MoDo has no MoJo

In the waning days of the Clinton campaign, and thereafter, Hillary and her supporters claimed that sexism was a big part of the reason for her loss.

I've said before that I don't disagree that sexism was prevalent during the coverage of the campaign, as was subtle racism, but I don't think it was the reason that she lost. See Oh, Dear Me. In part, I believe it's because a racist is much less likely to vote for a black person than a sexist is for a woman. Someone can believe a woman is shrill -- or even a bitch -- and still end up casting a ballot for that person (they may even think it's a good quality for a president). Not so for someone who hates black people. The Washington Post carried 2 articles on Sunday discussing race and the election. See Hate Groups' Newest Target and 3 in 10 Americans Admit to Race Bias.

It was interesting to see in the aftermath navel gazing of the media over its role in sexist reporting that the NYTimes is faulting its own coverage of the Clinton campaign, by chastising Maureen Dowd's treatment of Hillary in her columns, Times Public Editor Hammers Maureen Dowd's Coverage Of Hillary. As Digby said, her gender stereotypical references have long been a part of her modus operandi. Twisted Modo.

In fact, I stopped reading Maureen Dowd over her coverage of Hillary Clinton, because I thought it was so vile and horrific that it crossed the line from biting sarcasm to personal attack. Of course, I also attributed it to part of her extreme form of Clinton hater disease. She, of course, has skewered George Bush often enough, much to my delight. See, e.g., 'White House Wives'. However, I can't help feel that the extremely nasty tenor of her Clinton attacks was somehow personal. Being caddy myself, I thought that perhaps her personal venom was a result of her having been rejected by Bill.

I suppose that opens me to a claim of being sexist, but sometimes it's just worth it.