Anyone who opposes Edwards is a right-winger. Anyone who opposes Obama is a racist...

[Armstead]

Ridiculous? Absolutely.

It is quite possible to be very progressive and liberal and disagree with Edwards or not support him personally.

It is quite possible to be liberal and want to see an African American in the White House, and still believe Obamah is not the best candidate, or that his positions are not what would truly advance the interests of African Americans.

So why do supporters of the Clintons believe that it's appropriate to constantly call her critics "talking right out of the right-wing playbook" or claim that personal criticism of her is automatically sexist?

The right-wing charge is based on a completely inane piece of logic. Right wingers and Republicans hate the Clintons and criticize them relentlessly -- Therefore everyone who disapproves of the Clintons or criticizes them is automatically a right-wing Republican, or repeating right-wing Republican talking points.

Likewise with the "sexist" claims regarding the motives and ways people criticize Hillary. It shows a double-standard. Obamah, by contrast, is clearly trying to incorporate his race into his political message and identity. However, the crucial difference is that he does not use his race to play the victim or as a defense against his critics.


Sorry for this Poopcorn Post, ( :popcorn: ) but it really gets my goat to see this sort of stuff repeatedly applied to critics of Clinton. While it is entirely legitimate to dispute the criticism itself, it is entirely inappropriate to call it a right-wing Hannity talking point.

[joeybee12]

1. This is ridiculous...the Clinton supporters only call it sexism when it

is sexism...using words like shrill and cackle..posting that she got the Register endorsement because the ediorial board is mainly female.

Please show me other instances where there ahve been charges of sexism...you can't, because this is aludicrous post.

[Armstead]

3. You just proved my point

I have seen over the years many times the word "shrill" applied to male candidates. I recall one of the attack lines against Dean, for example, is that he was too shrill.

"Cackle" may be associated with hens, but was it sexist to criticize Bush for "crowing" about his supposed success at the start of the Iraq War.

[joeybee12]

5. No, you proved my point...

crow is different than cackle, and shrill is almost exclusively yused for women in a deragatory way....and what about the Register supporting Clinton because they're all women...

[Armstead]

9. This is thin-skinned parsing

I have heard the word "cackle" referred to men too.

And you should read more if you haven't heard the word "shrill" used in gender-neutral ways. (Often used, I might add, by conservative Democrats to describe "the left")

As for the Des Moines Register thing. I frankly haven't paid attention to that, or to the editors' justifications. So maybe that claim is out of bounds, maybe not. I honestly don't know.

[joeybee12]

11. Maybe not???

Good Lord...hopeless.

[Armstead]

14. I said "I Don't Know " -- Big difference

If posters say that without any reason, then yes that would be equally inappropriate.

If it is said because the editors themselves said that her gender helped to make their decision, than it is a valid point.

So "maybe, maybe not" is the only honest answer I can give to that specific example.

[cali]

22. amazing. You really are clueless on the topic

I don't know if you're sexist or not, but you are defending sexism.

[spooky3]

23. No term is ever going to be applied 100% to one gender and 0% to another.

So that isn't a fair standard to impose before calling something sexist.

It's a matter of degree and gradation. And the point is that terms like "shrill" and "cackle" are far more likely to be used to dismiss and denigrate women than they are used with reference to men. That's what makes the usage sexist.

The point is that when such terms or gender-based criticism is directed toward Clinton, then it should be called out. Policy-based or other substantive criticism is fine. It's usually not hard to tell the difference.

I am an Edwards supporter (since before 2004).

[Armstead]

25. A reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3846243&mesg_id=3848581

[cali]

20. use "uppity" to describe a black person, you're open to

charges of racism and rightly so. Use shrill to describe a female candidate, and you should be blasted for sexism. It really disgusts me to see people casually brush off sexism. And it's usually men who do it. You obviously know very, very little about the use of language to keep women in "their places". Pretty clear you've never taken a college level course on the subject. And if you're going to claim that Dean was attacked COMSTANTLY for being shrill, provide some evidence.

[Armstead]

24. Okay -- A random collection of men described as shrill

>>>>And if you're going to claim that Dean was attacked CONSTANTLY for being shrill, provide some evidence.\

"...But aside from some curiously cheerful coverage in the Wall Street Journal, they obviously don't like Dean. He's "brusque," "testy," the "ex-Governor of a speck of a state" and "a shrill Northeasterner," Karen Tumulty wrote in Time.....
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:1xAzY9MixvsJ:www.commondreams.org/views03/0816-07.htm+howard+dean,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Okay, here's from CNN, with female host Paula Zahn:

"ZAHN: ... you find candidate Howard Dean flippant, maybe at times shrill. What was so revealing about that exchange to you?...."
CNN http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:J7hMXdxJh74J:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/27/se.11.html+howard+dean,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a


"...Listen to him (Dean). He tears down, lies about the facts, is shrill and refuses to promote any positive programs to oppose the President or the Republicans...."
CapitolHillNews http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:BK9wKBb6CRgJ:capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php%3Fid%3D200+howard+dean,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us&client=firefox-a




Here's one about that symbol of femininity, the Rebel Yell, as done by Howard Dean.

"...Shelby Foote, the great historian of the Civil War, quotes a Union infantryman who had heard the yell in all its traumatizing glory: It was, he said, "shrill, exultant, savage" — three words that perfectly describe the Dean emanation...."
The National Review
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KR04C_jYhtYJ:www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett200401300915.asp+howard+dean,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a


I'll do you one better....Here's a description of John Edwards from AOL News Blogger


"Edwards was shrill..."
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:CGoMn-eFe9cJ:news.aol.com/political-machine/tag/ChrisDodd/+john+edwards,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"In last night’s Democratic presidential debate in Nevada Hillary Clinton smacked John Edwards for his increasing shrill and negative attacks against her. Well done Hillary...."
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:6uuo3ZvIPSUJ:bloggernista.com/2007/11/16/hillary-clinton-smacks-john-edwards/+john+edwards,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"Edwards's stated views on free trade were primitive and shrill,..."
National Review

Let's not leave Obama out....from female talk show host Taylor Marsh

"...Notice Obama's voice? He gets very, let's just say it, shrill."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Oh heck, let's go after Al Gore too

"Predictably enough, Gore denounced the Bush administration--over and over and over, and in shrill, paranoid terms...."
Opinion Journal (Wall St. Journal website)
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:rELowk7M3UEJ:www.opinionjournal.com/best/%3Fid%3D110004568+howard+dean,+shrill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[bunnies]

7. Thats not true.

Ive seen plenty of broad-brushed accusations claiming people are against HRC because she's a woman.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Tell me, then. When people post unflattering pictures of her, hotlinked from

FR or "moonbattery.com," can I call that "out of the RW playbook?"

[Armstead]

4. Would you say the same thing about unflattering portraits of male candidates?

Yes, there are trolls here at DU.

However, the widespread use of the phrase "that's a right-wing talking point" goes far beyond the understandable need to exercise caution in terms of potential moles.

And, my point was that it is often used to criticize statements made by liberals from a clearly liberal perspective.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I have not seen people link to RW sites to smear any other candidate.

Nor, for that matter, have I seen people link to RW conspiracy sites to smear any other candidate. I have seen both regarding Hillary in my short time here. It is not a matter of "moles" or "trolls." People who are strongly opposed to a candidate will reach for anything within their grasp to smear them. The right wing has, over the course of the last decade and a half, created a stockpile of ammunition that is irresistible to those whose distaste for Sen. Clinton approaches (IMO) derangement. While I do not believe all criticism of Sen. Clinton is "out of the RW playbook," and while I believe much of the criticism is well deserved, I also believe that a good portion of it is indeed directly lifted from the right wing.

"From a clearly liberal perspective?" I don't think anyone would call opposition to her support of NAFTA, K-L, or IWR "out of the RW playbook." It's the character assassination that we have issues with.

[Armstead]

12. What prompted this post.....

...was a last straw in a recent thread in which someone claimed that critics of the impact of NAFTA on Mexico's children was simply regurgitating Sean Hannity.

That is total nonsense, because progressive/liberal critics of the Clinton's on NAFTA have nothing to do with right-wing talking points. On the contrary, it is just the opposite....One may disagree with the positions of progressives and liberals opposed to "free trade" -- but to equate that with Sean Hannity is ridiculous.

You are correct that people do use right-wing sources to criticize the Clintons here. But I'd say that has to be looked at more specifically. Sometimes they are used to illustrate the attacks that can be expected against her in the General Election. Sometimes it is a valid point a conservative might make (the stopped-clock is always right two times a day approach.)....Sometimes it might be posted by an ineffective mole here.

But it doesn't automatically mean the poster is a right-winger, or a right wing stooge.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. My humble suggestion. When you see it call it out. A general, broadbrush OP doesn't help

reduce the incidents which you decry.

A reasoned response when an individual post displays the characteristics you find so frustrating will go so much further in reducing its occurrence. MKJ

[Armstead]

13. I've tried -- but it's such a common pattern that...

...my anger about it gets the better of me.

I don't mind spirited defense of a candidate. Nor do I mind honest criticism.

But this "right-wing talking point" and the sexist charges are so pervasive and out of proportion -- both on DU and elsewhere -- that it overrides reasoned individual responses.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. Everyone seems to be on hypervigilance mode, myself included.

I understand your frustration completely. I look very much forward to the time we unite behind a single candidate, as we did three and half years ago.

MKJ

[lynnertic]

10. Edwards KNEW that the case for war in Iraq was bogus and he voted for it anyway.

So said Dick Durbin on the Senate floor.

Kucinich opposed war from the beginning. He's truly got the courage to be a man of peace and so has my vote, period.

[IndianaJones]

15. lots of people that oppose Obama are racists. nt.

[NYCGirl]

16. So what's with the weird spelling of Obama's name? NT

[Armstead]

17. My bad eyesight

But I fixed it

[cali]

19. more broad brush painting

I have been repeatedly accused of being an Edwards hater. Virtually every thread criticizing Edwards is termed bashing by at least some Edwards supporters. Some Edwards supporters do think that you aren't progressive if you don't support Edwards- exception made for DK supporters.

"So why do supporters of the Clintons believe that it's appropriate to constantly call her critics "talking right out of the right-wing playbook" or claim that personal criticism of her is automatically sexist?"

By using "supporters" instead of some supporters, you apply with a broadbrush. And some critics of Clinton here have used right wing sources to criticze her. Alas, it is also true that some have used blatantly sexist language.

And it's simply false to claim that she's used her gender to play victim.

[ileus]

21. Or they're a Hillary supporter. 50 States, she can do it, we can help.