 9, 2008)

In yesterday’s confession of his marital infidelity on ABC News, John Edwards said:

"Then I went from being a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president ... becoming a national public figure, all of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe you can do whatever you want, you're invincible and there will be no consequences. And nothing could be further from the truth."

Those words prompted a flashback to an earlier post at Katalusis in which I quoted Kathleen Parker who had already made note of Edwards’ tendency toward “self-focus:”

Here’s the background: on May 13, Hillary Clinton won a landslide victory in the West Virginia primary, propelled mainly by working class voters. The breaking news the next day was the endorsement of Barack Obama by former candidate John Edwards at a campaign event scheduled that evening, obviously designed to upstage Clinton’s win.

Posting at Real Clear Politics, Kathleen Parker reported:

“As Edwards gave what amounted to a stump speech highlighting his favorite subject -- John Edwards -- and his own anti-poverty initiative, Americans were reminded of why the North Carolina son-of-a-millworker won't be their presidential nominee.

“Enraptured by his own message, Edwards seemed reluctant to hand over the microphone. He finally relinquished the stage, after describing, yet again, the ‘wall’ that he says divides Americans: ‘There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.”’

Obama supporters were delighted by the Edwards endorsement, evidently convinced the guy who had gained notoriety for his $400 haircuts would help their candidate lure working class voters away from Hillary Clinton.

That never happened and after all the hoopla last May, we’ve already learned that Edwards won’t be appearing at the Democratic convention, and he’ll probably have no role in an Obama administration.

In the meantime, Elizabeth Edwards will likely continue to be one of the most widely respected women in America.

Note: That never happened either, and Elizabeth Edwards spent the last weeks of her life trying her best to protect her children from the fallout of their father's behavior and ensure their welfare after her death, which occurred on Dec. 7, 2010.

Looking Back: Ted Kennedy’s Role in the 2008 Democratic Primary

There’s no question that Ted Kennedy’s backing of the inexperienced Barack Obama in 2008 gave him credibility as a presidential candidate. Politico’s Smith and Martin go a step or two further; Early on in their post titled Ted Kennedy’s Legacy Shapes Obama’s Path, they declare:

Kennedy's endorsement may have won Obama the nomination. His legacy, health care legislation, has already shaped Obama's presidency, and Obama will deliver a eulogy at Kennedy's funeral Saturday. But it wasn't until the last minute, in late January 2008, that Kennedy decided to take sides at all - throwing himself into a hard-fought primary between two of his friends, Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Reading this piece opens old wounds from the primary, especially those born by Hillary Clinton supporters. It’s a reminder of a series of betrayals by supposed friends of the Clintons including Bill Richardson and John Edwards, as well as Ted Kennedy.

Richardson and Edwards, I’m sure, had their own motives, but I agree with Cinie at Cinie’s World that Ted Kennedy was most concerned to keep the family myth of Camelot alive, as in “Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.”

Smith and Martin also highlight the Kennedy family's aim to anoint Obama as the boy king who pulls the sword from the stone:

The family had decided to go all out, to make explicit a passing of its legacy to an outsider, after decades of searching for an heir inside the clan. On stage at American University that Monday with Caroline and his son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), the senator, too, referred to passing the torch and echoed his famous 1980 Democratic National Convention promise that "the dream shall never die."

And who can forget Caroline Kennedy’s well-timed op-ed in the NY Times, “A President Like My Father.”

Since Ted Kennedy’s death on Tuesday evening tributes have been pouring in for this man who served honorably as a U.S. senator from Massachusetts for many years. And it is befitting that his home state is leading the nation in its mourning.
Edit Posts
It is surprising to recall, though, that in a quirky turn in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton won the state of Massachusetts – despite endorsements of Obama by both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy, and Gov. Deval Patrick.

The Kennedy magic also failed in delegate-rich California. Concerned to steal the women’s vote from Clinton, the Obama campaign featured appearances by Caroline Kennedy; Arnie Schwarzenegger’s wife, Maria Shriver; and even Oprah. The voters said, “No dice,” and Hillary won again.

Hillary is still winning, by the way, as her job approval as secretary of state remains in the 70s, and she’s recently been credited with revolutionizing American foreign policy.

Obama, the Unifier, Leads Fractured Democratic Party

Barack Obama gained the rabid support of the Democratic Party’s left wing by promising among other things to first unify the nation and then ride forth to bring peace and harmony to the entire world. He assured his followers that no experience was required to perform this miracle; he would accomplish the feat solely by virtue of his singular personality. As Oprah so eloquently introduced Obama at a rally in South Carolina during the Democratic primary, “He’s the one we’ve been waiting for.”

So far the presumptive nominee, also known as “the one,” has not been able to unify his own party ahead of its national convention this August in Denver – even though his coronation is slated to occur before 75,000 onlookers seated in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

In this Tuesday’s NY Observer, Jason Horowitz describes how Clinton supporters are determined to ensure that never again will a serious female candidate be subjected to the onslaught of sexism and misogyny that Hillary Clinton faced in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

Horowitz writes:

“Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild doesn’t look like a radical.

“Surrounded by bike paths, ponds and the Atlantic Ocean in her Martha’s Vineyard farmhouse, not far from where Bill and Hillary Clinton usually summer, the lifelong Democrat and Clinton fund-raiser opened a laptop to her “Together4Us” Web site, an online petition that features Hillary Clinton looking luminous above a series of demands made of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

“Ms. de Rothschild, 54, dressed in matching blue pants and sweater, blond hair tucked behind her ears, said she plans to send copies of the more than 6,000 signatures she has collected to superdelegates, Mr. Obama, his top officials, Howard Dean and officials at the Democratic National Committee, on Aug. 18—the Monday before the Democratic convention.

“And she’ll be there, at the convention, to help press those demands, she said, especially including a dramatic overhaul of the nominating process by which Mr. Obama won the primary. She said she was well aware of Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to get Mr. Obama elected, as well as the efforts of the Obama campaign staffers, whom she said she liked, to appease Mrs. Clinton’s supporters. Despite it all, Ms. de Rothschild does not plan to vote for him.

‘“I think it’s difficult for him to fix it because of the judgments he’s made in the past and his lack of experience,’ she said, adding that there was really nothing Mrs. Clinton could do about it. “If we are dissatisfied with Obama as a potential president, Hillary cannot be expected to change our minds.”’

“A phenomenon born from the debris of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has taken on a life of its own.

“The mostly female collection of activists who continue to rally around the cause of a decommissioned White House bid can’t exactly be described as an organized movement. There are the wealthy donors who work within official party channels and talk calmly about reforming the party’s nominating process or protecting against gender bias in future elections. Their level of hostility toward the Obama campaign varies. And then there are the outright rejectionists: the raucous bloggers and founders of groups like PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) who plan to disrupt the convention and have declared all-out war against Mr. Obama and his supporters, who they accuse of making death threats and leaving dead bunny rabbits on doorsteps in the middle of the night.

“What they share, without exception, is a profound disappointment at the way the primary turned out, and a revulsion at the way they perceive Mrs. Clinton to have been treated.

“That has been enough to establish a de facto echo chamber that has proven to be a headache for Mr. Obama as his campaign tries to project Democratic unity ahead of the convention during the last week of August.”

Read more.

The NY Times gets it right once again in endorsing Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, 2015. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Photo courtesy of the NY Times. 

Well, Katalusis friends, considering Hillary Clinton's widespread sexist treatment by the media during the 2008 Democratic primary, it's a pleasure to read that once again, the NY Times has chosen to endorse her.  The Times editorial begins with this blurb:

Voters have the chance
to choose one of the most
broadly and deeply
qualified presidential
candidates in modern history.

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 30, 2016

(Virginia Bergman notes: I object to the Times editorial's insistence on labeling Bill Clinton as her "brilliant and flawed husband." I would ask the Editorial Board to name one so-called brilliant public figure without flaws. A reminder is in order here: all human beings are flawed in one way or another, even the members of the Times editorial board.)

The Times endorsement of Hillary continues:

For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

Read More:

 

 

The déjà vu flavor of the love affair of Democratic Party lefties with Bernie Sanders

 (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Dominick Reuter/Photo montage by Salon) (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Dominick Reuter/Photo montage by Salon)

The current infatuation with Bernie Sanders by the ultra left wing of the Democratic Party has a déjà vu flavor to it. Back in August 2008, I noted here at Katalusis:

Barack Obama gained the rabid support of the Democratic Party’s left wing by promising among other things to first unify the nation and then ride forth to bring peace and harmony to the entire world. He assured his followers that no experience was required to perform this miracle; he would accomplish the feat solely by virtue of his singular personality. As Oprah so eloquently introduced Obama at a rally in South Carolina during the Democratic primary, “He’s the one we’ve been waiting for.”
So far the presumptive nominee, also known as “the one,” has not been able to unify his own party ahead of its national convention this August in Denver – even though his coronation is slated to occur before 75,000 onlookers seated in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

There are, of course, obvious differences between 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama and 2016 candidate Bernie Sanders, a registered independent and self-described socialist, currently seeking the Democratic Party nomination. Age and political experience, for one thing – in those respects, Sanders far outweighs the One in his 2008 heyday. But it must be said that Sanders may even surpass Obama in the promises the Vermont senator makes to score big on major Democratic Party issues on foreign policy, environment, same sex marriage, health care, and the economy.

Adding to the déjà vu experience, Sanders, like his predecessor, is taking aim at frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In an attempt to bring giddy left wing Democrats back to earth, a reminder is in order: as soon as Obama secured the Democratic Party nomination, the candidate who presented himself as above politics, suddenly lunged to the center. Obama’s supporters explained their idol’s about face was necessary in order for him to defeat John McCain in the general election.

Does anyone reading this now care that soon after he took office, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his good intentions, ordered drone invasions of other nations. Keep in mind that our president has seemed unconcerned that innocents, who were not on his secret “kill list,” often died at his behest; they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All of the above is to suggest that if he succeeds in winning the Democratic Party’s nomination, Socialist Bernie Sanders may have to do as Obama did in the summer of ’08. Can’t you just see it? Sanders planting his feet firmly on centrist ground and disavowing his long history as a Socialist. “Well,"  his supporters will justifiably ask, “How else can Bernie win the general election?”

Let me suggest here that the Democratic Party might well stick with Hillary Clinton this time around. With Hillary, what you see is what you get, and no about faces will be required in order for her to win the GE. See, folks? What Hillary has got in full measure is authenticity and unlike Obama and Sanders, she doesn’t claim to be above politics.

More Bad News for Democrats, and It’s Way Past Time to Own Up to Mistakes of 2008

As I posted earlier this morning, the latest NPR poll shows both Obama and the Democratic party’s majority in congress on a downhill slide. Adding to worries for the Obama Administration, the headline at Politico this morning reads Backlash: Democratic Dangers Mount, and writers Charles Mahtesian and Josh Kraushaar are hoisting red flags:

Democrats giddy with possibilities only six months ago now confront a perilous 2010 landscape signaled by troublesome signs of President Barack Obama’s political mortality, the plunging popularity of many governors and rising disquiet among many vulnerable House Democrats.

The issue advantage has shifted as well, with Democrats facing the brunt of criticism about the pace of stimulus package spending, anxiety over rising unemployment rates and widespread uneasiness over the twin pillars of Obama’s legislative agenda: his cap-and-trade approach to climate change and the emerging health care bill.

Bolstered by historical trends that work in the GOP’s favor — midterm elections are typically hostile to the party in power — and the prospect of the first election in a decade without former President George W. Bush either on the ballot or in office, Republicans find themselves on the offensive for the first time since 2004.

None of this is to say that the Democratic congressional majorities are in serious jeopardy. The GOP has suffered some significant setbacks, ranging from headline-grabbing personal indiscretions to Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch, and it continues to be plagued by an inability to present its own new ideas.

Yet the possibilities GOP officials now imagine are a dramatic shift from the bleak prospects that the 2010 midterm elections presented for the party at the beginning of the year.

Back then, the newly elected president was fresh off a sweeping victory and riding a wave of inaugural goodwill. The Republican Party’s standing had seemingly hit rock bottom in the polls. The enormous Democratic House majority looked unassailable, and the party’s advantage in the Senate looked nearly as formidable, with the GOP forced to defend more Senate seats in total in 2010 than Democrats — a predicament exacerbated by a handful of Republican retirements in key battleground states.

“There’s a sense building among Republicans that 2010 is going to be a far better political environment than 2008 or 2006,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres. “Part of that is because we have a Democratic president and a Democratic-controlled Senate and House that are promoting fiscally dangerous policies for the future of the country. Part of it is we don’t have the burden of Iraq as we did in 2006 and don’t have the economy on the Republicans’ watch as we had in 2008.”

In one sign of the reconfigured landscape, Republican candidates lead in the polls in this fall’s closely watched gubernatorial elections — in New Jersey and Virginia. In New Jersey, where first-term Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine trails his challenger by double digits, a far-reaching corruption investigation has led to the resignation of one member of Corzine’s Cabinet and insider speculation about whether Corzine should be replaced on the ticket in November by a more viable Democratic nominee.

Mahtesian and Kraushaar go on to describe in further detail the potential downside for the Republicans in 2010, but their red flags for the Dems still bristle across the landscape; and over at On the Trail, (the National Journal), bipartisan Amy Walter makes similar points. Walter’s post is titled A Regional Party No More and subtitled Far From Being Relegated To The South, The GOP Is Showing Signs Of Life In Democratic Strongholds. Walter writes:

Despite the ongoing hand-wringing among many Republican insiders and pundits about the fate of the party in the Obama age, a mini-resurgence of the moderate GOP brand is quietly taking place in the Northeast.

In almost every state north of the Mason-Dixon Line, Democratic officeholders are struggling and a GOP candidate is polling well. In places like New Jersey, Connecticut and New York, there are signs that moderate Republicans, once considered extinct, are reappearing. Like any endangered creature, they went underground until a better climate appeared.

So it goes. My recommendation to Democratic Party leaders in my previous post stands. So-called liberals are advised to repent of your misdeeds in your fraudulent 2008 primary and convention, rigged to assure an Obama victory; own up to the sexism and misogyny you displayed in your treatment of the better qualified Hillary Clinton; and publicly apologize to voters; only then will you stand a chance of regaining the respect of the American people.

Flashback: Benazir Bhutto’s Advice to Hillary and Bill Clinton

The punditry’s continuing hypocrisy in its coverage of Bill Clinton in the 2008 campaign can only be described as disgraceful. I’m reminded of an interview with the late Benazir Bhutto published in New York Magazine last October.

Speaking to Jennifer Senior, Bhutto offered some advice to Hillary Clinton who was then on the campaign trail. Her words to Hillary now seem prescient on such topics as whether or not to portray her “nurturing” side, responding to criticism of her clothes, and dealing with the attacks from other women in power - I’m thinking of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington, and Maureen Dowd.

Bhutto also had some advice for Bill: “All I can tell him is that either way, you won’t win. Not if you disappear and not if you’re there campaigning. He’ll have to go by his instincts.”

Bhutto’s comment nailed it. The media caricatured the former president throughout the Democratic primary, blatantly targeting him at times in order to shaft Hillary. This first became apparent shortly after Hillary humiliated the punditry by winning in New Hampshire despite its predictions of an Obama sweep.

Even while choking on apologies for having already attempted to force Hillary out of the race, the media’s next viral non-story was an absurd distortion of Bill’s comments about Obama’s deceptive presentation of his early opposition to the Iraq War resolution, seldom bothering to mention the senate vote occurred before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Bill additionally sinned in the media’s eyes by correctly pointing out that Obama’s votes on war-related matters have since been identical to Hillary’s.

Thereafter, the media routinely ridiculed Bill as he stumped for Hillary, seldom mentioning that he was instrumental in several of her big wins toward the end of the Democratic primary, even before the late Tim Russert, now spoken of as “his holiness,” had declared Obama the nominee.

Over at CBS, Bob Schieffer, posing as a licensed psychotherapist, suggested that Bill might be deliberately trying to undermine Hillary’s campaign.

The media became increasingly infantile as the campaign wore on, obviously unable to cope with the unnerving success of a strong, competent, and electrifying female candidate who, in spite of the unrelenting assault of sexism and misogyny, would ultimately win the popular vote in the Democratic primary.

Lately, Obama has had to face the reality that so far only 56% of Hillary’s 18 million supporters have fallen in line behind him as the presumptive nominee; hence, the sweetness and light of the Unity event in New Hampshire that appears to have been made noteworthy by the absence of guess who? Former President Bill Clinton.

Our ever astute punditry has been toying publicly with the notion that just maybe Bill was still upset about the Obama campaign’s over-the-top efforts to label him a racist and the repeated attacks on the legacy of his administration. Really, what was there for Bill to be upset over?

Now for today’s breaking news: Obama was finally able to call Bill and engage in a 20-minute phone conversation with him. The LATimes reports:

‘“Clinton's communications director, Matt McKenna, described the call as ‘a very good conversation’ and said Clinton ‘renewed his offer to do whatever he can to ensure Sen. Obama is our next president. President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come.’

‘“Added Obama spokesman Bill Burton: ‘Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign. He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation's great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come.’”

Well, as boring as the early weeks of the general election have been without Hillary Clinton’s presence on the trail, I guess the above telephone conversation deserves all the play our dysfunctional, good old boy press corps is giving it.

If you really want to read something interesting, follow the link to the Benazir Bhutto interview in New York Magazine.

Democrats Trample the Progressive Banner En Route to Denver

Democratic National Committee Chair, Howard Dean

In the heat of August out here in the Midwest, the mind balks at recalling the frozen terrain of New Hampshire in January. But the compulsion to understand what brought Democrats — just days ahead of their national convention — to a state of affairs in which they willfully trample on the banner of progressivism demands it.

As a Unitarian-Universalist, the significance of that progressive banner was brought home to me by the July shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church by a crazed intruder motivated by hatred of gays and liberals. Ironically, the liberal or progressive movement as defined in the UU tradition would have embraced the unemployed suspect in compassionate outreach.

The first two of the UU’s seven principles are undeniably at the core of the progressive movement: 1) The inherent worth and dignity of every person; and 2) Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. Given half a chance, progressive economic and foreign policies flow naturally from that core.

Politically, progressives most often identify with the Democratic Party, but it was during the run up to the New Hampshire primary that a peculiar aberration from the above principled credo became impossible to ignore. In the 160th year after the first women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, NY, an extraordinarily well-qualified female presidential candidate could not count on even minimal respect from otherwise progressive party officials, the campaign staffs and backers of her opponents in the Democratic primary, and certainly not from either the old or new media.

On Monday, Jan. 7, I tuned in the PBS News Hour where I’d once taken for granted at least fair-minded news coverage. That evening, Jim Lehrer smirked as he referred to Hillary Clinton’s moment of “weakness” captured in a video clip at a meeting with supporters in a New Hampshire restaurant where Sen. Clinton’s eyes welled up as she spoke these words:

“This is very personal for me. It's not just political; it's not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it.”

The senator continued:

“And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down. It's about our country; it's about our kids' futures. It's really about all of us together.”

Lehrer’s scornful attitude toward Hillary Clinton on the eve of the New Hampshire primary was not all that remarkable. Week after week during The Analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, Shields, the progressive counterpart to the conservative Brooks, unabashedly fawned over Barack Obama, while failing to conceal his contempt when forced to speak the name of Hillary Clinton. By then, however, I relished the power of the off button on my remote to cut short offensively biased news broadcasts —whether originating from PBS, network, or cable.

As Tuesday, January 8, dawned on the Granite State’s primary, five days after the Iowa caucus, the polls were nearly unanimous in predicting a double-digit win for Obama, happily exulting to his followers about riding a wave. Even then, talking heads were wondering aloud to one another when “Hillary” would most likely drop out of the race.

Pundits would later manage to avoid giving full credit to Sen. Clinton for her New Hampshire win by calling it “miraculous.” But that very night on the News Hour, Mark Shields predictably agreed with a comment by David Brooks in chalking up Sen. Clinton’s win to gender: “I think David's point about gender is crucial. Gender did not work for Hillary Clinton in Iowa. It worked for her in New Hampshire. We know what happened; we don't know why.”

As pollsters and pundits scrambled to explain the New Hampshire upset, Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of Barack Obama’s campaign, went on a rampage. The day after the primary, the grim-faced Jackson’s spin on Sen. Clinton’s moment in the New Hampshire restaurant was egregiously sexist; he accused Clinton of melting the Granite State by showing emotion over her appearance that she had failed to show over national catastrophes such as Katrina video and text here.

To my recollection, there was no immediate outcry from Democratic Party leaders, the mainstream media, or the new media over Jackson’s blatant injection of sexism into the campaign.

By then it was clear to any semi-conscious Democrat that Barack Obama owned the party’s left wing, ginned up by the netroots — hundreds of thousands of political junkies swarming Internet message boards 24/7 in aggressive support of their idol.

Having co-opted the label, the netroots, along with various social networking sites, redefined the progressive movement to suit its own purposes: any hint of racism, real or imagined, in the 2008 presidential campaign was taboo, but it was open season for the most obscene expressions of sexism and misogyny.

Whereas, Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s hate-mongering, sexist slur of Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of her upset victory in New Hampshire went largely ignored, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz pointed out in his op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

‘“Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called ‘the race-baiter card.’ Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable — and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance ‘everywhere’ — a line the media usually omitted.)”’

When pinned down during the Las Vegas debate, Obama made clear – after most of the damage had been done – that he was well aware the Clintons were not racists.

In the meantime, misogynist attacks against Hillary Clinton continued unabated. In response to MSNBC’s suspension of David Shuster for his on-the-air remark accusing the Clinton campaign of “pimping” their daughter Chelsea, an unbelievable number of Obama’s online supporters jumped to Shuster’s defense while verbally assaulting Sen. Clinton and her family. Here’s a sample:

“Shuster should have given them the middle finger. Pimp is becoming part of the vernacular today. It's one of the slang words that{’}s utterly harmless. And the fact that the Clinton Machine is pimping Chelsea out makes this even more pathetic. People get so pissy and uppity over the stupidest things.

“What they really need to address is how the hell Chelsea became the ugliest child/ person in politics. Or Public office. That poor thing got beat with the ugly stick one too many times.”

Similarly, after Obama aide Samantha Power resigned for publicly calling Hillary Clinton a monster, the following response from the netroots was typical:

“…Powers was 99.99% correct Mrs. Clinton is not only a monster but Lucifer's twin sister.”

By the time Barack Obama claimed the title of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on June 3 in St. Paul, he boasted only a narrow lead in delegates; whereas, Clinton led in the popular vote. Nevertheless, the same pundits who had been trying for months to force Clinton out of the race, railed at her for taking the time to thank her supporters for her South Dakota win that night instead of immediately conceding the nomination to Obama.

It took feminist icon Gloria Steinem to point out: “No candidate in history has been asked to step down by the media. She {Clinton} was.”

Steinem added, “The average time it takes for a loser to endorse a winner in this situation is four months. “She {Clinton} did it in four days. And look how she was criticized for not doing it the very same night.”

After Clinton made her concession speech and the dust from the primary had somewhat settled, Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey published their two-part article titled Destroying Hillary Clinton in the Guardian. The article documented how the Left, also known as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, mined the Right’s smears from the nineties for its prolonged orgy of Hillary-bashing to secure the nomination for the favored Barack Obama.

However, since first declaring himself the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in early June, Obama has shifted from left to center on almost every major issue that once endeared him to progressives including abortion, public financing, FISA, faith-based initiatives, NAFTA, gun control, the death penalty, tapping the nation’s oil reserves, and offshore drilling. Obama’s sudden shifts drew expressions of disappointment, scoldings, and advice from once unwavering supporters in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere: here, here, and here.

Moreover, Obama has given his opponents the same kind of ammunition they used so successfully against John Kerry in 2004. Here’s how the conservative blog RedState described Obama’s sudden betrayal of his left-wing base: “Once he won the Democratic nomination, though, Obama started moving so quickly to re-brand himself as a 'centrist' that you'd be forgiven getting whiplash watching him move.”

By abandoning his earlier positions – in the spirit of whatever it takes to win - Barrack Obama, the party’s presumptive standard bearer, effectively tossed aside the progressive banner, already desecrated by the unrelenting sexism and misogyny long endured by Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, hopes grow dim for an open convention conducted according to democratic procedures requiring Sen. Clinton’s name on the ballot and a roll call vote. Instead, party leaders have reportedly planned a rigged election to conclude with Sen. Clinton turning over her delegates to Obama.

Thus, Democrats trample the discarded progressive banner on their march to a carefully staged media event in Denver expected to culminate with Obama’s coronation before 75,000 onlookers in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

Coverage of Ferraro’s death offers a reminder of the JournoList tactics in 2008

Consider this: 

On the one hand it was acceptable in the 2008 Democratic primary for Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of Obama’s campaign in a sexist rant to accuse Hillary Clinton of using tears, etc., to win the New Hampshire Primary and for the PBS News Hour’s  liberal pundit Mark Shields to claim Clinton won due to her gender.

But on the other hand, Geraldine Ferraro, even after her death, continues to be smeared as a racist for simply stating a fact: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”

This week, the coverage of the first female vice-presidential candidate’s recent death by the AP, the online News Hour, Salon, and all across the web includes Ferraro’s quote cited above.

The media, of course, fails to mention that 08 was the era of the JournoList, that happy band of liberal journalists who, above all else, wanted Barack Obama to win the nomination. One of their strategies was to support the Obama camp’s efforts to label as racist anyone who dared say anything negative about their candidate.

Due in part to the success of their combined efforts in smearing Ferraro and both Clintons as racists, Obama won 90 percent of the African-American vote in the primary and in the general election. 

Not many Democratic party leaders or liberal pundits in 2008 or in the recent coverage of Ferraro's death have pointed out that the records of Ferraro and the Clintons on human rights are impeccable.

Caroline Kennedy’s Experience on the Trail Limited to Obama Campaign

Michele Obama, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, and Oprah in the California primary. Photo credits: LA Times

Caroline Kennedy is openly lobbying the appropriate power brokers for Hillary Clinton’s U.S. senate seat in New York. If Gov. Paterson appoints Kennedy, she’ll have two years to learn the ropes before she’s forced to campaign for the seat the hard way in 2010.

It’s my understanding that Kennedy’s experience in campaigning is limited to her appearances, along with other members of the Kennedy clan, on behalf of Barack Obama in 2008. You’ll recall that Kennedy decided to endorse Obama at the urging of her children.

(Note: Not every member of the Kennedy clan supported Obama during the primary; one of Sen. Clinton’s most loyal supporters was Robert Kennedy, Jr., a prominent environmental activist.)

It’s hard to estimate how much good the Kennedys did for Obama, but two contests in the Democratic primary stand out in my memory. The first occurred in Massachusetts where Caroline Kennedy joined both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry as well as Gov. Deval Patrick in backing Obama.

Hillary Clinton took Massachusetts.

The second contest occurred in California where Maria Shriver, the daughter of Eunice Kennedy and Sargent Shriver and the wife of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, teamed up with Oprah and Caroline Kennedy in heavy duty campaigning for Obama. It was deemed good political strategy for the three women to appear onstage together in opposition to Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Clinton won California.

The results of those two Democratic primary contests are probably not sufficient to predict Caroline Kennedy’s ability to campaign for a U.S. senate seat in New York. But it does give one pause.

In the meantime, by simply expressing her desire for Clinton’s soon to be vacated seat, Kennedy has stirred up the media’s interest in her influential family. Liz Robbins at the Caucus (NY Times) in fact provides a detailed portrait of the Kennedy clan’s “long political tentacles.”

Robbins begins:

“When Caroline Kennedy made it known that she eagerly wants New York’s United States Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the spotlight burned even brighter on the most famous family in American politics.

“The nine children of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy have extended the family’s reach to both coasts and all forms of public service. And while it has been mostly Kennedy men who have held public office, Ms. Kennedy can look to her aunt, Jean Kennedy Smith, who was the United States’ ambassador to Ireland from 1993 to 1998, or her cousin, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who was the first Kennedy woman to hold an elected office, when she served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.”

For a review of all the tentacles of the Kennedy family’s political influence go here.

Hillary Clinton Supporter Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences

In my earlier post today, I lamented the fact that Hillary Clinton, the best qualified candidate to lead the country out of its current financial crisis, was forced out of the Democratic race by the DNC and its media allies. It was especially gratifying to learn later today that Princeton professor and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, a Hillary Clinton supporter, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Krugman was a strong Clinton supporter throughout the Democratic primary. He argued consistently that Sen. Clinton’s health care plan was far superior to Obama’s and most likely to provide universal health care insurance coverage for Americans.

Unlike the aforementioned DNC and its media allies, Krugman spoke out against the rampant sexism of the Democratic primary. In the aftermath of Clinton’s concession speech, he posted at his blog, the Conscience of a Liberal (NY Times):

“The 2008 campaign has been a very disillusioning experience for a lot of people. You can make a very good case that Barack Obama was the right person for the Democrats to nominate, and Hillary Clinton the wrong choice. But the way we got there was terrible. The raw sexism, in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives — see above — was part of it. So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar — by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

“This whole story shouldn’t affect peoples’ votes in the general election: there are huge substantive issues at stake, and a wide difference between the candidates on those issues. So this is no time for a protest vote. But 2008 was definitely the year in which the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence.”

A wave to sister bloggers from 2008 who supported Hillary

High marks in foreign policy with Hillary as SoS.

All of the online chatter about a potential Hillary Clinton run in 2016 is naturally triggering a flashback to 2008, but not necessarily to the Democratic primary or its outcome. Instead, it’s kind of a nostalgia trip in which I’m remembering with affection sister bloggers across the Internet who went all out in support of Hillary. And I’m wondering where they are now and what they’re thinking about in the run up to 2016. Here’s a wave from Virginia at Katalusis to Heidi Li at Heidi Li’s Potpourri, Stray Yellar Dog, Lady Boomer NYC, Puma for Life, Tennessee Guerilla Women, Cine’s World, and other online Hillary supporters too numerous to mention.

In the meantime, John Fetter, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus, has published a thought-provoking piece on what a Hillary Clinton presidency might look like. But first, let me remind Fetter that the Obama Administration’s poll ranking in foreign policy was much higher when Clinton was SoS, than it is now with John Kerry holding that top cabinet post.

In one of the most enduring images from the lead-up to the 2008 Democratic primaries, frontrunner Hillary Clinton appeared in a rogue political ad as Big Brother.

It was a take-off on the infamous 1984 Super Bowl commercial that pitted upstart Apple against Big Blue (IBM) and urged consumers to "Think Different." In the campaign makeover two decades later, Clinton is intoning political platitudes on a screen in front of an audience of grey worker drones. A young woman races down the aisle, her Obama T-shirt ablaze with color in a black-and-white world, and launches a hammer at the screen. It explodes, and Clinton disappears. The ad is titled "Vote Different."

Like Apple, Obama styled himself as the younger, hipper, more unconventional alternative to the staid mainstream choice. Obama was so much of an outsider that many believed he'd been born outside the United States, while Clinton, the former first lady, was a consummate insider. He opposed the Iraq War while she voted for it. He embraced "purple America," while she was as Big Blue as you could get. He was a swirl of different flavors, while she was plain vanilla.

Each of these contrasts broke down on closer examination. But in part because he cultivated this image of a disrupter in the mold of Steve Jobs, Obama went on to win the Iowa primary, the Democratic Party nomination, and the presidency. Hillary Clinton had to content herself with secretary of state.

Seven years later, Clinton is considering another run at the presidency. Once again, she is the dominant brand in the marketplace, the one to beat. Just as IBM borrowed some of Apple's shine to reconnect with consumers -- adopting for example a more user-friendly interface -- Hillary will try, if she declares her candidacy, to capitalize on whatever remains of Obama's popularity to become America's first woman president. The right, without an obvious candidate to support, has already poured money into efforts like the website Washington Free Beacon to disrupt her candidacy. Several potential insurgents on the left -- Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders -- are waiting off stage.

Read more:

An Earlier Event in Chicago’s Grant Park: Marching for the ERA on Mother’s Day, 1980

The Equal Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

***

It’s late afternoon in the Midwest on this long-awaited election day. The prospect of watching an Obama victory celebration at Chicago’s Grant Park this evening has brought back memories of another event that occurred there some 28 years ago.

On Mother’s Day, May 10, 1980, I joined several members of the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Rochester, Minn. for a bus trip to Grant Park to march in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. We’d been instructed to wear the same colors for a show of unity. I stood stock still in amazement that day when I stepped off the bus to see 90,000 women in green and white converging on Carl Sandburg’s “city of the big shoulders.”

According to the Feminist Chronicles: “Marchers came from every state of the union and represented over 300 organizations and delegations. The massive event was conceived and coordinated by NOW. Mayor Jane Byrne, the first woman mayor of Chicago, addressed the crowd, together with Jessie Jackson, Ellie Smeal, TV celebrity Phil Donahue, and Marlo Thomas.”

With hope in my heart, I sat on the ground that day, listening to our speakers while imagining what it would feel like at some far away future date to tell my grandchildren about my participation in this historic event.

To my dismay, Ronald Reagan was elected president that November and ultimately the ERA failed to win ratification by its deadline.

When Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in the Democratic primary, I’m sure that many of those 90,000 women with whom I marched in Chicago in 1980 felt as uplifted as I did. I’m equally certain those same women were as stunned as I was by the tsunami of misogyny against Sen. Clinton in the primary that helped sweep Barack Obama to victory as the nominee.

The tidal wave of irrational hatred of women crested again during the general election when Sarah Palin set foot on the national stage and quickly became the object of slander and ridicule amplified by a media still under Obama’s spell - objectivity be damned.

Just for the heck of it, I’ve scanned the readers’ comments on election-day coverage this afternoon at a couple of leading so-called progressive blogs. To my consternation, I suddenly realized these mostly young Obama supporters aren’t even aware they’re being sexist with their crude, offensive comments that once targeted Hillary Clinton, but are now primarily aimed at Sarah Palin.

Obama’s millions of online supporters don’t appear to know the difference between sexist attacks and civil discourse in discussing political issues; their mindlessly offensive comments are their normative behavior.

But here we are on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008 and what more can I do or say? I confess that a part of me grieves that on a day when many are gleefully anticipating a potential landslide for Obama, my principles dictate that I must sit on the sidelines. A life-long Democrat, there was a time when I longed to see my party return to the White House. But the wounds from the primary and the obviously rigged Democratic convention are still too raw. And having recently left the Democratic Party to re-register as non-affiliated, I can’t bring myself to vote for the lesser of two evils. What a travesty in these perilous times that the name of Hillary Clinton, obviously the best qualified of all the candidates who announced in 2008, is not on the ballot.

Guess I’ll skip TV coverage of the gathering in Grant Park tonight; it would feel sacrilegious.

The Beijing/Denver Connection: Tinderbox Environment

PUMA Heads for Denver

The summer Olympics ended in Beijing today on Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008, the day before the Democratic convention is scheduled to begin in Denver and believe it or not, there may well be a connection between the two events.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on how China played its role as Olympic host:

“One prediction that did ring true was that China refused to allow protests, contrary to its past pledges. Domestic critics were silenced beforehand or snared by catch-22 rules on protest permits. Foreign activists seeking to publicize the cause of Tibet pulled off symbolic stunts that few spectators noticed.”

It appears that one of China’s goals was to present to the world a unified country, even at the cost of stifling any signs of dissent.

We Americans are grateful that we live in a country where we have freedom of speech, and dissent is recognized as an important element of living in a democracy.

Oops! I just saw this article by Lisa Wangsness in today’s Boston Globe:

“Democratic Party leaders have spent weeks preparing a national convention this week that will burst with symbols of unshakable unity behind Senator Barack Obama.

“But outside the convention arena in Denver, some of Hillary Clinton's supporters plan to air their grievances against Obama, the party's leadership, and the national media, whose coverage of the primary battle they considered sexist. Hundreds of disaffected Democrats from around the country plan to converge in the Mile High City to hold news conferences, protests, and vigils, threatening the party's ability to present a united front against Republican John McCain.

Wangsness continues:

‘“While many Clinton delegates say they will back Obama and do not intend to embarrass him, grass-roots activists planning protests outside the convention hope to disrupt the sense of unity party leaders are cultivating.‘This is a voter's revolt,’ said Darragh Murphy, who founded Puma PAC, a pro-Clinton political action committee whose acronym stands for People United Means Action.

“Polls suggest Obama's narrow national lead is all but disappearing amid attacks from a newly aggressive and disciplined McCain campaign. One reason for this appears to be that barely half of Clinton's supporters plan to vote for Obama, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. With the last two presidential elections decided by a small number of voters in swing states, Obama needs a unified party to win in November.

‘“Puma PAC is among a multitude of pro-Clinton groups that formed online to protest a variety of issues, including perceived media bias and flaws in the primary process. In Denver, Murphy's group plans to show the premiere of an unfinished movie, ‘The Audacity of Democracy,’ and is cosponsoring a protest and candlelight salute to Clinton tomorrow. Another group, PUMA 08, will coordinate communication between its members and the press, and provide a home base for bloggers who support Clinton.”’

“A separate organization, 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, is calling on Clinton supporters to join a march and gathering celebrating Clinton's achievements and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage on Tuesday.

“Democratic analysts downplay the significance of the demonstrators because Clinton's top aides and prominent supporters have shunned them. But analysts are aware they could be a distraction.”

Wangsness reports that Democratic strategist Chris Lehane made the Beijing/Denver connection:

‘“I think the vast majority of the Hillary folks did fall in love with Hillary - and now are certainly falling in line with Obama. Having said that, there's going to be the largest gathering of press outside of Beijing in Denver this week, with all of them on a hair-trigger for the slightest sign of dissonance and conflict. . . . It has all the elements of a tinderbox environment.’

True democracy is always kind of messy, Mr. Lehane, and you and your cohorts could have avoided the potential for “dissonance and conflict” had you seen fit to speak out against the misogynous attacks on Hillary Clinton by party leaders and media allies during the Democratic primary. And of course, some of those unpleasant distractions now building up in Denver might have been avoided had the DNC planned a convention offering a legitimate election instead of a media event designed to convey a false sense of unity.

To read the Lisa Wangsness article in its entirety go here.

Tabloid Journalism At Its Finest

In an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader today, Hillary Clinton commented that people had been trying to push her out of the Democratic race since Iowa. When asked why, she replied that she didn’t know. She mentioned that Bill Clinton had not wrapped up his campaign in 1992 until the middle of June and that Robert Kennedy was still on the trail in June at the time of his assassination.

In good tabloid style, the media immediately seized on Clinton’s reference to Bobby Kennedy’s death to twist and distort a comment intended only to emphasize that the duration of the 2008 Democratic primary has not been unprecedented.

In response to the media’s attempted smears, Clinton’s campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee said:

“She {Clinton} was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate.

Later on, speaking on her own behalf, Clinton elaborated:

"Earlier today I was discussing the democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968. And I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June that's a historic fact. The Kennedy's have been much on my mind for the last days because of Senator Kennedy."

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - particularly for that family - was in any way offensive," Clinton continued. "I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York. And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

Her statement makes sense; the Clintons’ long-time friendship with the Kennedy family has remained strong despite Ted Kennedy’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama.

But the eagerness displayed by the media to seize on yet another opportunity to demonize Hillary Clinton is inexplicable. Perhaps someday we’ll know why the better-qualified candidate in this race was continuously vilified while the least qualified candidate was eagerly swept along to his coronation.

Watch Clinton’s interview with the Argus Leader here.

Gloria Steinem addresses Hillary Haters, Democratic Party leaders, and the rampant misogyny in 2008

https://www.hillaryclinton.com

Reading an excerpt from Gloria Steinem’s book, My Life on the Road, brought back all of the angst I experienced in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was dissed by many in the media; thrown under the bus by Democratic Party leaders; and assaulted by a contingent of the electorate that came to be known as Hillary Haters. The stench of misogyny became overpowering throughout the 2008 Democratic primary.

In her usual incisive style, Steinem effectively portrays Hillary’s 2008 experience:

I know Hillary Clinton mostly in the way we all do, as a public figure in good times and bad, one who became part of our lives and even our dreams. I once introduced her to a thousand women in a hotel ballroom. Standing behind her as she spoke, I could see the binder on the lectern with her speech carefully laid out – and also that she wasn’t reading from it. Instead, she was responding to people who had spoken before her, addressing activists and leaders she saw in the audience, and putting their work in a national and global context – all in such clear and graceful sentences that no one would have guessed she hadn’t written them in advance. It was an on-the-spot tour de force, perhaps the best I’ve ever heard.

But what clinched it for me was listening to her speak after a performance of Eve Ensler’s play Necessary Targets, based on interviews with women in one of the camps set up to treat women who had endured unspeakable suffering, humiliation, and torture in the ethnic wars within the former Yugoslavia. To speak to an audience that had just heard these heartbreaking horrors seemed impossible for anyone, and Hillary had the added burden of representing the Clinton administration, which had been criticised for slowness in stopping this genocide. Nonetheless, she rose in the silence, with no possibility of preparing, and began to speak quietly – about suffering, about the importance of serving as witnesses to suffering. Most crucial of all, she admitted this country’s slowness in intervening. By the time she sat down, she had brought the audience together and given us all a shared meeting place: the simple truth.

When she left the White House and decided to run for the US Senate from her new home in New York State – something no first lady, not even Eleanor Roosevelt, had dared to do – I was blindsided by the hostility toward her from some women. They called her cold, calculating, ambitious, and even “unfeminist” for using political experience gained as a wife. These were not the rightwing extremists who had accused the Clintons of everything from perpetrating real estate scams in Arkansas to murdering a White House aide with whom Hillary supposedly had an affair. On the contrary, they mostly agreed with her on the issues, yet some were so opposed to her that they came to be called Hillary Haters. It took me weeks of listening on the road to begin to understand why.

In living rooms from Dallas to Chicago, I noticed that the Hillary Haters often turned out to be the women most like her: white, well educated, and married to or linked with powerful men. They were by no means all such women, but their numbers were still surprising. Also, they hadn’t objected to sons, brothers, and sons-in-law using family connections and political names to further careers – say, the Bushes or the Rockefellers or the Kennedys – yet they objected to Hillary doing the same. The more they talked, the more it was clear that their own husbands hadn’t shared power with them.
If Hillary had a husband who regarded her as an equal – who had always said this country got “two presidents for the price of one” – it only dramatised their own lack of power and respect. After one long night and a lot of wine, one woman told me that Hillary’s marriage made her aware of just how unequal hers was.

Read More:

Other recently published, truth-telling articles on Hillary Clinton:

The World is a Better Place because Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Here’s Why

Republicans Leveled By Bombshell Report That Clears Hillary Clinton On Benghazi

Netroots Lefties Don’t Rule the World

The Left, ginned up by the netroots, used every obscene sexist term in its collective vocabulary during the Democratic primary in its efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Nevertheless, when the ethically compromised DNC handed the title of presumptive nominee to Barack Obama on June 3 in St. Paul, the One had barely secured enough delegates, and Clinton led in the popular vote.

As Obama repeatedly betrayed his base in his lunge toward the center, Left-wingers complained, but they always made sure to malign Hillary Clinton in passing so that - God forbid - no one would get the impression they had actually made a mistake in picking Obama as their savior, er, candidate.

In the general election, the Left has shifted the primary thrust of its bigoted assaults from Clinton toward John McCain by spewing ageist venom at the Republican party’s presumptive nominee and attacking his character at every opportunity.

Obama continues to claim purity; according to him, he runs a dignified, clean campaign. As in the Democratic primary, he appears oblivious to the rabid hate mongering of his backers who get especially fired up when their candidate is clearly the loser in a public arena.

Most recently, Obamaphiles flooded the Internet with charges that McCain cheated during the Saddleback civil forum, claiming he knew the questions beforehand and also accusing the Vietnam war veteran of stealing his anecdote about the prison guard drawing a cross in the sand from Russian author Solzhenitsyn.

The Editor’s Pick at TPM yesterday, Aug. 20, 2008, set the record straight about the cross story:

“There's been a ton of buzz on the web for the last day or so -- beginning with this Daily Kos diary -- suggesting that John McCain patterned his story about a Vietamese captor drawing a cross in the dirt before him on a similar episode from Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn's time in the Soviet gulags.

“But it turns out that this episode probably never happened to Solzhenitsyn at all, and according to a Solzhenitsyn biographer it appears nowhere in his published writing. Columbia University professor Michael Scammell, the author of Solzhenitsyn: A Biography, says the episode "never happened," and didn't appear in Solzhenitsyn's book, Gulag Archipelago, either.”

Read the full Editor's Pick here.

Elizabeth Edwards on the Press

Photo credits: Getty Images

Throughout Campaign 2008, I’ve done my share of complaining about the media, especially since the Democratic debate last October in Philadelphia hosted by MSNBC. That’s when Tim Russert and Brian Williams launched the media’s sustained effort to knock Hillary Clinton from her frontrunner status and sweep Obama to an early coronation.

Evidently, Elizabeth Edwards from her front-row view during her husband John’s campaign also noticed how much power the media has in picking our president. In an op-ed in today’s NY Times titled “Bowling 1, Health Care 0,” Mrs. Edwards critiques the media’s disservice to the American people in Campaign 2008.

Mrs. Edwards begins with the most recent primary:

“For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

“Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

“Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

“But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.”

Mrs. Edwards’ observations about how the media chose the characters and constructed the story line for the campaign are obvious with hindsight:

“Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.”

The astute Mrs. Edwards asserts:

“News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.”

Members of the electorate who wish to be better informed owe it to themselves to first read Mrs. Edwards’ op-ed in its entirety and thereafter continue to call the media to account.

Read More.