I agree that Hillary Clinton was made fun off. But not sexually. I remember comments about her continually wearing of pant suits. Could you possibly imagine News Week magazine showing Hillary in running shorts & tennis shoes--while telling the nation that she is NO GOOD?
John Kerry--I never saw him posted on News Week magazine with his shirt off. George Bush on a horse--doesn't even compare to this--
We're talking about sexism personally & continually directed at Sarah Palin & her daughters. Rude & hateful comments that are sexual in nature. And now this--News Week who had more than hundreds of pictures of Sarah Palin but deliberately showed this one--which is completely out of context as to what her political views are--& only in an effort to be sexist.
BTW--Racheal Maddow was perfectly O.K. with David Letterman's comments toward Sarah Palins daughter. Maddow gets absolutely no sympathy from me, & I'll call her whatever I want to.
Yes, she was. She was called cold, frigid, conservative figures and those in the media wondered aloud during her husband's affairs if she was really a lesbian. "Dyke" was tossed around a lot outside the corporate media in the way that some postulated about Sarah's daughter being Trig's real mom. Others posited tawdry stories of her fucking Vince Foster. The pants suit thing was sexual in nature, about how she dressed "like a man," she was criticized for not being feminine enough. Like I said, she wasn't criticized for being a "hot bimbo" (which lends itself to pictures in shorts) but for being a "cold, ugly bitch" (which lends itself to pictures in pantsuits). They're both focused on the person's gender rather than politics. Both are sexist in exactly the same way.
John Kerry windsurfing and Obama at the beach were pictures used prominently in the media, I'm sure we're all familiar with them. Why the cover of one magazine instead of another matters is distinction without difference.
In addition to the 15 years of cruel sexism directed at Hillary Clinton by the corporate media and prominent conservative figures, it was also directed at her daughter. John McCain famously called Chelsea Clinton ugly and joked that Janet Reno was her father, just one example. There is a real distinction there too, Chelsea was involved in no scandals and led an innocuous life that didn't really reflect one way or the other on her parents. Bristol is the daughter of a woman campaigning largely on religious "family values" who supports abstinence only education and her daughter got knocked up out of wedlock as a teenager. She's fairer game because of her own poor choices and how they reflect on her candidate mother.
Maddow doesn't have to have your sympathy to not be the subject of your sexism. The point isn't that you can't criticize or dislike Maddow it's that, quite humorously and staggeringly hypocritically, you called her "the queen of PMS" - a decidedly sexist term. Your defense, "you don't like her so you can call her whatever you want" is like a racist calling Obama a "******" instead of "a bad president" in a thread decrying racism then saying it's different in this case because Obama doesn't have their sympathy like Michael Steele. If you have a problem with her, you can criticize her all you want, but to criticize her in a specifically sexual, stereotypical, derogatory way is sexist. In fact, you calling Maddow "the queen of PMS" rather than some form of a bad anchor is the most sexist thing that's been posted or mentioned in that thread, I guess the irony is lost on you.
Last edited: