Pent Up Anger

While out for happy hour last weekend in D.C., my friends and I managed to pick a bar that was part of a Obama supporter bar crawl. Standing around with my roommate, we were approached by bar crawl participants, who asked us if we wanted a sticker. We politely told them no thank you, we support Hillary. Which led to a 30 minute discussion about why I was supporting Hillary (my roommate had escaped by this point). So annoying 1) because I was a happy hour, and 2) because speaking/thinking about Obama makes me uncontrollably angry.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about why I hate Obama so much. It's not rational, and I would consider myself a rational person by nature. So why the pent up anger?

The only thing I can come up with is that Clinton's downfall is so obviously in part because of sexism. In the media, in people's minds. The media bugs me the most. I expect everyday people to be ignorant, that's just how it goes. But the media? Our society's opinion leaders? I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard. But they really have not, and completely represent how sexist is still so prevalent, albeit in a more subversive form than in the past. NOW's president Kim Gandy I think sums up my feelings best in her most recent "Below the Bet" post:

The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Some of these remarks seem mild, while others are offensive and truly outrageous. Taken together, they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Senator Clinton. At this moment it feels like she is a stand-in for every woman who has ever tried to get ahead and be taken seriously by the powers that be.

For me, it's not just the sexist comments about Clinton, it's also the media's absolute inability to critique Obama. Certainly, he's done something to merit scrutiny. They just won't look.

For example, last week (I started this post awhile ago) I was reading the coverage for Maryland's primaries (where I'm from) in the Baltimore Sun. On the front page, there were three stories: one about Clinton, one about Obama, and one about McCain. The tag lines telling readers where to find the rest of the stories were slightly ridiculous: Clinton's was "campaign," McCain's "GOP," and Obama's was "believer." Believer?? Are you kidding me? How about "Obama" or "Democrat" or something without such a blatantly biased connotation? It's little things (so small you wouldn't even realize that you read it unless looking) like that that really drive me insane. Read Gandy's post for more ingratiating remarks.

I've been collecting articles over the last two weeks that I think either resonate with the sexism problems in the media or in society. Here are the highlights:

• "Between 'inspiration' and health care," Froma Harrop: "From his Chicago headquarters, Obama ended the exhausting Tuesday night with an almost mechanical 'we have to choose between change and more of the same.' ... How odd that when it comes to the Democrats’ top concern, health care, Obama offers very much 'more of the same' -- as in more of 'no universal coverage.'"
• "When women rule," Nicholas Kristof: "In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices -- and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man."
• "Democrats need to understand that racism and sexism still count in elections," Mary Sanchez: "In the final primary weeks, Democrats should ask themselves this question: Is the U.S. more prone to racism or to sexism? And how should the answer affect party strategy if the goal is a Democratic White House. ... I vote sexist. Hillary haters are much more numerous and vocal than those who can’t stomach the idea of a black man globetrotting for the next four years on Air Force One."
• "A calumny a day to keep Hillary away," Stanley Fish: "The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. ... Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers. ... If so, they face it from women as well as from men, at least on the evidence provided here."
• "Women hold key to Clinton's fate," Bill Maxwell: "The country has had a number of women who have sought the White House, but none could garner wide support. So far, Clinton has been the most viable, but she is facing the 'damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't' syndrome. She cannot be too feminine for fear of appearing weak and not up to the job. She cannot be too wonky or too tough for fear being labeled a 'bitch.'"

***

Since writing this post, there has been a slight shift in the media, although it's too little too late, I think. Here's a couple of opinion piece that (finally) realize that Obama's "hope" might not be all it's cracked up to be:

• "Obama's spell memorizing but empty," Charles Krauthammer: "Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."
• "The Obama delusion," Robert Samuelson: "Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems."