Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Are Female Bloggers Sympathetic to Hillary Getting Ostracized?

Posted by Linda Hirshman, Taylor Marsh.com at 2:23 PM on March 11, 2008.


I thought the blogs were established in part to offset the tendency of the MSM to cut its coverage to suit its preexisting predilections.
anntaintor
Woman

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

Hi there. Linda Hirshman here. I just got the boot from TPM Café, where I have been blogging for more than a year. Back story: I published a piece on the cover of the Outlook section of the Washington Post last Sunday, March 2, on the class divide in Hillary Clinton's female supporters. Since I criticized the scribbling females of the blogosphere, the article elicited the predictable onslaught of response from them. But when I sent Andrew Golis, my normal contact at TPM Café, my response to post, I got an email telling me TPM had pulled my posting privileges (I don't normally publish email exchanges, but I have no personal relationship with any of the people at TPM, including Golis, and this seems like a fairly straightforward public business communication with no personal material involved.): "For the time being, we're cycling our regular contributers [sic] at the Coffee house and trying to cut down the number of folks with at will posting privileges. If you occasionally have a piece I'd of course love to check it out. But unfortunately we're limiting the number of people who post regularly."

I must admit I was a little surprised. I have not been fired in a long time (decades, really), and I think I'm having a pretty good run in the crowded precincts of political commentary. True, my last few postings at TPM Café were not in keeping with the overwhelming majority of their articles, making and making the case for Senator Barack Obama. I questioned the value of an Idaho caucus victory. I criticized Maureen Dowd's column suggesting that when a perfect female candidate came along, the media would be delighted to support her. I suggested that "Josh" might have waited to get more survey results before he posted his video embracing the ultimately erroneous Zogby predictions for the California primary the afternoon before the primary. But I thought that the new media of the blogosphere was actually established in part to offset what they considered the tendency of the MSM to cut its coverage to suit its preexisting, largely establishment, predilections. So I was blithely oblivious to the possibility that my dissenting views on the inevitability and divinity of the Obama candidacy might cause a problem. Never bashful, I thought I'd press the messenger.

Linda to Andrew: "So why did I not make the cut? Is writing for the times and the Post not good enough for TPM?"

Andrew: "It's not a matter of prestigious clippings, Linda. We're trying to both keep long-standing contributers [sic] around and flesh out the discussion by involving people who are covering things we're not yet addressing."
Linda: "And do you have a lot of contributors covering the female voters, who are likely to determine the outcome of the election of the President of the United States? I am assuming it's not that you don't want anyone who's not already in the tank for Obama. I am serious, here, Andrew. I think this is a real mistake; I have a point of view you don't have much of, I am getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine, and this is the moment you should capitalize on your relationship with me, not drop me."
Andrew: "I'm not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we're focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don't on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree." [emphasis mine]

So. Either the dozen guys who run TPM do not think female voting behavior is worthy of their coverage or, dare I say it, they don't want to run material that might result in readers supporting a candidate other than the one they favor. They do not appear to have deacquisitioned Ruth Rosen, who is one of the Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!™ which of course only supports my most paranoid thoughts.

TM NOTE: Verification of the email exchanges in Ms. Hirshman's post above was provided. She's been invited to become an expert guest blogger at TM.com doing what she does best. Telling people things they don't like to hear and not flinching while doing it. Whether you agree with her or not, she's a voice that deserves to be heard.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: sexism, clinton, blogosphere, obama, talking points memo

Linda Hirshman is the author of Get to Work ... And Get A Life Before It’s Too Late (Penguin 2007). A retired philosophy professor, she blogs at the New Republic, the American Prospect, TPMCafe, and elsewhere


Franken: Coleman's Lead Is Less Than 100 Votes
"It is fair to say that Norm Coleman's lead is now in the double digits."
Post by Sam Stein. November 21, 2008.
Unhinged Chambliss Grabs Camera When Asked About Lawsuit
The pressures of the runoff and the continuing questions about his ties to a scandal-scarred sugar company seem to be getting to Chambliss.
Post by Sam Stein. November 21, 2008.
Minnesota Recount Going Well for Franken
Looks like Norm Coleman is feeling the heat.
Post by Matt Stoller. November 21, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Eh
Posted by: g50 on Mar 11, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever. Sorry you got fired. But if I was an editor I wouldn't pay money for people shilling for Hillary. Not after the way she has run this campaign. I guess I'd give you the option of writing about something else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shilling????? Posted by: Verjenie
It's not a male/female thing
Posted by: SoCalLib on Mar 11, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is exactly as the previous poster stated ~ based entirely on how she's run her campaign. Even my wife, who was a Hillary backer in the beginning, says she would probably not even vote if she gets the nomination over Obama. Clinton has shown that she cares more about her selfish goals than she does the party she belongs to or the country itself. The thing that really pushed me over the edge is how she's hinting that she will try and persuade Obama's pledged delegates to vote for her instead. Pledged delegates! Isn't that how Bush got himself into office? By stealing an election? Twice? Is that how she's going to separate herself from his administration? She's already appropriated Obama's message of change, now she's appropriating Bush's path to the presidency. The woman is a manipulative opportunist.

Again, it's not about the gender. There are many, many other women I would rather see run, and gladly vote for. It's a shame that Hillary has become one that I can't vote for. And at times, she actually makes me feel ashamed to be a Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not a male/female thing Posted by: nochicagoboys
Agree
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 11, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on comments on Alternet, some of the most spirited Hillary supporters suggest that some Obama supporters are sexist.

The fact is, a year ago, most Democrats actually liked Hillary. Many may have preferred Obama or someone else, but would have settled for Hillary as the nominee back then.

But since then Hillary has run her campaign more like a Republican, employing some highly questionable tactics: voter suppression in Nevada, push to count delegates from the farce primaries in Michigan and Florida, offering the VP slot to frontrunner Obama, floating the ideas of taking pledged delegates from Obama...the list goes on.

Making up the rules to suit your needs...that's exactly what voters dislike about the Bush Administration.

Her gender has nothing to do with it, it's how she's running her campaign. Sure there's a need to be aggressive in a campaign. But there's a fine line between aggressive and inappropriate and another between inappropriate and just wrong. Hillary has crossed both those lines many times in the last year, most recently by saying her and McCain are qualified to be president, but Obama is not.

Perhaps she should offer McCain the VP slot instead if she thinks he's so much better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Agree Posted by: SoCalLib
» RE: Agree Posted by: djnoll
» I so disagree!!!!!! Posted by: Verjenie
?!
Posted by: sui_generis on Mar 11, 2008 6:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironically, TPM is widely criticized on all the blogs I read as being in the tank for Hillary.

I suspect their action is not as bias-based as the author would like to believe...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is no feminist, and never has been.
Posted by: wagadog on Mar 11, 2008 8:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was genuinely irritated back in 2000 when one of the real heroes of the Watergate Hearings and staunch Brooklyn Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman was elbowed aside by the Ferraro/Clinton B-squad yet again . Sisterhood, shmisterhood, she will squash any human being who gets in her way like a bug...when she can.

The message is: unseat a President in the opposing party, get elbowed aside by the woman who marries a man who becomes president.

Feminist? No. Reinforcing traditional gender-stereotyped roles? Yes. That's the message, and women like Hil will be forever rewarded for it -- by the men who benefit from patriarchal values. Malcolm X, in one of his speeches had a vivid description of these poor victims of what would be known as "Stockholm Syndrome" -- identifying with your captors.

The failure of the Clinton Administration (which I understand she takes full responsibility for formulating and executing the policies of) to actually enforce FMLA and Title IX's requirement for gender equity in science education up to and including the graduate and postgraduate level (I know of no institution that was penalized for discrimination in the award of federal science grants) could of course be merely an oversight -- like the Rwanda genocide.

But this is the story that convinced me that she has not a feminist bone in her body, and never did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's Kool-aid Posted by: Verjenie
A Question of Character ...
Posted by: gazooks on Mar 12, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is raised at each turn in the constant, none too subtle debasement of political debate by the injection of racial innuendo by Clinton surrogates.

It continues as calculated, when Obama rises to the bait to respond in defense, that it's he that's playing the race card, that it's his cynical calculus, and that he's inflaming racial passions to his advantage.

If this isn't acknowledged as consistent with the tactics of the Rove driven Republican campaigns of smear, outraged denial and re-smear, and if voters haven't yet had a bellyful of hijacked campaign narrative, then support those who perpetrate it.

Just don't complain about the same tactics of manipulation and disinformation being used against the advance of other principled issues that transcend race, gender, age or socioeconomic tier by an administration composed of and driven by that mindset.

Meet the new boss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Posted by: bettyn on Mar 12, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is BILL'S campaign for a third term! Hillary is like Lurleen Wallace: Just running in her husband's place because of term limits. She is not a serious FEMALE candidate for President. She is a surrogate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read a lot of political news...
Posted by: loxias on Mar 12, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but never heard of TPM. Thanks for warning me away though =)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Good Luck to Dialogue
Posted by: Verjenie on Mar 16, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey there
Sometimes I feel like a butterfly among these strange creatures all hurling stones. If your story is accurate and comprehensive, I'm sorry you were ousted. Monlithic sites are so boring. I'm hopelessly pro under-dog, pro questioning Authority wherever it lies, pro individuality, pro respect, anti Brave New World Speak, so I give you props and wish you could be in mixed company. Next you'll have to wear a yellow ribbon star as a punishment. I'm an Obama butterfly, but can land on Hillary's shoulder occasionally wiothout getting burned. The big picture is that we need a country that gets involved. We're not involved if we're ostracizing those who disagree with us. I have 1 or 2 Hillary friends and they don't shun me, nor do they rail against Obama or call him names. Hey civilize up, folks. Is everyone a troll working to demoralize anyone idealistic enough to believe in something good happening as opposed to hiss, venom, hiss, venom: GOTCHA!!!!!!! Ow. Let me go. I'm free to have different opinions. People didn't die before me so I could be a zombie. Good luck to y'all. P.S. Everyone do your homework.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]