McCain’s ‘bitch’ flap stirs trouble — and an opportunity?

This week, John McCain hosted a campaign event in South Carolina, in which one charming elderly voter stood up to ask, “How do we beat the bitch?” McCain, assuming the voter was referring to Hillary Clinton, responded, “That’s an excellent question.”

No one really expected the senator to upbraid his supporter for her obvious lack of dignity, but the classy thing to do would be to say something to suggest he didn’t find that kind of talk acceptable. Indeed, just a few days ago, McCain repudiated his own mother, on national television, when she made anti-Mormon comments about Mitt Romney. He went out of his way to make clear — twice — that he didn’t agree with his mother’s remarks. He couldn’t do the same thing in this case?

Today, Team McCain is not only spinning what happened, it’s recreating the facts to suit the campaign’s purposes. For example, campaign manager Rick Davis offered this description of events in an email to supporters:

“A voter used a word that I would not have used to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and asked the Senator how he was going to beat her. Senator McCain first responded by saying that he respected Senator Clinton, as he has said repeatedly throughout the campaign. Then, focusing on the question, he pointed to the new Rasmussen national poll showing that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat her in a general election.”

Actually, that’s completely wrong. There’s a video that proves it. McCain didn’t first respond by talking about his respect for Clinton, he first responded by saying that the “bitch” query was “an excellent question.” He mentioned his respect for “anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party” as an afterthought.

As it turns out, the campaign that should be embarrassed by all of this is actually proud of itself. So much so that it’s sending out the video of the exchange to supporters.

Last night, CNN’s Rick Sanchez criticized McCain for his handling of the “bitch” question. Today, McCain is lashing out at the network — and indirectly bragging about the whole mess. Here’s an email sent to supporters from the campaign:

The CNN Network, affectionately known as the Clinton News Network, has stooped to an all-time low and is gratuitously attacking John McCain for not defending Hillary Clinton enough when a South Carolina voter used the ‘B’ word to describe her when John McCain stopped into a luncheon yesterday at the Trinity restaurant in Hilton Head, SC.

A voter used a word that I would not have used to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and asked the Senator how he was going to beat her. Senator McCain first responded by saying that he respected Senator Clinton, as he has said repeatedly throughout the campaign….

As an independent news agency, CNN owes John McCain an apology because of the outrageous behavior of their network host Rich Sanchez…Senator McCain is a fighter and he is not going to back down to CNN.

How incredibly hack-tacular. It’s as if McCain wants to brag about his lack of class. Instead of hoping this goes away, McCain thinks this is an opportunity to be exploited.

As for the media, the Politico’s Mike Allen responded to all of this on CNN today, saying, “[W]hat Republican voter hasn’t thought that? What voter in general hasn’t thought that and what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor.”

Yes, media personalities are now complementing McCain for all of this. How very, very odd.

They sense an opening, its time for all of these – gasp! – male reporters to put that uppity woman in her place, which clearly is not the White House. Now we see the true colors of just how much sexism really remains in the All American Boys Club. Now calling the first female with an actual chance of becoming President a “bitch” is something to be proud of (surely with a few deep gutteral laughs, a little chest pounding, a cheap beer, and belching the alphabet).

As threatened as McCain and Allen seem to be, one can only assume they are really, really unendowed.

  • This week, John McCain hosted a campaign event in South Carolina, in which one charming elderly voter stood up to ask, “How do we beat the bitch?” McCain, assuming the voter was referring to Hillary Clinton, responded, “That’s an excellent question.”

    I remember when a lot of liberals used to kind of buy into the media’s line about McCain. I’ve got to say: I told ya so.

  • “A voter used a word that I would not have used to describe Senator Hillary Clinton.”

    If that is so, how did he know what the question was referring to? Giuliani dresses in drag. How does McCain know that wasn’t a reference to John’s more immediate foe?

  • “(surely with a few deep gutteral laughs, a little chest pounding, a cheap beer, and belching the alphabet).”

    lol zeitgeist. 🙂

  • As it turns out, the campaign that should be embarrassed by all of this is actually proud of itself. So much so that it’s sending out the video of the exchange to supporters.

    It looks like they’re hoping this remark could be the thing that turns the campaign around for them.

  • It’s the fault of liberal blogs! They use such bad language that McCain and his supporters can help themselves!

  • [Picky spelling note: it’s “complimenting” not “complementing.”]

    Maybe I’m crazy, but the only difference between this incident and George Allen’s “macaca” moment was that McCain was not the one who uttered the slur.

    Does McCain think people won’t watch this thing and hear and see for themselves the context of the whole thing? I remember seeing the grin on McCain’s face – was the question funny? It took him quite a few seconds to pull his act together, as he chuckled and chortled along with everyone else.

    Mike Allen is an idiot.

  • zeitgest – you left out “doing that crotch-hitching thing men do to, I guess, assure themselves that all the stuff’s still there.” (does grabbing at it make y’all feel better or something?)

  • Bitch today, dyke tomorrow. Hey, all is fair in love and war. This is obviously war. To slap down a good woman, one must either dehumanize her by calling her a bitch or de-feminize her by calling her a dyke. Hey, and if that doesn’t work, I guess you just backhand her one. Isn’t that how society keep us in our place?

  • Let’s turn the tables, and see how well it plays, shall we?

    “Question: How do we stop the bastard?”

    “Answer: That’s an excellent question. Maybe we could park an aircraft carrier in front of him, and then sit back and watch as he runs head-long into the thing. After all, they don’t call him ‘Rampstrike’ for nothing, you know.”

    The nuclear assault from “Das KinderBase” will begin in 5…4…3….

  • or, Steve, maybe we should refer to him as “that Son of a Bi. . .goted anti-Mormon woman.”

  • (does grabbing at it make y’all feel better or something?)

    Well, sometimes it all just needs … adjusting. Things move, get turned a certain way, and it can get rather uncomfortable.

    Oh dear gawd … I can’t believe I just answered that question …

    🙂

  • On one of my bad days, I refer to myself as being bitchy. I have been called a bitch on occasions. Bitch is a common term. I personally think it’s a lot better than being called a cow.

    While it isn’t good manners to call a woman a bitch, this really doesn’t deserve attention. It’s the equivalent of a $400 hair cut or a bad laugh. Fluff to get angry about.

  • “Democrat” party… Aren’t these the same people who want to make English our national language?

  • Jen, how about Nazi? Can every liberal on TV now just call a conservative a Nazi when then want? Or call Bush Hitler?

    Should that be part of the nationally accepted publicly broadcasted language?

  • Hillary is not a mean, nasty woman. So calling her a bitch is like calling Barack Obama a nigger. It’s just a slur against women. That’s really low, and it’s not how people should talk at all.

    Another aspect of it is that they referred to a specific woman. In rap music, people use the word ‘bitches’ generically to refer to women, and it’s just some rappers’ approach to the genre, and some people even take it or mean it in a tongue-in-cheek way. You can say it’s mysogynistic or not, but it’s a whole different level of offensive from picking out a particular person who you can’t even apply the ‘mean/nasty’ connotation to, and labeling her a ‘bitch.’ It’s the Western world’s version of a burkha, and it’s really messed up.

  • I mean, with some people, in the hip-hop sub-culture, ‘bitch’ nowadays loses its offensive connotation in some contexts, and a lot of people probably don’t even know that.

    But what this voter and McCain were doing is something totally different. It’s like a white guy standing up to ask Barack Obam a question, and then when called upon saying, ‘Hey, nigger,’ smiling, and then just standing there looking at Obama and smiling.

  • McCain is trying to win the Republican nomination. That’s Republican nomination.

    No candidate is going to win any Republican votes by publicly shaming someone who calls Hillary Clinton a “bitch.” They all agree with the questioner, and with McCain, and with Newt’s mother, who quoted Newt using the same term to describe Hillary.

    Most Republicans have a malignant, pathological hatred of Hillary. It’s going to get worse. Get used to it.

  • McCain? ‘News’ about him should be on an entertainment blog. Relevancy is relevant. He is not.

  • Swan,

    Being compared to a female dog is a bit different from being compared to a mass murderer, don’t you think?

    It’s not in good taste to call a woman a bitch in public but it’s not a major thing like lying in your ads or voting to support the war in Iraq. It’s fluff.

    We scream when the right picks up on a non-issue to excoriate our candidates. To me this is just the same coming from our side.

    We don’t need to go into mock outrages over fluff. These bastards have eviscerated the Constitution, invaded a sovereign nation and are torturing people as we speak. McCain agreeing that Clinton is a bitch is not in the same ballpark. Get real.

  • It’s not any less offensive for a fact that a woman said it.

    Being compared to a female dog is a bit different from being compared to a mass murderer, don’t you think?

    Not every Nazi was a mass murderer, and you can compare Bush to Hitler for other aspects- all the other fascist aspects- besides the murderer aspects. A lot of people probably feel that a lot of the violent deaths Bush has had a hand in causing have been stupid, unjustified deaths, and have had a lot to do with racism in the United States.

    It’s not in good taste to call a woman a bitch in public but it’s not a major thing like lying in your ads or voting to support the war in Iraq. It’s fluff.

    No, I disagree. You get real. Words have a psychological effect and certain words have a big psychological effect. Words can make a big difference in getting people to do wrong things that they otherwise would not have done. A lot of preparation went in to altering the German public life and national character before enforced racially-segregated ghettoes started appearing and the Holocaust ultimately occurred. The German people didn’t just wake up one day genocidal and decide to commit genocide. They co-existed relatively peacefully with the Jews in Germany for many years prior to Hitler’s rise to power. The Nazi leadership worked hard on them to get them to the point of accepting radical racial oppression that was like something out of the Middle Ages, and the Nazi leadership applied psychology to the task.

    A lot of progress has been made in this country against things like spouse-beating and sex discrimination. Language has had a big hand in facilitating this progress all along. Feminism isn’t perfect but the voter-McCain exchange is definitely the type of thing we’d have to see more of for there to be steps backward that no one in their right mind wants.

  • I should have added, turning the Germans against the Jews required things like a propaganda campaign characterizing Jews as sub-human. The words of that dialogue- rats, subhumans, etc.- no doubt were words with a powerful psychological effect. You just can’t feel the same and act the same towards a person you and everybody else call a rat as you do towards a person you call a person and a human being.

  • Swan,

    Look, at one point damn and hell were scandalous and forbidden. They aren’t any more. Neither is bitch. You can lament the decline of civility all you want but bitch, bastard and jerk are now about on the same level of derogatoriness.

    Regardless of the Republicans’ level of misogyny, I seriously doubt women are going to be rounded up and taken to the gas chambers in mass. Republicans like sex way too much for that. So comparing what McCain’s audience member said with the Nazis is specious. I do understand that language matters. But bitch has eroded in shock value.

    This is fluff.

  • I don’t think this is about civility or the word police; I think it’s about respect, about setting an example, about living one’s principles and a candidate not being so opportunistic that he can’t bring a supporter up short. A straight-shooter, with genuine principles, would have handled that better.

    Imagine the real benefit that McCain would have derived had he gone dead silent, with a serious face and said, “There’s no question that this is going to be a hard-fought race, a real battle for ideas and for the direction this country is going to take. I do appreciate the enthusiasm you all have for what lies ahead, but we don’t win when we frame this using gender-based name-calling – we just don’t. (Long and serious pause, looking at everyone in that room). Now, how will we prevail? Let’s talk about that.”

    That’s straight-shooting. And you won’t see it from the McCain campaign because there is no straight-shooting there, just craven opportunism, and anyone who watches that video will know it.

  • Jen, I would agree with you if this were purely about crassness or coarse language. But it is also about gender roles, and penalizing those who step outside of them. It is about a call to arms among those who want to defend a patriarchal society (and JRS Jr, that is true even if a woman used the word — remember that Phyllis Schlafly is perhaps the most patriarchal political figure in the country).

  • Jen, nothing I said suggests that women are going to be rounded up and put in gas chambers, as you put it, and I don’t have to suggest anything like that to make a point- plenty of harm has been done to women for all of history that has stopped short of rounding them up and putting them in gas chambers. Maybe you see things differently, but to me, date rape is a harm. A standard for what-is-rape-under-the-law that says, if you didn’t resist to the utmost, and try to strike the guy, if you could, it is not rape, is harm. Women not being able to work at traditionally male jobs without male co-workers leering at them and smiling at them from the moment they arrive at work, and then showing off pictures that objectify women in a state of undress to them almost every day of work, is harm. Raising women to aspire to little more in life than being a sexual countrpart to a man is a harm. Discouraging women from learning and having an opinion is harm. Paying women less for the same work a man does, and discouraging a woman from doing any work except work in her home as a housekeeper, cook, and caretaker of her own children is harm.

    My point is that is takes a certain cultural background to create harm, and what gets us there is a language, a way of talking about things. It’s calling a wife “Mrs. John Smith” and never calling a husband “Mr. Jane Smith.” It’s calling women bitches, or teaching kids that every woman who dress a certain way or applies her makeup a certain way is necessarily a slut or a whore. Language like that creates self-fulfilling prophecies, at the least. A little girl who likes the way a certain woman she see dress but is too young to connect it with any cultural stereotype about what’s a promiscuous woman may someday be the young woman who gets forced into something by a predator because she wore something a little too racy in the eyes of others, that she didn’t see the same way, but the predator thought was a dead giveaway for a woman who would do whatever he wanted, and all he had to do was ask. The marms like the woman who asked John McCain the question are the ones who have helped enforce the regimes of domination, and who have sold their braver, nobler sisters out through the years. They are part and parcel of the cause of untold misery, and a lower standard of living and knowledge for all that was the result of keeping women out of academia, out of the laboratory, out of the workplace, out of the places where theoretical and practical knowledge about all disciplines and sciences are advanced. Attitudes like we saw from McCain and the voter who questioned him are a shame to civilization and a direct assault on human rights. They are the tiny bricks that add up to build a terrible wall, and people of conscience will pay attention to those bricks and do what it takes to get those who hold them to put them down– even if it’s just giving a stern look their way, but more importantly when it has to be saying a few words in rebuke.

    If you think it’s fluff, I suggest you round up the latest statistics about crime and sex offenses, and then figure that there are at least a few times that number of similar crimes which are never reported or prosecuted, and then consider that every man who perpetrates that kind of crime against a woman probably has ‘bitch’ in his vocabulary, and uses that word as a weapon with a meaning that is not at all mistaken by the people it is aimed against. If you stand in the way of defending those people from all that predator stand for in his attitude towards women, you are standing in the wrong place.

  • Umm… what if Obama catches up and starts edging out Clinton in the polls?

    Then what will McCain’s supporters be asking?

    How do we beat the sherriff?

    (Sorry, had to throw a Blazing Saddles in there).

    I’m no huge fan of Clinton, or her husband, but please… is McCain so desperate for publicity that he’ll stoop this low in attacking her?

  • Part of the reason I’m so fired up about this is I feel it was a planted question. It was too convenient. They’re trying to fire up the base, to find something that will get them going. Contrary to their own delusions, the anti-Hillary crowd has turned out to be limited (as I always thought) to a few lone nutjobs. They’re trying to make it come together.

    They tossed McCain the ball, and he liked it fine. That the Republicans and/or McCain are using mysoginy to try to win at politics is reprehsible. That’s the kind of bandwaggonning that turns bullying of women into a movement.

  • That is, I don’t think this was a case of one person tossing off a word because they feel frustrated at Ms. Clinton’s success, or because they just don’t like her. I think it represents, at the worst, gender bias deployed for political demogoguery, and at the not-much-better end, a latent, harmful misogyny throughout the right-wing. Remember how McCain and the right bloggers responded. That is a cause for concern.

  • If we are going for honesty in politicians, a Republican calling Hillary a bitch is about as honest as it gets.

  • it’s the new anti-hillary conservative catch phrase!

    I hope so, maybe then right-wing bloggers would stop whining and trying to act superior because we use a few bad words every now and then. You know there is no way they can resist calling Hillary a bitch 500 times a day now that the dam has broken.

  • Jen: “It’s fluff”
    Swan: “It’s misogyny”

    No wait! You’re both right (Certs, anyone?)
    Swan makes the very valid point that words have enormous power, and a political context amplifies that power exponentially. Jen calls it fluff…a shiny object waved in front of our eyes to distract our attention away from what’s being done to our civil liberties by the current regime and the substantive issues that should be the real national dialog.

    The GOP got a bit of a trifecta on this one. A nice slab of video red meat for fund raising and base mobilization, a news cycle almost exclusively dedicated to the word ‘bitch’ while a $50 million budget bill gets sacked, and sufficient provocation to get Dems snapping at each other about the relative substance of the ‘issue’ (see, you’ve even got me doing it!), instead of pressing investigations into Blackwater & oil spills.

    So…my answer is rhetorical. Are we, as progressives, diluting our own relevancy by rising to the semantical bait? How much of our energy can we afford to invest in defending principles of civility and fighting the misogyny that is demonstrated here? What does it say about us if we don’t?

    …and all that for only 2 cents…I gotta raise my rates.

  • I disagree with the view (expressed above) that the incident shows that McCain can’t think well on his feet. Actually, he played this one right down the middle. He made it clear that he respects Senator Clinton and yet he refrained from engaging in a confrontation with someone who was likely a little bit nuts. If you have ever been to one of these question-and-answer gatherings with a presidential candidate you would realize that it’s not a time to antagonize a roomful of strangers, some of whom may be unbalanced.

  • This is McCains macacca moment. He should have said the remark was inappropriate instead of yucking it up with the rest of the old white men. This only reinforces my notion that Republicans tolerate and encourage sexism and racism. I do not. Why is the so called liberal media giving this a free pass.

  • Here in New Hampshire, the whole issue is considered a non-issue. We know John McCain. We know he’s not sexist or racist or anything like that. So that’s a dead issue. Time to move on to the real issue of who would be the strongest and most effective Commander-in-Chief. In my opinion that would be John McCain.

  • Comments are closed.