I’d like to point out that your comments to a widely published author are extremely condescending. I wonder if you would attack a man with my publication record and academic rank in such a manner, insinuating that my analysis is not nuanced or persuasive? (No–actually, I don’t wonder!) Some might say that you’re offering evidence of the pervasive misogyny that is in fact the topic of this thread.

It’s clear that you’re playing the old trick that anti-feminists play, which is to say that pointing out injustice is creating divisions, rather than analyzing them, and that talking about it injustice is turning people into “victims.” So, henceforth, you can keep to your own blog. This is a feminist blog for feminist women and men. If you can’t respect that basic fact, then you’re gone.

If you were more critical of your own candidate’s campaign, you would see that the “hatred” of Hillary Clinton (and I do not hate her), is not “blind” and it is not necessarily gendered in the simplistic ways your narrative suggests. You would see that while, yes, sexism plays a role in this campaign, it is complicated by the candidate’s own shortcomings and failures. In short, your analysis would become more nuanced and persuasive. Instead, you continually offer up a narrative in which these homogeneous entities constantly unfairly attack this strong and powerful woman. By reifying these narratives, you simply make Clinton out to be a perpetual victim of misogyny; by connecting her experiences to those of all women, you make all women out to be perpetual victims. I don’t think that does either Clinton or American women any credit.

I don’t hate her, Historiann. I feel sorry for her at this point. Watching her this evening having to apologize for a stupid gaffe, I just felt sorry for her.

And, David–you’re right! Clinton is totally unique in being “a multi-millionaire who won a seat in the U.S. Senate based almost entirely on her name recognition.” I mean, no other men have gotten into politics that way (except Kennedys, Fords, Macks, Jacksons, Chaffees, Gores, Bushes, Udalls…and the list goes on and on.) Moreover, she wasn’t a multi-millionaire when she ran in 2000–I think most of their money came from Bill’s book, published only after he left office. They weren’t nearly as wealthy as the Obamas are when Bill Clinton ran for the Presidency and during his terms in office.

The problem with saying that “Hillary is not the best choice for making the glass ceiling argument,” is that NO WOMAN will be right for making that argument. Misogyny discounters and deniers will always find a reason to say that this or that prominent woman isn’t a measure for anything. And yet, we have no problem seeing Obama’s candidacy as a moment of great aspiration for African Americans, or Kennedy’s presidency as a big moment for American Catholics (especially Irish Catholics).

And: which part of “This post is not an argument for the flawless perfection of Clinton as a candidate, nor is it arguing that Clinton is the only or most important victim of this poisonous misogyny” did you not understand? (Which means, essentially, that this will not be a comment thread on how vile you find Clinton.) You don’t need to state yet again all of the reasons you hate Hillary Clinton. Give it a rest, OK?

I think Hillary is not the best choice for making the glass ceiling argument. She’s a multi-millionaire who won a seat in the U.S. Senate based almost entirely on her name recognition (and pushed aside a more qualified female candidate in order to do so, I might add.) She spent too much time during her Senate career tacking to the middle and supporting Bush’s wars to keep my respect. She ran a poor campaign and lost to a better candidate. Stephen’s conclusion almost makes it seem as if he is implying that Democrats will regret nominating a black man when he loses in November. Is that why he is seriously flawed?

Does this al-Jazeera report best express his flaws?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/race-in-kentuck.html

And ej–you’re right that media stories about the sexism of the 2008 campaign coverage are stories in which they examine and (usually) summarily dismiss the claim, or at least suggest that it’s only angry Hillary supporters who care.

Although there are clearly some who will never vote for Obama because of his color, I’ve been encouraged by the country’s response to him. On the contrary, the response to Clinton has been appalling, and I disagree that the glass ceiling has been broken. I don’t feel optimistic about my daughter’s future. If a woman as intelligent, successful, charismatic and politically savvy as HRC couldn’t break that glass ceiling, I don’t know who can.

I think its also been telling how quick the mainstream media has been to dismiss the charges of sexism leveled by the campaign. They’ve clearly refused to see it as a real problem, and I fear are dismissing her remarks as excuses, which doesn’t give me much hope about them changing their ways anytime soon.

I don’t have time to address your lengthy list of questions now. But as to your question #4, this is a post about the corporate media’s use of language and framing, not what’s in the hearts and minds of all Americans. I’m not making a claim here in the “oppression olympics.” In the media discourse, there’s no question but that sexist language and ideas were given free reign, whereas racist language and ideas were more often than not quickly repudiated. Also, that nutcracker was apparently for sale in airports in CNBC shops, whereas the “Curious George” T-shirt was one yokel’s idea to sell at his own restaurant. One product was mass-produced and mass-marketed, the other was not. I think that says a lot about the free reign that misogyny has had in this political campaign.