Now that Sen. Hillary Clinton is squarely out of the running for president, it's the perfect time for the media, desperate for new angles for Dems v. Repubs election battle that's barely kicked into gear, to reflect on the very small, minute, seemingly impossible possibility that the press was unfair – some say sexist! – to the New York senator.
Are the charges of sexism merely sour grapes from women who feel disenfranchised now that the leader of all womynkind will not be president? Or are they legitimate charges against a group of good 'ole boys who were not only unfair to Clinton, but not exactly welcome to the idea that they were unfair?
In quizzing a swath of media types, the Times, like a bisexual couple at a swingers party, found it goes both ways:
Keith Olbermann, the outspoken pundit on MSNBC, which has taken much of the sexist criticism, insists his network did nothin wrong, but rather, "we became a whipping boy." Olbermann's boss, Phil Griffin, agrees: "She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries."
It's really only Katie Couric, the CBS Evening News anchor, who's publicly derided colleagues for their missteps. From a speech she delivered this week to a segment she included in her broadcast the other night, Couric's finger-pointing is a standalone critique of the media's wrongdoings. Her peers, at least when speaking publicly, don't seem to agree with her.
But one fella who does is Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party. Because, he says, he doesn't watch much cable TV, he wasn't aware how bad the situation really was. But now he's reviewed the tapes, and: "The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign … It’s pretty appalling … [Clinton] got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives."
Let's not kid ourselves: As a whole, the mainstream media was biased against Clinton's womanhood, whether they'll own it or not. Perhaps they didn't go out of their way to make stereotypical references when covering her campaign, but the most egregious moments in front of the camera – Chris Matthews calling her a "she-devil" – were only evidence of the underlying slant against her. Pundits, as they so often do, will hide behind the excuse that they don't feel this way; they're just communicating some of America's sentiments about the candidate. And this is a farce. We would know: It's the same line of reasoning Jossip uses daily. What better means to voice your true feelings about something than by claiming to be a voice of the under-represented? We'd love to call it a nasty little secret, but it's not — secret, that is.
[NYT]
Editorial Director
Olbermann and Chris Matthews were unbelievable assholes the ENTIRE primary season to Clinton and they continued to push the story that Obama was born in a manger!!!
They are an embarassment to themselves and true journalists. That's why Tom Brokaw smacked down Olbmermann during the final primary night, when Olbermann continued his rants against Clinton.
Now Brokaw is a true journalist - he doesn't want to be lumped into a category with these idiot "commentators"…..
Right, she lost because of her gender. Had nothing to do with people actually prefering someone else. Of course not! It's all about Poor Hillary. She didn't race bait and smear her opponent. She didn't scold him and his supporters like they were five year olds. Senator Clinton didn't say the states that didn't break her way "didn't matter." She didn't long for the day when something would happen to Senator Obama so she could take over his nomination.
Yeah, all of that did not happen. It was just an act of sexism that lost her the nomination.
To Please… I don't think that they're saying that Hilary lost because she was a woman but that the media was against her because she was a woman. There is a difference.
Hillary Clinton was very much the victim of sexism but not for the reasons people think. Yes, much of the language used in the press to describe her was the kind of language that has been historically used to degrade or diminish women. However, the real problem is that these people believe they aren't sexist because they think their viewpoint is limited to just her as opposed to women in general. That is failing to acknowledge that the media coverage of her and attitudes toward her for the past 16 years are entirely rooted in sexism– much of it coming from women as much as men. When a group is marginalized as women have been, they face the inevitable struggle of trying to define what they can and, more importantly, what they should be. Unfortunately, women just don't altogether agree on this topic. Hillary Clinton got hit on all sides. She was hit by the stay at home moms who felt threatened and diminished by her accomplishments and the feminists who resented that she stayed with her unfaithful husband and failed to live up to their standard of the perfect feminist icon. Those feelings were exploited by circumstance. During Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, he talked about his wife constantly on the campaign trail– her intelligence, her accomplishments, what she had to offer. (Whatever his problems have been in the past, he has never, ever objectified his wife and he must be given credit for that.) But he inadvertently set her up to have her reputation trashed when he blurted out the "two for the price of one" deal. Many people liked that at first– but then the Gennifer Flowers story broke. The Clintons went on TV where he admitted in a very subtle way that he had been unfaithful, although he didn't use that word. And most people just didn't really care about it all that much– so the republicans went after his wife instead. They cast her as an excessively ambitious woman who stayed in a loveless marriage to further her political ambitions. According to virtually everyone who has ever been close to them, nothing could be further from the truth but their motives have been questioned constantly ever since. It was a great strategy. If you can convince the public that people stayed in an unhappy marriage for the sake of their ambition, you can convince the public that they will do anything. It played right into the hands of the classic struggle between working women and stay at home mothers. And neither of these two groups of women could bring themselves to accept the possibility that Hillary Clinton could be both ambitious and genuinely too in love with her husband to throw their marriage away. Nor could they accept the possibility that Bill Clinton's cheating was not by default an indication that he didn't love his wife. That was too threatening of an idea to the feminists and too comforting an idea to the stay at home moms to be disbelieved.
As for men, the problem was that it was okay for Bill Clinton to have an intelligent, successful wife but it wasn't okay for a woman to be ambitious the way men are- and it wasn't okay for her husband to like her that way. It is in that sense that Bill Clinton has been victimized as well. Men have long been threatened by the idea of women in power. The fact that Bill Clinton isn't threatened by his wife's intelligence, ambition, and strength didn't play well with other men- so they were quick to buy into the political arrangement theory of their marriage and question their motives as well.
I believe the truth is that both Clintons are ambitious- as are John McCain and Barack Obama and John Edwards. But there was never any real reason to believe that the Clintons are more ambitious than anyone else who sought the presidency- no evidence that they sought out power for the sake of power. I think they both believe in what they are doing. They think they can change the world. It is one of their shared passions. Is it lofty, naive, and a bit arrogant? Sure- but show me a presidential candidate who doesn't believe they can change the world.
I believe that the Clintons were always in this for the right reasons. That was merely obscured by the constant questioning of their marriage. At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is as ambitious as the boys. Bill Clinton thinks his wife is brilliant. And the only "sin" they committed was wanting to change the world together.