Linda Hirshman

Are Female Bloggers Sympathetic to Hillary Getting Ostracized?


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.

The Porn Candidate

Whaddaya know? This morning, as a thought experiment, Maureen Dowd contemplated a woman making a successful run for President. She'd like that, she says. She even hopes the "male reporters" in the media would behave if it ever happened. Presumably she includes herself in that group.

Dowd's candidate would have an easier time than the real female candidate running, because Dowd's candidate is not a real person, but one of those women on the internet pornography sites. Maureen's candidate has no brain, no record, no history, no family, no past statements, no existence except in her overheated imagination.

The internet porn candidate would be perfect, because, having no brain she couldn't be too smart, no record, so she could not have once voted in a way that some critic disagrees with, having no history, people would not simply be able to push a button on their computer to come up with witch lines about her, having no family, she would not remind them of their own sexual "unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies" having no past statements, she would not have talked too much, and having no existence except as a hypothetical, she would never actually win. Anything.

Why Does NBC Hate Hillary?

Guess what? NBC does not like it when we citizens of the new media republic catch them out. After Taylor Marsh caught Tim Russert making up stuff about Bill Clinton closing the archives waving an outdated thirteen year old document at an unsuspecting candidate for President ("I have here a list of Communists in the State Department"), the NBC NEWS ran a "special report" with Lisa Myers about how Bill Clinton closed the archives.

Boy, must have had that one in the works for a while.
Since they could not get the archivist to say anything beyond "I'm a librarian, and you're trying to take out books," they went to that legendary neutral expert on the rectitude of Bill Clinton, Judicial Watch.

In case you don't know it, Judicial Watch is the right wing funded (Scaife, etc.) attack dog group that spent much of the Nineties suing the Clintons. Surprise: Judicial Watch didn't think Bill Clinton had produced enough documents.
You would never know it to watch NBC "news" however, because they never mentioned who Judicial Watch was. Just put a microphone in front of the spokesman and let 'er rip.

BRAND NEW STORIES

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.