Bill Moyers Journal: New Media, Political Discourse, and the 2008 Elections

Please someone expose the Bilderberg Group!!!!

Posted by: kim | September 25, 2008 6:33 PM

I dread the thought of eight more years of Clintons in the White House. Another co-presidency after Bush-Cheney is not the way to restore accountability to the executive branch. For my grandson and future generations, I hope for a presidential leader of the USA who will restore the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches in accordance with Constitutional law. It's going to take a strong leader who can articulate a worldview based a strong understanding of cultural differences. We need a change from politics as usual. We need a president who can motivate and lead all of to do more to help each other, our nation and world to be better neighbors, stewards of our resources and earthkeepers, parents, students . . . It is my opinion there is only one candidate who has the abilities to inspire renewal of a democratic movement in this country.

Posted by: Reta Richardson | April 4, 2008 10:06 PM

Thank you for bringing such an important topic to light with Kathleen Jamieson. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate we have. She is no saint but she has been vilely trampled in the media. Of course we remember the Clinton years when Bill was our President when the media acted liked fanatical sharks at a feeding frenzy with lie after lie and inuendo. Such political destruction should not have happened again. Some of the postings here are questionable. I think too many times people want more from a candidate than what they need or deserve. Who cares if you want to know her more personally. Do you need to know Obama or McCain more personally? Of course not. You didn't even suggest it. Go to Hillary Clinton's website if you want more information on her. Qualifications is what counts, ideas to help us and our nation as a whole is what counts. It is unfortunately a man's world. It shouldn't be but it is. Women need to jump in and turn this around now. Obama has some interesting background, take a look at Http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml. No one has even ask him in the maintstream media about any of his background. No...

Posted by: J. Foreman | April 4, 2008 8:55 PM

The Misogyny of Hillary Hating What I have to say has nothing to do with which Democratic candidate would be a better president: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It has to do with the contest between Hillary, a woman who seeks to be our next president, and the "Hillary Haters", people who have been relentlessly poisoning the public imagination with negative personal attacks against her. They don't attack her politics, policies, intelligence or capacity to be president - only her personality. Hillary's personality is no different now than when she held a comfortable lead in public opinion polls a couple of months ago and was favored to win. Recently, though, you'd think that she's morphed into evil itself the way Hillary Haters on the radio talk shows, for instance, relentlessly portray her as: "evil Hillary", "witch", "ball-busting", "prostitute", "that bitch", "mean-looking", "untrustworthy", "doesn't know how to run her own home", "she stuck with Bill just so she could use him for her own political ambitions". These attacks (made mostly by men and some self-deprecating women) are unfair, sexist, and hateful. None of the male candidates are being demonized in this way. For those of us who have worked for women's...

Posted by: Paula Delaine | February 29, 2008 4:25 AM

The Misogyny of Hillary Hating What I have to say has nothing to do with which Democratic candidate would be a better president: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It has to do with the contest between Hillary, a woman who seeks to be our next president, and the "Hillary Haters", people who have been relentlessly poisoning the public imagination with negative personal attacks against her. They don't attack her politics, policies, intelligence or capacity to be president - only her personality. Hillary's personality is no different now than when she held a comfortable lead in public opinion polls a couple of months ago and was favored to win. Recently, though, you'd think that she's morphed into evil itself the way Hillary Haters on the radio talk shows, for instance, relentlessly portray her as: "evil Hillary", "witch", "ball-busting", "prostitute", "that bitch", "mean-looking", "untrustworthy", "doesn't know how to run her own home", "she stuck with Bill just so she could use him for her own political ambitions". These attacks (made mostly by men and some self-deprecating women) are unfair, sexist, and hateful. None of the male candidates are being demonized in this way. For those of us who have worked for women's...

Posted by: Paula Delaine | February 29, 2008 4:21 AM

Dear Mr. Moyer: I watched your interview with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Melissa Rogers on “Religion and the Red, White, and Blue ‘08” posted on the below website: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12072007/profile3.html I believe that this discussion was very insightful on the religious issues that seem to be so prominent in the ’08 Presidential race. I am a born-again Christian of late and was able to become more informed of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. I disagree with Jamieson and Rogers when they stated they do not believe that asking “do you believe in Jesus Christ” is an appropriate question. I believe that someone’s religious views are very influential in all decisions they make, including governance questions. I believe it tells us a lot about a candidate what their beliefs are and how strongly they believe them. I agree with Rogers when she stated, “there’s no real evangelism without recognizing that a person has a freedom to either respond to God’s call or to reject God’s call.” I believe that without non-believers, the church I attend today would not be as strong or as unified as it is. My church is a melting-pot of people, many of which were not...

Posted by: Kate | February 20, 2008 2:03 PM

Two disappointments of the Internet are the ignorance-cruelty (anonymity?) of voluntary correspondents, and how so many flacks have enlisted in the corporate cause for a few bucks or considerations, apeing for peanuts and thinking they may soon become George Will. My saddest realization is that people are no more inclined to think for themselves than to sew their own clothes or grow their own food. We chaff under a general and pervading adulteration of what we all need because we are distracted by illusions. K.H. Jameson realizes this but can't say so and keep her job.

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | December 16, 2007 11:04 PM

With the Internet becoming a greater source for political campaigns, I think it brings the information directly to the people. Having detailed information, debates and countless other forms of information to me embodies what democracy is about: governance by the people. By having an uninhibited discourse and wealth of information, I believe that this election will be a true example of the participatory government that this country has vested its reputation in.

Posted by: Alexandra | December 16, 2007 1:11 AM

Mr. Moyers, Great discussion on women in politics and how candidates are treated in the "new media". When Ms. Jamieson asked the question of what would you call a male candidate in the John McCain "b-word" scenario, my first inclination was you might call him a "Son of a b-word". Just goes to show how prevalent this word and related phrase are in our society and how often they're used without concern for the meaning or repercussions.

Posted by: S Campbell | December 14, 2007 10:55 AM

Looked up the offending youtube video featuring Mrs. Clinton and the b-word. Absolutely awful, despicable! And... there are meanspirited attacks on the president as well (e.g. dubya gets high). May we all disarm our verbal WMDs. Through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that . . . Peace, Tim

Posted by: Tim | December 13, 2007 6:01 PM

I greatly appreciated the episode with Kathleen Hall Jamieson and I would like to hear more exploration with her of the topic of gender, politics and language. It does seem to me that women in politics in this country are in a double bind. There are still inherent cultural biases against women in positions of power in this country and often these are operating at an almost subconscious level (like many of our biases). Somebody here suggested that Hillary wears her gender on her sleeve. If you are a woman in politics, or in an executive position in a corporation, or an administrative position at a university, you find that if you speak about sexism, being the object of discrimination, or of women's issues, in general, you are accused of playing the "gender" card. However, if you confront these things and do not fight back, or at the very least, speak of these things, you are seen as being a weak leader. A very important part of the conversation with Dr. Jamieson came when it was pointed out that we haven't set the limits when it comes to the language used to refer to women in positions of authority (such...

Posted by: MK Sandford | December 12, 2007 1:46 AM

To nina, yes i like Edwards, too. i haven't decided for whom i will vote, but the discussion of a candidate's personal beliefs will always be applicable for decision making among voters. we don't get to know these candidates on a personal, daily level. many voters, unfortuantely, need something quick to grasp intellectually the kind of moral foundation a leader has, so they turn to labels, and the topic of religion and faith. educated voters might find more information beyond the labels to find their deeds or misdeeds. but i agree with you in that political discussion about other issues themselves serves to advance, but a firm understanding of a candidate's views on the faith that supposedly guides their actions is worthy of having it to start debates going. Yes, presidents have all kinds of scandals while in office. i'm aware of those marital scandals by the presidents you mentioned, and of the scandals that surrounded Pres. Harding, or the fact that VP Andrew Johnson was completely plastered at Lincoln's inaugural address, not that that is a scandal but come on, these aren't just people being people, they are to be the finest and brightest of what this Land has...

Posted by: Daniel | December 11, 2007 7:01 AM

Give me a break! I am a woman, definitely NOT a right winger and would welcome a woman president if she espoused my views. (I'd vote for Barbara Boxer as President, for example, in a NY second) However, Hillary chills my blood just as much as Giuliani. I am totally disgusted by her vote for the Iraq war, and her saber rattling on Iran. She is a blatant, ruthless opportunist who will do whatever is necessary to gain power. Has she EVER answered a question directly? So don't put all "Hillary haters" in the Rush Limbaugh camp. Progressives on the left dislike her just as much.

Posted by: Marta | December 11, 2007 4:51 AM

The reason the right wingers attack Hillary is obvious, she is a smart, very quick witted, talented woman that doesn't defer to their "authority" or their "superiority" they think they have. Even many of the right winger women are against her, in the way that those that align with their oppressors because they think they have to, will attack anyone that shows them there is another way to live. People can have a hatred of those that are doing what they would like to do, but can't because they are weak in character.

Posted by: splashy | December 11, 2007 3:57 AM

Listen to political speeches from the past and you will see how far we have fallen; how ignorant we have become. Listen to the exchange at the UN between Adlai Stevenson and the Soviet Ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crises. Listen to Robert Kennedy's impromptu address to a crowd of supporters in which he informs them of the assassination of Martin Luther King. Listen to Ike's farewell address, in which he warns of the dangers of the "military industrial complex, or to JFK's address on the importance of the pursuit of peace. Listen to the famous "kitchen debate" between Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev. I think you will realize that something has changed. I'm certainly not saying that times were better back then,but the level of political discourse has certainly dropped to a very low level compared to those days. Our country faces grave problems. We must try to elect the brightest, best leaders we can find. It doesn't really matter if you would feel comfortable sharing a few beers with one of them at your yearly block party.

Posted by: Steven Rudin | December 10, 2007 10:51 AM

The issues raised by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and scholars regarding negative affect and visual vilification are shockingly similar to the strong anti-French current that swept the airwaves between 2003 and 2007. The language, the images, the caricatures of a people and culture over a foreign policy dispute are just a worthy of interest as the sexism and misogyny directed towards Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by: Marc Cormier | December 10, 2007 10:31 AM

Why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? Gosh, could it be because the right wing ranters have been telling everyone who will listen for the last fifteen years what an evil person she is? The Goebles reference was most appropriate. She is polarizing, and the right wing has worked very hard to make her so.

Posted by: Roger Fenton | December 9, 2007 1:16 PM

To Daniel who posted on 12/9: Your beloved JKF had affairs while in the White House. And FDR also had an affair, as did Eisenhower, among other Presidents. Although I do not condone marital infidelity, I don't think the country in general should be so fixated on the sex life of our political leaders. A President should be judged on the effectiveness of his governmental policies. Similarly, we should focus on where a Presidential candidate stands on the issues, not on what religion he or she professes or doesn't profess. The fact is that "godly" in politics is as "godly" does. Just look at the Bush administration as an example of bad faith in politics, I agree with the poster who asks why are we discussing religion at the Presidential level, especially when it's clear that religion and "moral values" do not necessarily go hand and hand. As for the misogyny directed against Clinton on the internet, by Jamieson''s own admission, only a relatively small number of people are engaged in this practice. Of course, there are some people who won't vote for Clinton because she is a woman, but there are numerous other reasons not to vote for her...

Posted by: Nina | December 9, 2007 12:30 PM

I'm a fine artist, computer/digital artist, and author. I'm also a believer in Christ, but i don't vote strictly one way or the other in presidential elections. i never voted for a Republican presidential candidate (since 92) and only a Democratic one for the last two elections and wasn't proud of those two offerings, nor proud of what we have to choose from in this country. we are always having to choose from the lesser of the two idiots, and as Americans, if we have the right to choose from a million different restaurants, drinks, meals, movies, websites, etc. why can't we have at least a 3rd major party that has the backing of Washington and the country?? With that said, at least we now have signs of a more interesting presidential election in 2008. we have great access to information as pointed out in Bill's wonderful episode with Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Some people don't understand that personal faith very much applies to the arena of the presidency because a man's, or woman's choices through life, and especially in the Oval Office, are filtered through the prism of personal conviction and morals, and with the notion that God (or the...

Posted by: Daniel | December 9, 2007 9:47 AM

Great show about misogyny in middle america and the backlash against women's gains of the late 60's early 70s. It's just so much background noise that we don't even notice it anymore. Imagine if Oprah had jumed on McCain as she did Imus? Where are the other democratic candidates on this one? Another writer made a good point about Ferraro--who was demonized for having an Ital=American surname--remember how they basically painted her as 'mob' because of a in intensive investigation of her husband's business dealings. Shades of Martha stewart!

Posted by: lisa | December 8, 2007 11:29 PM

I don't find Hillary Clinton polarizing any more than Christine Gregoire is. I think that it is the possibility that Clinton might win that is driving socially insecure men nuts! These same men love to have women volunteers because they will do so much work; once those volunteers have learned from the experience and decide to take that learning into politics themselves, suddenly the women are not so likeable--and become 'polarizing' (their term) or threatening (my term). BTW, the idea that Clinton is polarizing because she has an integrity problem is a joke! SHE has less integrity than, say, Guiliani? Pul-leeze. And the notion that Brits accept female leadership because British men are momma's boys is equally ridiculous. As your conversation with Kathleen Jamieson revealed, Brits have seen the wisdom of some female leaders (e.g., Elizabeths I and II) and the unfortunate nature of some other female leaders (e.g., Thatcher). Just because some American men feel threatened by the prospect doesn't mean that every other man has to feel that way.

Posted by: brendab | December 8, 2007 10:53 PM

The Journal again hits a homerun bringing to TV a story not addressed by the MSM! It is refreshing to see real solid news and realize people who do not have access to the internet or independent media can be exposed to a story behind the stories. Three Cheers for the Journal!

Posted by: j elizabeth | December 8, 2007 10:04 PM

Bill, I must say how disapointed I was with this show. I thought it was going to be about politics, newsmedia, and the internet. It should have been advertised as a show on how unfairly women are treated. Hillary is not the only canidate who is being "slammed" on the internet. The only redeaming value of this show was it was so off point I felt compelled to post a comment. So here I am, and low and behold on your "front page" discribing the show is all the information and topics I thought were going to be discussed. Bill I enjoy your show but only watch episodes which I think will be of interest. I really don't appreciate this false advertising.

Posted by: Mark L. | December 8, 2007 9:49 PM

ok. i'm late. our station had pledging on and i just couldn't stay up till 3AM eastern to watch the show...sooo, i just watched it on this fabulous, easy to navigate, and visually quite beautiful site. :) onto the show... everytime i see Kathleen Hall Jamieson i learn. i learn to continue to listen oh so very closely to "the words." sometimes "the words" are strung together so nicely (mitt romney's symphony reference in his speech, etc) that it's easy to miss the meaning of the actual "words." thank you, ms.j for making me a better listener, a more savvy listener, and a smarter voter. (still working on the better writer part...) but ms.j also alerted me to another fact: repetition and placement are key components in the whole process. for example...let's look right at this blog? "why is hillary so polarizing?" this question is spread all over the media. gee, ya know, after a while, i bet a lot of people start saying "that hillary, you know she's so polarizing, i wonder why..." back in the day, we used to call it the "whispering campaign." anywhere and everywhere in polite social conversation, a question would be asked, a statement...

Posted by: songweasel | December 8, 2007 9:45 PM

dear bill regarding the discussion inre the question to candidates" do you believe the bible is true?. the correct answer foe a political candidate is=== I must support the Constitution, which guarntees FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. I was dissapointed by the waffling and double talk by most of the Republicans at the debate. I can only hope the Democrats can do better I might bve forced to vote ( Non of the above ) in 2008

Posted by: del maynard | December 8, 2007 8:03 PM

As a female elected official, hearing your report gave me a sick feeling in my stomach--almost all elected officials must face negative attacks, but this is far more destructive and hurtful than what I have observed in the past. I will share your program with members of our Women's Caucus here in Hawaii. This is not a partisan thing --it is a deeply disturbing trend and it frightens me. Keep up the good work. Aloha, Marilyn Lee

Posted by: marilyn b lee | December 8, 2007 5:18 PM

Although I am unsure if I will support Sen. Clinton in the Democratic primary, I think Ms. Jamieson has captured precisely the reasons for alot of the bitter and hateful rhetoric about her. When you listen to or watch the news, try sometime just to tally how often she is referred to by just her first name, while male candidates are referred to by their last names or by title and name, such as Sen. Biden. The examples cited by Ms. Jamieson drove me out of a local service club, dominated by male business types, but pushed me toward becoming more active in politics.

Posted by: Gloria Olsen | December 8, 2007 4:49 PM

Why are we even discussing religion at the presidential level? I know this is a rhetorical question. But you have to ask yourself, continually, why is this country, founded on religous freedom, become so enslaved to religiosity? There are plenty who would love to see us become a religious state -- a theocracy -- and take us right back to the most primitive of cultures. We decry the Taliban and the Mullahs, but we experience the same exhortations. Where are good healthy discussions about global warming, fuel efficient autos, true energy plans, rigged ballot machines. None of this really permeates the "presidential debates." I ask again, why the focus on religiosity? Because it is designed to inflame the passions and divert us from the serious and real issues at hand. So it has been said all elections are a choice between the unthinkable and the unpalatable. It's all Roman Circus.

Posted by: Phil | December 8, 2007 2:59 PM

Excellent discussion which pointed out the internet bashing of Hillary, especially noting the continual degradation of her as FEMALE. America is awakening to the reality we are a racist nation, but we have yet to realize we are one of the most sexist country in the world. A heavy statement, but the facts speak for themselves: highest rape statistics in the world, highest domestic violence in the world, and the respect and protection for mothers and children is the worst in the world (when economically compared). We are a misogynistic nation. Of the world’s nations American women are least likely to celebrate their femininity, dress with elegance, or be respected for their kind hearts and generous nature. We are so mislead on what female beauty is that the entire nation has been brainwashed (by men) to believe that sexuality and overt sexual attire and behavior equates femininity (its no wonder they hate Hillary). Americans are the first to attack countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan for denying women’s rights, and yet we will never cover how respected these women are within their cultures (or dare to compare it to American women’s lives). It is time for an American female leader...

Posted by: Lena H | December 8, 2007 2:46 PM

The reason Margaret Thatcher did not recieve the kinds of invectives that Hillary receives, or that Christine Gregoire (D Wash) received, is because Thatcher was Conservative while Hillary is Liberal. It is in the nature of modern conservatives to be mean spirited and hateful toward those with whom they disagree. And there is a male name for them that is much stronger than the female term "bitch." It starts with "p" and ends in "k." And it is exclusivley male. A recent article about the personality types attracted to modern day conservatism stated, "you show me a conservative and I'll show you a p---k."

Posted by: Lionel Youst | December 8, 2007 1:55 PM

The story you do not tell about the new media is how it is used to circumvent the censorship of omission perpetrated upon us by the mainstream media. Controlling the debate is a well-known tactic, but now it will not work. *Which Republican candidate has won the most straw polls? *Which candidate has the most popular MySpace page? *Which candidate has used the Internet to outraise the funds of the corporate backed candidates? *In Florida recently, a man was forced to remove campaign signs from his yard or face a fine of $1000 per day. Which candidate did the signs support? *Which candidate has garnered an Internet following that has established over 1100 meet-up groups all over the U.S. and the world? *Which candidates positions are constantly misrepresented and ridiculed in articles, called "crackpot" and worse?" *Which candidate actually understands monetary policy, history, and our Constitution? *Which candidate recently berated the head of the Federal Reserve over monetary policy, and was cheered by stock market traders who watched on CSPAN? *Which candidate receives the most donations from active military personnel? *Which polling firm has been caught removing from their list any who indicate they support "other?" The real story...

Posted by: b.j | December 8, 2007 1:25 PM

I agree wholeheartedly that the 'bitch' question should have been quickly condemned by McCain and his disdain for the remark should have been strongly and unequivocably asserted. However, we must remember that the reesentment towards Mrs. Clinton is old and deep. It arises not merely because of her gender but perhaps, in part at least, because of the way she has used her gender to trumpet her accomplishment and her victimhood. She has, unlike Margaret Thacher and Golda Meir, worn it on her sleeve. To get to the root of whatever antagonism there may be towards Mrs. Clinton one must drill much more deeply to her true attitudes, to the fear that she is disingenuous and good oh so good at hiding who she isreally. (Can she really spin away from her "stay at home and bake cookies" comment? Can she deny that her healthcare failure was due in part to her blindness to the limits of any one individual's power? Why not just say I was younger and put idealism ahead of pragmatism?) Is she extrordinarily competent in certain spheres? Undoubtedly. Is she a leader of people? Yet to be determined. Is she cold? I know not? Does she...

Posted by: Stephen Ruben | December 8, 2007 12:38 PM

Personal attacks on presidents' spouses, including Eleanor Roosevelt, is nothing new, although the level of language is sicker. I must admit, however, to being disgusted by Hillary, as I was by Bill, who was an economic, political and environmental catastrophe.I fail to see her appeal to informed people - people who know, for example, that her "health plan" was a 1320-page plan by and for the big insurance companies and lead to the HMO mess we have today. If she buys her way in, Nader gets my vote!

Posted by: Steve J | December 8, 2007 12:12 PM

I did not find the conversation about the lowest parts of political campaigning either enlightening or refreshing. If you want to find dirt on the internet, I suppose it is the best place to do so. However, to then make general statements about the difference between the way women and men are treated at the lowest level of commentary seems to me to beg the important issue of whether or not such candidates are worthy to be president. I was disappointed that instead we heard all the crude talking points again and again. Why? What can we as voters do except ignore such trash,which of course will be there for those who choose to be titillated by it; instead we were sent to bed with such vitriole ringing in our ears, and we haven't even started on the entire year of avoiding such crud. It seemed to be enjoyable to biff it about while decrying it, and I rather resent that ploy.

Posted by: juliania | December 8, 2007 11:52 AM

Let's get real here folks, this is a battle for the presidency! Since when was that clean? I could post tons of words and phrases that are used to negatively impact candidates, the point being, if a woman is going to step in to the ring, she best be ready to take a couple punches, some below the belt. If she can't take the B word, gosh, how will she handle terrorists, drugs, crime, race issues, etc.? Let's stop making women out to be fragile, weak things in need of protection from the entire world. This is NOT domestic violence, this is a tough political race, tough for all! Any by the way, I think Hillary is one tough cookie that can handle the B word ten times a second without flinching.

Posted by: Dan Dixon | December 8, 2007 11:27 AM

It is certainly refreshing to watch your show where reason prevails over hateful rhetoric that is all too prevalent. As a woman who took a nontraditional job in the 70's I was subjected to sexist comments that still come out of the mouths of my fundamentalist Christian family & friends who believe women should be at home and in subjection to a man or other authority. Beliefs cause division. Beliefs cause us not to deal with the facts but rather with the idea of what it should be or what we want it to be. The "idea" in our society says that all people are created equal but the facts do not show that and the fact is that we are not all treated equally. A truly religious person is concerned with the transformation of society, which is oneself. Society has been created by each of us and only when each of us change individually will we change society. Questioning begins with each of questioning our own beliefs and seeing our own prejudices. When each one of us change, then the world will change. Compassion and love are the answer to every problem in the world, not whether one believes...

Posted by: Elaine | December 8, 2007 11:05 AM

Mr. Moyers, I thought the woman asking Senator McCain how to beat Senator Clinton did not look very feminine.

Posted by: Sebastia Pereira | December 8, 2007 11:00 AM

Why did you and your cohost ignore the "possibility" that the vitriolic comments are more associated with their target than a generalization of our society. Indeed, why is Ms. Clinton such a polarizing figure???

Posted by: Lewis Moore | December 8, 2007 10:15 AM

The info that you presented about the way that Hilary is being demonized was brutal. I wish you had presented something positive about her because I fear that your presentation simply will be seen by many as why she is not good. I suspect that the republican attack machine is behind this attack in the same way that they swift boated previous candidates and any presentation will be seen as confirmation. The science of linguistics is too complicated for the average person to understand as Latoff demonstrated in his book, Don't think of an elephant.

Posted by: Jerry Deasy | December 8, 2007 10:06 AM

The discussion about Hillary really made me stop and think about my own reluctance to support her candidacy. I'm a woman and am leaning toward Obama. But I wonder if I subconsciously allowed some of these negative associations to effect my thinking. I wonder if my tendency to view her as crafty, distrustful, false, and deceitful was entirely true or, in part, exaggerated by these attacks. I'd like to think of myself as someone who can think for herself, and sensitive to these sexist attacks. But I'm left with an uneasy feeling that I can not distinguish within myself the difference between my own feelings about Clinton and some of the spin.

Posted by: leap1 | December 8, 2007 9:40 AM

I've recognized the volume of vitriol and the increasing crudeness in all media for several years. I was glad to hear Ms Jamieson acknowledge that it comes up from relatively small group of people and if it goes unrenounced, enters the mainstream. I've felt this happening for some time and believe there are many in the 'mainstream' who are willing to let the loonies do the work for them while they keep their hands clean. Many days it seems as if even that separation breaks down in the work place, churches, coffee shops and other gathering places of what used to be our more reasoned citizens. I wonder what it will take to put that genie back in the bottle? I found last nights show a perfect example of how the Dem's would prefer to approach an attack. Discuss it...intellectualize...be reasonable. I'm not seeing a lot of reasonable people on the other side to discuss anything with. Laudable, interesting to those who hunger for that kind of discourse...but we appear to be losing. Will we get a gold star for 'deportment' when we're living in a theocracy or a plutocracy?

Posted by: Pam White | December 8, 2007 9:15 AM

What a pleasure and relief to listen to your thoughtful, civil, discussion with Ms. Jamieson, that was more than two or three soundbites!

Posted by: Patricia Boice | December 8, 2007 8:46 AM

Dear Mr. Moyers, You and Ms. Jamieson ignored the elephant in the room in your discussion of the demonization of Ms. Clinton. Recall that in 1987 Lee Atwater sent his minions out to find dirt on each of the probable 1992 Democratic hopefuls, or at least some characteristic to which mud would stick. So, shortly after Bill Clinton was nominated he released the tales he had found about Mr. Clinton's philandering. But then Mrs. Clinton defended her husband brilliantly, and one of Atwater's juggernauts went to the bottom of the sea. Very shortly thereafter Rush Limbaugh began attacking Ms. Clinton daily, at about the same time he was vilifying Carol Braun in a most racist way. Recall too that Limaugh's boss was Atwater protege Roger Ailes, now running Fox. As Goebles observed, after you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. After sixteen years of nonstop Hillary bashing on TV and radio is it any wonder that some normal people follow suit?

Posted by: Roland | December 8, 2007 7:55 AM

Are R.E.Mant and James McDonnell also known as Jean Davison?

Posted by: Roland | December 8, 2007 7:12 AM

Are R.E.Mant and James McDonnell also known as James McDonnell?

Posted by: Roland | December 8, 2007 7:07 AM

Mr. Moyers, Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from. It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns. A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul. If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party. Respectfully, JJM

Posted by: John Maddente | December 8, 2007 6:22 AM

Listen to some rap or hip-hop lyrics. Look at some of the bedroom and violent scenes on prime time television that would have been unacceptable 20 years ago.Observe how people act on the road and in public shopping places. You are witnessing a general coarsening of the culture in both speech and behavior. Reasoned speech has no place in our media or general public discuss .... appeals to emotion are used to control the rabble. I don't like Hilary Clinton but it has nothing to do with her gender. I'm willing to vote for anyone who is rational, has personal principles and ethics and works for the benefit of all americans .... that leaves her out. Religion, for me is superstitious nonsense. Jefferson spoke of the "normal" alliance of govt and religion. The founding fathers were deists(they didn't say they were atheists as the masses would probably not have liked that term). Deists believe God made things and then disappeared, ie, is not involved in the affairs of men. Saying they were deists allowed them to "appear" religious without subscribing to the irrational chains of organized religion.

Posted by: Richard Crocker | December 8, 2007 1:03 AM

Whatever the media, I find it very disquieting that the candidates are clearly promoting their personal belief system giving a strong implication that if elected this will give them permission to use the powers of the presidency to impose their beliefs and values on the country. What I want to hear the candidate say is that, if elected, he will in fact respect, protect and defend the Constitution and will ensure the individual rights enumerated in it are guaranteed in their entirety, and that he will respect and abide by the laws of the land, not making up his own laws. Moreover, I want all candidates running for public office to commit to taking the necessary action to restore the Bill of Rights which have been illegally and immorally dismantled by the demagogues in power who tell the people that despite the unique success The Bill of Rights has has brought America for over 200 years it must be set aside "to protect us." When they speak of the terrorist threat make define it, and when they do you may be surprised how little they know about threats, and how insignificant those threats really are compared to the inherent strengthes...

Posted by: Curt Gibby | December 8, 2007 12:39 AM

The governor's race in Washington State in 2004 was very close, and it took a couple of months after the election for the outcome to be decided. During the race, between Christine Gregoire (D), and Dino Rossi (R), the rhetoric was heated, and especially while the outcome was pending, I heard Chris Gregoire called the same kinds of things Hillary's being called now.

Posted by: Carleen Pagni | December 8, 2007 12:28 AM

A very important show, Bill...I breathed a sigh of relief, as I have felt lost in a sea of religious fanatics, lately, and it was nice to hear some intelligent, thoughtful talk, for a change. I am really frightened of what is happening in our country...what is all this religion doing in this election? I mean, I understand where it is coming from, I just can't believe it! I am the mom of a Lesbian daughter, and at this rate, I'll never see her have the option of making a real marriage vow...even though we supposedly have equality, under the Constitution. As for the Hillary bashing,it makes me sick! What makes America different from all the other countries, who have elected woman leaders, and have loved and respected them? Could it stem from a vestige of Puritanism? I mean, aside from the obvious old boy network, there is a real FEAR of us, having power over them.

Posted by: Judi | December 8, 2007 12:21 AM

Why isn't it just as unacceptable to use the B word as a characterization of a United States Senator, and former first lady of the United States, as it is to use that other awful word to characterize a college sports team? I think, in general, we have become stupid and proud of it!

Posted by: Steve Rudin | December 7, 2007 10:50 PM

I noticed in your discussion of the use of language in attacking Hillary Clinton you focus on the use of the pejorative "bitch." Personally, I was chilled by the word "beat," especially repeated by various voices. Yes, it can mean "defeat," but the undertone of violence towards women was there, I think. Did anyone else feel uneasy over THAT choice of words?

Posted by: Ruth Simons | December 7, 2007 10:38 PM

What a refreshing program with Kathleen Jamison on the sexist vilification of Hillary Clinton through Internet sources such as YouTube and Facebook. A key point raised was the significant number of men in the media and through the Internet who fear strong, articulate women and their power and continue to denigrate them. This behavior comes mainly from insecure men, but it is a phenomenon that is, unfortunately, still alive in our society. Thank you for beaming a light on this problem.

Posted by: Jean Davison, Ph.D. | December 7, 2007 10:16 PM

What would women call men? How about Nazi?, or Fascist?, or the favorite substitute for them, patronizing? Kennedy may have said that the Church didn't speak for him, but Cardinal Spellman, patriarch of the Vietnam War, certainly did, and he was a knee-jerk anti-Communist same as they. His wife was no different. There is no doubt but that Liberal evangelicalism, enthusiasm and urban economic growth in all religions and women have been tied in all recorded history. Your friend Joseph Campbell was certainly right about this. Sex is not neutral. British men have been momma's boys for a long time. Personally I think Romney belongs to the Church of Latter Day Unitarianism, same as the Bush family, and is just as hypocritical as they. I'm sure this proves that he is their chosen successor.

Posted by: RE Mant | December 7, 2007 9:59 PM

What would women call men? How about Nazi?, or Fascist?, or the favorite substitute for them, patronizing? Kennedy may have said that the Church didn't speak for him, but Cardinal Spellman, patriarch of the Vietnam War, certainly did, and he was a knee-jerk anti-Communist same as they. His wife was no different. There is no doubt but that Liberal evangelicalism, enthusiasm and urban economic growth in all religions, and women have been tied in all recorded history. Your friend Joseph Campbell was certainly right about this. Sex is not neutral. British men have been momma's boys for a long time. Personally I think Romney belongs to the Church of Latter Day Unitarianism, same as the Bush family, and is just as hypocritical as they. I'm sure this proves that he is their chosen successor.

Posted by: RE Mant | December 7, 2007 9:57 PM

Mr Moyers, In listening to your discussion with Kathleen Jamieson you mentioned to her that you didn't hear any of these degrading comments when Geraldine Ferraro was running for office. You've forgotton that when Barbara Bush was asked what she thought of Ferraro, she said that she didn't want to say but that that it rhymed with "witch". Classy lady.

Posted by: James McDonnell | December 7, 2007 9:36 PM

Mr Moyers, In listening to your discussion with Kathleen Jamieson you mentioned to her that you didn't hear any of these degrading comments when Geraldine Ferraro was running for office. You've forgotton that when Barbara Bush was asked what she thought of Ferraro, she said that she didn't want to say but that that it rhymed with "witch". Classy lady.

Posted by: James McDonnell | December 7, 2007 9:36 PM

New Media, Political Discourse, and the 2008 Elections

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Our Posts

Your Comments

Moyers Beats

Subscribe

Podcasts

Frappr!

Archives