Sexism, Misogyny, Hillary Clinton (Video)

This powerful video from ILEwoman was added to YouTube on March 30, 2008, so perhaps many of you have seen it. It was new to me. I thought it was a poignant reminder of what we’re fighting for, and who was and is at the forefront of that fight.

Feat. Clinton supporter, Ed Rendell, before he turned his support toward Obama, endorsing a dream ticket, along with Chuck Schumer, Lanny Davis and others. That’s a link to those who want an Obama Clinton 08. Senator Clinton has disavowed such efforts since suspending her campaign, but what actually could she do? She was pressured out of making any bids, whether she wanted to or not, by saying she was putting on the pressure after the last primary. Who knows? I always thought it was an Obama == DNC ploy. Hillary had always said, whatever, for the good of the Party.

Many supporters say never on that one. It’s beneath her. She’d never, because of how he treated her, Michelle, Bill, yada yada. She’d be blamed if his administration goes south.

I’ll admit, I’m undecided on it. She would be in power and could move forward her agenda. Although, I can’t imagine it happening due to the DNC Chicago HQ chess move of the week. Who’s surprised after Obama announced last week, “I’m the head of the Party now”?

I know I will not accept another VP choice. But what If it so happened, after all this, that the DNC realized they had to have Hillary on the ticket to win, assuming Obama doesn’t self-destruct before that — which I doubt will happen with all this extreme orchestration —

Would you vote for a dream ticket? (Please keep it civil if you’re opposed, thank you.)

Hunter Commencement Degraded By Inclusion Of Matthews


June 1, 2008

Dear Hunter College Community,

As you may know, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews has been invited to speak at Hunter’s graduation day ceremony on Wednesday, June 4th. Administrative staff at Hunter looked for a speaker who could address political issues in this election year and decided to invite MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. After agreeing to speak, Olbermann then backed out of his commitment and instead of returning to the drawing board, a Hunter staff member called MSNBC to see who they could send in Olbermann’s place. Matthews was offered and accepted. There was no formal vetting or real consideration given to the selection of this particular graduation speaker.

Mr. Matthews has gained notoriety throughout the country for years of insensitive, sexist comments on his show “Hardball” and his insulting treatment of women—not only, most visibly, Senator Clinton but also his television colleagues who happen to be female. Matthews referred to Clinton as a “she devil,” called her a “strip-teaser” and “witchy.” He has referred to men who support her as “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” He has commented on the physical appearance of women including his CNBC colleague Erin Burnett, calling her “beautiful” and “a knockout” during a discussion of economic news. In an interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards, Matthews asked the former Senator, “Does she bite your balls like this when you go home?” He then went on to ask, “What is this with the equal marriages? Why do people marry their equals? It used to be different. What happened to the Stepford wives? The good old days?” These are but a small sample of Matthews’s on-air sexist comments.

It is, in our view, disgraceful for Hunter College, for all of us who love this institution and most of all for our present and future students who look to Hunter as a bastion of women’s empowerment, to confer this honor on someone whose words in public so contradict the most basic feminist and civic values. Inviting him to be our speaker is asking him to represent Hunter College on this important occasion, and this should never have happened. We are outraged.

We urge President Jennifer Raab to adopt a process in the future that would prevent such mistakes. We hope you’ll join us in this call to improve the process by which the college selects commencement speakers. Write to President Raab to encourage her to establish a more careful, transparent, and democratic process. Her email address is:


Students, Adjunct Faculty, Policy Committee of the
Women and Gender Studies Program

The Media and Misogyny: Kurtz Does His Job

Sunday, May 25, 2008, when people were away, boozin’ n barbequin’ and generally having a good time over Memorial Day weekend, Howard Kurtz was on the job. On his show, Reliable Sources, Kurtz hosted a panel of three women who discussed The Media and Misogyny. The panelists, who were not all Hillary supporters, came to her defense as a woman candidate, and a First Lady, who deserves and has earned respect. The panelists were CNN Correspondent Carol Costello, radio talk show host and Republican Blanquita Cullum, and Washington Post syndicated columnist Marie Coco. They spoke about the sexism that women and women pundits also buy into, which goes largely uncovered by the MSM.

Women voicing for women in concert. Go ladies!

Election Sexism Discussion Surfaces in MSM, NY Times

On May 19, 2008, news outlets were consumed by three major stories: The KY, OR primaries, sexism in the campaign process, and Ted Kennedy’s sad, serious gliomal brain tumor diagnosis.

The previous evening, ABC’s Nightline broadcast a story about women voters who feel disenfranchised by the handling of this election on many fronts. (If you’re new to this issue, please see just about everything I’ve posted since inception of this blog.) Here’s the segment, courtesy of Taylor Marsh on YouTube.

It was followed by a reemergence of Geraldine Ferraro and other interviews on ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX. (Sorry there’s too much to keep up with to cook all those links for you. Everybody’s on their own for dinner, kids.)

Check our this brand new video report posted in May 21, 2008 NY Times, “Hillary Clinton and Women Voters” subtitled, “A new poll and interviews reveal a complicated relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the group many view as her base.”

Oh, and now, at about midnight, Fox News’ Juan Williams is talking about how she’s taken off as an underdog candidate, propelled by the women voters!

Sexist Treatment: Sen. Clinton Weighs In

In ABC News’ “Sexism: Clinton’s Latest Vast Conspiracy?” the framing of the title says it all, doesn’t it? If you wonder about the truth of what’s being said, just read some of the comments on their website. I’ve included several below the excerpted article:

In unusually blunt comments, Clinton told the Washington Post that sexism has played a larger role in the campaign than racism and that it has cost her and her supporters.

“It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women. I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways,” Clinton said. “But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press.”

Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party’s presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.

Instead, she said, “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted.”

She added, “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments and the actions of people who are nothing but misogynists.”

Article comments, which are on the milder side of what’s out there, range from:

Based on my observations and those of others I have shared reflections with, here are the reasons Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Many people like myself do not empathize with “whiners” and Clinton was always whining instead of staying focused on the issues. The term is NOT a sexist term.


Give the people a kinder, gentler woman instead of a power-hungry beyotch and it would be a different race. Hillary was smug and arrogant from the beginning, took too much for granted and now is crying that it’s not fair, so she pulls out the sexism card like it was the only reason she lost.


I’m a male, and I have seen comments about Hillary, that my father would have slapped my face for saying. I guess it really is how you are brought up. I truly believe America is dead Morally. It used to be just politicians, now its spreading to the people.
WaPo interviewer Lois Romano, in a May 19, 2008 audio interview posted at top, asked Hillary’s opinion about why women are so “pissed off” (interviewer’s words) about the sexism in this campaign. It’s a great piece, and I encourage you to listen. (If audio player here gives you trouble, you can access it via WaPo link.)
Senator Clinton says that she will win because she is the stronger candidate, and according to the electoral map, she is the one who can win the general election against John McCain, that all people should have a chance to vote, and that MI and FL should be resolved. She is insightful in her understanding of women:
. . . every poll I’ve seen, show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman than for an African American–which rarely gets reported on either. (LadyBoomerNYC–which is BTW the same thing I told my Israeli hairdresser last year, who didn’t believe me.)
Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions, except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. I mean, the treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have, politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women at its base.
The idea that we would have a Presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off, I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination and prejudice. I’ve spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women’s rights and human rights, and I abhor it wherever discrimination is present.
Beautifully and presidentially spoken, Senator, with the quality, mood, and attitude of a World Leader who understands people.

“5,000 Angry Feminists” – Part Deux

How we got here —

Recommended: VH1’s excellent, accurate, and enticing new Rock Doc series, “Sex: The Revolution” airing late nights this weekend and upcoming. I saw bits and pieces (sic) last and Thursday night. It’s broken into segments, and VH1’s web info focuses on the sexy parts. But, actually, it’s truly a beautifully documented telling of the sexual revolution–“how it used to be” and what we were rebelling against. It gives fun, historical context to how and why each decade rebelled, beginning with the 1950s baby boomers. It shows the effects and counter effects of the Viet Nam War, Reagan’s politics, free love, birth control/The Pill, reproductive rights, psychedelics, recreational drugs, spirituality, pornography, women’s lib, encounter groups, communes, more, and yes lots of sex in multiple flavors. It shows how a new generation was completely rethinking their value system about sex, which was free and sometimes spiritual.

However, in progressive meetings about stopping the war, women found that they were still making the copies, getting the coffee, and handy for sex. In one segment Gloria Steinem reminisced about the “The Sexual Revolution” in Ms. Magazine’s first issue: All it did was make more women available to men–they still felt unequal.

In one segment, a man recounts how women in the early 1970s began organizing, first about women’s right to choose. Then after opening a Times Square office in New York City, feminists began taking on the porn industry that had taken over the area. They began marching through the streets of Times Square, “waving banners and fists.” They spoke out against the porn industry’s objectification of women and being portrayed as bound, raped, murdered, and beaten, which was supposed to be sexy. (I’m not talking about consensual kinky play here, people, okay.) Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug were leading the charge.

In the documentary, the interviewee recounted amazedly that “5,000 angry feminists” burst out into the streets and were marching. Somehow that phrase stuck with me. The series is a great history lesson and reminder of how and why we got here, where we’ve come from, and how much we have yet to go, so don’t miss it.

Sometimes these days I feel like 5,000 angry feminists . . . times a thousand. Actually, 5,000 angry feminists times 1,000 equals 5 million, which is less than one third the number of people who have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries so far. Having felt ripped off this week by NARAL’s endorsement of Obama, then feeling a bit better with the subsequent affiliates’ support of her, and condemnation by Emily’s List of NARAL, I was pleased to read that the NWPC–the women who marched for our sexual and reproductive freedom in the sixties and seventies–are standing for Hillary now, because of her solid track record about those causes:

May 16, 2008–

Statement by Lulu Flores, President of National Women’s Political Caucus

The National Women’s Political Caucus is disappointed to learn of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Senator Obama. The Caucus knows Hillary Clinton to be a clear leader and a consistent champion of the issues that NARAL and NWPC have in common. We believe that this announcement will divide the choice community at a time when we need to stand united.

As a lawyer, advocate, First Lady, and Senator, Hillary Clinton has stepped up and stood out on matters important to women. When it comes to each woman’s ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary has been a consistent and reliable advocate for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, she has received numerous awards from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

  • Senator Clinton condemned the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
  • She has championed the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low income women.
  • She is an original co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, federal legislation that would guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.
  • In partnership with Senator Murray, Senator Clinton waged a successful battle to get the Food and Drug Administration to make Plan B (the “morning after” pill) available over the counter. This was one of the biggest accomplishments of the pro-choice advocacy community in years.
  • Senator Clinton made it very clear when she stood on the Senate floor to voice her opposition to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito that one of her major concerns was to keep intact Roe v. Wade. While Senator Obama was also opposed to the nomination of Roberts and Alito, he never mentioned the preservation of Roe v. Wade.

NWPC members in 30 chapters throughout the country join me to say that we are disappointed to learn of NARAL’s endorsement of Senator Obama, and that we stand firm in our support and commitment to the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

That’s strong, and I applaud them. From their website, here’s the history of the NWPC:

The National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) was founded in 1971 for the express purpose of promoting women’s participation in both elected and appointed government offices on the national, state, and local levels; supplying political expertise to female office-seekers; and supporting women already holding political office.

Among NWPC’s founders were Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and Betty Friedan. The group held its first convention in 1973 and elected Frances Farenthold, onetime Texas state legislator, as its first President that same year.

The organization founded by the very same women who championed our sexual and feminist freedom are standing with Hillary Clinton now. Let’s remember and honor them, how we got here, and Hillary’s strong stand in furthering women, children and babies’ health, economic equality, and reproductive rights in our nation and the world.

Superdelegate Asks The People to Decide

Now this is a novel idea: Someone in government, Superdelegate and California State Senator Carole Migden, actually wants to know what you think. You can vote and write your comments as to how and/or whom she should choose. She says, right on her website, that if you take action, you can help to change the world in 60 seconds. What do you think?

Looks like the Senator’s been taking comments and votes for a few months and currently Hillary is ahead. Funny but sad was poor Trudi’s, which ended with a who cares what I think anyway, I live in Michigan!

Here’s my note to her:

Carole, Thank YOU for asking! I think that Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote, if the DNC counts the votes. She is by far the most qualified, strong, brilliant candidate with clear, solid, progressive plans. So I hope the answer to your question is “both.” Like me, many people, especially women, feel that they’ve been discounted and thrown away in the Dem nominating and election process. We’re fed up that Dean and Brazile are blatantly biased. We’re sick to our stomachs at the way Hillary has been treated. We are sure that if she’d been treated with respect by The Media, DNC, Dem candidates, and Obama et al, that she’d be ahead right now. Many of us, as lifelong committed Dems who would NEVER have considered voting any other way, are considering jumping ship and voting for (gasp) McCain if Obama is the nominee. (Me in present time: Wow, did I write that?)

You can vote here, and be sure to thank and support Carole Migden. One of the ways to make the change we seek is to have more women in government.

When NARAL Affiliates Revolt…

Washington Post’s The Trail reports that NARAL affiliate networks in key primary and swing states have announced their democratic neutrality, instead of backing their parent org’s endorsement of Obama yesterday, May 14, 2008. According to The Trail:

Since yesterday’s announcement, NARAL groups in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York — Clinton’s home state — have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL’s state chapters.

NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon stated in a press release that they would support either of the two pro-choice Democratic candidates. They stood against John McCain’s avowed plans to: repeal Roe v. Wade, continue abstinence policies, and de-fund low-cost women’s birth control programs. They stopped short of endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of NARAL and women’s issues, thank yous go out to the faithful, pro-feminist blogger, Mark of Men For Hillary, who recognized LadyBoomerNYC in his “This Week’s Blog Recommendations.”