The Malign Acceptance of Sexism

By Big Tent Democrat

When an A-List progressive blogger can write that Chris Matthews is right in his sexism and misogyny, via digby, then something is rotten in the Denmark that is the progressive blogs.

Jamison Foser explains why:

Matthews lashed out at the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton should "get rid of the kneecappers that work for her," referring to her communications staff who go "after the press." Matthews added, "The kneecapping hasn't worked. Her press relations are lousy. ... If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you."

For the record, Matthews' overt hostility toward Hillary Clinton cannot honestly be described as a reaction to how her presidential campaign has treated the press: More than six years ago, Matthews said of Clinton, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." More to the point, Matthews' apparent blaming of the Clinton campaign for his own sexism is the clearest indication yet that he doesn't "get it" and that MSNBC doesn't care that he doesn't get it.

(Emphasis supplied.) And a lot of A-List male bloggers do not get it. Do not hold your breath waiting for any of them to comment on this . We have a malign acceptance of sexism, and it extends well beyond the Media.

< Fed. Judge Overturns Wyoming Death Sentence - New Trial Ordered | Hillary Campaigns in Wisconsin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Those bloggers... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Alvord on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    ...aren't on my A-list. They have either been deleted from my favorites file or banished to an "out of favor" folder. The particular "A-list" blogger referred to in this post falls into the first category.

    Substitute (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    "winning" or "destroying his opponent" or "political expediency" in this quote for "his salary" and it kinda says it all about so-called progressive bloggers:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
    -- Upton Sinclair

    Of course, while we're at it, we might replace "difficult" with "impossible."

    Carville has a great quote too... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    "But one of Clinton's problems was, the interest groups don't care about the working poor. The Republicans don't care about the working poor -- they don't know any. The Op-Ed writers don't care about the working poor. The editorial writers don't care about the working poor. The talking heads don't care about the working poor."

    I don't know of anyone like me, who doesn't even make the poverty line income, who blogs (or on TV) who understands issues of those not in the Starbucks set (HATE the platitudes that's seen so often, especially reports on the 9th ward, after Katrina). That disconnect is apparent when they talk about issues that don't reflect the reality of those who don't live in 1.6 million dollar homes, or have Harvard degrees.

    Hope Hillary can overcome the special interests enough to do something about bread and butter issues, not just another talk about what's good for folks like me.

    Like a hand up, not a hand out.


    That's a very apt quote! (none / 0) (#53)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    I loathe any ism (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    Racism, sexism and any kind of discrimination. Now that I qualify for two rather casually accepted "isms" gender and age I tend to get quickly outraged by the casual acceptance by so many people. I really get riled with comments about "faux outrage". I am also 1/8 Oglala Sioux so I also have the whole "what the hell are all you white folks doing in my country" anger to contend with too. Just kidding. I think.

    As long as otherwise decent people casually accept sexism so long as it is directed against someone they don't like or don't support then all the little isms will continue to taint us as a people and as a nation.

    I laugh now at my naivete in thinking that my granddaughters would not have to contend with misogyny. We may have come a long way baby, but obviously we ain't come near far enough.

    I want to add (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    That I have been shocked at how much sexism is alive and well. And it has all been from following this campaign for the past few months. First I thought it was in my head, then I thought well maybe its partisan spin. I mean MSM and democratic party can't possibly still be SEXIST, can it?

    Now I am almost sure its very very real. And now to see Sen Obama ....

    And to think all the times I argued with my wife that she was being over sensitive, that our generation had moved passed all this. On top of feeling depressed about the whole thing now I have to go apologize to her! I'll never hear the end of losing this fight.


    Well, at least you acknowledge it. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:31:04 PM EST
    There are many many people on-line who blame women for protesting and more or less tell them to shut up.

    Aravosis disappoints (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    probably because he's absorbed the media-driven Clinton hate.

    Do A-List Male Bloggers Not Get It? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    Or do A-list male bloggers ignore it because it does not aid them in their agenda?

    Can't have women getting upset at the the sexism involved in this race or they might do something stupid like vote for Hillary rather than their preferred candidate Obama. They might also question some of the remarks made by some of the same A-List bloggers.

    It's the season (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    The primaries go on far too long, this one especially. And so much is at stake this November. The GOP MUST be defeated.

    So it makes otherwise sensible people lose sight of the long-term issues for the sake of the short-term prospect of boosting the candidate they think is most able to beat the GOP.

    I think it could have long term negative repercussions for the liberal blogosphere, however. So many elements of the liberal blogosphere have long since abandoned the 'reality-based' thinking that was supposed to be their mantra and become nothing more than shills for Obama.

    Already we see that all the hype and hysteria surrounding Obama, which his supporters in the liberal blogosphere let slide because it seemed good for their candidate, is now being used against him. This is the shape of things to come in the fall if Obama wins the nomination.

    And the media, including MSNBC, will tear down Obama as fast as they built him up. We will hear not only that he is a cult-leader, but that he is really a cypher, an unknown, all hype and no substance. And the medias role in creating that image will be ignored, of course, and it will all be laid at the feet of the liberal blogs and Obama supporters themselves.

    People like Aravosis will be left to sputter 'but but but ...' and they will have no credibility in condemning the media's 180 on Obama, because they have aided and abetted the placing of Obama on the pedestal, through their constant efforts to defend  at all costs every last thing Obama ever said or did.


    Reality Based Has Become Obama Based (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    And yes, IMO they have lost credibility  since they aided and abetted the media in making Obama larger than life and demonizing Clinton. If that meant adopting  right wing tactics or using the same talking points to accomplish their agenda, no big deal.

    It is a shame that this has occurred. I had high hopes that they would be a positive force. Instead, they have become what they once condemned. Oh, well.


    I gather that there is some effect (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    First comes the valentine from Howie Kurtz and then Matthews sends a deliberate salvo (his kneecapping comment) on the heels of Clinton agreeing to debate on MSNBC.

    It seems evident that Chris Matthews feels that he has won this round and why not? NBC clearly is pushing a McCain victory anyway.

    There is nothing close to an impartial main stream media these days and if it weren't for Olbermann, I would forget where to find MSNBC. That's not saying that CNN doesn't completely blow too...but at least they are much fairer in coverage of the candidates.

    The fact that MSNBC continues to provide a forum for Ann Coulter to spew her sexist, racist comments pretty much summarizes where they stand.

    KO's coverage (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    has been biased against Hillary too. Such a disappointment!

    eventually, when this generation has passed, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Turkana on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    many fine books will be written about the double-standards clinton had to deal with, in this election. from the corporate media and from bloggers. because she is a she. and because she is a clinton.

    Mebbe (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    I'm sure there will be (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    Just as I'm sure they will be put in the feminist section of the bookstore and mostly read in feminist studies in college.  It's what happens with this type of analysis.  It gets ignored and eventually disappeared.  

    There will also be some fine books written about the race aspects on this election.  Considering the willingness to see the racism in this election vs seeing sexism that those books will get notice if not best seller status for some and be considered serious discussions for our national conversation.  


    Trying to think who would write a (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    book I would be interested in reading.  Sontag's death narrows the field.  

    If MSNBC truly cared about gender equity (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    they would give an hour-long talk show to a woman. Instead we have aging, bloviating fratboys like Matthews and genial but (on gender issues) clueless nerds like Olberman. And when Obama sends a dogwhistle out to them with one of his comments, they dutifully perk up their ears and come running.

    Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    Maybe she could get a show.....

    Or perhaps hire away Greta and allow her to do politics?


    Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    has drunk the Obama koolaid.

    So, only women who support Hillary (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST

    A few things... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    thinking about msnbc fired Phil Donahue, who I guarantee would have been talking about the sexism in media, in 2002 because he had the nerve to question the run-up to the war.  So this is a pattern with them.

    Also, though I am against the death penalty, it should be noted that Rector was perfectly sane and not mentally ill when he committed the crimes he was convicted of.  He became mentally ill after a botched suicide attempt.

    And, Dan Abrams is not a Hillary fan, he's just trying to be objective and is pointing out the obvious bias against her.  

    Since when did journalists take such blatant sides in politics anyway.  We're not supposed to know what they're thinking!

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ghost2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat:

    From the bottom of my heart, thank you.  Thank you for your fairness, thank you for being a liberated man, thank you for calling sexism when you see it, thank you for trying so hard to be objective and fair.

    This campaign has opened my eyes to the true nature of many on the so-called progressive blogs.  The best excuse that could be said, is that, they are like MSM, and are blinded by the candidate they support. The best that can be said of them (Josh Marshall and Markos, I am looking at you) is that they do not see the overt sexism on display in this campaign.  

    You, Tom Watson, eriposte, and a few other men have been the shining lights here.  You, especially, since you do not even support Hillary Clinton, but call it what it is.  

    Thank you.

    Read the comments (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST

    Those comments were sick nt (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    This is the new fringe sect of the Party (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    they are jsut eating their own...

    Being the conspiracy theorist (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    I have to wonder if it's part of some "attack Democratic strengths" campaign.

    So-called "progressive" blogs have been such a strength, and now they're on their way to becoming a weakness.  You go to certain sites, and you see nothing of the intelligent discourse you see here.  Instead, you see something in the process of destroying itself.

    I wonder how much money it's worth for these folks to destroy their own reputations.

    But that's just me, being the conspiracy theorist.


    I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    and they're accomplishing much of it by getting Democrats to attack their own strengths - like the Clintons, who Dems have been supporting and defending and cheering on  and loving for more than 15 years.

    Suddenly Democrats HATE the Clintons? Suddenly  Democrats are using rightwing attacks on the Clintons - attacks they used to abhor - attacks they used defend the Clintons against. And the creepiest part is that they don't even see it.

    The only explanation I can think of is some kind of weird Obama hypnosis. And it scares the beejeebs outta me!


    Scares me too (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    Things like the willingness to attack Krugman simply for doing political analysis, or the willingness to defend Chris Matthews because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (or even just the 'enemy' part) makes me really nervous about the ability of the blogosphere to defend progressive principles against the lure of celebrity or a cult of personality.

    If Obama came out for nuking Iran tommorrow, I half think most of the liberal blogs would not only support him, they'd use it as an argument in support of his foreign policy abilities.

    I'm not a member of the Obamocratic wing of the Democratic Party.


    Well we Independents (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    love the Clintons, but not overly found of the Kerrys or Kennedys I must admit.

    Yeppers... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    why I was actively searching for a liberal blog that wasn't asking for the world to turn overnight, and display all the worst stereotypes. Folks can still be liberal, they just don't need to be flaming about it (same goes for the GOP pundits that are equally repugnant).

    Guess I prefer mature themes with a mature mindset (not that I don't kick up and have fun, but serious matters are serious for a reason).

    This blog is the closest I've found like the WP one I used to hang out upon. Good content, folks who'd fight their idealogy, but mature enough to not take take other idealogies as a personal attack.

    Maybe the Democrat party can be saved, IF, more folks of the same stripe regain control from their more militant wings. It is about solutions after all.


    A ringing endorsement of TL. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    Amazing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    No front page anywhere. Silence, yet Bill is front and center at TPM. This is what scares me. If they raise someone to the heights and become embedded journalists, what they criticized, they cannot retract, cause the machine they feed will eat them.

    Would everyone here (none / 0) (#12)
    by hvs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    say they are honestly as outraged by the "let's turn Obama into the just for black folks candidate" campaign that the Clinton team operated after Iowa as they are outraged by apparent sexism towards Hillary?

    I'm happy to explain that campaign if you're unsure of what I'm talking about.

    It seemed to me that the Obama camp (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    really started the racism argument when they did things like say Clinton didn't cry for the people hurt by Katrina and implied that Bill's fairytale remark was racist. If you want to interpret the attacks on Obama's drug use as racist, I guess you can. I saw that as trying to knock him off his pedestal and dirty him up.

    I expressed my outrage (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    on those comments.

    In posts. Publically, at THIS BLOG.

    So NOW turn that question around to your A-List blogging allies.

    I bet you won't.

    I detest the hypocrisy from people like you.


    But... (none / 0) (#58)
    by hvs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    Armando, if you grant that it happened, then you know that there was meeting--literally, a meeting, in which the chiefs of the campaign team sat around and came up with this plan. Can you imagine a fouler kind of racism? This was not the racism of crude idiots calling names, but an even worse kind. They said, let's throw our purported principles under the bus to destroy this guy on the grounds of his race.

    I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to understand how you can at once perceive that it happened but not have it disqualify her as a president. I'm honestly interested in your reasoned response. [To be honest, her Iraq war vote had already disqualified her in my eyes.]


    I do not see how you posit there was a meeting (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    Indeed, if there were a meeting, they would have shouted the idea down as it was idiotic politics.

    Again, (none / 0) (#63)
    by hvs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    not trying to upset anybody. I don't like to be called names even in blog comments! ; )


    you believe that the constellation of "enblackening" (for lack of a better word) comments were spontaneous?

    Again, I'm seriously interested in your response.


    BTD was outraged (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:29:36 PM EST
    I vehemently feel to this day it was orchestrated to diminish the Clinton standing in the AA community.  BTD did not think so and so did many other people here.  I am sure when this is over it will come out, cause I still don't get what is marginalizing about being the "black"candidate, to anyone other than a racist.  I never thought being black or JJ was marginal.  

    So, frankly I do not get the because white people hate them, they will associate Obama with Jj, gee, his son is his campaign chair.  I read the whole transcript and Bill was just jabbering, if he wanted to marginalize he could have done it in many other ways.  

    What I don't like is thinking his comment was totally planned and intended, and anything Obama says, is meant to harm.  That is patronizing to Obama.  

    I do not think they are the same thing.  At no point did Hillary do this kind of frontal racist attack.  I dare you to find me one from Hillary's mouth that is of equal value.    


    PS (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    If Bill is so brilliant and so motivated by everything he says, why would he have made such a blunder that may have hurt the campaign so deeply?  

    His wife (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    I have been thinking that he's off his stride in this campaign because he's not the major focus of the attacks.  It's all reversed.  Before he was the one in charge and in control while his wife was the supporter.  He was also the major focus of attack while she was attacked too she wasn't the major focus of them.  Now she is the major focus and he's in almost a bystander situation.  He can give advice but she's making the decisions.  

    It's like putting a race car driver into the passenger seat.  Even if he's confident in her abilities if you look at his feet he's pushing on pedals that aren't there.  

    I think despite all the problems in their marriage he does love her and it must be agonizing to be unable to do anything to watch what is happening without being able to do anything.  


    Ricky Ray Rector (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Tweety definitely has issues with women and he keeps getting in trouble.  But his dislike extends to both Clintons going way back.  He was especially hard on Bill during Impeachment.  

    I never really understood the animus...but Tweety's reference awhile ago to the execution of Ricky Ray Rector gave me some clue.  I had known of Bill's racing back to Arkansas during the 1992 primary campaign in New Hampshire to make sure Rector was executed.  But I was unaware that Rector was retarded and said he would eat his dessert when he returned from his execution until Tweety recited those facts on his show....

    I think Tweety dislikes both Clintons because he views them as without principle.....Not that this diminishes his misogyny....I think his religious views color much of how he views the Clintons.  

    I find it hard to believe that (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    Ricky Ray Rector's execution is the source of his animus.  After all if he's that affected and offended morally by that execution then the cavalier attitude toward executions by GWB should have made him even more morally offended.  

    I am positive it is not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    Tweety has repeated the Rector (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    comment more than once--it has been awhile though.

    One would expect Bush to execute everyone.


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    So because GWB is a barbarian he's given a pass?  It's a well know fact that Matthews had one of his man crushes on GWB.  The point you seem to be making is that he was offended by one execution but when it becomes many executions with some seriously problematic ones included in them it suddenly doesn't matter because people expect it of Bush?  That's some strange logic.  No Matthews may be using the Rector execution to rationalize his animus against the Clintons but it's not the reason for the animus.  If executions like that were the reason for the animus then he would have felt much more animus towards GWB.  

    It's about hypocrisy (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    Bill as enlightened porgressive executes retarded man for political gain--that's the narrative....

    What do you think of the execution of Rector?  


    No it isnt' (none / 0) (#78)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    The point you were making was about Chris Matthews.  You said

    I never really understood the animus...but Tweety's reference awhile ago to the execution of Ricky Ray Rector gave me some clue.

    We were discussing why Matthews came to his animus of the Clintons and you gave this for your reason.  My thinking or your thinking on this execution has nothing to do with your original point which was about Chris Matthew's motive.  

    The narrative was that Chris Matthews was offended by the execution of Rector to which I pointed out that GWB was worse in his executions than Bill Clinton so that couldn't be the reason for Matthews animus against the Clintons.  

    I don't consider Bill or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be particularly progressive.  I'm not basing my vote on the most progressive candidate which on the basis of my opinion Obama would lose.  I'm basing it on who, in my opinion, has the best chance to not only win the election but also to be most effective once in office.  For me that is Hillary Clinton.  YMMV.  


    Ricky Ray Rector: My point was that Matthews (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:35:53 AM EST
    believed that the Clintons are without principle....He ranted on in that vein for years during Impeachment....His argument never made a dent with me until he brought up Ricky Ray Rector.....that has always bothered me....You expect such barbarity from a Bush, not a Democrat...

    Matthews used the execution of Ricky Ray Rector as an example of a larger point.   I don't think that Tweety dislikes Bill and Hillary just because of Rector--I think it is one data point in a long line of criticisms.


    Like I said (none / 0) (#81)
    by rebecca on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:46:49 AM EST
    he may be using that execution as a rationalization of his hatred but it's not a reason for it.  If he really felt that way about executions then Bush's record would have offended him much more and would have been a serious problem for him with GWB.  Instead Matthews had a well know man crush on GWB.  

    Anyone looking at GWB can see he's a man without principle.  Next to him the Clintons are angels.  The Clintons are no worse than any other average pol out there.  So Matthew's animus towards them is not related to their supposed lack of principles.  He managed to go through most of the Bush years without a qualm about Bush's complete lack of principles and it didn't bother him a bit.  He's been around long enough to know better on this.  These are nothing more than rationalizations they explain nothing.  


    Dumbya's barbarism (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    dosnt count. Just ask Chris "Some of my best friends are named Rushdie" Hitchens.

    IMO MSNBC has endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    I think the boss does not like Hilary either and just makes the necessary attempts of reigning in guys like Matthews and Keith but in the back rooms they truly know that the boss is on their side.  Kind like this baseball guy ( can't think of his name at the moment) that just testified on the hill about steroids the other day.  He defended himself to the hilt that he did not take steroids no matter how blatant the evidence was against him.  Why did he take such a stance?  Because he probably got an advance notice that Bush is going to issue a pardon for him so what did he have to loose by denying everything even if he perjured himself.

    Chuck Todd likes Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by white n az on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    and Keith likes Obama but MSNBC is fully behind John McCain - you'll see it if you watch closely enough

    Dan Abrams is a big Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:20:00 PM EST

    No he's not... (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    he's a big FAIRNESS supporter, which to many Obama supporters seems to mean Hillary supporter.

    The Hillary-bashing, Obama-loving media coverage has caused this. Anything fair to Hillary is thought to be attacking Obama. Anything attacking Hillary is thought to be fair coverage.

    It's nuts!


    I agree with (none / 0) (#48)
    by Saul on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    you there but for the life of me I would have more respect of Abrams defending Hilary if he would point out that the two worse guys in Hilary bashing are his two compadres that come on before he does, Chris & Keith.  Maybe Abrams is the tool that the head honcho  of MSNBC uses to offset the Hilary bashing just so it does not look so bad and keeps everyone happy but deep down inside MSNBC overall is committed to Obama and by doing this bashing on Hilary they hope to sway voters to vote for Obama.  However, for right now they are competing with FOX as who is more Fair & Balance. A rating not to be coveted.

    I've written to Abrams (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Firefly4625 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    several times about exactly the same thing - thanked him for what he's doing but told him it doesn't do any good unless he also takes aim at the very worst offenders - his colleagues at MSNBC/NBC.

    Maybe I'll write again - maybe others will want to write too.



    How is Keith Olbermann (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:21:43 PM EST

    You kid right? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    Not really (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    He was unimpressed with Obama in the immediate aftermath of Iowa and claimed on-air vindication after New Hampshire....He lampooned Tweety's feeling-up-his-leg comment.

    He is no longer pro-Hillary.....Perhaps South Carolina has something to do with it.  


    I heard him preface a statement last night (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    with "despite my great affection for both Clintons"...it was like he didn't want to be criticizing them but then he lambasted Bill and accused him of doing the same thing in TX that he did in S.C. -- only the Dallas Morning News said just the opposite, that Bill praised and refused to criticize Obama in Texas.

    So I think some days he is anti-clinton and some days he isn't.


    Loving the Hamlet reference. (none / 0) (#17)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    Very apt.

    Obama's comment (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    Obama seemed to be struggling for words.  He seemed to be trying to say that Hillary was attacking him because she was feeling down in the polls.....It didn't quite come out that way.

    Yet, Hillary is 60, so it wouldn't make any sense to say it was a matter of hormones.....I know many here see it otherwise but Obama is not always perfect with words....This is why Hillary is a better debater.....  

    Interesting (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    For the longest time they kept Obama from the Press, only speeches.  Now he they are feeling secure and letting him speak. As far as I can tell up to now we were getting the voice of the speech writer, now we are getting the voice of the candidate.  

    Here's what he could have said (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    This is what he said:

    "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

    He spent enough time deliberating on his words.  Here's what he could have said:

    Sometimes when a candidate is down in the polls they launch attacks as a way to boost their appeal

    If he was responding to a McCain ad, would have have said what he said, or something else?


    Oh please (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    just stop with this What Obama really meant stuff.  It's not working now.

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    how it came out was sexist.

    Not to be a picky-poo, but (none / 0) (#42)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    shouldn't it be "malignant"?  I've only heard "malign" used as a verb (as in "to malign").  I also wondered if you meant "benign" as in "passive", but I don't think so... ???

    You are mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    My American Heritage Dictionary's definition: (none / 0) (#65)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST

    tr.v. ma·ligned, ma·lign·ing, ma·ligns
    To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of.


    1. Evil in disposition, nature, or intent.
    2. Evil in influence; injurious.
    3. Having or showing malice or ill will; malevolent.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    More than six years ago, Matthews said of Clinton, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."
    But sexism is discrimination or hatred based on gender rather than individual merit.

    Sounds to me like his hatred of her is based on her individual (lack of, in his opinion) merit, rather than her gender.

    Too bad he expresses it in a gender-based manner...

    it's pretty well known (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    that chris matthews is insane. all of his ravings have to be taken in this light. it happens that the clintons are and have been the focus of his insanity. it could have been any of us.

    wow, race has been injected into the campaign? do tell? probably gender too. i believe, wait, let me just double check here................yes, sen. obama is a black man! by golly, he sure is. so, um, race, by definition, was injected from the day he announced his candidacy. same as gender was when sen. clinton announced her's. to claim otherwise is to be a public maroon.

    anyone who is sexist, racist, etc. is not, by definition, progressive. can't be.

    no calling people insane here (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    please repost your comment without the name-calling and potentially libelous insult so I can delete it. thanks!

    ricky lee rector (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruthinor on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:47:05 PM EST
    I understand that he was NOT retarded at the time he committed the crime, but something happened afterward to cause brain damage.

    he was lobotimized (none / 0) (#79)
    by sef on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:50:01 PM EST
    by a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  Unfortunately for Ricky his appeals ran out on the eve of primary where WJC needed to prove he was tough on crime.  

    Of all the failures of character of Bill, this, IMO killing Rector was the worst.


    jeralyn, (none / 0) (#75)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    i didn't call chris matthews insane, i merely pointed out that everyone knows he is. any reasonable person, including experts, upon witnessing his outbursts would conclude that he's, well, nuts.

    ask bob somerby, who's not been sued by mr. matthews that i'm aware of, for describing him as such. it's only libel if you know for a fact that it's untrue, before you state it. i certainly don't know that it isn't true, and were i to bring video of him into a courtroom, i would be quickly exonerated and paid handsomely for my troubles.

    convince me that he isn't insane. it's the only reasonable explanation for his actions.

    but, i understand your concerns, and i wouldn't want to be the cause of any harm to you or the site, i enjoy it too much. that said, feel free to delete this and the other post, just to be on the safe side. :)