Tweety Does NOT Take Rebuke To Heart

By Big Tent Democrat

If the Clinton campaign thought NBC was going to do anything to rein in the pattern of behavior of its on air personalities, Tweety quickly removed any such expectation this morning:

Chris Matthews fired a salvo at the Clinton campaign this morning after both he and his MSNBC colleague were privately and publicly rebuked for recent comments deemed misogynistic or inappropriate.

Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Hardball host went off on the Clinton press shop, calling them "knee cappers" who were "lousy" and delve in the business of "intimidation."

Got it? NBC will do NOTHING to change the pattern of behavior of its network. It remains proudly the anti-Hillary network, sexist and misogynistic to its core. See also Bob Somerby on Tweety's continuing patttern of sexism, stuff you won't read about at the A-list blogs.

< Doctors' Group Calls on Feds to End Ban on Medical Pot | Which Voters Matter? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM EST

    "Knee cappers"??? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    That's something an Irish boy from NE would know about.

    Hello everyone (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    I've been a lurker at TalkLeft for awhile and really enjoy the balanced dialogue and the presence of a moderator. After six or so years at the orange place (UID 692) I have had enough of the whole Lord of the Flies mob scene. IMO it now borders on hate site status. I'm glad this positive resource is here.

    Good morning, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    Yes...it's a relief to find an island of sanity...

    Welcome JIm J (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    You do recall you dislike of my work previously at daily kos? Te one thing I hope you grant me is my honesty in expressing my views.

    Anyway, your comment is off topic and normally we delete off topic comments. Just so you know.

    Bt I imagine this diary has driven you to the lengths of coming to this site. In any event, welcome.


    All fair comments, sir (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    I don't always agree with you but I have certainly come to appreciate your consistency and impartiality after what I've witnessed in other portions of the blogosphere. And yes, I fully realized the comment was OT and expected your reaction -- I would have been disappointed had you not mentioned it!

    In all candor I was driven to join and post immediately by the disgusting hypocrisy and manufactured "controversy" at the other place regarding superdelegates. The Obamanauts at dKos are now openly espousing that SDs switch to Obama for reasons of viability alone, when just last week they insisted that all SDs follow the popular vote totals in their respective states.

    I'll stay on topic from here on.


    Yes the Superdelegate criteria (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    is elastic for Obama supporters and for the A List blogs and the Media.

    What is interesting to me is how the blogosphere has utterly abandoned its commitment to Fighting Dems (a stance you did not favor as I recall) in order to embrace Obama. I think he is a fine candidate who is underperforming his potential due to his terrible choice of political style and rhetoric. I think he is a Media darling who has a better chance than Hillary of winning in November.

    What bothers me the most is the willingness of the Establishment Blogs to tolerate sexism misogyny and falsehoods to denigrate a fine person and Democrat as they do to Hillary Clinton. What bothers me is their willingness to ignore everything they said they were for in order to avoid scrutinizing
    Obama, who has utter disdain for their views.

    Obama is the death of the blogs, interestingly enough, at least as a political or intellectual force. And they seem happy about it.


    November chances (none / 0) (#41)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    I agree with you, except on this point:

    I think he is a Media darling who has a better chance than Hillary of winning in November.

    The media loves McCain far more than they love Obama; if he's the nominee, he'll be the new Clinton.  The difference is that she has won over and over again with everything stacked against her while Obama has not.

    That's why I think she, not Obama, has the better chance in November; it'll be par for the course for her, but not for him.


    and how (none / 0) (#82)
    by irene adler on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    What bothers me the most is the willingness of the Establishment Blogs to tolerate sexism misogyny and falsehoods to denigrate a fine person and Democrat as they do to Hillary Clinton.

    couldn't agree more with this. it's been so disturbing to watch it unfold and it feels like it gets worse every day.

    the willingness of Establishment blogs to pipeline misogynist attitudes and falsehoods makes them brothers in arms with Tweety and the rest of the MSNBC offenders. and hardly just MSNBC. i'd never thought i'd see that happen in a million years... and sadly, it just took one year.


    What a charming diary (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    The notion that "millions" of Democrats will be following the diarist's lead is the icing on the cake!

    What is interestng about this (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    is that the attitude expressed therein, manifested on a wider scale in the Media, is likely to drive Obama's numbers with Democrats DOWN.

    If, as they believe, Obama is the clear frontrunner now, the smart play is to build bridges to Clinton supporters, which, based on the votes, amounts to have of the person voting in the Democratic contests (it is well more than half of DEMOCRATIC voters).

    Alienating part of the necessary coalition for winning in November is not smart. The Obama camp needs to get that and soon. White women are NOT happy with him at this time.

    As for the daily kos community, it has been a wasteland, bereft of intelligence for some time now. I said so long before I left it (or was left from it, depending upon your perspective of that).

    Nothing of interest EVER emerges from that site's diaries. At all. But that is true also now of MYDD's diaries, for the flip side of that equation.  


    Democratic Agenda (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    What peeves me to no end is that I think the country was and is ready for a clear and bold Democratic agenda.  Obama's technique of having to destroy the Democratic Base/Hillary, has distracted everyone from the focus, the Agenda: war, human rights, economy etc.  The focus on personality yes it's good for him but I think it was the wrong time, he had to do it on attacking and weakening the Democratic base.  I am sure there was a way to talk of change and to build his campaign without the destruction of Hillary and the base.  

    How will he build alliances when now he has scorched the earth? The campaign is about him now and not the Democratic agenda.  How sad.  


    wow, i can't believe this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    Look - this is a primary campaign - a very good thing. It is the quadrennial event by which a party figures out just what its policies, atttidudes, agendas will be, by putting forth alternative leaders and having the people choose.

    Your comments seem to indicate that you think Obama is "destroying" Hillary - who you equate with the party base. This strkes me as an expression of the toxic attitude that Clinton herself had - that she is the inevitable leader, and that no one should dare confront her.

    It is really rich to see you speaking of Obama trying to "destroy" Hillary. What on earth are you talking about? There are millions of lines of attack that are just laying there on the table, that anyone could pick up and start pounding Hillary with, to good effect, since they all would resonate with the general impression that many average people have of the Clintons. And he is not doing so.

    And the irony of course, is to hear such a complaint from you, of all people. Someone who seems to spend extraordinary amounts of time and energy trying to "destroy" Obama on this site - making all manner of over-the-top charges, interpreting, or misinterpreting everything he says in the most cynical manner. And then you turn around and decry others for trying to "destroy" Hillary????

    If Hillary were to somehow win this nomination, fair and square, she will have become an enormously better candidate for having had to fight for it against Obama. And vice-vera - Obama will be a much better candidate for having overcome her challange. Instead of treating Obama as some evil interloper trying to deny Hillary her rightful nomination, you should see him as the worthy challange that he is - someone who will either force Hillary to rise to her highest level, or defeat her, and thus establish himself as someone even better than her, at least in the eyes of Democrats. Either way we win.


    The insurgent (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    Obama ,as the insurgent, had to destroy Hillary. Meanwhile his followers continue to attribute all good to him and all evil to Hillary. I point out his equal share of political tricks, bad policies and questionable history I also have a visceral reaction to any and all messianic figures at the expense of the demonization of someone else. Compared to the venom directed at Hillary, mine is a flea bite. So, don't sweat it. Your guy needs to be brought down to the earth. We don't need idols.

    I call such diaries (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    "unity talk."  Ironically of course.

    Of all the metrics that have been employed to measure the results of this primary, one is beyond dispute - Hillary Clinton has gotten by far the most votes from registered Democrats.  She is clearly the choice of the party's base, and yet we're told she is the candidate who is "tearing the party apart."


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#46)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:26:05 AM EST
    That the Obama camp should not be alienating Clinton supporters and should be reaching out more, particularly to women.  

    In fairness, the vast majority of alienation of Clinton supporters is due to the media and other Obama supporters unaffiliated with the campaign.


    Exactly! (none / 0) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    I have been saying this for a long time. How does it serve any reasonable purpose to alienate a segment of the population that ALWAYS votes?

    I'm no longer sure if I actively dislike Senator Obama or just his supporters who have attacked me repeatedly and vehemently on other blogs. Hilary supporters who bounce around the Internet know what I mean when I say that I have met with as much vitriol from Obama supporters as I ever did from Rightwingnuts.

    I know there are people saying that once the primaries are over all the liberals will get back together and back the nominiee. I don't think so. I think there is so much anger and bitterness that the progressive movement is seriously damaged. I could be wrong and honestly I hope I'm wrong but I just don't think I am.


    Kumbaya... (none / 0) (#72)
    by superjude on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    My 1st time posting here - so glad to have found a site that is not constantly trashing Hillary. I can't believe what has happened over at DailyKos. They used to make fun of kumbaya and can't we all just get along. Now they are in an almost solid block supporting the kumbaya candidate who has nothing of substance to say.

    Agreed on the dkos community (none / 0) (#76)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    lack of intellectual input has gone down hill. The most boorish are all full of f** and s** comments and it isn't informative anymore.

    The opposition (none / 0) (#33)
    by koshembos on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    I tend to disagree with Big Tent a lot, but his analytical skills are superb and he is totally honest. He doesn't show any signs of bias towards any side. The same, of course, goes for Jeralyn except that she doesn't get down in the mud; her style is different.

    So, true Talkleft is a place of sanity but more importantly, it's a place of good analytical skills, no biases, etc. The only problem is that it became the refuge of too many folks lately.

    On record, I totally disagree with Big Tent on Obama. I believe that Obama is world class charlatan, his intelligence is average and, above all, he is a danger to the country. Have you seen Edwards lately?


    Disappointed you didn't also link to (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    last night's diary on HRC smelling like fish.  

    Oh shut UP (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:48:10 AM EST
    There he goes again.

    The irony is that he believes he's helping by passing on his "wisdom."  To quote Chris to himself, "Screw you."

    The more I come to know about (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    Chris Matthews the more I come to understand that he is a bit of a bizarre twisted way out there dude.

    PIMP mugs & tee shirts (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    So, did we all notice the cafe press link at Huffington Post and click on it?  Egregious.  Photo of a smiling Hillary and the word "PIMP" in large letters underneath.

    Send them an email

    Call them
    Toll Free 1-877-809-1659
    Customer Service Hours

    Someone has now completely (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    lost their fricken mind!

    what I find so crazy about this (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    is that everyone has a mother, and very likely a sister, wife and/or daughter--don't they worry about them?  Wouldn't they want to protect their loved one(s) from this type of behavior?

    Yes, msnbc is a private, cable news channel, but considering the uproar over Imus, I can't see why this should cause the same type of reaction?  There is a precedent set.

    Imus insulted a bunch.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    of college kids.  MSNBC insulted a political candidate. Not even in the same ballpark.

    My mother and sister aren't worried about what they say on MSNBC, why should I be?  Me, my mother, and my sister are worried about issues.  Ya know...health care, deficits, foriegn occupation, taxes.  What some putz on the tv is bloviating about doesn't even rate.


    WRONG! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:15:12 AM EST
    They insulted women!  Some were Ho's and some were pimping their daughters but they insulted women not college "kids" and political candidates.  They insulted women!

    Not all women were offended..... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    Take my mom and sis for example...I actually askesd them about the Schuster thing and they didn't think it was so bad.  And moms is supporting Clinton, much to my dismay:)

    Sis is hopeless...she likes McCain:)

    I guess I come from thicker skinned stock.


    Well kdog (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:32:16 PM EST
    the women in your family obviously aren't the ones in my family.  It isn't about thick skin but nice try.  It is about abusing women and objectifying women and dehumanizing mothers and their daughters in vulgar reprehensible disgusting ways.

    I love ya Tracy.... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    but I gotta part ways with you.

    Who gets abused/objectified/dehumanized by airhead pundits?  They're paid to stir up controversy for heavens sake.

    Your sisters in Saudi Arabia, etc. are getting abused, dehumanized, and treated like property.  Women here at home still don't get a fair shake in the workplace, amongst other issues.

    But by all means, if what some a**hole pundit says is what concerns you, lobby to get them all fired.  Me...I'm more afraid of the language police than Mathews, O'Reilly, and Howard Stern.



    I'm not crazy about language police (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    either........mostly because I flunk the language police tests ;)  I think it is language used plus intent for me here that causes me to holler NOT.  And our pundits need to get paid to be good at what they do. Our current pundits tend to be pretty poor at what they do.  The internet has upped the ante on them and they don't get to mildew behind their icon anymore.  I think it's good for them, it's good for the public, and it will ensure that a pundit earns their spot and isn't just a horse that ran a good race once.  Glenn Greenwald would be so much better to listen to everyday than Tweety.......come on man.....you know it's true.  Pundits also need to apologize when it is needed.  It would be nice if they could consistently muster a sincere apology as well ;) Then perhaps America could grow beyond her childish Hollywoodish perceptions that leaders who are accountable or apologize are weak.  I don't consider pundit Icons leaders but many Americans putting in their 60+ hour work weeks do and follow them as if they are.  When I was a horribly busy working mother I often had to take the info at hand and I didn't have much time to consider the source or even to be able to dig up the source.

    Tracy.... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    We're all busy....I'm tired of that cop out.  If you can find time to watch Tweety you can find time to watch Frontline or Bill Moyers. Or watch Frontline or Bill Moyers instead of Tweety.  The real news is out there, judging by the ratings PBS gets no one watches. We the people are just as guilty of making a sport out of politics as are the airhead pundits....look at TL lately.  We don't discuss the issues and which candidate is best to lead on them anymore....we're almost as bad as Fox and MSNBC.  Think about it. If you like Obama you're in a cult and are probably a closet mysoginist, if you like Clinton you're a man-hater.  It's all so depressing ain't it?

    Bottom line, we deserve what we get if we use the airhead brigade to keep us informed, and let the airhead brigade frame the national debate. We're not children in grade school for christ's sake, we have a responsibility and we are remiss.

    Nothing the airhead brigade says can offend me, because I know going in what they are...knuckleheads paid to stir up controversy and keep our eyes off the ball.  We fall for it everytime.


    Those of us with so much time on (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    our hands to be blogging on Talkleft in such an absorbed fashion have no idea what other people not so time fortunate live like.  I know this because I've lived on both sides of this fence.  It isn't a cop out as much as it's a pass out. I used to fall asleep trying to watch whatever news I had time to attempt to watch.  Sometimes I might even be able to squeeze in reading a Newsweek or two if the doctor took long enough to see me ;)  Can you believe that I don't get PBS right now?  When things go digital my husband told me that we can get it with a fairly simple antenna and isn't that supposed to happen soon?  I won't pay Centurytell rip off prices though where I am at so I pay by not being able to watch the really local news and I don't' get PBS.......yet.......but I will someday.  I do watch Frontline on the net though.

    voice of reason (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    isn't that what journalism, and msnbc in particular, needs.  I've suggested Walter Cronkite, but maybe Tom Browkaw can admonish his colleagues, as he's done before, but he needs to do it with more gusto.

    Tweety's problem is not just with HRC (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    but with women, generally.  Maybe the fact that his wife has supposedly maxed out on donating to HRC has a little to do with it, too.  What he seems to be, though, screams so loudly one almost cannot hear what it is he is saying.

    Here's a great post on his bad history with women, with a link to a great youtube montage of his greatest hits.

    I have no idea what it is that NBC sees itself gaining by continuing to have him on its airwaves as a featured performer.  But it needs be remembered that, in the end, he has an audience of less than 10 people he has to worry about satisfying - the heads of GE, NBC and MSNBC.  So long as he gets ratings and doesn't get fined by the gov't they don't care.  They wouldn't care if he was streaming a video feed of his aquarium, if they get ratings.  That people get mad at him and start raising cain about it, kind of makes them happy - because it shows people are paying attention.

    Who cares about Mrs. Tweety? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    What she does is her own business and doesn't make him any less of a jerk.

    Just because people are married doesn't mean they agree about everything. In fact some of them don't agree about anything!

    Chris Matthews isn't going to change because no one at MSNBC wants him to change. Matthews and Scarborough and Tucker will continue on their merry way as before because what they are doing is exactly what GE wants them to do.

    If Obama does get the nomination then he will get the Hillary treatment 24/7. And St. McCain will be praised as if he could walk on water. Corporate Media like MSNBC may not like McCain all that much, but they sure like him a whole lot better than ANY liberal/progressive/Democrat.


    I wrote to MSNBC (none / 0) (#77)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    and told them that they had a 15 year old boy problem on their network and my family had left them some time ago.  But Keith Olbermann was such a ray of light that we came back for him. Now, however, with all the Brittany stories they were no longer able to keep our interest and so we were leaving again particularly since they continue to offend so much. When Tweety's ratings drop and they have, he will be gone soon.  

    suspension wasn't enough (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    because it didn't address the "pattern of behavior" as HRC clearly said in her letter, and which is clearly evident in the network's behavior this morning.  

    CLEARLY the suspension ISN'T enough!  Nothing has changed and this will eventually hurt the Party, which I think we can all agree is not how we'll win in November.  

    Winning in November, isn't that the ultimate goal?

    Going back to the late eighties (none / 0) (#55)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    This clown was writing a political column for the Hearst paper in San Francisco. He was always portrayed as a kind of "rational liberal" but has always come from a right-wing position. Twenty years ago. He was trotted out to give the left side of the right wing back then. He's still the same.

    Myself, I have Netflix and can read books, so when I want to see crazy people behaving badly I don't have to flip on MSNBC or FOX or any of the other pseudo news networks. I don't watch him.

    It would be nice to see some kind of movement to crack down on these crackpots. Maybe a reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, although I don't know if that could be written to apply to cable networks.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    I remember that, never got it then either.  

    I have netflicks too ;) (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    Heck, you don't even have to wait for the mail now....you can watch some crazy from your puter at the netflicks site ;)

    The ultimate goal. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    Winning in November used to be the ultimate goal...for most Dems, anyway.  Not any more.

    Nightmare memories of '68 and '72.

    The difference is that the drafting of Obama to take down the Clintons at any cost will not only damage the party, it is already hurting the country.

    This campaign in cahoots with the MSM is the most cynical thing I  have seen in over 50 years in politics...and that's going some.


    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    I also have written both parent companies Microsoft and GE I will not purchase any product of theirs until the behavior stops there are many alternatives anyway time to move on.  I for one will not watch any NBC or MSNBC talk punditry.  An old fashion protest at the debate in Cleveland may be a though I'll check around.

    By the Way (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:27:36 AM EST
    I think Hillary is headed for a sweep of all the big States, I really do, folks are pumped.

    Not for nothing..... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM EST
    If I was in the media, I wouldn't take too kindly to a politician telling me what I can and can't say on the air.  The media answers to the public, not politicians.

    I don't get all the hub-bub really....if you don't like the programming on NBC don't watch it.  Enough people stop watching, the programming will be changed.  

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    Politicans don't get to tell media what they can and can't say. Neither must they stand idly by when they are treated unfairly. I have no problem with any politician pointing out coverage that they think is unfair. I expect Dems will have to do a lot of that throughout the fall campaign, no matter who the nominee is.

    The candidates are free to..... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM EST
    criticize certain networks reporting...but when they demand people's heads that's going to far, imo.  

    No one did (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST
    demand any heads.

    Your insinuation that someone did is false. In my view, deliberately so.


    Didn't they say the suspension..... (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST
    of Schuster was not sufficient?

    What's a step beyond suspension?...Termination.  


    The way I read the Clinton request (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    Was that they look into reversing The Pattern....

    That (as a Pattern of Behavior) it went beyond what Schuster said....

    They didn't demand any particular action in terms of firing.  They just want the sexism & misogyny to stop.


    That couldn't be more incomprehensible (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    I thought she asked that NBC look into reversing The Pattern....

    That (as a Pattern of Behavior) the problems went beyond what Schuster said....

    Clinton didn't demand any particular action in terms of firing.  She just want the sexism & misogyny to stop.

    I hope that's more clear.


    Fair enough guys.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    I took the statement to mean "get the guys badmouthing me off the freakin air", in so many words.  Maybe I'm wrong

    It's not about Clinton to me, or sexism....it's about intimidating the media.  It troubles me, the media already caters to the establishment far too much, I want them holding all feet to hot fire at all times.  Politicians and the media are supposed to have an adversarial relitionship, they are far to buddy-buddy as it is.


    You are spouting falsehoods now (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    This has been covered in detail here.

    Sorry, this is not a matter of opinion.

    Such comments wil be deleted in future.


    How could my interpretation.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    of the statement from the Clinton camp not be a matter of opinion?  

    Whatever dude...delete away if it floats your boat.


    Read the entire text (none / 0) (#67)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    of the latter. It does not ask for termination. It asks for a change in attitude and behavior.

    Sorry for the typo (none / 0) (#69)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:40:01 AM EST
    I was upset. I meant "read the entire text of the letter". Sorry.

    Your right.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    termination isn't mentioned....but is it between the lines?

    NO (none / 0) (#81)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    it only exists in your imagination.

    OK..... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    all the evidence of the vindictiveness of the Clintons be damned.

    All in my imagination....yep, that must be it.


    It is not telling the media what to (none / 0) (#78)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    say, it is asking for basic civility.  These people would not make snide racial remarks about Obama, nor should they.  Why then it it okay to make snide remarks about women, particularly HRC?  Media Matters compiled a long list about some of the worst things Matthews has said and it was really an eye opener about Chris's behavior to women, all sorts of women.

    Thanks for setting us straight (none / 0) (#87)
    by Camorrista on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    "The media answers to the public, not politicians."

    Now why didn't I think of that defense? Excellent.  Let's add it to the others, shall we?

    (1) The media answers to the public, not politicians.

    (2) Attacking Matthews and Shuster and MSNBC is an attempt to intimidate journalists.

    (3) It's a non-issue; if you don't like the programming on MSNBC don't watch it.

    (4) Even if Clinton didn't explicitly ask for Shuster to be fired, that's what she meant; and I know that because the Clintons are vicious and vindictive.

    (5) My mother was fine with 'pimping.'

    (6) My sister was fine with 'pimping.'

    (7) If you're not fine with 'pimping,' and Matthews, and MSNBC, you're so hypersensitive you probably see sexism in every word that comes out of man's mouth

    (8) Just because somebody compulsively seeks excuses for Matthews and Shuster and MSNBC is evidence of nothing.  Nothing.

    (9) In any case, all me, my mother, and my sister want to talk about are health care, deficits, foreign occupation, and taxes.


    Nice wrap up..... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Thank you.

    You can go back to be offended and outraged now...I tried:) Too tired to try and get my point across, the boss pimped me hard today and I'm bushed.

    Oops....we can still say "bushed" right?


    Disgusting. (none / 0) (#4)
    by dthurston on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    Is the timing of Matthews' comment related to Hillary's acceptance of the debate?

    TPM (none / 0) (#5)
    by carolyn13 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    Here's a link to Greg Sargent I found interesting.

    Curious... (none / 0) (#11)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    I am curious to know why you left out the context of the conversation? Since you can only discern the meaning of a conversation from its context, you should discuss this.

    The debate this morning was between Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews as to the strategy of the Clinton campaign. Pat Buchanan stated he thought that the campaign should continue to attack Obama. Chris Matthews stated that this attacks were not effective and the Clinton campaign should focus its strategy on providing a positive economic message since the attacks ads were not working.

    Now, if you are going to deny that campaigns use attacks ads or that the Clinton campaign is above using attacks ads, then I do not know what to say. Maybe you should consult the literature on campaign communication.

    If you object to Chris Matthews stating (in fill context) that the Clinton campaign should provide a positive economic message, turn the channel.

    The press does not tell people what to think, only what to think about. The press cannot force people to draw conclusions.

    I will do what I think is right (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    Protesting a pattern of sexism and misogyny in a major broadcast network seems right to me.

    Being an apologist for it seems right to you.

    To each his own.


    This won't stand (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    This is likely to now cause an all out firestorm.  It is one thing to be the anti-Hillary network....fine then be that.  The sexism and misogynism are separate issues in the eyes and the minds and the hearts of the rational and well adjusted.  I have stopped watching MSNBC due to what has happened recently concerning that gross feeding of misogyny and sexism but I just watched Keith O's special comment at Crooks and Liars from last night and hoped that soon I would be able to watch MSNBC again.........now I find out that nope, not anytime soon and now I probably need to start getting active and the activist sense in public placing MSNBC in a position to be scrutinized and censored by all who care to listen or will listen.

    Chris Mathews (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    The part I do not understand is that he is just a terrible commentator.  He darts from point to point, does not listen to anyone--it's like watching a chihuahua on a Red Bull overdose.  It's sort of stream of consciousness blather.  Post modernist, without the poetry or intelligence.  I never watched him because there is no content.  Entertainment tonight or those celebrity chatter shows have more continuity of ideas.

    I guess it the style fits our time of short attention spans.  

    It IS a (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    celebrity chatter show...without the entertainment.  Constantly preening and performing.  It's a bad act.

    The subject... (none / 0) (#19)
    by solon on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    His comments are not that good, though he has "access" to others. Matthews would rather talk about his connections or old style politics than offer in depth information.

    The problem with the election coverage is that, at times, Fox News has been the most insightful. This of course occurs when the Fox News hosts do not speak but others who have recent campaign experience. And this standard is frightening.


    The most fun I had with Faux (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    was the night of the 2006 election.  My cable company, as is its wont, lost sound but not picture for several hours.

    Watching Cavuto et als. without sound, and their expressions, as the Repugs lost their control of both houses of Congress (sort of unexpected by anyone, if you remember) was indeed pricelessly funny.

    Fox is best when "mute" is on.


    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    The secret to his success is sheer volume and speed and ability to talk over people, a la Bill O'Reilly.  But unlike O'Reilly, there's rarely a coherent thread to what he's saying.  The irony is that Hillary hatred is one of his few coherent themes.

    That is true (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    I just don't get the success.  (we agreed on something)...yeah!!!

    We agree on a lot (none / 0) (#47)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    Just support different candidates . . . in the primary.

    Nail head hit (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST

    He darts from point to point, does not listen to anyone--it's like watching a chihuahua on a Red Bull overdose.

    So Tired (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kensdad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    I'm so tired of Chris Matthews, the man, the mouth, the arrogance...  i used to rely on MSNBC for political coverage until the point of IA and NH.  that did it for me.  now it's 90 pct CNN (not that they're perfect!  hardly!)  at least there is some balance.

    and i'm so tired of people (including matthews) launching grenades at Hillary for negative campaigning.  this is nothing!!  these obamaites have no idea what is waiting for them in the general election if they think that they are getting attacked by an ad saying that obama doesn't want to debate (oooooh, how terrible! Hillary should be taken out back and have her girly little ass kicked for such slander!)  the media is completely deaf when it comes to anything that obama might say or do that reflects badly on him.  he certainly is not above twisting and distorting Hillary's words and positions.  hardly!

    so the media bias lives on...  bash clinton unabashedly...  it's america's favorite pastime...

    I have maintained for years that misogyny (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jim J on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    and sexism are more prevalent issues in our society than racism, in some cases far more prevalent. Many have disagreed with me, but I think the HRC vs. Obama primary is proof positive. As the father of two daughters I'm particularly sensitive to this, and I don't mind admitting it's a major reason I support Hillary, shallow as it may sound to some.

    Jim (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    Are you white?

    Chris would do well working (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    for the arm of the communist party spewing propaganda...and that is astonishing that the American people put up with it....

    he is embolded (none / 0) (#25)
    by Heather on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    by the lengthy article on the front page of the wapo style section yesterday. i think the real purpose of his comment was to defend his guy shuster.

    as a political junkie i love msnbc, not only because they are obama sympathizers--which i admit they are, but also because i get way more hard core politics on that station. there is less filter.

    He's not the first (none / 0) (#28)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    to discribe the Clinton press team that way.  I've heard several people say the anti-Clinton media coverage is payback for years of mistreatment.  Unfortunately the chickens have come back to roost at the worst possible time.

    Karma is not profound, it's mundane. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    I hear that the Clintons have been (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    accused of being mean to the media, but so far I have only seen how vicious the media has been to Bill Clinton.  For starters the book "The Hunting of the President" by Lyons and Conasen outlines a horrendous litany of malfesance by the news media, particularly the NYT and WaPo.  Even Howell Raines admitted that he had been vicious in attacking Bill. Then read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock now of Media Matters.  There are a few more and so I can see how the Clintons might be hostile to the media. Certainly the media peddled stories of unproven accusations in prime time no less, but hey why be offended by that? But again what is the evidence of your assertion?

    chickens coming home to roost (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kensdad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    goes both ways...  all these anti-hillary people in the media, but especially, all the dems who are going against Hillary in the most political and partisan way, had better hope that Hillary doesn't pull out this nomination against obama and get sworn in as the 44th president of the united states!

    you know what they say, right?  payback is a B.... HA!


    Yor derogatory comments (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    will be deleted sef.

    And if you repeat them then you will be suspended for the day.

    LOL (none / 0) (#65)
    by jarober on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    Olbermann has been doing this kind of thing to Bush and the Republicans for years.  It's only obvious to ideologically blinkered partisans like Big Tent now that a Democrat is facing the same thing.

    As usual with Big Tent, it's all about whose ox is being gored...

    Not seeing it (none / 0) (#73)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    Is there something I'm missing here? Clearly this comment is negative towards Hillary and it trashes her campaign team , that much is certain. But in the context of just this quote how does sexist and misogynistic fit in? The Shuster comment, for sure some past Matthews comments, undeniably. But I'm just not seeing how this comment is sexist and misogynistic.

    I agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lora on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    Knee-cappers?  Lousy?  Anti-Clinton, certainly, but sexist and misogynist?  No, unless you make the case that to go after Hillary at all is sexist and misogynist, which doesn't fly.

    Valid point. (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    NOT a valid point (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    The network is sexist and misogynist. Defending this behavior with more (non-sexist) attacks like "lousy" and knee-capping" is sexist and misogynist.

    Here's the deal: You do something (in this case many things, all the time) that is sexist and misogynist. I call you on it. You respond by insulting me.

    It's still sexist when you insult someone for calling you out for being sexist. You are defending sexism and misogyny as acceptable.


    Let's simplify.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    what isn't sexist and misogynistic to you ech?  

    I think it will be a shorter list than what you consider to be such.


    Better answer than mine. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    Therefore, going forward, (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    any criticism of Hillary by the network will, by definition, be sexist and misogynistic because any criticism of her can only be in response to her calling them on being sexist and misogynistic?

    (And this is accepting, only for argument's sake, your scenario that the knee capping etc, remarks are solely in response to her calling them out.)

    If she didn't call them out for being sexist and misogynistic there could/would be nothing for them to criticize her about?



    fwiw (none / 0) (#75)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    plutonium page had a good post about tweety, a month or so back.

    GOP Perspective (none / 0) (#94)
    by JS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:20:01 AM EST
    Watch out----Southern military Republican bouncing back into the room. Anyway, I was scrolling by, and I saw this, and I just had to say something (forgive me). I LOATHE Chris Matthews. To be honest, I do not understand why anyone on your side of the aisle goes on his show--he either doesn't let you answer his questions OR he attemps to answer them for you. Why bother appearing if you are just going to be a ventriloquist dummy? It is blatantly obvious that he despises Hillary Clinton, but to be frank (based on my own observation), I don't think he likes politically active women period. The only politically active woman he's not spoken to either like she was a dog or a small child was Donna Brazile, but then Donna is built a little like a linebacker (I think she could take him). Matthews would STFU if you Democrats would just stop going on his show---from politicians to activists...just stop going. In fact, if you want the MSNBC ovary-haters to grow up, then why don't you just stop appearing on the network entirely. If they can't get bodies, they can't get ratings, and ratings are money. If you point out to the suits at the network that you will not appear in front of their cameras until the on-air talent shows some maturity, then guess what--those loud mouths on camers will be FIRED because they are F'ing with the cash flow. C'mon kids--it checkbook power--you want them to respect your female personnel, then start costing them money.

    Just a thought.