This morning, a 70-year-old visually impaired African American woman called in to C-Span’s “Washington Journal” to express her support for Obama and her opposition to Clinton. She spoke for a moment about the discrimination she had experienced as a black woman and about the hope Obama gives her. Then she spoke about how disappointed she is in Hillary and Bill Clinton and about the negative aspect of Clinton’s campaign. Then she went into a higher gear and called Clinton a “shrill, shrieking, shrew.”

Here is a person who has been discriminated against four ways:  In the U.S.,  you are the target of oppression if you are African American, if you are a woman, if you are older, and if you are disabled. She is all four, yet she apparently had no inner conflict over delivering a viciously sexist attack against Clinton on national television.

Can you even imagine what would happen if a Clinton supporter phoned C-Span to call Obama a racist name?

The internalization of misogyny is so strong that women–even a woman like the C-Span caller–think nothing of projecting it onto any female they dislike. This is what is so hard to get across to the thousands of Obama supporters, including many women, who say “But…but…Clinton did this, and Clinton did that”: That is not the point. Work against Sen. Clinton all you like. Attack her policies. Attack her campaign. But when you attack her gender, you display bigotry, pure and simple. And if you are a female and you spew bigotry toward Clinton or any other woman, you are spewing it at me, your mother, your sister, and–most of all–yourself.

As a Second Wave feminist, I frequently feel that everything we did, we did in vain. That is because women’s dependence on a patriarchal system is so powerful, women would rather trash themselves than give it up. Obama’s supporters call themselves “progressive,” but those who make gender-based attacks on his opponent are no more progressive than the right-wing culture-builders who have attacked Clinton and other women for decades.

…That John Kerry sniped mercilessly at Howard Dean during the 2004 primary, but no one ever accused him of being a traitor to the Democratic Party?

…That when feminists complain of massive sexism and misogyny during the campaign, they are called “whiners,” but when Obama supporters complain of racism, they are called “victims of injustice”?

…That when Obama invokes Reagan, he is a “uniter,” but when Clinton’s years of working with both parties is mentioned, she is called a “Republican”?

…That when Obama’s supporters in states like Texas and Washington shout down and bully caucus attendees into submission, they are called “passionate,” but when Clinton’s supporters cheer for her, they are called “delusional”?

…That when Obama is interviewed on the Fox News, he is called “brave,” but Clinton goes on Fox, she is called “treacherous”?

…That a television pundit recently said “If only Clinton had taken the high road and demanded that the media stop the Jeremiah Wright attacks,” but not one media personality ever said “If only Obama had taken the high road and demanded that the media stop the misogyny”?

…Why is it?…

Not content to make money just by calling Hillary Clinton every type of sexist name and making every type of sexist or misogynistic reference to her and to other women, NBC has now begun selling the infamous Hillary nutcracker in its airport shops.

Here is a report from Mike Caulfield at Blue Hampshire, after he saw one of these “funny” products at a CNBC store in Washington, DC: “Did you get it? Did you get the joke? Because strong women hate penises. Strong women want to ‘bust men’s balls’ because let’s face it, they’re envious of our balls. They are all, you know, menopausal and uptight. And we dudes, we’re just hanging out, being cool, when they come around cracking our nuts…Because, you know, male power is natural, but female power is a pathology. Always.”

Tennessee Guerilla Women ask: “Can racists find their toys at NBC stores too? Is NBC an equal opportunity hater?”

“After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder–after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power.”

Read the whole thing here.

In a recent interview with The Advocate, this is what Barack Obama had to say about a former professor of his:

“He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.”

Right. Because that’s what gay people do–they “proselytize all the time,” hoping to get that toaster oven like Laura Dern did on the final episode of Ellen.

It always amazes me that people from one oppressed group do not understand the harm done by stereotyping other oppressed groups, but you’d think I’d be used to it by now.

So tonight, Elton John gave his concert for Hillary Clinton. “I’m still standing,” she quipped, and he said “I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist(ic) attitude of some of the people in this country. I say to hell with them.”

And bloggers and those who comment on blogs have already begun screaming that not wanting to vote for Hillary does not equal misogyny. Whoever said it did? One does not have to be a supporter of Sen. Clinton to realize that the misogynistic attacks against her constitute some of the ugliest bigotry this country has seen. No one–not Sen. Clinton, not her campaign, not her supporters–ever said that women should vote for Clinton because she is a woman, or that anyone who does not vote for her is a bigot. I do not support Obama, and I dare anyone to say that my lack of support is due to racism.

Here is an example of the type of comment that makes no logical sense at all, posted by Laura M. on Ben Smith’s Blog:

As a woman, I’m offended by Elton John’s comment. I don’t HAVE to vote for someone because she’s a woman. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see a woman as President, but not this woman.

Where in his comment did John say that Laura M. had to vote for Clinton because she is a woman?

But it has been this way all along. The blogosphere is full of sarcastic comments like “I didn’t like Hillary’s speech–I guess I’m sexist,” or “I didn’t like Hillary’s speech–I guess that makes me a misogynist.” It is a sad state of affairs when so-called liberals attack a candidate and her supporters because those supporters dare to point out that she is the victim of the vilest type of bigotry. Consider for a moment that the out-in-the-open, “ha, ha that was a good one” bigotry had been aimed at Obama because he is biracial. And that anyone–anyone–who supported him had to defend supporting him for reasons other than his being a victim of bigotry. There would be wailing, gnashing of teeth and anarchy. Why is it so difficult for Americans to understand that a candidate–whether you like that candidate or not–can be a victim of bigotry? You don’t like Clinton’s policies? Fine. But that makes her no less a victim of cruel and vicious attacks. Questioning her policies or her record does not give you the right to make fun of her or make vile comments about her gender.

I do not support Obama, but if I heard him attacked because of his race, I would be livid. Why can’t Obama supporters behave like the progressives they say they are and be livid when Hillary Clinton is treated like trash because America believes she has the wrong genitalia? And why can’t they acknowledge that the oppression of females is a real problem, and not a distraction from solving “real” problems?

“I don’t think anybody predicted 9/11.”

If you guessed Condoleezza Rice, you would be correct. But you would also be correct if you guessed Barack Obama. That’s what he said a few days ago on MSNBC’s Hardball. How quickly some of us forget the August 2001 memos ignored by George W. Bush.

Is Obama protecting the Bush administration? Of course not. The obvious answer is that he “misspoke,” though he has, of course, been given a pass on his statement. Nevertheless, knowing everything we know–and knowing what a joke the 9/11 (not my words–I am appalled that we gave this day a nickname) Commission was, it is interesting that Obama would say this, even as a slip.

In their latest column, “Let superdelegates decide race? Not this year,” Steve and Cokie Roberts argue that 2008 is absolutely the wrong year to let superdelegates decide who is the Democratic presidential nominee. Why?

They are the superdelegates, the elected officials and representatives of Democratic Party constituencies who this year are expected to make the difference – to add enough delegates into the column of one candidate or the other to put him or her over the top. But this is exactly the wrong year for them to play that role for one important reason: race.

Not only is it entirely within the rules for the superdelegates to vote their independent choice, rather than simply echo the voters of their states, that’s their reason for being – these professional politicians are SUPPOSED to exercise their judgment, both political and personal. They definitely CAN choose the nominee; the question is, SHOULD they? We think not. Not this year. If the party elites elect Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, many African-Americans will be convinced that the rules were rigged to lock them out.

…A group of politicians, almost half of whom are white men, can’t be perceived as excluding the black candidate, even if they are acting totally within the rules.

I am not here to say whether superdelegates should or should not be the deciding factor, but I am here to say that, once again, we are being told that it is essential not to give the appearance of racism, but it does not seem to matter if those involved in the process give the appearance of sexism and/or misogyny.

Roberts and Roberts at least do at least mention the other side of the coin:

If the “old boys’ network” seems to be beating up on Clinton – and almost two-thirds of the superdelegates are men – that could backfire on any attempts to bring the supporters of the two candidates together.

So, to summarize…The superdelegates choose Clinton and there will be a scandal because it will look like racism played a part in the choice of the Democratic nominee; the superdelegates choose Obama, and there may not be “harmony” among supporters.  Do one, and you will look like a bigot; do the other, and you will look like you are inconveniencing the party.

The Roberts’ rhetoric is no different from the rhetoric of almost all politicians, elected officials, writers, and commentators: Racism is a blot on the society, while sexism and misogyny are “less important” issues, and therefore do not merit the same amount of attention, if indeed, they merit any at all.

That the 2004 election–and I have no doubts about this–was stolen in Ohio in broad daylight. With few exceptions, the news media has chosen to ignore this, as has Congress. Since it is old news–and was never really news at all–what is to keep it from happening again?

While the news media is having a field day talking about Superdelegates, poll numbers, and race and gender issues that they don’t even begin to understand, they ignore one of the most important issues of all: How can Americans trust our system of voting?

Sen. Clinton accepted an invitation to be interviewed by the Philadelphia Gay News, and here is some of what she had to say:

On governments that execute LGBT citizens:

I would be very strongly outspoken about this and it would be part of American foreign policy. 

On extending the Domestic-Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act to all employees:

Of course. But I think the reason why I have zeroed in on the Obligations Act is because that’s what’s in the province of the federal government and I think we might be able to get that passed. But I would certainly sign anything that was broader too.

On the anti-gay marriage bill pending in Pennsylvania:

Don’t pass it. I really hope that that doesn’t go anywhere. I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won’t happen.

Read the entire interview here.