Of course, it's difficult to fight misogyny when even women run blogs publish it.

Didn't he also favor the Iraq War Resolution in 2002?

and didn't think this was any sort of firing offense.

is a false argument.  Hillary Clinton did not push this as a firing offense.  She said that it is but one of many examples of biased coverage on the network.

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."

There's nothing wrong with the fine journalistic tradition of muckraking, but it's always been a bit of a "throw everything and see what sticks" endeavor.

The problem is that TPM is also supposed to be an "advocacy" journalism site -- meaning they're supposed to prefer Democrats to Republicans.  You don't see that in their muckraking, however -- they're just as eager (perhaps even more eager) to pursue Democratic muck as Republican muck.  Or perhaps they've now switched over from Democratic / liberal advocacy to specifically Obama advocacy.

Somerby, also one of the liberal 'net grandfathers, called out Josh early when Josh would talk to Howie Kurtz acting as if there was no anti-Gore media bias.

And while I don't think he needs the money, those appearances were paid for, so in effect, he lost income because of the suspension.

And to my recollection, he never personally insulted anyone.  He was just too pro-Hillary for some folks.

I think Clinton would be wholly justified in calling for Shuster's firing, but it shows the cut of her character that she is not.  She makes it clear that he is only a symptom of a greater disease.  To me, it shows great restraint not to demand his head on a platter.  If someone said those comments about someone I loved, I would be catastrophically, insanely furious.  She just wants a fair shake--nothing more, nothing less.

She says, that a two week suspension is not enough, and she, a sitting senator and likely future president suggests they take a hard look.

Yes, there is a pattern of abuse at MSNC, but this sort of "senator pressures media" is also why we have a first amendment.

That Clinton pointed out she wanted MSNBC to examine their history of anti-Hillary remarks is fine. They should. But that has little to do with her initial letter, which was written to bring optimum pressure to bear on MSNBC and Shuster in particular. If she had wanted to open a wider conversation about Tweety and Tucker and others, her one sentence about the wider issues would have been more specific.

Her first and only point in that letter -- the only named target of her objections, in fact -- was Shuster, and her comment was that a temporary suspension was not enough. To me, as to many, many others, the point was that she was calling for a permanent suspension, i.e., firing the man. Was she really? Probably not; for one thing, a quick firing would have mooted the rest of the uproar, and the uproar was the object of the letter in the first place.

The letter worked. It is called "working the ref," and all campaigns do it. The Rethugs do it so constantly you'd think the refs (the msm) would react to it and give a penalty for taking a dive, but they never do.

But the TPM article you cite above has nothing to do with whether that letter meant what I think it means (as I have just pointed out) or if it means something else. Your reaction to Josh's even mentioning the subject says more about you than about TPM or Obama supporters or anything / anyone else.

I hate to say it, but you're off-base and more than a little hyper-sensitive here.

But it's your blog, so go to it. I am not removing TPM from my favorites list, nor Talkleft. I am not that judgmental. Perhaps you should consider your own reactions before jumping to foregone conclusions.

Therefore I feel compelled to say once again that the total refusal to even consider this obvious possibility by bloggers and participants here is really pretty arrogant.

You can deny the implications that words have and insist that only their absolute literal meaning count, and use that to call people who disagree with you liars or biased or in denial.  But that's not intelligent political discourse, and frankly I don't think it's very savvy political analysis either.

"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient."