Bizarre, Media, Politics, Society

Clinton Aide: Hillary Lost Because Women Suffer From “Internalized Misogyny”

220px-annie_kenney_and_christabel_pankhurst-1We recently discussed how, within minutes of the loss on election night, Clinton aides began to spin the loss and entirely the fault of FBI Director James Comey — a spin picked up by Clinton herself the next day. Many of us have questioned that spin in light of Clinton’s long-standing low polls on truthfulness and her ranking as (with Trump) the most unpopular nominee of a major party for the presidency. Now, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh has come up with a new culprit. Of course, it is not the Democratic establishment that engineered the nomination despite ample warning signs in the polls. It was not the campaign that preferred spin to honesty at every turn. And it was not the candidate herself. No, it was the self-loathing and inherent sexism of women.


In an appearance on MSNBC (which seems at times to be moving through the stages of grieving of Kübler-Ross), McInstosh insisted that the problem was with sexist, self-hating women: “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.” She added “We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power. As we go through these numbers, as we figure out exactly what happened with turnout, it seems to be white college-educated women . . . We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest.”

Of course, there could be a more obvious answer: people really did not like Hillary as a leader regardless of her gender. It may be that the large numbers of women refused to vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. None of that stopped the DNC from engineering her victory over Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th.

Jess McIntosh is the Communications Director for Emily’s list and previously served as spokesperson for Senator Al Franken.

McIntosh’s statement reflects what turned off a lot of women that I spoke with. The Clinton campaign hammered away at different groups “voting their interests” and specifically drum beat the notion that women had to support Clinton as the first possible female president. It was all about “self-interest.” That pitch itself can be viewed as sexist. Many women did not trust Clinton and saw nothing in her that spoke to their lives or the difficulties of their families. Notably, Clinton was losing among various female groups to Sanders in the primary. Again, Clinton staffers spoke of educating women to see their self-interest, but tended to avoid the anomaly of running female-centric themes without the support of most women. For many women and men, picking a president is not about “self-interest” but the best for their country and their families.

According to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.

The dismissal of white women by the Clinton camp as self-loathing, sexist robots is another effort at avoidance. The Democratic leadership and consultants proved out-of-touch with the public despite polls that gave ample indication that Clinton was the worst possible candidate to put forward in this anti-establishment period. Nevertheless, the Democrats appear to be rallying around again many of the same leaders and the Clinton family (including reportedly grooming Chelsea as the new “brand” name candidate). The position of aides like McIntosh is that the fault is that white women simply did not listen or learn. It was not the message or the candidate or her campaign. It is a remarkably insulting spin but it seems to be preferred to the more difficult questions raised by the campaign.

287 thoughts on “Clinton Aide: Hillary Lost Because Women Suffer From “Internalized Misogyny””

  1. “In an appearance on MSNBC (which seems at times to be moving through the stages of grieving of Kübler-Ross) …”
    *************************
    Didn’t know “obnoxious derogation” was a stage of grief. Learn something new all the time.

  3. This just in: Corey Lewandoski, Trump’s former campaign manager, has credited FBI Director James Comey with helping Trump to win the election.

            1. tnash,

              I have had a lot of trouble posting on this site. Yesterday I posted something critical of Trump and it would not go through no matter what. Prior to this I could not get certain criticism of/information about Obama posted and prior to that, certain kinds of criticism of/information about Bush.

              I have had the experience of trying to type something and having it stop at word after word. I agree with you that everything seems to be Putin’s fault, but in this case, I suspect Putin is getting help from the NSA!

              1. Jill – your problem is with WordPress. It has a few problems. It has happened to everyone. I just give up and go on to the next comment. There are always enough to respond to. 🙂

                1. No Paul,

                  It’s not wordpress. JT has checked into it for me many times and he can’t see any reason for what has happened.

                  “Intelligence” agencies and contractors monitor sites. They can stop information from getting through. It is my opinion that this has happened to me and others on this site.

                  As you are not a liberal, you probably don’t know about this, but several “liberal” websites did massive censorship of comments during both of Obama’s elections. They blocked or disappeared comments that did not violate any community standards but were critical of Obama from a leftist perspective.

                  There appears to be direct govt. interference in the ability to post certain ideas that the govt. does not want disseminated and there appears to be several “liberal” websites which collude with the govt. to also disappear ideas down a rabbit hole. I speak from extensive experience both personal and as a group of people whom I know whose speech was repressed by these sites.

                  It amazes me how much and how many ways free speech is suppressed. John Pilger who has an amazing career as a journalist has been censored on the so called liberal site: “Truthout”. Others have as well. They were mentioned as colluders with the Clinton campaign. This govt. cannot survive free speech and it is why we must go to the mat on behalf of free speech.

                  With Trump putting a google fascist in place in this administration, I hope Republicans will start screaming. If they do not do so, they will be complicit in the destruction of free speech, just as Democrats were complicit in dismantling the rule of law and destruction of free speech under Obama.

                  1. Adjust your tinfoil hat. It’s too tight. The men in black have better things to do with their time than to spend it feverishly deleting your inane and irrelevant comments. Get a grip. You’re not that important. Shocker. I know that the voices in your head tell you that you are Cleopatra, but, sorry to break it to you–you’re not. You’re also not significant enough for the authorities to monitor and delete your delusional comments.

                    Now, get off the computer. Give others in the day room a chance. You’re allotted time is up–medication time.

      1. swm,

        I actually tried two different links–neither of which posted.

        Dissent? That’s a dirty word here.

      2. swm,

        I just tried a third link that didn’t post. Maybe Julian Assange is listening in. 😉

              1. swm,

                Finally! Of course, the Trumpies here don’t really care to hear any such reports.

        2. I think Wikileaks would fair better than we would here unless they decided to post something negative about Pence’s private emails.

  6. The term “internalized misogyny” reminds me of the term “institutional racism” (in the work place).

    If/when one can not prove nor define an actual offensive action to support one’s political position, just make one up out of thin air, correlated to a memorable and simultaneously fabricated phrase to define the non-existent phenomena. Distribute said phrase as a talking point to MSM parrots/mouthpieces, and you’re off to the races, repeating a lie so many times that the sheep perceive it as truth.

    Trump has a fixed quantity of political capital. I sympathize w/Trump’s potential desire to pursue agendas other than criminal charges against HRC (something he promised to do…one of the most popular chants at his rallies was, “Lock her up!”) OTOH, anything to put a stake into to the political heart of this vampire would be a breath of fresh air, to only see and hear this Satan worshiping piece of dung in prison wearing an orange jump suit…Her and George Soros, Bill, Chelsea, Podesta, etc, etc…

  8. Oh, for God’s sake. If women are inherently sexist, then there’s no hope for men at all.

    Now they’re just getting hysterical.

    1. Not all Democrats believe that black’s can’t be racist. Those Democrats who do believe this do so on the basis of one particular social science conception of racism. Not all Democrats accept this conception. I know this because I am a progressive/liberal who does not believe that it is impossible for a black person to be racist. I also know many other progressive/liberals who tend to vote democrat who reject the belief that a black person cannot be a racist. Of course this is anecdotal. I am not familiar with any research that indicates how widespread is the belief among people of different political persuasion or party affiliation that a black person cannot be racist. But I also suspect that you too are unfamiliar with any such research. If I am wrong then please provide references to such research. My point is that absent actual research data none of us should be making sweeping claims or implications about what this group or that group believes. Absent facts and evidence, none of us should present a claim as though it is based on facts or even imply that it is anything more than one’s non-evidenced based opinion.

      1. “Not all Democrats believe that black’s can’t be racist.”
        *********************
        The ones who own a Merriam-Webster’s seem to understand that. The rest are … shall we say … linguistically challenged.

  10. I see that Turley cannot resist kicking a woman when she is down. He also chooses to ignore the FACT, that Clinton will get well over ONE MILLION more votes than Trump. It seems that that would be a more important FACT, and what it means for our system of government. Will Turley support the GOP efforts to split up electoral votes by Congressional districts? Despite his protestations to the contrary, he has been silent on this issue now. The GOP effort will make it impossible for any Democrat to win the Presidency unless they win around 60% of the popular vote, and the GOP to only need around 47% or less. Given the gerrymandering of districts, the numbers may even be worse. Then we have Trump saying that his choices for SCOTUS will have to say how they will rule on abortion. Again, not a word from Trump supporters about this blatant rigging of the court. Such a justice will also have to support the repeal of the idea of the right of privacy in our Constitution, since Roe Vs Wade is based on this fundamental right. Such a justice will also by inference deny the idea of one man one vote in apportioning Congressional seats, allowing even greater disparities in votes favoring one party.

    I am only surprised that folks here haven’t blasted Clinton for her appearance at the charity fundraiser for the Children Defense fund. Of course, that is a REAL charity, and a legal one too. Unlike Trump’s. But I am sure that they will say that she is stealing from that too. The problem with calling Clinton dishonest is that there are NO facts or indictments behind it. She is a lawyer after all, and it would seem that Turley of all people knows how one can spin facts in favor of ones clients or oneself. That is their JOB after all. Then he ranted about Clinton saying that when they left the White House they were broke. Legally and factually they could have done a Trump and declared bankruptcy since their liabilities exceeded their assets and income. The FACT that they did NOT do a Trump is used against them. So instead of saying that they used common sense and decency, he blasted her for simply saying the facts. THAT is grossly unfair and shows an attitude that anything she does is bad. At least they were not as bad as Trump and declaring bankruptcy to screw over those to whom they owed money. Trump instead simply stiffed the small contractors and people who had done work for him. The worst is how he stiffed the woman caterer who did his last wedding. So it is time to put up or shut up. Time for Trump to put Clinton on trial and for Turley to be the special prosecutor to back up his prejudices. That should be a good way to unite the American people, or at least his supporters, even though they are a minority.

    1. Hillary showed up at a Children Defense Fund event??? Oh what a crock of hooey! That monster is all for puncturing their little children brains about an hour before they get born. Just some more schmaltz to impress the easily-impressed Democrats!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. “…all for puncturing their little children brains about an hour before they get born.”

        Evidence of this claim please. She does support a woman’s right to terminate their abortion well beyond the second trimester, but she has never said — to my knowledge — anything about terminating the pregnancy an hour before the fetus is born. If your going to claim she has then please provide the evidence for this claim. Let’s be completely honest about the facts Squeeky. Only about 1.2 percent of abortions are performed after the 20th week according to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/clinton-off-on-late-term-abortions/). While there is little research on why women choose to end their pregnancy during this part of the gestation period, I believe it is probable that a significant number of them are for medical or health reasons. That said, there is insufficient data to draw a rock-solid conclusion as to why. Finally, until the fetus exits the womb it is not a child, it is a fetus, so says my dictionary.

    2. “Will Turley support the GOP efforts to split up electoral votes by Congressional districts? Despite his protestations to the contrary, he has been silent on this issue now.”

      Actually Randyjet, JT has been critical of the electoral college and argued several times for direct election of the president.

      1. dogfight, I know that Turley has been critical of the electoral college, but my point is that he has not put forward this view recently in his blog. He has also only highlighted the sins of Clinton, and a few of her supporters while remaining silent on the much larger problem of racial attacks throughout the US. This is bias pure and simple. Even a tangential mention of his dislike of the method resulted in some outrage from the majority of his bloggers. He is smart enough to know that a full column against the college would result in a huge outcry from most here. Even more troubling is his ignoring the large amount of illegal dealings, bribes, conflict of interest on the part of Trump, not to mention the appointment of an outright white supremacist to a high post. Then there is the silence on Trump’s view of SCOTUS appointments and having a prejudicial slant to having them declare prior to any court case how they will vote. Too bad that he feels that this is not worthy of mention. THAT alone is worse than anything Clinton is ALLEGED to have done.

        1. ” He is smart enough to know that a full column against the college would result in a huge outcry from most here.”

          So? He is not writing for posters’ approval. If there was a huge outcry, so be it. It would an interesting discussion. Counter-arguments are allowed and encouraged so long as you’re civil.

          Are we never to even consider possibly changing our minds on a topic? How can that happen without discussion of opposing viewpoints?

    3. Trump Popular Vote Final Tally Depends On 4 Million Uncounted Votes In Utah, California
      http://www.ibtimes.com/latest-2016-election-results-clinton-trump-popular-vote-final-tally-depends-4-million-2447595

      With 130 million votes counted, Hillary Clinton has received more than 1 million votes than President-elect Donald Trump and her popular vote victory is only expected to grow. Clinton had 62,829,832 votes compared to Trump’s 61,488,190 votes, according to an analysis from the independent Cook Political Report Thursday.

      With more than 4 million votes still left to be counted, Clinton’s margin of victory could soon be much higher. Based on votes from California alone, Clinton’s lead could reach more than 2 million votes. Votes are also still being counted in Michigan, Utah and Washington, according to Tracy Lewis, elections operations manager for the Associated Press.

  11. With 2 college educated career working executive ladies in the family…wife and daughter…I can say that they are not adverse to Hillary because of some gender issue. It’s because HRC both demanded their vote and loathed her reputation of dishonesty. HRC is the regent of the wiggles. Any parent will recognize what I mean. How to turn the question and try to wiggle out of giving a complete or honest answer.

    Her wiggle is wondrous. Just whether or not she saw classifications on documents was masterfully handled. Could not be charged with perjury, never saw or doesn’t remember.

    The Millennials have just been handed an exemplary lesson in the wiggle.

  12. Clinton lost because she was Hillary Clinton not because of her gender. She is arrogant and she’s a corporatist. Her views are contrary to the views of many in the Demoratic Party. In fact, she’s more of a centrist Republican than she is a Democrat. That’s why she lost.

    Her gender was irrelevant and it should have been,

  13. StepstepsreponToads, don’t lower yourself to Issacs level. You’re much above that. My liar won.

  15. I’m a bit older then most of the regular group so I think of terms gone by. My parents for that matter my whole family were Dems. They came to America via the old fashion way “according to the rules” Ellis Island. They had it tuff took no welfare no state aid and took crapy jobs. The family always stayed together helped each other and above all obeyed the rules of the nation they loved. Family members stormed the beaches of Normandy, suffered the winter in Bastogne, two of their sons served in Korea and Vietnam. One thing we all knew was communism was bad and we wanted no part of it.

    I worked for the dem party on a couple of state elections and that’s when my eyes were opened to the fact they were nothing more then con artists. I have been a conservative independent ever since.

    In my opinion the democrats have been taken over by Socialists, Marxist and closet communists. I think they are the most dangerous political organization to American democracy than any outside nation state. They go to every monority group in America even the criminal element and stoke the fire of unrest. They vilify their opponents to a point of violence and break laws with impunity. If street violence erupts between classes in this nation you can bet it will be a result of the Democratic Party. I hope this new president does 50% of what he has proposed because it just might be the last opportunity to stop the nations spiral into the abyss.

  17. PESSIMISM IS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT TRYING AND A GUARANTEE TO A PERSONAL FAILURE.

    BILL CLINTON

  18. Maybe Hillary lost because she is dishonest, arrogant, sexist, shrill as a fish wife, obsessed with power and money, and has never demonstrated any particular ability as a leader in any position.

  19. ALERT–This just in!!!–Jill Stein is not a woman! Cynthia McKinney isn’t black or female!

    A misogynist is a person who believes all women are exactly alike. This is what a racist believes as well. There is no room in either person’s mind for looking at people as unique individuals who belong to one or another group. I would say Clinton is a misogynist, as is anyone making the argument above as to why she lost the election.

    Personally, I feel the deep state picked their candidate of choice. She was no longer seen as useful to them. Pence is better for the job they want done.

    However, many women feel we are not all the same. Some of us do not like murderers, torturers, lying, corrupt people who get their money from states which are anti woman and anti LBGT. Some of us do not like people who try to initiate violence at rallies of candidates or to sow hatred among other people. And some of us want climate change and social justice. As Clinton did not offer these choices to me (nor did/does Obama) I do not support either person.

    1. “A misogynist is a person who believes all women are exactly alike. This is what a racist believes as well.”

      Please tell me from what dictionary you got your definition of misogynist and rapist. I’ve consulted several and not one of them defines these terms the way do do. A misogynist is a person who has a hatred or intense dislike of women. A racist is a person who has “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” (Webster online dictionary).

      1. dwd,

        I don’t disagree with your definition. I’m just adding something important to it–the fact that people who are racist or misogynist do not see people as individuals. They see them as a member of a group.

        Clinton doesn’t apparently think Jill Stein is a woman. She expected every woman to vote for her as a member of the group “woman”. Instead, many women looked at her as a specific person who did not offer the qualities we wanted in a president (as I listed for myself above–Clinton has engaged in murder, torture, financial fraud, climate denial, and takes graft from nations which treat women and members of the LBGT community in a barbaric, hateful manner–hence she is herself a misogynist!

        1. Jill – Hillary expected that everyone who had a vagina and was a registered voter would vote for her. How could they not. Plus, she had the black, Latino and Muslim vote. She was ahead by 50 points.

        2. “I’m just adding something important to it–the fact that people who are racist or misogynist do not see people as individuals. They see them as a member of a group.”

          Okay. Now offer some evidence that this is actually true. How is it that you know that this is what racists or misogynists do? There is no legitimate or rational basis for you adding to or modifying the definition the way you have without actually having an evidence-based justification for it and actually providing the evidence. Without evidence I have no reason to accept that you’ve done anything more than invent an explanation that you think to be true because you invented it. All people have intellectual blinders. All people like to think that thoughts they have must be true because they think themselves rational and intelligent enough that they can’t possibly have made an error in our thinking. I’m asking you to demonstrate to me that this is not what you have done here.

  20. I think there is some truth to what she said, especially if you look at the Obama vs. Hillary campaign. White women chose an utterly unqualified black man over a qualified white woman because it was more important to them to try to show they weren’t racist than to elect the first female president. I’m reminded of that every time I see one of these upper middle class suburban white women still proudly sporting an Obama sticker on her Volvo. And most women will tell you, that having a female manager is at bad as it gets. Male managers will mentor younger men. Woman managers sabotage up and coming younger women. That being said, I do know women who wanted to vote for Hillary but just couldn’t do it. My 86 year old mother said that the election of HRC was the last chance for her to ever see a female president in her lifetime. But she had very serious reservations about Hillary’s open borders stance, and her plans to admit another 50,000 Syrians, any ONE of whom could shoot up a mall. And then the 2d FBI investigation was the last straw. She ended up voting for Trump, but it was a hard choice.

    1. “…her plans to admit another 50,000 Syrians, any ONE of whom could shoot up a mall.”

      Was your grandmother not aware that it is much more likely that a mall would be shot up by an American-born radicalized person than a refugee from Syria?

      1. Yes, everyone is aware that American born crazies or Islamic radicals commit acts of violence. But the answer is not to admit more Islamic refugees who cannot be vetted, thereby increasing the odds of death and destruction. It took only 19 Saudis to hijack the three planes on 9/11, leading to more than 3,000 deaths. That Islamic immigrant woman and her husband killed all those people in San Bernardino. And you want to admit more? Why? Do they have some inherent right to come to the U.S. and put us in danger? Are there interests more important to you than those of your own family and nation? It’s a shame that they live in failed countries, but nearly all of Africa is an ungodly mess. That doesn’t entitle tens of millions of economic migrants to come to the U.S. and live off welfare and subsidized housing for generations, like the Somalis in Minn, or harm their benefactors in the name of their “peaceful” religion. Let them go to Germany or France or Sweden, if those fools will still take them.

        1. “But the answer is not to admit more Islamic refugees who cannot be vetted, thereby increasing the odds of death and destruction.”

          I agree with this statement. The fact that you seem to be willfully ignoring is that refugees seeking to enter this country are vetted, quite extensively. But of course there is no perfect system for anything. So is it possible that a terrorist could slip through? Yes. But the solution is not to end all immigration of refugees. The solution is to improve the vetting system as much as possible to make this possibility less likely and also be domestically vigilant in preventing terrorist attacks. You are more than willing to consign the vast majority of these refugees — who mean us no harm — to continued residence in the hell where they are now. We are little better as a nation than the morally bankrupt nations we all like to point our fingers at — ex. North Korea — if we chose not to extend a humanitarian hand to people whose lives have been turned into brutish hells by no fault of their own. So be vigilant in vetting the refugees, but do not completely turn our backs on these people.

          1. Dog/Dogma
            – You have a high level of confidence in the vetting ability of agencies screening immigrants from high-risk country.
            That is counter to the opinion of some high-level officials in the intelligence community
            Those responsible for vetting immigrants, and monitoring suspected jihadists, have made tragic mistakes.
            I don’t share your confidence in the vetting system, or the intel. communities’
            monitoring abilities.
            Too many mistakes and outright blunders to warrant your level of confidence.

        2. “And you want to admit more?”

          You seriously believe I want to admit terrorists into this country? You have intentionally chosen to mischaracterize a person whom you do not actually know. I most certainly have no wish to admit terrorists. I also most certainly am not willing to turn my back on a group of individuals whose lives have been turned into a horrific hell. Americans are not the only humans on this planet. They are not the only ones worthy of my care and concern. The vetting system we currently have is better than the one we had before 9/11. It is less likely today, I believe, that a terrorist would get in than pre-9/11. I think we are domestically more vigilant than before. Yes, the risk is not zero, but then it is impossible to reduce the risk to zero.

          I do not accept your premise that my family or my nation are at any significant risk. Many of the toughest choices in life are a matter of weighing and balancing conflicting interests. The calculus I use — which is based on my commitment to the principles of secular humanism, the foundational basis of my worldview — directs me to consider the relatively small risk you speak of as secondary and subordinate to the humanitarian needs of the refugees seeking escape from their war-ravaged circumstances.

          1. dogfightwithdogma – 900,000 illegals came in across our southern borders so far this year. Add to that the Los Zetas and the MS-13s crossing the border and the southern border is a real mess. Live is the Southwest, where we have parts of a National Park shut down because of illegals running thru it (they are armed and danger)

    2. TIN, I voted for Obama over HRC – IMO she was not more qualified – what had she achieved? I saw them both speak and Obama was the better actor – he was a great orator and promised “hope and change” so I drank Kool Aid. But then as now HRC had nothing to offer me. I agree with you about women managers though – I have held numerous jobs in a wide variety of fields and with one exception the women managers were the worse bosses. I’ve had some terrible males as well but overall men are straight up – no passive aggressiveness.

      1. Well, Obama was a lawyer who had never practiced law, and a state senator with a sparse record who rarely showed up. His only job was “community organizer.” HRC had practiced law at the Rose law firm, had practiced as a public defender, and had worked as a lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund. She also worked on the Watergate Committee as a young Law School grad. So all in all, she had some real world experience which taught her that you have to work with others, negotiate, establish priorities and meet deadlines, which is useful experience. A community organizer is just someone who runs his mouth and sounds good, but doesn’t really produce anything.

        1. Autumn,
          I’ve heard that the best boss for a woman is a lesbian, because she thinks like a man and is therefore more direct and a straight shooter, but isn’t biased against women like some men are.

          The absolute worst boss for a woman is a gay man, because he is the worst of all worlds: catty, petty and manipulative like a woman. But also has the bias and sense of entitlement of a man.

          My career advice for a female: work for, from best to worst: dyke, straight man, straight woman, fairy. I know this doesn’t sound PC buts it’s the way it is.

Comments are closed.