cg political correspondent blog

Back in preschool, most of us learned that name-calling is not the best way to fix a problem, even if we’re really annoyed with someone. Looks like CNN Political Contributor Alex Castellanos missed that lesson.

In a recent New York Times column, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton was described as a “white b****.” And Castellanos’s response? “Some women...are named that, and it’s accurate.” Whoa.

I have a major problem with his statement for two reasons: first, it’s completely unproductive, and second, it’s blatantly sexist. Even if Castellanos does think Senator Clinton is “abrasive,” “aggressive,” and “irritating,” as he put it, name-calling does not promote a national dialogue about serious issues. In fact, it does just the opposite. Name-calling diverts our attention from big political questions, making us focus instead on petty fighting. If we dislike a candidate, we should have solid reasons — maybe we don’t support one person’s strategy in Iraq, or maybe we disagree with another’s healthcare plans. But when influential political and media personalities say name-calling is legitimate, they really demean the whole political process.

As much as I hate name-calling, if it had been any other name for Senator Clinton, I wouldn’t be quite so mad. But there is no male equivalent for the word “b****.” So when people use that to describe her, they’re taking a stab not only at her politics, but also at her—and our—gender. Castellanos went on to say that Senator Clinton is “tough” and that she “shows no weakness.” Therefore it’s okay to call her a b****? Really? Because we don’t call tough men “b****es.” We call them “strong” or “principled.” I am so disappointed that even now, in the 21st Century, a successful woman is still called names when she exerts power.

Alex Castellanos wasn’t the only one bashing Senator Clinton on TV this week. Keith Olbermann, a news anchor on MSNBC, also had some not-so-nice things to say about her.

Have you heard about the latest drama surrounding Senators Clinton and Obama? Last week, Senator Clinton referenced Senator Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in June of 1968. He was tragically murdered on the day of the California primary, where he was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Senator Clinton had been discussing examples of long nominating contests, and Senator Kennedy’s was one of those instances.

Now, I’ll admit that her comment wasn’t tactful, but the uproar this has generated seems a little disproportionate. Some people—like Olbermann, who ranted against Senator Clinton for quite awhile on his show—are hinting that she is interested in Senator Obama’s assassination, just because she used that word when describing what happened to Senator Kennedy.

I really can’t believe that citing historical fact is the same thing as wanting to kill your opponent. No matter how you feel about Senator Clinton, I think we can agree that she’s not a murderer. Is she ambitious? Yes. Is she driven and focused? You bet. Are her views controversial? Sure. But is she a murderer? Come on.

So what do you think about all the crazy things surrounding Senator Clinton? How do you feel about the language used to describe her? And what do you think about her latest comments?

Xoxo,
Katie
katieg@cosmogirl.com

All Katie's travel is sponsored by American Airlines.

Before you go anywhere, head to AA.com for great deals on flights.