New Bernstein Book On Hillary Provides Platform For Sexist Remarks
New Bernstein Book On Hillary Provides Platform For Sexist Remarks
Carl Bernstein has published a new book about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), in large part featuring “assertions and anecdotes” about Clinton’s career that have been published previously.
In addition to these “scoops” (described as “not of the bombshell variety” by Time’s Jay Carney), Bernstein’s book offers a forum for numerous demeaning sexist attacks, such as claims that Hillary is not as “intrinsically bright” as her husband.
Some of the offensive lines come in the form of quotations, others are commentary from Bernstein himself. Among the most offensive is offered by long-time Clinton enemy Dick Morris, who likens giving advice to Hillary to feeding a dog:
“I would talk to Bill constantly about the advice that I’d give Hillary and he would pass it on,” said Morris… And “Bill said ‘She’s following your advice.’ And I had a line, which was perhaps too unequivocal, I’d say, ‘yeah, we put out the dog food at night, and in the morning the dish is empty.’” (p. 420)
TalkLeft’s Jeralyn Merritt has highlighted several additional quotes:
“‘At first, she didn’t wear stockings. … Her hair was friend into an Orphan Annie perm. … There wasn’t one…feminine thing about her.’” (p. 130)
“Hillary’s weight was a regular topic of conversation, spurred by her inability to shed the few pounds that would have made her more attractive.” (p.130)
“Many colleagues of the Clintons had concluded that Hillary was not as intrinsically bright as her husband.” (p. 274)
“Her ankles were thick.” (p. 32)
“[S]he was rarely, if ever, deferential. It had never been her style nor would it ever be.” (p. 130).
“‘She had an opinion on everything. … Issues. People. Where Bill was going to speak. I mean everything.’” (p. 165)
“[S]he was no longer wearing her trademark headbands…she had ‘zipped her lip’ and now gazed lovingly and silently at her husband from a wifely vantage point.” (p. 208).
While not quite Imus, Bernstein’s book appears to give a platform to anyone with pedantic, sexist things to say about Hillary.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But Mrs. Alito was subjected to the humiliating questioning of her husband. Remember, Republicans are the only ones who’s feelings matter.
-GSD
May 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pmIt appears Hillary would never be able to do anything correctly.
Wanking pig.
The trolls are gonna love this thread…..
May 30th, 2007 at 7:19 pmAnd who listens to Dick “Toesucker” Morris? Oh, yeah, the imbeciles who watch Fux Noose.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:19 pm“Bernstein’s book offers a forum for numerous demeaning sexist attacks, such as claims that Hillary is not as “intrinsically bright†as her husband.”…. Well she’s not as bright as her husband. When is the mainstream media going to stop feeding us the pablum about Hillary being the front runner? I have yet to meet one progressive in the DC area who supports her – AND her DC area campaign office is directly across the street from my office.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:20 pmHillary voted for this war and, besides the little political stunt last week, Hillary has continued to vote for this war.
I know this site promote Hillary, but I say fcuk that warmonger. She’s not despicable because she is a “she”, she is despicable because of what she does.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:20 pmWell, wives should be deferential and zip their lip. It’s always amusing to see you progressive guys pretending that you’re different, but it’s in man’s nature to prefer demure, polite and deferential wives. Just like our wives look up to us for protection.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm“Bernstein’s book offers a forum for numerous demeaning sexist attacks, such as claims that Hillary is not as “intrinsically bright†as her husband.”
Jesus H. Christ, who is as “intrinsically bright” as Bill Clinton? Not many.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWell, submissives should be deferential and zip their lip. It’s always amusing to see you progressive guys pretending that you’re different, but it’s in man’s nature to prefer demure, polite and deferential queens. Just like our “bottoms” look up to us for protection.
Comment by MAF54 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
There you go, Congressman Foley. I fixed your typos for ya.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:31 pmJust like our wives look up to us for protection.
Comment by MAF54 — May 30, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
And who protects us from pedophiles like yourself?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:32 pmWell, wives should be deferential and zip their lip. It’s always amusing to see you progressive guys pretending that you’re different, but it’s in man’s nature to prefer demure, polite and deferential wives. Just like our wives look up to us for protection.
Comment by MAF54
Psst, Pederastboy, the neolithic was a loooooong time ago. You might want to hang up your flints and try to pay attention for awhile.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:32 pmWell, wives should be deferential and zip their lip. It’s always amusing to see you progressive guys pretending that you’re different, but it’s in man’s nature to prefer demure, polite and deferential wives. Just like our wives look up to us for protection.
Comment by MAF54
Spoken by a never married, divorced, or soon-to-be-divorced man.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:35 pmI live five miles from the Clintons. Hillary is my senator. I hope she is not my only choice for president, but if its her vs. Rudy (like in her first senate race) I’ll vote for her.
Covering 20 years, is the best we can come up in this country the Clintons and the Bushes? Like the Winsors and the Spensors? If Hillary is elected that would be 24 – 28 years rule by only two families? That alone makes me want to vote for someone else.
BUT…a comparison of Hillary’s intellect vs. Bill’s is NOT a sexist remark. All people have minds and its fair to compare them. So is the content of their characters. All comparisons are not ‘ist. Some are fair.
I find Hillary a cold, calculating self-interested person, and I do not trust her to be honest any more than I trust our president. I’ve voted for her twice, and regret neither vote. I hope we can do better than her, but if not, I’ll vote for her again.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pmOf course, that’s perfect. Hillary can just deflect any criticisms of her by crying sexism. Keep defending Hillary and we might just give the Republicans a chance to win after all.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:39 pmi’m probably sorry for this, but it must be that the definition of “sexist” has been stretched over the years… i don’t get “sexist” from most of those quotes… catty, shallow, judgemental, sure… but, jeesh…
and that is quite a flattering photo on that book cover…
i think TP better thicken up the skin if it’s gonna be a hillary backer…
May 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pmand there’s many many months to go…
Well, wives should be deferential and zip their lip.
ugh… now THAT is sexist… and stoopid…
May 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pm#5 Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — May 30, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I know this site promote Hillary…
Fed, I believe you are cunfused on this part of your post. It is well known that Hillary is NOT promoted by the progressive left. In poll after poll over on “The Daily Kos” blog, her numbers are dismal (last I looked a few weeks ago Edwards had 41% Obama had 29% and Hillary had 9%.) The month before that she had 6% if I remember correctly.
I would be willing to bet that a poll taken here of progressives would show similarly a low % for Hillary. Hillary represents a right of center view representative of the DLC/Liebercrat group. They are pro war and for this invasion and occupation.
How about it folks, Anybody here for and promoting Hillary?
I vote NO on Hillary
May 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pmWOULD YOU PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!!
I am not a Hillary fan, but I find it nauseating how many people want to cash in on her fame. I used to admire Carl Bernstein. But it looks like he’s pretty much a has-been wash-up and the only way he thinks he can get back into the limelight is to do a hit piece on Hillary.
I have no problem with people talking about issues, but when we get to the level of nothing but gossip and innuendo, it’s time for us to find our humanity again.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pmNo to Hillary here – no to anyone who voted for this war back in the day. I don’t know about anyone else here, but before 2000 I knew that it would be a BIG HUGE mistake putting chimpy into office, and could see that this war in Iraq from the beginning was unnecessary & unjust. Anyone who voted for it won’t get my vote.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:55 pmA woman merely running for a powerful position provides a platform for sexist remarks. It took over one hundred years for women to even have the right to vote. It took over half a century more for women to be viewed equally in the law (and that didn’t mean women were or are actually treated equally). The sexist ideals that suppressed women’s rights didn’t die with women’s suffrage or equal rights, they are still alive.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pmShe’s not my favorite candidate because of her stands on issues. But, I think it’s a disgrace that we have never had a woman running things and the more they attack her like this, the more I feel like voting for her.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pmOkay I agree the remarks are judgemental, and not very nice but do not get sexist out of this, also the photo is better than most. I am a woman in her 50’s and can tell you that there is no way that I can truly support this woman. It is enough with the coziness with Bill and Bush not to mention her voting record. What is it with this site and Clinton?? She is not a progressive and the more the people around her are looked at it is truly appalling. Not one person or woman that I know are in the least interested Clinton being the nominee and it scares me to think that she might be and again we are stuck with another one of the loyal “Bushie”" If you are going to defend her so much please give equal time to our other candidates–love this site but have a problem with the blind support for this woman.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:01 pm#16,
You are just adorable. Follow the money on this site, trace the relationships, and then talk to me about who supports who and who pols for this and that.
Don’t you know, to be today’s “American” you have to say one thing and do another.
Examples:
- Invade Iraq to rid them of their non-existent WMD’s, stay for the century.
- Say you will honor the Geneva Conventions, but only where applicable. And Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East are not “applicable”.
- Campaign on an anti-war ticket and then vote for more war. Heck, one candidate even wore the combat boots of his son (who, I’m sure has a nice safe job now that daddy is a Senator) to show his anti-war stance and then just voted for a continuation of the war.
The “dems” have attempted to gain your trust by convincing you that Republican politicians are not trust worthy. Exactly what the Republicans did in 1994. Don’t be a fool and trust politicians, R or D, at their word. Words are cheap.
Now, look into the site before you make leaps of faith. You should be aware by now that the “faith” is not justified.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pmNO for me, please…
but i will back her if she IS the nominee… hell yea…
still have a thing for my original “dream ticket” – edwards/obama…
May 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm…
Katie, I’m sorry, but to call Hillary Clinton another “bushie” is just flat out wrong. Do you really believe that a President Hillary Clinton would invade Iraq on false pretenses, destroy the EPA, give tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% and carve up the consitution? She is a centrist. If she had her way, we all would have had healthcare years ago. Is there ANY repub who could do better by you than Hillary Clinton?
Please try to keep in mind that this woman has been lied about, demonized and slammed for 15 years now. They’ve obviously been successful with you. One more thing: do you like Obama? I bet you do. Is there ANY difference between the voting records and stands on issues between Hillary and Obama?
May 30th, 2007 at 8:11 pmThat is a very good picture of Hillary — for once.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:17 pmWhat is it with this site and Clinton?? [...]
Comment by Katie — May 30, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
remember this guy? :
American Progress Staff
Senior Staff
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus/staff
and the last editor of TP, judd, left to work on hillary’s campaign…
hey, judd! … how are you? … faiz & co. are doing a GREAT job!
May 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm…
Yep, these observations sure are sexist /sarc>
May 30th, 2007 at 8:20 pmThe title of the book is hilarious: “A Woman in Charge.” Oh no!
That is what conservatives really fear. “Cavemen no like woman in charge!”
On the other hand, I don’t find those comments sexist. Derogatory, yes, sexist, no.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:24 pmShillary Corporate Wh*re is a loder in any book.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pmSorry Bluedog49 ,what I meant was if she is the nominee that she will lose and we will get a loyal “bushie” meaning the candidate on the other side (Romney?) not Clinton, Her war stance and staff (check it out) stop me
May 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pmNow, look into the site before you make leaps of faith. You should be aware by now that the “faith†is not justified.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up! — May 30, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
You make really good points here, but while there may be a few here that blindly follow/believe what is posted here, I think most here DO look critically at all the news posted here.
Just look at some of the comments when the democrats voted for the spending bill for the war last week. Look at some of the anti-Hillary comments here; it’s not because we’re anti-woman. In fact, because of her being married to Bill, I want to be able to vote for her. I think Bill would be an excellent Secretary of State. But I can’t vote for her.
I think TP does a fantastic job. Obviously they are a progressive site, it’s part of their name, and you can see it in their editorializing on some of their posts. But the facts and the words (such as the quotes above), speak for themselves.
Personally I think our system is shit, and we’re in for more and more of the same thing until we fix the way that congress and the president are elected. ALL the money going to these campaigns need to be coming from us, not from contributors, PACs, and corporations. It should really be of no surprise that the democrats in congress have no backbone, or that Hillary voted for the war.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:34 pmSo, I see, anyone who wants to point out that Hillary and Bill take advice from Dick Morris, that they want more NAFTA and GATT, that Hillary worked on the board of directors of Wal-Mart to help them union bust, that Hillary was a bigger cheerleader for The Cheney-Lieberman-Bush-Hillary-Feinstein war of genocidal bloodlust in Iraq… ANYONE who points out these facts about Hillary’s corruption and radical far right wing views, is smeared as “anti-woman” and a Don Imus clone. Really classy Think Progress. It seems TP is actually a Liber-crat 5th column. I won’t waste my time reading Hillary PR at this site any longer. Perhaps the FEC should investigate if this site is in effect an in-kind contribution to Madame Hillary and her evil agenda?
If god forbid that right wing pro-war Wal-Mart employee Hillary some how gets her hands on the Democratic nomination, It’s Nader 2008 baby!
The Democratic whores proved their nature las week when they got together to hand Bushy-boy that 95 billion dollar blank check. And Hillary still has blood on her hands for voting for that war in 2002. She was too busy taking polls and finding out what Wal-Mart wanted her to do than to take an hour and read the CIA’s NIE!
Hillary is a joke and a fraud.
I was my hands of this site, and the corruption now taking over the Democratic party and so-called “progressive” blogs.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:41 pmWell, there we go, TP has deleted my comment that referred to Guliani’s schwartz. Apparently it is indecent to discuss a candidate’s qualifications for office if the judgement is based on how they fill out their trousers and not their dress.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:01 pmComment by Logan — Right on the money. But you think for a second that most people here don’t see through the bull?
Former President Bill Clinton discussed his relationship with President Bush’s father last night on CBS LATE SHOW.
Clinton: “I think we’re good friends. I like him very much. I’ve always liked him. When he was vice president, I was still a governor. We worked together on a number of things. He hosted the governors, in 1983…at Kennebunkport.”
When they made an announcement about raising funds for Tsunami relief in Houston former First Lady Barbara Bush “announced us. And she said she has started to call me son. I told the Republicans there, I said don’t worry, every family has one, you know, the black sheep. I told them, this just shows you the lengths the Bushes would go to get another president in the family. I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary.”
Enough to make ya puke. No Hillary love fest here. Well except for TP, but there not always right.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pmComment by DM — Welcome to TP. You know how right you are by how many posts get deleted. If you complain to them, then sometimes they mysteriosly reappear, then come back an hour later and there gone again.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:07 pmComment by katy — Lock n’ load Katy. I was just getting ready to write what you have already done.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pmAnyone want to explain to me how describing a woman who happens to not be “as intrinsically bright” as her husband is sexist?
Are we so politically correct as to not allow the exchange of opinion about people if the compliment isn’t flattering to a woman? So seems to be the logic of Think Progress.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:15 pm#35 ~ It was censored for suggestive phrasing and not ideas. You can parody the relevance of Hillary’s ankle width by inferring that Guliani’s anatomy is insufficient to negotiate trade agreements, but you can’t come right out and say “spongy testicles.”
May 30th, 2007 at 9:16 pmIt’s a shame Bernstein would stoop to “hackery” to sell a book.
For a long time now, Carl Bernstein was making a new name for himself as “the anti-Woodward”… his long time compatriot who has become someone that would sell out his own mother for his next big scoop… whatever it takes to remain “relevant”.
Bernstein on the other hand, has often been the more “investigative” of the Woodward/Bernstein team, so to see him deliver a book that cites sources like Dick “toe sucker” Morris, is a crying shame.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:18 pmWell, there we go, TP has deleted my comment that referred to Guliani’s schwartz. Apparently it is indecent to discuss a candidate’s qualifications for office if the judgement is based on how they fill out their trousers and not their dress.
Comment by DM
Maybe it would help if you brushed up on your Yiddish. What you meant to refer to was a “schw@nz”. You appear to have commented on Rudy’s black person, which is what a “schw@rtza” is.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm#40 ~ Sorry, not Yiddish, English. Midwest farm kid-speak. See also: “Johnson”, “Willie”, and per my 10-yr old son, “Menards”. Coincidently, Mel Brooks was also fond of “Schwartz”, and named his mythical all-powerful energy after it. Rick Moranis and Bill Pullman had a pleasant scene comparing the size of their Schwartzes, and then dueled with them.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pmTry to pin any of the negative phrases listed against Hillary on ANY man in the race of either party. They’d laugh in your face. If some don’t like Hillary for real or imagined reasons, that’s fine with her and those of us who support Hillary. Why not comment on who and what you are FOR? I have a feeling some strong Repugs are trolling just to bash this woman.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pmI have a feeling some strong Repugs are trolling just to bash this woman.
Comment by Jo-Ann — May 30, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
i can’t believe it’s not up to 100 with mostly trooll poop…
i may have just broken the spell… always happens…
May 30th, 2007 at 9:51 pmsorry…
I have a feeling some strong Repugs are trolling just to bash this woman.
Comment by Jo-Ann — May 30, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Personally, I’m a socialist, but I know how Republicans and I can get pretty confusing sometimes. My comment stands; Bernstein has the right to print a comment criticizing someone for not being as intrinsically bright as someone else, man or woman. It’s an observation that doesn’t have anything to do with sex.
I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on the overall tone, but Nico seems like he’s picking and choosing pretty weak arguments to make his “point.”
May 30th, 2007 at 10:04 pmCarl Bernstein is an ugly, adultrous, womanizing Ass.
Dick Morris is a fat, pig who likes to have his toes sucked by hookers!!!
Both real reliable sources!!!
Gag Me!
May 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pmI don’t see the point of writing a book like this — other than to try to smear Hillary Clinton.
Frankly, I think it reflects more poorly on Bernstein than it does Hillary C.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pmTo the admin
I appreciate the deleted comment. Obviously my remarks hit home.
This website borders on Fahrenheit 401-levels of censorship–Think Propaganda, anyone?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:10 pmAh, that would be Fahrenheit 451, genius.
However I feel about Hillary as a politician, there is no excuse for Bernstein’s sexism. The very sad thing is he probably doesn’t even realize that he’s done it.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:32 amDerogatory, you betcha. Sexist… ehhh… not so much.
Doesn’t change my opinion that she’s a cold, calculating, self-serving opportunist. Gravel ‘08!
May 31st, 2007 at 2:13 am“‘At first, she didn’t wear stockings. … Her hair was friend into an Orphan Annie perm. … There wasn’t one…feminine thing about her.’†(p. 130)
“Hillary’s weight was a regular topic of conversation, spurred by her inability to shed the few pounds that would have made her more attractive.†(p.130)
“Her ankles were thick.†(p. 32)
“[S]he was rarely, if ever, deferential. It had never been her style nor would it ever be.†(p. 130).
“‘She had an opinion on everything. … Issues. People. Where Bill was going to speak. I mean everything.’†(p. 165)
Heaven forfend a woman should have opinions on everything. Much less be assertive. And hey, if she can’t shed those pounds, she’s not attractive….
This doesn’t strike you as sexist?
I’m no huge fan of hers, but sheesh….
May 31st, 2007 at 3:17 am“Many colleagues of the Clintons had concluded that Hillary was not as intrinsically bright as her husband.â€
And that is sexist how?
“Hillary’s weight was a regular topic of conversation, spurred by her inability to shed the few pounds that would have made her more attractive”
“Her ankles were thick.â€
And those quotes are sexist how? Its not like Bill Clinton (or Al Gore for that matter) haven’e taken shit for their weight and lots of poltiicians get shit for their physical appearance. That is “looksist” not sexist.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am…
…
… ok… there is just NO WAY that a thread with hillary’s name AND picture on it can last over 12 hours – even if it’s overnight – and get
ONLY 50 comments, WITHOUT some HEAVY editing on TP’s part…
just sayin’…
May 31st, 2007 at 11:56 am…
Ahhhh, that prankster Carl Bernstein. Wanting someone other than Hillary to run for the Dems is not surprising (when this book was in the process of printing and binding Hillary was SUPPORTING the troops financially). Hillary is an intelligent woman whose personality is either LOVED or HATED. The Dems would do better to nominate Edwards or Obama to run against Fred Thompson……But I keep hoping for a Hillary nomination!!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:48 pmTPs’ commenting on the pedantic musings of those who aren’t blind, deaf and dumb, remind me of the scorching every conservative woman gets here. But since we’re not so thinned skinned – it doesn’t bother us nearly as much as Dems
May 31st, 2007 at 8:41 pm