Has the media presented a fair and balanced version of the primary or have they taken an active role to preserve sexism?

In 1984,Gerry Ferraro burst onto the convention floor to accept the vice presidential nomination, it was a glorious moment for women across the country. Watching the convention reruns today still brings tears to my eyes. Since Mondale’s defeat, no Democratic presidential candidate has been willing to pick a female running mate. Twenty years later, Democratic “wisdom” still considers it political suicide to choose a woman vice presidential candidate. Most feminists had all but given up hope of ever seeing a woman president in our lifetime.



Then came Hillary, a brilliant, experienced, politically-savvy, strong, credible woman candidate with excellent feminist credentials. She is a feminist's dream, and a woman to make all women proud. Yes we're proud of the brilliance, strength,grace she reflects on all women who aspire to be more than men would have us be.



We expected sexism from men, and even from some of those women who aren't ready for women to leave traditional roles. And we expected despicable send-ups like the Hillary nutcracker, a "toy" whereby Hillary’s thighs crack your nuts. We expected such things from those Democratic party men who, for over twenty years, had refused to entertain the idea of a woman VP. But did we expect it from the media, from the hallowed presses who are supposed to be neutral? Did we expect that their sexism and misogyny would take an active role in choosing the Democratic nominee, rather than in simply reporting the race?



That a woman would dare to aspire to this last sacred male bastion seems to inspire virulent animosity within the mostly-male media, as evidenced by the stream of vicious attacks leveled at Hillary, this while her opponents goes unscathed. The recent remark about Hillary's "pimping" Chelsea on the campaign trail, is not even the first blatantly sexist slur. No, it's just one more in a long string of insults. In fact, the sexism and misogyny has sunk to a new low with this latest. Yet the Country seems to accept this in a way that they would certainly not accept racist remarks. In the US, blatant sexism is OK. It is OK for male “news reporters” to describe women as “hot. And it's OK for commentators like Joe Scarborough to refer to Hillary as “shrill” and to ask about her housekeeping skills.



When Sixty Minutes did co-interviews of Clinton and Obama; they asked Obama substantive questions while they cut off the top of Hillary’s head and asked her questions about her energy level and about why in school some had nicknamed her “frigidare.” It's bad enough that frustrated, (and mostly adolescent) males find fault with any woman who doesn't find them attractive. But does the media need to buy into this and give it substance? Once again, 60 Minutes' totally biased coverage passes public muster.



Furthermore, MSNB's Chris Matthews interviewed retired Gen McCaffrey about whether or not the troops would take orders from Hillary as Commander and Chief. McCaffrey responded: “Why wouldn't they listen to a female commander and chief ?” Matthews replies: “You're chuckling a little bit aren't you?” He continued to harangue McCaffrey as if he couldn't really be serious. This and many more incidents like it are all very OK. Women who aspire beyond their traditional roles are to be laughed at, ridiculed, degraded, and patronized and it is all OK!



Beyond the blatant sexism, one has to ask: why does the supposedly unbiased media attack one candidate with a vengeance and praise her opponent? Why do they analyze every breath she takes (for a possible negative spin) and avoid any scrutiny of Obama?

Why do they allow him the hypocrisy of declaring himself free from the financial influence of large PAC/lobbyists, while he in fact accepts bundled funds directly from corporations and special interests seeking favors?



According to Dan Morgan of the Los Angeles Times “Obama raised more than 1 million in the first three months from Law Firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nations capitol.” Morgan continues: “While refusing money directly from lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients. In the first quarter of 2007 he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington...“



The media says nothing about Obama's hypocritical claim to “clean money” while in fact he takes money from the same sources upon which politicians have always drawn. Why does the media continue to portray him as he would like to be portrayed, despite the facts. Why do they find ways to twist every fact or event into a negative for Hillary? Why do they have a double standard for Hillary and Barack? And even those media outlets who aren't blatantly sexist, often consign Clinton to relative invisibility whiles heaping volumes upon Obama.



So sexism is alive and well in the US media, while almost all criticism of Obama is dismissed as "racist." We've come a long way but still have far to go, even among our supposed friends