On CNN, Air America's Flanders said Obama has "kind of become the female" candidate, while Clinton has "the balls"
On the July 18 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Air America Radio host Laura Flanders said of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), "he's kind of become the female on this race. It's very interesting. He's seen as the weaker -- cute, attractive." Flanders then said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "Hillary is the one with the balls." Host Lou Dobbs responded, "Well, Laura, my goodness." The comments came after Flanders noted that daytime television host Oprah Winfrey was supporting Obama while, according to Flanders, Oprah's mother "is 100 percent for Hillary."
Dobbs then turned to CNN contributor Roland Martin "to work out the physiological symbolic gender-bending sort of analysis that Laura has put on the table." Martin said that Clinton "has no choice but to appear to be stronger because that was a perceived weakness being a woman running for president." Martin then said that Obama "has to play a bit safer, being an African-American running, not having a long amount of experience," and added that "he has a very difficult task of, well, do I -- the whole question: Is he black enough? Is he too black?" Dobbs responded by noting that Flanders had "introduced the idea that he's too female and Hillary's too male." Flanders added, "He's female enough for Oprah, and she's male enough for a lot of voters out there. It's fascinating. I mean, I think this is going to be an amazing election."
Flanders' comments followed similar remarks in the media recently. As Media Matters for America documented, after Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a headline that read "GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY 'BEHAVING LIKE A MAN," several media figures trotted out gender stereotypes about the leading Democratic presidential candidates while discussing comments former Sen. John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, made about Clinton during an interview with Salon.com editor-in-chief Joan Walsh. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson asked on his July 17 show, "I mean, let's take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?" On the July 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC senior national correspondent Claire Shipman claimed that "[t]here is striking gender role reversal on the campaign trail" because "Hillary Clinton [is] by far the toughest politically and stylistically," while Edwards and Obama "are emoting like crazy." In the July 17 edition of his "Best of the Web Today" column, OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto asserted: "Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over" by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' "womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards," and then falsely claimed that Elizabeth Edwards had suggested in an interview that "Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards."
In the interview, Edwards said:
Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women.
Previously, on his July 2 show, Carlson said that Obama "seems like kind of a wuss."
On the July 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, producer Willie Geist described a Clinton doll being advertised at the website HillaryNutcracker.com that features "serrated stainless steel thighs that, well, crack nuts," according to Geist. He introduced the story by saying, "I think the metaphor in this next story, Tucker, is pretty clear. So I will just report the straight facts." He later asked, "What do you think they're saying about Hillary?" Carlson replied, "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."
From the July 18 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Well, let me start with Oprah Winfrey supporting -- who did she decide she wanted, Laura?
FLANDERS: Oh, I think it's Barack Obama all the way.
DOBBS: All right. Now, that's exciting. Who cares?
FLANDERS: Well, it's fascinating stuff. I was interviewing somebody yesterday who lives in Barack Obama's -- not only his hometown of Chicago, but in Hyde Park, where he's from.
DOBBS: Right.
FLANDERS: His mother -- her mother is 100 percent for Hillary. I am finding person after person, African-American women, AFSCME employees -- I went to that presidential forum. They like Barack, but he's kind of become the female on this race. It's very interesting. He's seen as the weaker --
DOBBS: Whoa, gender-bender.
FLANDERS: -- cute, attractive. And Hillary is the one with the balls.
DOBBS: Roland --
FLANDERS: That's what people say.
DOBBS: Well, Laura, my goodness --
FLANDERS: And so I'm fascinated that Oprah is really pushing it --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes --
FLANDERS: -- but I think he's made for Oprah.
DOBBS: Well, you're going to have to -- Roland, I'm turning to you, from Chicago -- to work out the physiological symbolic gender-bending sort of analysis that Laura has put on the table.
MARTIN: First, keep in mind, she's been on the national stage 15 years. He's really been on the national stage just one year. Secondly, she has no choice but to appear to be stronger because that was a perceived weakness being a woman running for president.
DOBBS: Yeah.
MARTIN: He also has to play a bit safer, being an African-American running, not having a long amount of experience. And so he has to --
DOBBS: He's got to be --
MARTIN: He has to tread -- some water here.
DOBBS: He's got --
MARTIN: Because --
DOBBS: He can't make waves.
MARTIN: Well, no -- he can't make waves because, again, he's a new -- he's a new guy on the block, and he has a very difficult task of, well, do I -- the whole question: Is he black enough? Is he too black? You know, what's his stances? And so he's --
DOBBS: Well, now he's got a -- now Laura has introduced the idea --
FLANDERS: I think he's female enough --
DOBBS: -- that he's too female and Hillary's too male.
MARTIN: Well, I think what she's saying is that --
FLANDERS: He's female enough for Oprah, and she's male enough for a lot of voters out there. It's fascinating. I mean, I think this is going to be an amazing election.
this could really be the republicans biggest mistake. they have spent the last 15 years painting hillary as the steely ruthless dragon lady. it's a little late at this point to try and say she isn't tough enough. they helped make that image.
I think Republicans are perfectly happy with Hillary's image whether they helped create it or not.
They just never thought their own house would be this messy, that's their problem.
i know they're happy. but i think my point is pretty clear. how do they say this woman isn't tough enough to be president when they've spent the last 15 years pointing out how tough she is. and yeah they're in a mess, but it's not like they weren't the ones who created that mess. it didn't fall in their lap. they followed bush like happy little puppies.
I guess I haven't heard who's saying she's not tough enough. Isn't Tucker Carlson keeping his legs crossed?
i didn't say they were saying that. i asked how are they going to do it if and when the time comes.
Yes, Hillary has been portrayed by the Rightwing as a "ball buster" and a ruthless, cold, calculating woman. The reason for this "characterization", of course, is the Rightwing BASE is the "white Christian male", and nothing is more offensive to that constituency than the "strong, emasculating woman". It is repulsive to the rightwing male, it is threatening, offensive, a really big turn-off. It is hateful.
And it WORKED. All the Limbaugh and Hannity followers are of a singular mind on Hillary: fear and loathing. There is now not a prayer that a white Christian male rightwinger would vote for Hillary for ANYTHING ... she's too domineering, too much "like a man."
The mistake the Rightwing made was NOT that they'd be in "such a mess" now, but that their core constituency is way too tiny to ever elect anyone to office. The fearful paranoid white Christian male who makes up "the base" is numbered around the 25% that's still sticking with Bush ... in other words, an irrelevant minority.
So the Rightwing has been playing to their base, has CEMENTED their base on the topic of Hillary, and it was the wrong strategy, because "the base" cannot elect a dogcatcher, let alone a president.
Ironic that rightwing "image making" will help Hillary win the White House. Who knew?
Very interesting. A few years ago you were ranting about how the far right had taken over the entire government. Not bad for a segment that can't even elect a "dogcatcher". I think they outdid themselves.
BRUCE:
The GOP weren't depending on their misogyny back when they were being "successful". They were exploiting FEAR, hawking tax cuts (gutless pandering when they knew it would be paid for with deficit spending), and ginning up hatred and resentment for the usual rightwing targets: Gays, blacks, the poor, academia, workers (Unions), etc.
Oh yeah, their non-stop SMEAR campaigns against any threatening Democrat reached new highs in time, money, and effort expended.
And their tactics of yore worked well enough, marginally (very close elections), because they only had to fool a bunch of "independents", enough that their wholesale disenfranchisment of Democratic voters and control of the voting machines could work that magic.
The problem with GOP success with winning elections is, of course, that they THEN have to GOVERN ... of which they are incapable.
That's right, I forgot that both of those elections were stolen.
Well, on the tax cut issue, tax cuts are only useful IMO if they are tied to a reduction in government spending to avoid the deficit problem you were referring to. I agree with that part.
Otherwise, my suggestion for the left is to present a message that the American People will embrace and vote for and package it in a way that will win convincingly. You have the issues on your side, as you say, so it shouldn't be that difficult. When the object is to win elections, it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame the other side for running a winning campaign.
And BTW, your anti-war candidate in 2004 was cast aside quickly in the primaries, so don't blame Republicans for that. That was your sides call.
"And their tactics of yore worked well enough, marginally (very close elections), because they only had to fool a bunch of "independents"
They must be "fooling a bunch of independents" now as well since both Guiliani and Thompson are dead even with Hillary in the national polls.
If someone on Air America said it, it must be true. That place is the ultimate "No Spin Zone". LOL
Seriously, the only thing we can do here is to nominate the Symbol formally known as Prince for President because then we wouldn't have all these gender issues.
I wonder if Edwards is PO'd about the slight.
If this isn't about the silliest thread put here in a long time, then I am a flaming lefty.
Tommy, I didn't know you were gay. And in the mafia, to boot! What's yer gay mafia name, Don "falafel" Vittorio?
I give MMFA a lot of credit for nailing a liberal on this kind of nonsensical gender stuff. It shows they are equitable.
I think Prince's dispute with his former record label is past and we're allowed to call him Prince again. So we can have a Prince in the WH....hmmmmm...
Ooops.....Stop right there!! There can be none of this political bantering back and forth between left wing radio hosts and CNN contibutors on the gender issues in this historic presidential race where a woman is the frontrunner for the very first time!
MMFA will send you a playbook of nice and less offensive exchanges that you're allowed to discuss. Until then, we must ask for silence and off to your respective corners.
I'd figure you'd applaud this Tommy. For MMfA is using the same standards in criticizing a lefty for her remark after posting a similar item about a right winger.
Yes, that's right, Tommy, MMFA wants to establish a media dictatorship.
They're going to publish their manifesto forbidding free speech (i.e. "playbook") to inform the media what they're "allowed to discuss". They're going to assemble their own Schutzstaffel to lobby Congress at gunpoint to repeal the First Amendment.
The tired, whiny, free-speech argument behind this ridiculous, condescending bull**** is emptier than a Sunday morning frat keg.
For a makeover.
Maybe we'll be electing the first transsexual President in 2008? ;-)
Transexual, metrosexual, gay, lesbian it doesn't matter. You can rest assured that it will be a Democrat.
Guess all, ya'll Republicans better start hidin' your money in the mattress, cause sweet lord, them Democrats are comin' for it. Oooo weee, son.
Transexual, metrosexual, gay, lesbian it doesn't matter. You can rest assured that it will be a Democrat.
You know what Roundhouse, a few months ago I would have agreed with you.
But I'm not too sure that Hillary or Obama could win a general election. And neither could Edwards, but he's not likely to win the nomination anyway.
Now if Gore stepped in....
Personally I'm beginning to believe that either Thompson [should he finally declare] or Romney could beat either Clinton or Obama.
Personally I'm not excited about any of the candidates from either party at the moment.
Guess all, ya'll Republicans better start hidin' your money in the mattress, cause sweet lord, them Democrats are comin' for it. Oooo weee, son.
Well it's nice to see you admit that ;-)
It's still early.
John Edwards will be the next President of the United States.
I saw it in a dream.
While sleeping on a mattress.
Stuffed with President Edwards 3 dollar bills.
It's still early. John Edwards will be the next President of the United States. I saw it in a dream. While sleeping on a mattress. Stuffed with President Edwards 3 dollar bills.
Roundhouse, did you post between bong hits? ;-)
Between? My life is one huge deep and abiding bong hit.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
I don't recognize your following posts, but I certainly endorse this one!
"Maybe we'll be electing the first transsexual President in 2008"
We'd probably be electing the first $400 haircut President in 2008.
Not the first $300 makeup President?
There ya go. Typical right-wing distortion.
That's directed at Rino way back on the first page.
RINO, as many times as you've been embarrassed by believing Rush, don't you think you should start fact-checking the stuff he says before repeating it here?
Rush was joking and I was repeating his joke. I know that Elizabeth Edwards' actual words were "my husband would be a better advocate for women than Hillary Clinton." But it's still a ridiculous assertion to make.
What a depressing exchange. If Air America is going to engage in the same trivial nonsense as the MSM, but from the left, then it isn't worth listening to.
Does everything in our public discourse have to be idiotic? Can we, for once, talk about things that matter?
You mean like $400 haircuts, or who actually invented the internet?
You're right, Ellington. It's depressing. This thread in particular-- like many others recently-- is inane. They never address the topics at hand.
Here's what usually happens. Someone like 'tommy' will immediately get on and throw the thread to some ludicrous angle. Then, everyone spins off on some other tangent, completely ignoring the point of the article. And when other people try to stick to the point, they get ignored!
Compare this to bright blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy, say, conservative as it is. But maybe most liberals are stupid. It would explain why we are always losing.
Flanders called Obama weak, without providing evidence. What about Obama is weak?
I have said many many times that Hillary has balls. I've also said Hillary has balls but unlike men she doesn't have to constantly tough them. There is nothing negative when you say a woman has balls. It's actually a complement. It means she tough, smart and can play with the boys while still being a woman.
should be "touch them"
I'm missing something here -- where and what is the controversy? She's obviously steely enough to stand up for this country, and he certainly has a sensitive nature that allows him to empathize with a lot of people who have little or no voice. What's the problem? I'm beginning to think that they'd make a marvelous team.
Been mulling this over for a while. I don't think Laura is trying to slam either candidate. Especially the way she said, " He's female enough for Oprah, and she's male enough for a lot of voters out there. It's fascinating. I mean, I think this is going to be an amazing election."
I could be very wrong, I just think she might be indicating that Barrack and Hillary have broad enough appeal to capture a mixed bag of voters. I think she'e saying neither candidate has a portion of the electorate locked down, that both have qualities that can siphon votes from one anothers supposed base demographic of supporters. Maybe?
I would never pick a candidate because of their sex, race, or religion. I look at their life and how they've lived it. What were they doing before politics? I would pick Obama any day over Clinton and it would be because he can empathize with the needs of this country. His agenda is the agenda of the people, and Clinton has her own agenda. Obama wants to change our foreign policy. Clinton wants to strengthen our presense in the Middle East which does not make us safer. It likes throwing more rocks at an angry hornet's nest. If that makes him appear weak to some, I don't think they are looking at the person he is. There is nothing weak about empathy. It's an honorable trait that I wish more people had. I am sick and tired of the administration that we have now that only rules by will and will alone. I don't want more of that! I want a leader with feelings and concern for the citizens of the world. That does not make a person weak. That makes the person brave.
Man if Flanders didn't hit that one right on the head.......
Pointless gender stereotyping diminishes candidates and voters
Laura Flanders could have easily spoken to the views of HC and BO, and they way they are presenting themselves out on the campaign trail without using male and female stereotypes.
What Flanders and many others are doing just trivializes the substance of candidates. Hillary Clinton is a strong and powerful candidate for President. Barrack Obama is also a strong and powerful candidate. As is John Edwards.
The fact that Hillary and Barrack are not "traditional" white male candidates is obvious. You would think Americans would evolve. I for one am ready to vote for a candidate based on his or her leadership abilities, ability to represent American voters, and to preserve and honor the Constitution of the Untied States of America.
The level of discourse on main stream media is not advancing information to inform the voting public. Laura Flanders is certainly capable of recognizing and changing her approach on this.
Media Matters once again has pointed out the dumbing down of America.
It is not fascinating, Laura.
I know Laura for her brave broadcasts for the benefit of the underprivileged and fair labor practices. Laura, has the cut in air time of the Radio Nation Show caused you to panic and attempt re-establish your national presence with this pulp.....just to get noticed again?
This analysis is bubble gum for the well-connected who are living the high life, parading up to Georgetown parties eating brie and low salt items. Those who make a living by publicly objecting to big Bush tax cuts but take them anyway at the end of the year..(not that I wouldn't).
Possibly Laura dosn't have a problem with a candidate acting outside classical sexual roles. Her host may have problems here. Who would ask a clarifying question in this situation?
First off, Laura Flanders, you should be ashamed of yourself for basically replaying the Republican spin: Obama feminine, Hillary a man. That makes them both inverts, and that's just what the GOP is trying to do: establish the meme that Democrats are perverts.
Second, when will our major press stop playing up stupid stories like this? Obama has a wife and two daughters. He is a male. Hillary is a woman, as evidenced by her daughter. They take political stances, which are only slightly different from each other. It is true that Obama is a black man who has the first viable candidacy for president by a person of his race. The reason for this? Well, he's got a stirring and intelligent brain, and no, he isn't H. Rap Brown or Huey Newton. That helps him get votes. If he were to start saying, "Kill the Pigs!" he would hardly get any votes. But the reason why he doesn't come on like a militant brother from the '60s is because that isn't who he is. That's not what he believes. It has nothing to do with his sexuality. He goes to a church, and he's accused of Black Nationalism. He went to school in Indonesia, and they lied and said it was a madrassa.
Hillary is slightly more centrist, though perceptions are key. She has the first viable female candidacy for president. Her positions are slightly different from Obama's. She has, after the health care debacle of 1993-94, not outlined exactly what she would do this time, because it would be a magnet for opposition criticism and unfair slanders about her role at the time. A male politician in the same circumstances would undoubtedly do the same. Hillary IS a woman. She is a feminist. But her position on Iraq has nothing to do with her sexuality. Should it? Should she burst into tears thinking about the slaughter? That would probably confirm people's fear of females in high office.
A left-wing feminist like Flanders should really know better than talk the sexist language of the mainstream press. Maybe she's hard up for cash.
You know? That's a persuasive argument. I hadn't looked at it that way.
It seemed as though Laura was trying to subvert the stereotype paradigm, at least I thought she was. She does seem to be playing the same old tune as he rest of the band.
To see how Laura Flanders has shifted politically since her partner was given a $290,000 MacArthur Foundation individual "genius grant" in 1997 and her women's desk at FAIR was given two grants, totalling $350,000 in that same year, you might be interested in checking out the 1991 interview with Laura Flanders that's posted on the www.bfeldman68.blogspot.com site.