Comments on Sexism Watch

This is a bad dumb blonde joke. Insulting. I can’t believe how condescending it is – both to Darcy and to the voters. Before the ad aired the Reichert campaign sent a press release announcing the new add and explaining how it’s all "good fun". Brilliant! If we call negative campaigning "good fun", maybe no one will mind!

And what were Reichert's vast qualifications? The guy was a goddamn sheriff. Big fuckin' deal.

Sexist? To point out the glaring fact that Burner doesn't have relevant experience? That's priceless. If Burner calls a press conference to allege sexism, please let me know where and when it is.

Shark, I won't call you an asshole at your Web site, that would be rude, but I'm going to call you one here, apologies to Eli.

When you're done being an ass, please provide me with a recap of the vast amount of experience Reichert had in foreign and domestic policy before he was elected to Congress.

He had none, and continued to demonstrate he hasn't gained any in the past two years.

It will be a relief to be rid of Sheriff Hairspray Rubberstamp this time next week.

Daniel K., you usually do a better job of arguing on the issues. I'll forgive your uncharacteristic lapse into name-calling as it must be frustrating for you to not have any arguments at your disposal.

Reichert had been the elected Sheriff of a large county for 7 years when he was elected to the U.S. House. As such, he had experience in public sector management, constituent relations, substantive interactions with stakeholder groups, and coordination with other domestic security agencies. Burner has none of that, and nothing comparable. Few first-time Congressmen have experience in multiple areas of national policy (e.g. Maria Cantwell probably didn't have much foreign policy experience when she first served in the House either, but she had credible legislative and policy experience as a state legislator). Reichert came in as an expert on Homeland Security. And he's grown on that and other areas.

Shark,

Firstly to respond to your inane comment, "Sexist? To point out the glaring fact that Burner doesn't have relevant experience? That's priceless."

No, sexist to portray a woman candidate as a dippy blonde. But you are so blinded by your opposition that you cannot see the damage that does Reichert. The portrayal is made all the more pathetic by the fact that any reasonable observer would be able to discern, as the Seattle PI editorial board did that Burner has a far greater grasp of the issues than Reichert does.

Meanwhile, Reichert was no expert on Homeland Security. Shoot, he couldn't even deal with the WTO protestors in Seattle. Reichert's sheriff experience is not equivalent to understanding domestic policy. And he has zero chops with regards to foreign policy - still. He can't even remember the name of the madman in Pyongyang.

Reichert know one thing: how to be a sheriff, and it is highly disputable he was ever any good at that.

I don't find that ad sexist, but I do think it's highly obnoxious and insulting to the electorate's intelligence.

Daniel K

To blame the woes of WTO on Reichert is particularly deceptive, considering he had no control over the Seattle Police contingent, or any of the other mutual aid response units.

No, WTO was pretty exclusively a screwup by Schell and Stamper, the original idiot duo.

Burner cites her "almost 5 years of experience" at MicroSoft. Whoopee! I would imagine that even as a Sergeant at the Sheriff's Department, Dave managed more personnel. As Sheriff, he controlled thousands of employees and a multimillion dollar budget.

This seems like a pretty fair ad to me. If Burner wants to say she has ideas - great. But to imply that her management experience, or her world experience are comaprable to Reichert's is delusional.

What's more insulting to the electorate's intelligence, "Cite", the ad, or the fact that the Democrats are so heavily invested in Burner's candidacy?

And no, I'm not so partisan that I celebrate the fact that the Democrats ran such a poor candidate. Strong candidates raise the bar for their opponents, and the voters are better for it. I expect Reichert to win, but no matter what the outcome is, I suspect most of you will start wishing soon enough that the Democrats had run a stronger candidate this year.

sexist or not - the ads work - very well

sorry, election campaigns are NOT ivory towers of erudite social theory

you could say some of burners stuff is ageist as well - old guy - no longer capable - all old guys are feebs on the edge of the blah blah blah

i thought burner might pull it off but polling seems to say undecideds are breaking for reichert

might be very close

Shark,

You're still unable to offer anything on Reichert's pathetic grasp of foreign policy. And while in years past American's may not have cared a hoot about foreign policy, this isn't like past years. The Iraq war and our ability to navigate the intricacies of world affairs is front and center.

Darcy Burner is such a "weak candidate" that she's blown Reichert away in fundraising every period, and she's forced him to have to debate her three times, when only a few months ago he was dismissing the need to do so, and she's earned the support of a party leadership that didn't hand pick her. As a woman and mother, she naturally understands half of the population in a way Reichert cannot until he has a cry with his staffers. As a businesswoman in a cutthroat company she learned how to perform, where you don't have 19 years to get results.

Meanwhile Reichert has waffled on his positions, and only once taken a principled stance (and only because he could personally relate to a family issue). The rest of the time, when his vote mattered he always voted to support a Republican agenda that has us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, indebted to our economic competitors, dependent on foreign oil, living with blurred lines between church and state, and that has dismissed the Constitution and values of this nation like so much discarded refuse.

Since you asked, SS, the ad is more insulting. Way more.

And I am wondering why such a "poor candidate" -- and one with zero name recognition -- managed to poll evenly with the incumbent! I guess you must think that Reichert is an awful congressman, SS, as that would be the only logical explanation for that kind of showing from such a "poor" challenger.

Reichert: HOW long did it take to catch the GR Killer? Even AFTER they knew who he was? Reichert: Did you read the PI articles "Conduct Unbecoming"? Who do you think was in charge while all of that shit was going on? The sexist ads will backfire big time with women - and that's gonna hurt.

Reichert rode into the Sheriff's office on the Green River which, it turns out, he botched.

He was such an incompetent manager he ended up costing the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in a stupid legal settlement.

He rode into the House of Reps as a "homeland security" expert, which he may be, but nobody knows - he's had his tongue too far up Bush's bum for him to speak legibly.

He's a clown. And only a clown would vote for a clown

Stefan, this ad will cost Reichert more votes than it earns him. It is insulting to women, and will be understood as such. Perhaps that message plays well with some of the Republican base, but not with working women who have suffered this type of condescension throughout their careers.

But on an aside, you know what I have trouble understanding about you? You consider yourself a pretty bright guy. Doesn't it bother you to constantly find yourself supporting candidates who are vastly intellectually and educationally inferior to you? Aren't you at least a bit insulted by the anti-intellectualism that permeates the Republican party? Wouldn't you like for a change to have people who are smarter than you running this country? People who read books? (Without pictures.) People who are intellectually curious?

I just find it flabbergasting that the neo-conservative movement has invested so much intellectual energy and vigor into building a political infrastructure that consistently elects such mediocre intellects.

Sure, I'm a bit of an East coast, intellectual elitist snob... but doesn't it gnaw at you just a little?

Burner has not "blown away Reichert in every fundraising period". As of the last report he's outraised her by more than $250,000. And most of her identifiable support is from outside the district. She's polling as you'd expect a generic Democrat to poll given the district's demographics and the national climate. A more credible candidate would be in a stronger position. And a more qualified candidate would be in a better position to accomplish something in office, should she win.

Goldy,

Neither you nor I are particularly well-qualified to express how women react to this. So I consulted with someone who is qualified -- my (female) wife, who has been in the professional workforce for 20 years. She's also an independent voter, not the partisan Republican that I am.

I showed her the ad and then showed her this comment thread. Her reaction:

"The ad could have been executed more effectively, but sexist? That's just stupid. Why would it be insulting to women? I just don't understand. Condescension? That's dumb. Actually, woman would be more mad to read that people like Goldstein think we should be offended. He's assuming that we would relate to that character, when in fact we feel perfectly confident in our own qualifications and abilities. It was about Darcy Burner. It wasn't about women in general"

I'm a woman, college-educated, professional workforce for 25 years and I'M OFFENDED. What's wrong with you Republican types? Do they implant a Stepford Wives chip of sort? Does your wife think dumb blonde jokes are okay too? The woman in the ad, clearly supposed to be Burner, is a BIMBO without a clue. That's the way Reichert chooses to view his highly capable and intelligent WOMAN opponent? We may not agree that Burner is more qualified to be in Congress, but I don't think any of us thinks she is a stupid bimbo. Reichert does not respect women.

Reichert's fundraising lead is probably gone by now, and only existed because of money he brought in following his election.

This year Burner has beaten Reichert hands down, and has a 2 to 1 edge since July, outraising a man only the RNCC is willing to support by
$1,282,906 to $683,953.

That's a pretty clear indication of the persuasive abilities of the candidate, and the scope and immediacy of her support.

And by the way - sexism is never JUST about a person. It's an attitude. What he does to Darcy, he does to women. Would it be okay for him to call ONE black man a nigger? Other black people should just be "confident" and all that?

By noticing the blatant sexism of that commercial you've played right into Karl Rove's hands. It's just what the right wing crazies want you to do. Now you've slogged it and given them the ammunition to say you're concerned with sexism, so the voters of Eastern Washington will think all the liberals are sitting around thinking about sexism instead of high gas prices. How could you abandon the party like this?

I'm curious... how is it that portaying Burner as a bit of a ditz is somehow portraying ALL woman in the workforce as being a ditz? Especially considering the person in the ad doing the hiring (and possibly the boss) is also a woman (and was not a ditz)?

By the way, dumb blonde, while she was a bit of a ditz, I didn't come away with the impression that the Burner stand in was some "dumb blonde" or a "stupid bimbo"... just grossly under qualified for the position she was applying for. Saying that this woman was a "dumb blonde" or a "bimbo" is a bit of a stretch.

It's a complete mischaracterization of Darcy Burner - she's not clueless or underqualified to hold public office.

No more so than anyone else involved in Washington politics, anyway.

The ad is sexist, it's insulting to young professional women with ambition, and Dave Reichert can cram it up his cramhole.

Note to all you humanities types:

Finding subliminal sexism in this ad, or subliminal racism in the Harold Ford ad, may get you points with your lit. crit. prof, but to the vast majority of voters out there, such reactions just prove that you are out of touch, can't take a joke, and get off playing hyper-vigilent PC cop. You are just reinforcing the image of Democrats as uptight liberal academics.

Oh for fuck sake. The ad depicts Burner as a naïve moron. It's an attack ad: of course it depicts her in a negative light. She happens to be a blond woman-- that doesn't mean she gets a special pass from being called an idiot.

To put it another way, just because there's a stereotype that Asians are bad drivers doesn't mean I don't get to accuse a particular Asian of being a bad drive on his or her own merits.

Pulling out the -ism card on evidence this circumstantial (and in spite of the presence of a bottle blond woman as the interviewer) just makes you sound desperate and ridiculous.

I'll be voting for Burner in spite of her supporters.

Hear, hear, Joshua.

The real reason the commercial was done was because Reichert's handlers thought that maybe it was time for him to get some experience in applying for a job. Since he mooched off King County for decades, and then the House for a time, he doesn't have much experience.

Soupytwist, so the ad may or may not be a mischaracterization of Burner (I say may not because having watched her debates and actually having to deal with her once I thought the ad wasn't all that far from the truth)... that doesn't answer the question of how it's sexist. How is depicting her specifically as a ditz... something I kinda got the impression of already from the real Burner... sexist? Especially if the person in charge in the commercial is not portrayed in a bad light and is also a woman?

I think this commercial just shows the facts. To say it is sexist is just typical leftist victimhoodism... What if Dave was running against a black male? Then it would be racist, right? What if he was running against a white male? Nothing? hmmm.... Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

Reichert's a douchebag for satirizing Burner, but Burner still has no experience so there's a point there, and she's still trailing in the polls, film at 11.

A whole lot of men proclaiming the ad is not sexist. Go figure.

When you look at the ad, it looks like Dave Reichert got the job for hall monitor....

Gomez - Sit Reichert down with the same questions two years ago and beyond his background as sheriff he can't answer that he has any domestic and foreign policy experience either.

Now have another male candidate fidgiting with his hands and tapping them together as in the video, and tell me how that would look - stupid is how it would look.

They wouldn't do it if it were a man.

David Wright, this election is no joke, and this isn't about playing a "card", but if Reichert is going to run an ad like this he and his supporters better expect to take heat for it.

Obviously you guys can't handle that given your perceived need to justify it.

Daniel: Sorry, I forgot we are uptight Seattleites. This election is no joke, so we can't have any humorous ads. Especially any with un-PC humor. We need to be very serious. Serious stuff. No smiling. Trying not to smile...

Judging from the reaction of Mrs. Richalds and her sisters, none of whom could properly be called overly feminist, when the ad came on at my house last night ... that ad is going to backfire BIG TIME, as the veep would say. The ladies were not pleased.

David (and Mike H) - the Burner/Ford ads are racist/sexist because they play on people's stereotypes of blacks/women. In this case, the stereotype is a dumb blonde. It's more than just "she doesn't have experience". This makes her out to be a stupid, ditzy blonde - a stereotype that women have worked hard to overcome. WEll, apparently not Mrs. Shark. The ad is sexist.

Yeah, yeah, it's sexist. But let's get to the real issue: the HORRIBLE acting. Watching performances like that gives me hives.

I'm on the fence about calling this sexist. It is, however, definitively condescending, but the two are not synonymous. Yes, condescension can be a big part of a sexist attitude, but not the sum total. What I think people find insulting about this ad is it removes Burner's voice from the equation--regardless of how much relevant experience she may or may not have (I'll leave it to the politcal types to duke that one out), she clearly would not respond to this canned situation in the manner which the commercial depicts. It does portray her as an airhead (those who've said "bimbo" are indeed taking it to far, she's wearing a navy suit for chrissakes) and that is where the fuzzy line about whether it is sexist or not lies. In that regard, I think the Reichert campaign knew *exactly* what they were doing, because then the claim could be levied that they were accusing just Burner of not having experience, and not trying to imply that *all* women are less qualified. And I've seen that argument in here defending the ad already, from both sides. Personally, I think they did it hoping liberal/Democratic supporters (of which I am one) would run around screaming how it is so sexist, and miss debating the more relevant aspects of the campaign.

Daniel K.,
...And a whole lot of men proclaiming the ad is sexist. Go figure.

OK, everyone who knows me also knows that I'm a feminist. I'm a Democrat, my sister-in-law is a Democrat. We can't stand Bush, he annoys me so much I often turn the channel when he's on TV. Last night we watched that commercial and admitted "OK, that was actually pretty funny" and laughed. *shrug* I didn't take it personally and I didn't see it as a condemnation of all women. Would it get annoying to watch repeatedly? Yes, like every other political ad on tv.

They wouldn't do it if it were a man

Dammit Daniel K, you beat me to it.

Ultimately, what makes this ad sexist is that there's no way it would have been made if Reichert's opponent was a white male. End of story.

I don't know. I could see this ad being made if he were running against a man, esp a young man (would that make the commercial ageist?) But then again, maybe I am more open-minded about being insulting towards people.

Yes, I think that this commercial made Burner to look like she was ditzy and dumb, and was completely insulting towards her, but I don't see it as being sexist, and I consider myself a well-educated feminist.

This makes her out to be a stupid, ditzy blonde - a stereotype that women have worked hard to overcome.

But why is it sexist? How does making her out to be a ditz make all women out to be ditzs, especially when A) the other woman in the ad who is interviewing her (who would probably be her potential boss) isn't a ditz, and B) a lot of people already have the impression that Burner specifically is a ditz? Like I said, I've actually had to deal with her before... though only briefly. But my brief dealing with her, plus seeing her in debates, left me with an impression that was a toned down version of what was portrayed in the ad. Joshua@26 above made an excellent point: To put it another way, just because there's a stereotype that Asians are bad drivers doesn't mean I don't get to accuse a particular Asian of being a bad drive on his or her own merits.

Just because there is some supposed stereotype that all women in the workplace are dumb and/or ditzy doesn't give Burner a free pass from being criticised that she specifically may actually be a bit ditzy.

All the people defending the sexist ad are missing the point: The ad elucidates how people who support Reichart view women, and specifically how they view a young, successful woman.

I wish that everyone posting their justification for the ad could be in the position of being dismissed based on their gender. "Oh, you silly boy! You're not ugly enough to be smart!"

Mike - because a) Burner is NOT ditzy and b) forget about the interviewer, that's not the point, it's a red herring. You don't know squat about who she is/what she does. Re the Asian thing - because there's a stereotype that Asians are bad drivers, you would NOT run a political ad that portrayed your opponent as a slanty-eyed car crasher because a) it's offensive and racist and b) it's stupid.

Mike said, "Just because there is some supposed stereotype that all women in the workplace are dumb and/or ditzy"

There is? Or are you simply projecting your own viewpoint?

Qusetion: What do say to two blondes in a box of cereal

Answer: "Paris!? Darcy?! What are you doing in that box of frosted flakes?"

Qusetion: What do you say to two blondes in a box of cereal?

Answer: "Paris!? Darcy?! What are you doing in that box of frosted flakes?"

Qusetion: What do you say to two blondes in a box of cereal?

Answer: "Paris!? Darcy?! What are you doing in that box of frosted flakes?"

Daniel K said "There is? Or are you simply projecting your own viewpoint?"

I was responding to this quote from dumb blonde, "This makes her out to be a stupid, ditzy blonde - a stereotype that women have worked hard to overcome", and other statements that there is some stereotype that women in the workforce are dumb ditzy blondes, and to portray any woman as a ditz is automatically sexist

Next time why don't you try actually reading the whole thing before you accuse me of something.

Mike,

Did I accuse you of something?

Are you getting irritated by that?

(Can you even see the irony of your comment?)

Ultimately, what makes this ad sexist is that there's no way it would have been made if Reichert's opponent was a white male. End of story.

Ultimately, what makes this ad NOT sexist is that there's no way it would have been made if Reichert's opponent had relevant experience. End of story.

Such an ad has not been made in recent campaigns involving, say, Christine Gregoire, Maria Cantwell or Cathy McMorris. That's because they all have plenty of relevant experience and this ad wouldn't make any sense.

But if, say, I were to run for office any time soon, I would expect the opposition to run ads attacking me for my lack of experience.

Why is the commercial sexist? The answer is at the very begining and an old visual joke.

Q: Why do blondes use padded shoulders?

A: I don't know ( responder bounces head off of shoulders )

From there it goes on to make visual cues to blonde joke after blonde joke. Considering Darcy Burner received a National Merit Scholarship to go to Harvard receiving a dual major in Computer Science and Economics portraying her as an airhead is beyond insulting.

I went to school with Darcy, she's not ditzy, but she's terribly naive. I actually like her because her heart is in the right place, but that doesn't make her any less naive or inexperienced. That said, as a woman close to her age, I did not find the ad sexist at all and I find it insulting that the stranger would expect me to be offended. I am an individual, not some part of some greater whole just because I have a vagina.

Once again Sharkansky strikes out with his retort.

If this was about experience then they could have simple portrayed Burner as a normal human being. Perhaps even put a beard on her and had her look like... Sharkansky. But they made deliberate choices to ridicule the person, not the resume.

Meanwhile, to call Burner naive when this nation is run by an administration that naively invaded Iraq under the orders of a President who didn't understand the Shiite/Sunni dynamic, or when Reichert keeps voting for bills that hurt his district under the naive assumption that that's ok, he can just come back and "fix" the bill later, or that when he naively blurts out that he votes as his party leadership tells him to, is a farce.

Nothing in Burner's life has been handed to her. She entered this race knowing the odds, and knowing what it would take to win, and the fact that the RNCC has been pouring millions into this race obviously indicates that she's become a threat they are taking very seriously.

If Dave Ross were the challenger this time instead of Darcy Burner, would the ad still be sexist? Or would people be screaming about how it promotes discrimination against short people?

I heard about the furor over this ad and came here to check it out. Talk about an anticlimax...tempest, meet teapot.

People are upset over the ad because they hate Reichert, not because of anything inappropriate (for an attack ad, it's very tame).