Is it really sexist?

I was pointed to TalkLeft where this entry says that Obama said something sexist. Keep in mind that TalkLeft is a rabidly pro-Clinton blog now. Want to know they call sexism?

But the sexism and misogyny from the Media and yes, the Obama campaign, has gone largely unremarked. Here is one that has flown under the radar from Barack Obama himself:

Obama saved most of his criticisms for Bush, but he seemed to have Clinton in his sights when he said, “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.”

(Emphasis supplied.) The report does not even note the sexism inherent in that statement. Nor did online communities. Jane Hamsher wondered about that and asked FDL readers what they thought. The results were similarly depressing.

I will be honest – I am disgusted today.

The claws come out.

The claws come out?

Sexist? Really?

As I posted at Booman Tribune this morning:

“The claws come out” is now sexist. This from the same group of people who said of all the Clinton’s race-baiting, “What? It’s entirely possible he was slinging crack in the hood. Duh. He’s black.” The same people who sat there through all of the racists smears of the Clinton campaign and just couldn’t figure out what black people were talking about. We were being “too sensitive” or “imagining insults”. Riiiight.

Oh damn, that’s funny to me.

The blog post was bad enough, but 230 comments of complete and total insanity just seals it. That was fucking hilarious.

I really don’t have much to add to that comment. Comments are closed now (shocker), but if you peruse the commenters you’ll notice something pretty interesting. The comments boiled down were: “I didn’t think of it that way, but now that you mentioned it, yeah, it’s totally sexist. The MSM is teh sux0r!!!11!”

The same people who didn’t think that HarveyMilk’s racist diary wasn’t racist. The same people who said that The Clinton’s racists smears on Obama were being imagined by black people, actually managed to see to sexism in a completely and totally non-sexist phrase.

Does this mean, “claw his/her way to the top” is now sexist? Is it sexist when one says, “to get his/her claws in him/her”? How about “to claw his/her way back from defeat”? Or “to fight tooth and claw”?

See where this is going? Yep, a straight path to StupidVille.

Now, speaking of sexism and stupidity…and hypocrisy, over at MSNBC, Dan Schuster got into some stuff by saying:

But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

The Clinton’s campaign was “livid” and:

SEATTLE – A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC’s David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had “pimped out” 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party “superdelegates” on her mother’s behalf.

I fully admit that Schuster crossed the line. What I find hilarious is the sheer hypocrisy not only in MSNBC suspending Schuster for that remark, but also in the Clinton’s campaigning actually having the nerve to say:

Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign.

A pattern of tasteless comments…hmmmm, I’m sure the Clinton’s campaign and certainly the former president never engaged in anything like that. Not at all. Oh wait…the liberal blogosphere people who can see sexism, told me that was all in my head. Actually, I was told that it was all Obama’s fault. A month after the comments were first made, based on an unverified supposed memo. (I should note that I am totally laughing at people who think that Michelle Malkin Taylor Marsh is a source, but I got a funny sense of humor.) So, forget I said anything.

Then there’s the hypocrisy from MSNBC. As dnA over at Jack and Jill Politics posted, Pat Buchanan had this to say 2 weeks ago:

“in South Central L.A. [Los Angeles]” and “in the prisons” as evidence that tensions between African Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic primary. Buchanan said: “I regret to say you are mistaken about the African American community and the Hispanics. South Central L.A., there is a turf war going on. There’s a war in the prisons.” Buchanan continued, “People who don’t understand that don’t understand America, I’m sorry to say.”

Go to Media Matters to watch that racist prick spew this.

Gee. I don’t remember…was Buchanan suspended for spouting this stuff?

No? Well, that’s not right…I’m sure the liberal blogosphere was just atwitter and besides themselves regarding Buchanan’s statement.

No?

I wish I could say that I’m surprised.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Is it really sexist?

  1. Yes, from a website whose writers said that nothing the Clinton campaign said or hinted about Obama, the drug dealing muslim who can’t do hard work and is lazily shucking and jiving his way through the campaign, could be considered racist.

    They’re really bright over there.

    What’s scary is that at least one of them is a criminal defense attorney and if that person can’t recognize racial code she can’t recognize it when it’s used against her minority clients. If she has any that is.

    Like

  2. It is never for me to say who should or should not be offended. Now, as a white woman that claws comment meant nothing to me. That feel like straw grasping to the extreme. I really believe that if people really *want* to find offense in things, they can. But, it’s a slippery slope to start passing judgment on how *other* people should feel about comments.
    MSNBC has been caught saying enough sexist comments about Hillary that I think this last one was the proverbial straw and since Schuster is not as big a name as Matthews, they decided to punish him for all the heat they have been taking from the Clinton camp. Just my take on that.
    But Firedoglake? Not readable right now. To me, they are causing divisions in the party by being anti-Obama vs just pro-Hillary. Maybe they think they are balancing the Big Orange but it’s different when it is front page diaries vs community diaries. They might as well declare themselves linked to the Clinton campaign the way they go on about it. Now, I fully intend to support whoever wins the nomination because the worst thing for this country would be another GOP president in any form. But I also fully intend to make sure that Dem is Obama by talking about what HE brings to the table vs by trashing his opponent. An obviously naive way of thinking but that’s me.

    Like

Comments are closed.