Conservative paper predicts ‘first woman president’ — no, not that one

One gets the sense, listening to the far-right lately, that they’re gearing up to attack Barack Obama with gusto, but they haven’t quite figured out what the message is. I don’t doubt they’ll settle on something ugly, but at this point, while the race on both sides is still in flux, we seem to have reached a trial-balloon stage — right-wing outlets come up with attacks, throw them against the wall, and see what sticks.

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, a conservative tabloid, rolled out one I hadn’t seen before:

[Obama] is like a woman: slim, good looking, with long elegant fingers, appealingly dressed — all terms more typically ascribed to female candidates.

Those shots of Barack and Michelle sitting with Oprah on stools had the feel of a smart, all-women talk panel: Obama fit right in for reasons beyond race. […]

Women are gravitating to Obama out of a different urge — the desire to invite him to our book club, join him for coffee or have him coach our child’s soccer team. He embodies many of the positive characteristics we tend to regard as feminine: sensitive and empathetic, seeking to find common ground and minimize conflict, not taking power for granted. We’ve yet to catch Obama beating up an opponent.

The New York Post piece apparently resisted the urge to use the Saturday Night Live colloquialism “girly man,” but it walked right up to the line. It concluded, “By the end of this year we might indeed have our first woman president — but not necessarily Hillary.”

Indeed, it was quite a slam-job on Dems in general. Considering the androgynous qualities of the other candidates, the Murdoch tabloid said the other men couldn’t cut it: “Mitt Romney is the CEO with movie-star looks, John McCain the war hero and straight shooter, Mike Huckabee the parochial religious orator and weight loser. Yes, Rudy Giuliani famously cross-dressed – but only for laughs at charity fund-raisers. And John Edwards’ appeal to female voters is more as a cute 8-year-old boy.”

That’s pretty bad.

Steve M. highlighted the political implications of tripe like this.

[T]he piece is highly useful to Murdoch. The Post wasn’t about to hold it until after New Hampshire because, I think, he’d still like Hillary to be the nominee (easier to beat, more conducive to selling newspapers and drawing right-wing eyeballs to his media properties). Also, right-wingers are desperate for lines of attack in the case of Obama — I think they sense they can’t attack him directly (at least in above-the-radar media outlets) as a black man.

Calling him a woman is perfect — it’s the exact opposite of the usual racist attack on black men’s sexuality, and yet it has perfect plug-and-play compatibility with the usual attack on Democrats. And the specific argument — that his charisma shows he’s weak and testosterone-deficient — is Rovian in the way it turns Obama’s greatest strength into a weakness.

Coming soon to a Fox News personality near you.

You could’ve almost replaced Barack and Michelle with John and Elizabeth in that hit piece, if the Iowa caucuses turned out differently last week.

  • “[Obama] is like a woman: slim, good looking, with long elegant fingers, appealingly dressed — all terms more typically ascribed to female candidates.”

    what the hell is the matter with these a**holes? that comment is offensive on so many different levels……

  • I’d say that was a firm strike one, except I know they’ve been trying with Obama for some time and that this is more like strike twenty-five. While conservatives might pretend that this one resonates with them (for lack of a better attack), this just isn’t going to stick in the minds of most people and will just be a waste of energy and could easily backfire. They tried the metrosexual label with Kerry, but still ended up relying on the flip-flopper thing they used against Gore and Clinton. It’s really the only thing they’ve got that works with non-Republicans, and even then hasn’t been very effective. And it looks like Obama is well positioned to avoid that all together.

    The truth is that the only thing the Republican slime machine is really good at is forcing Democrats to spend all their time wiping off the mud, and thereby throwing them off-message. But a diligent campaign really doesn’t have too much trouble keeping the mud from sticking.

  • More gay projection coming from the party of the wide stance. First it was Edwards hair and the undertone that only a woman or a fag would pay $400 for a haircut. Then Hilary and her aide Huma were lesbian lovers and now the conservative meme is that Obama is effeminate. All this from the party of eunuchs that lacks the balls to stand up to Bush, Cheney and their corporatist godfathers. This sounds like more drastic overcompensation from the right. These guys have had too many meth-fueled prayer sessions with the Reverend Ted.

  • No matter who wins the nom, the right wing and the press are going to attack Hillary. This is just practice;>

  • Shorter NY Post:

    Obama,, don’t be a pu$$y. Be a d!ck. F*ck @$$holes!!!

    (It’s a Team America reference, for those who wondered.)

  • Of course, the Post’s quote demonstrates how the media itself created the environment that made the attack possible:

    slim, good looking, with long elegant fingers, appealingly dressed — all terms more typically ascribed to female candidates.

    Why? Why should those terms — which have nothing to do with any relevant criteria for the job — come to mind in any neutral coverage of any candidate? And if they are relevant, why not use them to describe men? Can anyone honestly argue that the “handsomeness gap” played no role in the Kennedy-Nixon race? That if Kucinich were 6’0″ tall with a square jaw and a voice a half-octave lower he would be considered more viable?

    So in the ideal world, the media would try and change that superficial environment, not avail themselves of it to craft biased attacks. But even in a less ideal world, there is no need to perpetuate the blatently sexist nature, the subtle ways of keeping women from ever being considered Presidential.

  • “[Obama] is like a woman: slim, good looking, with long elegant fingers, appealingly dressed — all terms more typically ascribed to female candidates.”

    This is quite a slam. On guys. By inference the author means someone “like” a man is fat, ugly, ham fisted and only changes his clothes when they start to talk.

    Whatevs. I don’t see the average NYP reader thinking “I was going to vote for Obama, but since he’s a girlie man…” Yawn.

    Anyone who relies on that rag to shape their political decision making is probably wishing Bush could have another term. I look forward to the assertions that Obama is a gay jihadist.

  • So it’s BAD for a man to have feminine qualities? Give me a break. I am so tired of all the rampant sexism. Even our side castigates Bush for having been a cheerleader, not a manly football player. I may just vote for Hillary out of protest.

  • Dr. Biobrain @ 3

    They tried the metrosexual label with Kerry, but still ended up relying on the flip-flopper thing they used against Gore and Clinton.

    Not to give them too much credit, but they actually killed two birds with one stone – the sailboarding ad, with the yacht in the background, was meant to show both flip-flopping and the kind of effete limosine liberal type of sport that just isn’t hunting, NASCAR, or Professional Wrestling. Sadly, it worked.

  • David Brooks tries a much more subtle approach in today’s NY Times, contrasting Obama and McCain:

    One man celebrates communitarian virtues like unity, the other classical virtues like honor.

    Obama’s great skill is his ability to perceive and forge bonds with other people….Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence.

    All this emphasizes what are traditionally considered feminine qualities, but does so quite subtlely.

    Brooks also says this, which makes no sense:

    His weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable.

    Never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable? This about a campaigner who told Detroit auto executives that he supports much higher fuel economy standards? Or who told teachers he supports merit pay? The reporting I’ve seen paints Obama as someone willing to tell people what they don’t want to hear, and able to do so in a way that indicates he hears their arguments. In this case, Brooks is adopting the Roveian tactic of going after someone’s strength.

  • It segues nicely with the “club-wielding, cave-man stunt” played by O’Reilly in Nashua the other day. Rupert must be so thoroughly upset right now; his shrill bag-o-swill Ghouliani is in freefall—if you can call smacking into the sidewalk, face first, at Mach 3, from a buhzillion miles above—freefall….

  • And so it begins. And it’s only the beginning. It will go on through next November. And beyond. Get used to it.

    It’s the Republican Smear Machine.

  • The good thing about Obama’s candidacy is that it is based on being the antithesis of this kind of garbage. People want to rise above the crap peddled by Murdoch’s media outlets and Obama gives them a candidate to vote for who does just that.

    In my mind, not only are these types of attacks ineffective, they actually strengthen Obama’s candidacy by providing a sharp contrast between the parties.

  • This is pretty weak stuff, overall. In terms of its ability to resonate, at least. Anyone see the latest Survey USA date on Iowa? Obama beating Rudy by 40(!) and his smallest margin, against McCain, is 17…the mistake they’re making is mistaking a classic [i]mid-western[/i] disposition for a [i]feminine[/i] disposition. The guy may have lived in Hawaii and Indonesia and such, but he was raised predominantly by his grandparents, who were Kansas natives.

    This line of attack not only won’t stick anywhere (except maybe the South), its likely to backfire in the mid-west and west. That’s why Iowans love him so much. Its also why his electability is so under-played. Nobody else in the race has comparable breadbasket or western appeal: Hillary the city-slick New Yorker/D.C. pol, Edwards the southern populist…Rudy the epitome of New Yorker, Huckabee the southerner, Romney the game show host, maybe McCain…

  • Some commentators here have been upset with Obama for offering rhetoric without specifics and perhaps for raising “false hopes”. I think he has offered plenty of specifics, but he certainly doesn’t emphasize them. I think a rhetoric that emphasizes of hope without a lot of specifics is a great campaign strategy, first because it directly counters the soul-eroding and spirit-crushing Bush experience and the Giuliana theme of fear, second because it can win him a remarkably flexible mandate, and thirdly because it makes it very hard for opponents to get a grip on him. How the heck do you smear hope? We saw some consequences of this strategy when Obama resoundingly won Iowa, and suddenly everyone on both sides either was claiming to be a candidate for change or was at least trying to coopt the rhetoric. So I agree that this smear represents the right wing trying to figure out how to get some traction against the Barack bandwagon.

  • jen, thanks for the Steinem link. very well put reminder of all of the subtle and not so subtle ways sexism still creates a real uphill battle. for all of HRC’s alleged faults, i think that many of them are actually necessary components of being the first woman President. i also think HRC is the only opportunity on the horizon; if that barrier isn’t finally broken this year, it will likely be another 20 before the opportunity cleanly arises (with the possible exception of Sebelius. I would add Napolitano, but not unless the country miraculously gets over its divisive obsession with hispanics – the border politics are too tricky for her to go national.)

  • So Obama looks like a girl?

    Well, that should help the GOP lock up the “males aged 8-to-13” vote.

  • If you’d like to see a sampling of what else they have in store for Obama (or anyone else) just go poke around the news section of the RNC web site. They actually make no secret of much of their framing, talking points and oppo research online. I’d just say try and refrain from repeating or reposting any of it, because that would be what they want you to do.

    I’m extremely impressed with Obama’s political skills in general however and in particular, the way the Obama campaign as the New Yorker put it, mastered the art of going negative against Clinton without appearing nasty. It isn’t Obama’s ability to fight political battles (or want thereof) that worry me. I’ve always been more concerned about what happens when/if the dog actually catches the car. But if anyone had deluded themselves into thinking that nominating Barack Obama would make the GE campaign any less nasty than if it were Clinton or Edwards, think again.

  • As ridiculous as the Post’s slurs may be, rest assured the right will continue to throw shit against the wall until something sticks. There’s no way to counter individual assertions — one can only expose and discredit the tactic and the perpetrators for what they are. In other words, teflon-coat the wall. Unless Dems can do that, the shit will continue to fly.

  • Hey, we live a country inhabited by the shallowest human beings in the world. Rags like the NYPost are mere reflections of our society.

    Until our people grow some brains and stop buying these papers, why would they change they’re style of writing?

    (I wanted to write more, but I’ve gotta go check on what Britney’s upto…)

  • Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious:
    Obama looks like the only “women” the Post workers can get to blow them.
    Word is that the Post editors have come to find that adams apple neck to be quite sexy.
    Explains Ann Coulter, doesn’t it?

  • 16. On January 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am, nobody said:
    The good thing about Obama’s candidacy is that it is based on being the antithesis of this kind of garbage. People want to rise above the crap peddled by Murdoch’s media outlets and Obama gives them a candidate to vote for who does just that.

    In my mind, not only are these types of attacks ineffective, they actually strengthen Obama’s candidacy by providing a sharp contrast between the parties.
    **************************
    I completely agree with this. People are tired of the crap. Sure, I have no doubt we will see our share of poo flinging as this contest goes on, but Barack Obama’s ability to rise above it has been so refreshing.

    For too long this country’s politics have basically been reduced to “he’s a poo poo head” followed by “oh yeah, well he’s a doo doo butt.”

  • Obama doesn’t look like a woman to me! All those thing the NY Post article said woman like about Obama are things they want in a husband. It’s only the deepest kind of asshole guy who deludes himself into thinking he can’t coach a kids’ soccer team, hang out with a bunch of women for coffee, or discuss a good book with a woman (because those things are somehow too feminine). The guys who think there is something wrong with doing those things are the guys who think the most appropriate thing a man should be doing with a woman is physically forcing her into having sex, and they inwardly lash out other, more civilized stuff probably partly because they know the non-asshole community appreciates it all so much, but they feel inadequate because they can’t bring themselves to do any of it because of their asshole values.

    By first-blush response to this (not having read any of the comments, or that about it too much) is that it’s not really any kind of a tactic, it’s more just to give the conservatives producing the piece themselves psychological satisfaction— kind of a “Ha, ha! If they want the first woman Presdient, why don’t they vote for Obama?” (because, as I’ve been saying, all the really severe Republicans know that Hillary would be the best leader and candidate for us, and they’ve been trying to maneuver us to pick Obama). However, whenever you can get someone you’re opposed to to kind of see you as laughing at them, it’s a cheap sort of psychological tactic, because it can tend to make you both feel like your dominant over them, and they’re losing. So, I guess to that extent, it can be a tactic- sort of a “Bitch-slapping Obama and the Dems” thing– the battered wife syndrome effect, similar to the effect concentration camp prisoners feel, whereby resistance is broken down by a series of demeaning gestures.

    Fight it by realizing that they’re the small ones, that they’re just cooking up a game, and that you’re going to fight back against them by promoting your candidates.

  • independent thinker points out one of the many reasons I so enjoy the GOP meltdown.

    These clowns Can Not Learn and they will NOT shut up. The candidates keep vying to be the most like Bush43 and they’re running with the same campaign stratergery: Call the other guy names!

    They deserve a head to toe beating and eternal political irrelevance.

  • When you can’t write about the issues — attack the opponents looks or mannerisms. Just another reason why the GOP is a do-nothing party.

  • On January 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am, Swan said:

    Fight it by realizing that they’re the small ones, that they’re just cooking up a game, and that you’re going to fight back against them by promoting your candidates.
    =======================================================
    Thank you, Swan.

    I wanted to carve this out and preach to the choir a bit. It’s time to make a commitment. You don’t have to decide who is getting your vote in your primary, but this is the time to start moving the mountain if we’re going to get it where we want it to be by November. There are a lot of people who are not registered to vote, yet will do so if you (I) sign them up and talk to them about the stakes. I try not to lecture them (I get most of that out of my system here, thanks CB), but there are a lot of people living semi-transient lives who move every couple of years and don’t update their voter registration. You’ll find them in apartment complexes. It doesn’t take much encouragement to get them involved, and it’s a good investment of a Saturday morning. A couple of years ago, I was adopted by a herd of children who went door-to-door ahead of me telling parents and neighbors to come out and register. I also seized the teaching opportunity and delivered a little civics lesson to the kids, and found some of the adults listening pretty attentively, too. One or two of those kids may remember that experience in a few years and show up here and at the polls.
    You can give some people in your community a chance to be heard. Volunteer.

  • The NY Post is third in the daily circulation numbers of NYC papers. Their daily numbers are about half those of the weekday NYT and about 1/3 those of the Sunday NYT. I’m not sure they have ever turned a profit.
    Anyone out there know?

  • I find it fascinating how much Republicans are fixated on sex. Perhaps it is because so many of them seem to have problems with their own sexuality? And that in turn may explain why so many of them also seem to rally around hate, fear and exclusivity rather than love, equanimity and inclusiveness. It is all so Freudian!

  • TAIO (#8) said: By inference the author means someone “like” a man is fat, ugly, ham fisted and only changes his clothes when they start to talk.

    Actually, this pretty much describes every right wing “male” asshay I’ve ever known. Just add in “having no clue what’s going on behind the zipper on their fly” and you have the ignorant halfwits to a “T”.

  • Actually, let them continue this sort of stuff – I love the stench of Republican panther sweat as their terror of finally being called to account for their 30 years of bullshit grows stronger and stronger. The more shrill these lifetime born-failures get, the more certain and satisfying their defeat.

  • What Jen said. It’s not necessarily an insult to be compared to a woman, although it is deliberately phrased as an insult – hitting all the generally unmanly qualities without saying “smart like a woman”, or “tough like a woman” or even “thoughtful and deliberate like a woman”, because those traits are felt to be gender neutral. Although it was intended as an insult, it doesn’t need to be and certainly doesn’t deserve a response.

    However, if I were Barack Obama and I became president, I’d announce that I needed all of Rupert Murdoch’s properties in the United States for official government purposes related to increased security; I wanted to turn them into terrorist internment centres, or antiterrorist training facilities or something like that. Rupert Murdoch would get a tax audit he could feel in his colon, and maybe end up in an orange jumpsuit.

    Anyway, nobody suggested the U.S. might get its first president that was more like Rush. Now THAT would be an insult.

  • A standard tactic of the GOP machine is to attempt to emasculate/feminize male Democratic politicians. This is nothing new.

    What is kind of amusing is that any effort to do this to Obama is countered by commonly-held cultural stereotypes of hypermasculine African-American males.

    I don’t buy into that nonsense, but it’s out there, and it blunts this sort of thing from sticking to Obama. Unlike, for example, John Edwards, where the silly “haircut” meme implied effeteness and probably did actual damage to him.

    There are many reasons that Obama is the strongest Democrat candidate in the general. This is one of them. Unfortunately.

  • The President also said that Obama has not been properly vetted. I suspect we will soon find out just exactly what the NSA has been up to the last seven years. Has anyone ever asked how many non-politically appointed career employees stand between the Pres and a wire tap of a political enemy’s phone or e-mail?

  • What is kind of amusing is that any effort to do this to Obama is countered by commonly-held cultural stereotypes of hypermasculine African-American males.

    Interesting point. Sort of a battle of the GOP bleating points.

    I know this isn’t what you meant but it would be funny if the idea of a “feminine” Obama attracted NYP readers. “Whew! Finally a black guy who won’t shoot me and steal my car!”

  • Comments are closed.