It’s galling to me that in a Democratic field that has, for the first time, a woman and an African-American and a Latino, the candidate with whom I most align on the issues is a white Southern male. But there you are.
Hillary Clinton is not my candidate, but if she wins the election, I think she’ll be a good president. Not ideal, but good. I was moved by the passion and commitment evidenced in her “display of emotion,” and being a girly girl, I’m not afraid of emotion, nor do I think that it’s inconsistent with toughness or clarity of mind.
John Edwards is my candidate, but the sexism he displayed when asked to respond to Hillary’s “emotionalism” is appalling.
I enjoy watching Keith Olberman very much, but I’m stunned at how visciously he criticized Hillary last night for daring to compare herself positively to Obama. An election is a competition, in which one person wins and others lose, is she really expected not to think she’s the best candidate for the job? Is she expected to campaign for Obama or what?
One final thing: Obama is not my candidate. Nonetheless, the little dance he did on Oprah kinda turned me on. Mea culpa.
Where is the “appalling display of sexism”? Could he have made any response besides “We’re all tired” that wouldn’t automatically be interpreted as a sexist reply?
Most of the subtext on statements about Hillary are laden with ZOMG! She’s female! (Except, y’know, when the sexism is explicit, like in the “Iron My Shirt” incident.)
I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,”
In other words, girls cry, men are presidents.
Shakes has more.
I fully understand that there is a lot of subtext, not to mention outright and open sexism, in politics and the real world as we know it. But if you look at what CNN said about Edwards’ comments… “At a New Hampshire campaign event, presidential rival John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton’s emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN’s Dugald McDonnell: “I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day.”” … it seems to me to be simply a way to get one up on an opponent who showed a perceived weakness. Nothing in that statement implies “…girls cry, men are presidents.”
I think it was a straight political statement, not a gender-related political statement.
It sounded like dog-whistle sexism to me. There have been so many statements about Clinton that are exactly that level of dog-whistle, and “I won’t respond but here’s my response” is SO mealy-mouthed.
Has Edwards said anything else, ever in his career in public office, that demonstrates a pattern of sexism? I honestly don’t know, but I haven’t seen anything in the bit of blogosphere I’ve followed on this story that suggests it. Just because something can be interpreted one way (instead of another) doesn’t mean it should be…. sometimes a banana is just a banana. And just because much of the opposition to Clinton is gender based doesn’t mean every statement about her is. Tears and “over-emotional responses” are interpreted as a sign of weakness, whether or not the person is female. Look at what happened to Muskie…..
Except that Clinton never cried or even shed tears, she just got a little vocal choke; not even a choke, a quaver. And the media went berzerk.
Absolutely – but it’s the media, not Edwards, talking there… the point was, do you have any reason based on his past performance (context) to believe that it was sexism and not just raw political opportunism in Edwards’ voice?
I haven’t watched the clip. I have to say that the primary race doesn’t matter to me for a long time…. by the time the PA primary rolls around the candidates are usually pretty much set. It doesn’t matter who I would support now, so I don’t even bother to follow it.
I don’t know if Edwards has a history of sexism. He does have a history of caving to bigoted pressure, aka Bill Donohoe and the McEwan-Marcotte fiasco. But he doesn’t have to be “a sexist” to exhibit sexist behavior.