TPM: Tweety Leads To Shuster's Fall

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall posits that Tweety led to Shuster's fall:

[M]any have rightly criticized Chris Matthews for his repeatedly degrading, often sexist and consistently clownish comments about Hillary Clinton. The most logical way for me to understand this development is that MSNBC is under a lot of fire for Matthews -- but Matthews is untouchable -- and Shuster's easier to can or suspend.

Josh is right as far as he goes but he overlooks some important particulars. First and foremost, imo, is that MSNBC is rightly feeling heat for its anti-Hillary/pro-Obama bias as TPM's own Greg Sargent has pointed out. This clearly contributed to the harsh punishment meted out to Shuster.

More . . .

Second, Josh is wrong in saying Shuster has no history of questionable comments. Indeed, recently, Shuster has been an abject apologist for Matthews' misogyny, even going so far as to cruelly ridicule The View's Joy Behar for defending Hillary Clinton in doing so.

Finally, in context, Shuster's remarks are clearly sexist, and it is wrong of Josh to pretend, as he does, it was not. This is part of the malign acceptance of sexism I previously discussed.
< MSNBC Suspends David Shuster Over Chelsea Clinton Comment | David Shuster's Apology for Chelsea Clinton Comment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can NBC (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:51:02 PM EST
    take a chance on deeply offending the next President of the United States. I hope not.

    Hahhaaha (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    President Obama or Clinton offended by one of these nothings. THat is a laugh.

    squeaky my man.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:44:08 PM EST
    That is a laugh...good call.

    Shouldn't we be offended by Clinton, Obama, and McCain (Sorry Huck, you're done son) instead of some knucklehead on MSNBC?  Talk to me dude, you're old school TL.


    Believe Me (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:06:58 PM EST
    We will. Can't wait until the love fest is over and we can concentrate on hammering whoever winds up being in charge to get our kids back home from Iraq.  

    If NBC Execs... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Alvord on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:03:37 PM EST
    ... refuse to recognize that the problem is a systemic one at MSNBC and not just a Schuster mistake then nothing will change. Tweety is a lost cause. He is hardwired to be offensive to Hillary and is incapable of changing. Given his prominent role in political coverage he is also the source of much of the anti-Hillary tone that has infected MSNBC coverage in general. Sadly even Keith Olbermann has been influenced by him.

    and I still submit (none / 0) (#29)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM EST
    that if their corporate bosses weren't OK with it then this would stop in a heart beat...Obviously they are scared to death of a Hillary run for the presidency which tells me she would have a great chance...

    50% of the electorate (none / 0) (#36)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    is "hard wired" to hate Hillary and Bill.  

    Not only do you have to convince the MSM to like the Clintons you have to convince America.

    As a liberal I'm sick of fighting for the Clintons.


    As a liberal, I'm sick of (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    liberals who are sick of fighting for other liberals...for Democrats who fight for us.

    Good thing you're not running for president.  Don't think you'd hold up long!

    Oh, and you left out 'tired.'  So many of my so-called liberal friends are either sick of this or tired of that.

    Me too.

    Time for a break.


    The double standard and abuse are beyond belief (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    Atrios is absolutely correct:
    But what I find worse is that it's part of a general pattern of taking perfectly normal political activities - in this case a family member helping out with a campaign - and talking about them as if they're unseemly, or corrupt, or inappropriate, or seedy, or sleazy, etc... The press has a long history of doing this with the Clintons, holding them to a weird standard that no one else is held to.

    The sneering, adolescent drooling is objectionable too. Anything goes: speculatiation accepted as fact, innuendo, inventions from whole cloth. It's so schoolyard, like making menacing noises at the camera accusing the Clintons' [dramatic rodent] of being naked under their clothes.

    A deeply unhinged panelist can even accuse Sen. Clinton of having someone's cat murdered -- out of spite -- on prime time, and not only NOT be asked to provide evidence of this outlandish charge but be treated like an ordinary, mainstream news analyst!

    I mean, no one even said RRROWRWWW!

    love atrios today! (none / 0) (#77)
    by ghost2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    That's a very good summation.

    did anyone else (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    think it was funny that they had three women on at the beginning of Tucker?  First time I've ever seen that in  my life.

    "Seriously, folks, some of my  best friends are Jews..."

    No accident obviously (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    And if you watched Tweety's show, it was INCREDIBLY subdued.

    If people got their information from some (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    format other than TV news coverage, this would be a much fairer election cycle.  I don't watch TV except when everyone else is watching it while blogging a debate of primary/caucus.  Hard to see why anyone would watch it on a regular basis.  Why, I ask?

    I don't have cable tv (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dutchfox on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:25:49 PM EST
    so I didn't even know who this Shuster guy is. Matthews I've seen before, years ago, and considered him a blowhard then. I get fairer coverage on TL, to be honest. That's why it's my daily fix :-P.

    Pretty good rationalization. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    Since MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    doesn't really do news but infotainment, there is nothing surprising about Shuster's provocation. I'm glad there was some real pushback and the dumb sob deserves his punishment. The network should be punished as well by consumers boycotting its sponsors until they clean up their act, but from what I see that's the only act they know.

    When Romney suspended his campaign he joined McCain in smearing the Dems as surrender monkeys: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

    While Shuster's comments were def. anti-Clinton, it's important for Dems in general to push back hard against the inevitable torrent of lies, smears, and swiftboating garbage that the GE is going to throw up into the public sphere. There's a danger that they can come off shrill and too pc, but there's a worse danger in letting the MSM control their image and dictate the terms of the debate.

    Great Point (none / 0) (#45)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    Your right.  The Dems should not blow their wad re pushing back at the media on this.  Hillary should be pushing back on the surrender monkey slur.  As should Obama.  This is the CRITICAL smear the media perpetrates against Democrats.

    Fight back against Mitt's slur.  Go on the attack and challenge the media for their part in it.

    This current hubub is a side issue.


    It's not a side issue (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:51:03 PM EST
    when a national network figure uses a degrading word like pimping. It's sexist, demeaning, and just so plain odious that I am really at a loss for words. When Repubs wore their purple bandaids I thought I'd seen the lowest of the low, but this slur is as bad. It has all got to stop and since we can't make the bullies and thugs stop it, it has to be fought tooth and nail. Otherwise, the Dems are wimps, the smear sticks, and the Repubs walk into the WH on the backs of Dems who ought to have shown some spine.

    I don't see any "wad" being blown. I see a bully being stopped in his tracks and a warning going out just as when the Dems stood up to Fox not so long ago. It's long overdue.


    Really? (none / 0) (#79)
    by ghost2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    Every thing in its place.  This was not only an insult to Chelsea, but an insult to the first viable female candidate, and further an insult to all women.  It is EXACTLY the kind of things that all democrats should be united in fighting.  

    Frankly, the silence of the macho so-called leadership of the democratic party in the face of rampant sexism in this campaign is deafening.  That silence is from Kerry (Yeah, the guy who wrote a diary for Obama and said we won't be swiftboated, or something), Kennedy (something offended him, but it wasn't sexist remarks), Dean, of course Obama (hey, it works for him) himself,  and many others.  If they were silent once, they could have been excused, but they have been silent EVERY TIME.


    Seems like it. My apologies as a former (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    resident of the great state of Iowa.

    Spare me the crocodile tears (none / 0) (#64)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    for the state of Iowa oculus.  

    Please explain why that comment is sexist.  

    It is simply my political analysis that Clinton knows she does well when she is the perceived victim.  Tears help personify this.  Tears have helped Bush and other candidates look human.

    Where are you from in Iowa?


    Burlington. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    I am not of the opinion HRC has purposefully caused tears to well in her eyes on either occasion.  But, I must admit, I cry easily, never on purpose, and sometimes to my detriment. Haven't found a way to preclude crying though.  

    I just found (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:01:23 PM EST
    the timing of the two instances of when she cried to be suspect.  I admit that it also angers me that the only time she cried was when it was her campaign or her personal fortunes that where at stake.  Just reinforces my belief that I, as a liberal, am being asked to support her as a person rather than support her because she will fight for a liberal agenda.

    real issue of Josh's post (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by a gilas girl on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    it seems to me is that "Matthews is untouchable". Simple corporate politics that the big kahuna can do stuff a guy farther down the food chain can't. MSNBC is a big corporation.  do i feel bad for the little guy farther down the food chain?

    No, I don't.  I'm just glad to see some push-back toward the media.  I wish it were in terms of institutional biases that the corporate media hold, but given how long I've waited for said push-back, I'll take it even if it is merely couched in terms of "personal bias" or even "sexism".  Personally, I'm sick of white guys, old and young, staking out careers for themselves and trying to make themselves look smart/astute/hip whatever by making people who aren't white guys (or their honorary substitutes) small.  Talk radio sensibilities are problematic on talk radio, on the net, and on national, cable television.  Part of the reason folks aren't that upset about what Shuster said is that that kind of talk is commonplace among chattering folks who seek to use language and technology to present themselves as "smart" or "skilled" or "in the loop".

    I'd like to see Matthews become un-untouchable, however.

    A Gilas Girl! Missed your work (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:42:13 PM EST
    and glad you're here.  Good points, well put -- as usual.  Yes, we start somewhere, and maybe today was a tipping point that will take us farther to fight for our airwaves to provide information/news again.

    Today reminded me of Friedan's term in The Feminine Mystique -- when women heard the "click."  And the country was not the same again.

    But it's still got a ways to go.


    Seems like talk radio and TV news (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 01:24:44 AM EST
    commentary programs exist to fill air time and sell ads and no one is minding the store while all these people just blather on and on.  But, you've identified the problem.

    Please see my post (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:58:50 AM EST
    The Malign Acceptance of Sexism that I think touches upon your point.

    Thanks for stopping by.


    Shuster (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:49:43 PM EST
    It really disappointed me to see him fall into that "gotcha journalism" fold. When he covered the Libby trial he was very thorough and factual. Maybe being around Tweety and Russert was too much to overcome,

    Who wants to bet (1.00 / 3) (#33)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:20:58 PM EST
    that Hillary is captured on camera "tearing up" over the way the media is treating her daughter?

    Go have a beer. Its Friday. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    If she does, that's another 4+ points in the polls (none / 0) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    Cynical as you are in saying that, this definitely is one of those things that can qualify as being worth tears. Do you remember how Chelsea was harangued during the administration?

    Hopefully this sends a message to would-be detractors: Kids and relatives are off limits for nasty slurs. Save it for the headliners.

    Oh, and yes this applies to Obama as well; his children should not be attacked if they are old enough to help him campaign.

    It would seem that spouses aren't included in this message though. Well, Bill and Michelle are strong people.


    You're exactly right (none / 0) (#48)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    she does get support when she's the perceived victim.  Look at all the people here swooning to protect her. It's a political reality and I don't really blame her for playing this card.  The hatred of the Clintons has also been their best political weapon.

    This is how the general will play out if Hillary wins the nomination.


    Thanks for agreeing with me (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    but don't ever do that again. :-P

    There are other considerations (none / 0) (#75)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    outside the confines of a political campaign that you are overlooking.  I am borrowing a comment from a friend (who is not a Clinton supporter) at dkos that covers it well.

    I agree with Standing Up and Granny Helen. Having raised two daughters in a very conservative climate, in a relatively small town, it sometimes difficult to make conscientious choices. Ultimately, the bottom line for my husband and myself would be, "What is the message that SuzyQ gets from all this?"  Did it cost us some business? Yep. Did it cost us some invites to the cocktail party? Yep. Did it mean I won't be homecoming queen?  Yep.

    And none of these things were nationally televised--they were little blips on the horizon of smallville. But they were our daughters' horizons, and our children's realities.

    I don't pretend to know Hillary's motives any more than I pretend to know David Shuster's. But I know this: Shuster's a wordsmith. He knows what he's saying. Therefore, as a parent, it would be incumbent upon Hillary or Bill (or me in such a case) to take a stand.

    Anything else, would be pimping, indeed.

    There are reasons to speak out against this just as there are reasons to speak out against racist comments.  If we don't, what does that say to those who are and will continue to be victims of sexism and bigotry.  I don't care if the campaigns have been hurt or helped by the way that they have been able to play off these incidents.  We should be doing what we can to put a stop to it period.  


    How would you feel (none / 0) (#85)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    if you had a daughter and someone says you are pimping her? A little human empathy shouldn't make a man look weak.

    Tearing up about Chelsea (none / 0) (#87)
    by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    Cheap shot on Hillary, Hawkguy.

    Are you the lowest , or what?


    Any predictions as to the effect of (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:44:36 PM EST
    this event and NBC's action on how the TV media will monitor what happens on air in the future?  Also, aren't these on air persons required to attend mandatory sexual harassment training?  I know many of the men are "of a certain age," but still.    

    not sure I'd call (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
    the punishment of Shuster "harsh," but I agree with everything else you say.

    I don't think Tweety's cage is as gilded as some might think.

    They should have waited until the writer's strike was over to start pulling this crap.  There are lots of very well-connected folks sitting around in their pajamas with nothing to do but watch TV...

    Will Shuster retain BTD as an expert (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    witness in the soon to be filed wrongful termination lawsuit?

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    I am a corporate shill.

    He needs Obama's old firm for that.


    He shoots...he scores! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    Don't you think BTD is more of a nighttime (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    person than an early morning person?  

    I'd say it is harsh. No counseling, no (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    letter in the file.  Just kaboom.

    In context (none / 0) (#19)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:05:03 PM EST
    it does strike me as harsh.  If journalistic standards were higher it probably wouldn't.

    Wrongly overly harsh imo (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    I think a sincere apology and a promise to change his ways would have sufficed.

    I hope it is a short suspension. I hope when he returns he covers the McCain campaign. He clearly can not cover the Dems now.


    He had a chance (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    at a sincere apology, and he chose to say something along the lines of, "if you interpreted my words as pejorative, then I am sorry."

    As in, "I am sorry that was your interpretation," putting the blame squarely back on the listener.

    That is not an apology in my book.  That's an insult.  What he did tonight (even though he actually lied during the middle of it) was a genuine apology.  No "if" involved.

    That is why I do not think the punishment today was harsh.  He could have stopped all of this pretty quickly if he had given tonight's unequivocating apology first thing this morning instead of letting it play out and assuming the boys had his back.

    Does that make sense?


    Fair point (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:19:15 PM EST
    This seems like an appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:30:07 PM EST
    apology to me:

    In describing this effort, I used a phrase that was inappropriate, and I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign, and all of you who were justifiably offended.

    oculus (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    that is not the entire "apology."


    "to the extent people thought I was being pejorative, I apologize."

    And then his pals take up for him and say that he's a "good guy."

    You called the daughter of a woman running for the president of the United States a wh*re.  I'm sorry, what exactly makes you a good guy?


    I stand corrected. To the extent (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    my comment may have justifiably offended anyone, I hereby apologize.

    Maybe this will dissuade future 'apologists' (none / 0) (#53)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM EST
    Dissuade them from trying to weasel out of a sincere apology in the future. They either do it or they don't. Period.

    Yep, reminds me of being taught (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:43:59 PM EST
    the best conversation-stopper:

    "I understand that you feel that way. . . ."

    But it won't work, MSNBC.  I'm not going to stop staying on your case until you "change."


    Yeh, suspended with pay? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    It doesn't say.  Might be just giving him a nice paid vacation.  (I could use one about now.:-)

    A standard contract (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    ties appearances to salary and requires X number of appearances within a given cycle unless there is a suspension.  

    The number of apperances issue goes both ways--it gives the talent a pretty solid idea of their salary.  On the other hand, if you skip shows, they can say you are in breach and cut yout pay.

    This is why the late-night talk show hosts have been back on the air. (not for the money so much as being in breach)

    In case none of that makes sense, I doubt it is with pay.


    well he may have blown the chance to get his (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    own show. i think he wanted to show he was one of the gang and fit in with the rest of the troops at msnbc.

    this is somewhat media-related (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:54:11 PM EST
    Do we have the final (really final) delegate count for Tsuper Tuesday?  No one seems to agree.

    Campaign Laws ???? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    There have to be some laws involved here public airways as a campaign extension.

    The additional problem is the attempt to elect our President and subvert the outcome of elections.  We know the media covergae around NH drove millions of dollars away from Clinton and into other camps.

    Maybe a lawyer would know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:03:10 PM EST
    more about this, but I think that the cable networks are not accountable to the FEC or FCC.  Otherwise, Fox would be in trouble.

    Of course, it gets tricky because NBC "owns" MSNBC, and one is an extension of the other...so, yeah. I have no idea.


    I have not a clue on any federal requirements (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    imposed on TV broadcast media, but I do remember reading cable stations do not have to broadcast public service announcements, certain amount of health for kids to watch programs, etc.  

    cable (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    not transmitted on airwaves owned by the government, therefore not regulated by FCC rules.

    Fairness Doctrine (none / 0) (#46)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    What would happen if that came back? Sounds like something a Dem pres and congress could push through, doesn't it?

    Not sure how you could get something through for Cable without someone wanting to apply it to the internet as well. Harrumph.

    Need Beer.


    That's a hoot (none / 0) (#40)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    And sad state of affairs that Hillary supporters want to sue the media for not helping her get elected.

    Give me a break!


    Sad State of Affairs (none / 0) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    You got that right. I don't want them to help Hillary get elected... I don't want them to help anyone get elected, period. Don't you?

    I wish these networks would just cover the policies, not the horserace. But, to paraphrase the old joke, 'what would they do the other 23.5 hours of the day?'


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#11)
    by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:00:56 PM EST
    Awful coverage, just awful.

    Totally unprofessional hacks are assigned on election coverage.

    the corporate media (none / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    is controllling the entire election...It is a sham...I am ashamed of them and very upset about it...This is as close to Fascism as I care to ever come....my definition being the corporate world controlling the government....

    Candidate X is pimping out his son (none / 0) (#13)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    JMM would contend that's as likely a statement as the one in question.

    And the answer to his other question is Imus, isn't it?

    Um (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:04:20 PM EST
    If that is Josh's answer, it would have more weight if he could even find someone questioning in that fashion.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    I meant to attack his implicit claim that the reaction is unprecedented, that no political chat show host is ever fired.

    Your first sentence (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    is not about that.

    My first sentence (none / 0) (#61)
    by rilkefan on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    was meant to point out the absurdity of claiming there was no sexism involved.  Sorry about the lack of snark tags.

    Don't Know Where Josh Is Coming From With This (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    I do not think the comment played to specific stereotypes about women in general or about Hillary in particular as it would if you refer to a black man as "lazy" or "shiftless" or a woman as "shrill" or a "shrew."

    Chris Mathews (none / 0) (#25)
    by wormdirt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:10:15 PM EST
    Chris Mathews has been a running joke at MSNBC for a long time.  He does tend to be anti-Hillary and very annoying about it.  This hasn't changed noticably for as long as I can recall.  David Schuster made a serious gaffe and should have apologized more forthrightly.  All of the TV networks are flawed in one way or another.  MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CNN.  They are all atrocious in that all they want to cover is the horse race aspect of politics. Given all that, I find it silly to go on about MSNBC bias it as if it were some sort of new discovery.  I think the election should be about the candidates and the direction they will take the nation and not about the sideshow issues.  In their own way these blog todos focusing on the media circus are as bad as the MSM focus on the horse race. BTW, I intend to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election regardless of which candidate takes the primaries although  I am an Obama supporter now.      

    pimp was just the traction we needed (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM EST
    what is truely offensive is their continued bias.  They would never say that there was something uncomfortable if the Obama kids were old enough to make calls on behalf of the campaign even without the slur.  It's that they try to make everything the Clintons do seem "unseemly" as he said.  But if we had complained about that, nobody would have listened and that has been tiresome enough.  So we got lucky that they just keep going so overboard something had to be done.

    Lets take serious action (none / 0) (#54)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    I think we need to start doing something together. Lets get very vocal in our opposition to this kind of non-sensical behaviour.

    Just today I heard Jack Cafferty say that Barack Obama had not attacked Hillary Clinton at all before New Hampshire, while infact that is all he has been doing since the beginning of his campaign.


    I mean we should organize and yell at the top of our lungs that we are pissed off with this one sided reporting and we want honest to god apologies or some sort of action and we want St. Obama better vetted. Swift through the details of his legislative record. Do some honest to god reporting and stop picking our candidates. This is absolutely pathetic. All news channels are guilty of this. We should do something. Now.

    First event: eyes had tears in them; (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:43:24 PM EST
    not "crying."  Seemed to be somehow related to a question posed by a female at a sit down session with a few potential voters in NH.

    Second event:  intro of HRC by a person who knew her as an undergrad.  Nice intro.  Tears in eyes.  So what?

    Watching HRC on the campaign trail does not lead me to believe she considers herself a victim.  One strong lady.  

    Thanks for putting that in perspective (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    I knew the first 'tears' thing was overblown. I saw a reference to the second one, but didn't know it was in relation to GOOD feelings.

    What will happen if she has to give a speech in really cold weather? Does she scotch-guard her eyeballs to keep them from tearing up?


    Wasn't the cold weather why (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    Muskie got dissed?  Of course, now its o.k. for men to cry, isn't it?  See Terrell Owens.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    That's my point exactly.  Tears help both men and women now.  It's certainly easier for a man to cry now.  Bush, T.O., whoever.  

    Didn't help Muskie. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    I saw some (none / 0) (#69)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    recent analysis that suggested that conventional wisdom re Muskie was wrong.  It certainly wouldn't be unheard of for the political narrative started by the media to be wrong, would it?  

    Nope. I'm happily of the opinion (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    times have changed and men and women, young and old are now permitted by society in the U.S. to tear up and/or cry.  

    BS (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    It is a sexist putdown to suggest that HRC is going to become a crybaby over some idiotic newsguy's sexist comment about her grown daughter. Any woman would get mad at that sort of thing, then people like you could call them shrill.

    No, that wasn't your point. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    This isn't a conversation where you get to back off and say, but I really said something else.

    Your words are here for posterity.  And they show that you are . . . well, okay, you say you're not a sexist and a lout.  Fine.  You just talk like one.


    That "apology" (none / 0) (#78)
    by independent voter on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    actually turns my stomach! Could it be any more clear that NBC is making him say those words? He reminds me of one of my children when I say, "now apologize to your sister" but I swear my 7 year old can come across as more sincere than that!

    Going after Chelsea or any child of a politician for supporting one of their parents is beyond believable. Just disgusting

    Michigan delegates allocated--Hillary gets 73 (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    Story here.

    Why is it (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM EST
    When the "liberal elite" picks an injustice to rail against, it's never for the sake of women?

    A quick comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    about Greg Sargent's admission of MSNBC bias.  Here is the title: "Is Obama Being Hurt By MSNBC And His Other Media Worshippers?"

    I think Greg is clearly right that it is more than just MSNBC that is biased.  And this obvious bias should give pause for thinking people.  Remember how Al Gore was treated by the media in 2000?  Remember how the media failed to professionally reject the false claims of the Swiftboaters in 2004? (And yes I know John Kerry bears some responsibility for not responding sooner, but objective media analysis of the Swiftboater claims and their background was practically nonexistent.)

    The so called Main Stream Media is biased against Democratic presidential candidates.  So ask yourself why the media is so obviously pro-Obama now and anti-Hillary.  

    Dan Abrams (none / 0) (#88)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:33:14 PM EST
    His show has a good balance of objectivity. He gives equal time to all, either for good or bad. Maybe it's his legal brain. And being the head of MSNBC you'd think the others would pay more attention to the boss!

    Love Fest (none / 0) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    The MSM has had a love affair with McCain for years. Now they have one for Obama. It will be intersting to see which one they turn on in the general if Obama wins the nomination. They live for conflict, so one is going to have to take the hit. I'd bet they'll drop Obama as fast as they picked him up. They've spent twenty years spouting the wonders of McCain and they're not going to stop now.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#97)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:11:34 AM EST
    Your blog is an oasis amidst a sea of insanely (pro-Obama/anti-Clinton) biased coverage this primary season.  And Big Tent Dem, I couldn't care less what people like SFHawkGuy say; your post as well as how you've handled your altercation with him are an impressive model for what a real man does and looks like.  Thank you!

    Abrams is no longer... (none / 0) (#98)
    by keylord on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:33:01 AM EST
    ... the head of MSNBC; he stepped down to return to the air. Also, I don't think that Matthews is a "running joke" at the network; his & Olbermann's consistently rate higher than anything else they produce. I like Shuster as well as those two - he made a bone-headed mistake, and apologized for it. I lost a lot of my Clinton love when the two of them behaved & spoke so abominably in South Carolina. SO, Clintonistas, I hope that you'll relax - there is no MSNBC/Obama conspiracy; I'll vote for Hillary as planned... IF Barack does not get the nomination.

    MSNBC Conspsiracy (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    Since no one said that, just what is obvious, that MSNBC has an anti-Hillary, pro-Obama bias, I miust say your comment stands out as the typical idiocy from the Obama Cult.

    I used to be a regular viewer of MSNBC (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    but no more.  Not with Chris Matthews there.  I'm done with them allowing that man to stay on the air after repeatedly saying the sexist things he has.