home

More Sexism At NBC

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The victims this time were Rachel Maddow AND Hillary Clinton. The context was Obama's "inartful" use of the word "refine" regarding his Iraq policy. TChris covered that controversy. Maddow was arguing the Obama argument and Joe Scarborough was not happy about Maddow's laughing as a reaction to Joe's commentary. The result was yet another episode of sexism at NBC:

Yet more guffaws from Maddow.

MADDOW: You're so wrong, I can't even hold it together. You're so wrong.

SCARBOROUGH: You might support Obama but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of ya.

(Emphasis supplied.) Maddow has been silent and cowardly on the issue of sexism and misogyny at NBC and in general, so you might be tempted to feel some schadenfreude. Resist it. Sexism is wrong whenever it occurs and whomever it is directed at. NBC should suspend Scarborough for this blatant bout of sexism.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: America | The Declaration Of Independence >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More Sexism At NBC | 194 comments (194 topical)
    thou shalt not laugh (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    at a man, lowly woman.

    the egos on these guys are ridiculous, and when they get threatened they lash out. repulsive.

    Maddow, IMHO (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    was being totally obnoxious, on and on and on and on with gales of forced laughter, non-stop, at pretty much every sentence somebody else said, man or woman.  If I'd been Joe Scarborough, I would have said a lot worse to her a lot earlier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something a lot worse to her once they were off air.


    Parent
    Off air is the key (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    Sometimes I really wonder at these so-called professionals.

    Parent
    Look, the video is here. (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    That is, if you have stomach for more than 10 minutes of obnoxiousness by one person.  She is really annoying.

    I know Joe really admires Hillary (and I do too.) So, I think cackle may have not been as much of a put down as people think.

    Frankly I was offended that he compared Rachel to Hillary. I had a yuck reaction to that.    

    What do you think of a woman who keeps laughing (for 10 minutes) when the subject is Iraq War? I think she is stupid, insensitive, and a jerk.  

    Parent

    Doesn't matter how obnoxious she is (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    It doesn't even really matter whether he called her on it on or off the air.  It's how he called her on it.

    That is the fundamental point that all the MSM and bloggerkidz don't get (and I think purposely don't get) in the sexism discussion.

    It's not objecting to Clinton that's sexist.  It's using sexist language and talking points to object (ok, demonize) Clinton that is the problem.

    The words you use reveal your thinking.  Using sexist language just shines a big ol' light on how you see the world.

    Parent

    Then tell her OFF THE AIR. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    It's what a professional would do.

    Parent
    i agree that is the best way but i (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    am willing to bet he may already have tried that with maddow.

    Parent
    THIS is what i am referring to below (none / 0) (#131)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    if this comment just doesn't scream "she deserved it because she's such a jerk" i don't know what does.

    i can understand not feeling sympathetic toward her, but honestly, i think you are blaming the victim here.

    maddow can be BOTH an awful commentator and the subject of a sexist remark.

    Parent

    you misinterpret my thoughts. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    i have no sympathy for maddox that is true. i deplore any sexist comments. i reviewd the whole segment. i saw him a number of times trying to get maddow to tone down her behavior. she was using her laugh in a very demeaning, put down manner. he responded and should have stayed with another method to do so for sure. am i going to jump up and down in maddow's defense? NO!

    Parent
    just have to interject what an earlier blogger is (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    trying to say about men and being laughed at.  All people, just not men, will see Maddow's laugher as a far worse offesne. We're brought up to see it that way.

    Berkely study 1980's.  Respondents are male and female college students answering questionaire.  One question stands out for me -

    When asked what they fear most about the opposite sex might do to them the men nearly always responded that they feared women would reidicule them.  Women said they feared that men would kill them.

    So, you see, how we view women ridiculing men is considered a very, very big social no-no.  Doing so in public is even more of an egregious wrong that may always be responded to with some form of verbal or physical escalation.

    Parent

    BTW, (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    feel free to spend your time discussing 'cackle' in the context of someone who thinks the Iraq War, and Obama's turnaround on it is all part of a joke.  

    I know BTD wrote about sexism during the primary.  But for others, who now like to join the bandwagon and get us to defend the likes of Rachel Maddow, sorry, that ship has sailed.  

    You know, I don't give anyone the satisfaction of pretending NOW that they are sensitive to sexism, after all that went on, and they were quiet.  Now that they have been the beneficiary of that sexism, they want to be cute.  They get to pretend they care AND get us to fight THEIR battles for them.  Sorry, won't do. If Rachel wants to object to the term, she can be my guest.

    Come to think of it, that was a stroke of genius by Joe S. If Rachel objects to it, questions naturally arise as why she didn't lift a finger when it was going on against Hillary.  She either has to take it or admit she was a hypocrite.

    Let her try.

    Parent

    And she blatantly laughed at him and everyone else (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by andrys on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:08:32 AM EST
    She was 100% wrong on this.

    I watched Obama at rally after rally, when carried live on tv and then televised later also, tell people outright that he would have the troops out of Iraq BY the end of 2009.
    He oversimplified INTENTIONALLY, and without shame.

      Samantha Power lost her volunteer position as his foreign policy advisor when, in addition to calling Clinton a 'monster' during an interview, she did a TELEVISED interview with the BBC saying that Obama's 16-month promise was actually only a best-case scenario and not that likely to be kept.

    From barackobama.com:

    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat
    brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
     Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

    Now he can't even promise that the combat brigades will be out by 2013.

    Maddow was acting like a complete idiot, and she tends to excuse EVERY conflicting statement Obama ever makes.  She used to be a bit less partisan about it, but now she not only does that but does that forced, abusive laugh AT others who don't think as she does, which is wholesale belittling of them as thinking humans.  Why she feels she is the sole hold of Truth is beyond me.

    Hillary does have a strong laugh, which can at times also be forced (coming out as a cackle) when she used it as a tactic against the usual accusations.  It often worked.  And the people against whom she used it were attackers.

    Maddow used it against people who don't excuse Obama's every evasion or 'change.'  She was being super-obnoxious.

     

    Parent

    Hey, I've got it!! (none / 0) (#192)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    I didn't see it as sexist in the context, and I guess we can agree to disagree.  I just cringed that he was comparing Maddow to Hillary (and Joe admires Hillary).  I think Joe didn't see the sexist implications.

    I just re-read the post. I guess BTD refers to Obama's 'inartful' use of the word 'refining' his Iraq polity.

    Joe can be annoying and has lots of faults. But hey, can he just say that his use of the word cackle was inartful? Surely, if it can be applied to Obama's Iraq policy and promises, a little comment by Joe Scarborough should be a very small fish in comparison!

    What's a few 'inartful' comments among friends?  

    Parent

    Yeah, I heard that too (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    I don't condone the sexist language Scarborough used, but I understand why he wanted to fight back. She came off as completely contemptuous and arrogant, just laughing mockingly at every opinion that she didn't agree with. She sure isn't what I thought she was when I first noticed her.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Great Opossum Nest! Love it. (I DO love possums, though - cool marsupial reproducers....)

    I feel the same way about Maddow. Such a disappointment. She is definitely very smart but, alas, smart does not equal wise nor decent. I now kind of think she's just all about the money.

    Parent

    I only blame him for bringing Hillary into it. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by derridog on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    This woman deserves what she gets otherwise. I'm not going to hypocritically pretend to be sorry when what goes around comes around.

    Parent
    this attitude is very disturbing (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    some women deserve to be treated in a sexist manner, is that right?

    ugh.

    Parent

    Women who attack other women in a sexist (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by derridog on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    way do not deserve to be defended when the same thing happens to them.

    Parent
    this is childish (none / 0) (#181)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    sexism, no matter its target, demeans all women.

    Parent
    Same refrain used against (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    Clinton... some would argue that making fun of her laugh was not sexist, that nothing said of Clinton was sexist.. it was just 'her', and if anything said was sexist, it was deserved.

    I am not saying Scarborough should have said nothing, I think it appropriate he address her behavior on air if he wanted... if he didn't like her deflecting with laughter, he should have said so.  If he felt she shouldn't have been laughing at the subject matter, say so.  It was sexist because it was it was relating Maddow to a typical sexist attack made on Clinton.

    I wonder if Maddow was more insulting at the sexist snipe or being likened to Clinton.

    Parent

    I thought Rachel 'suddenly' realized what (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:21:39 AM EST
    ...what the 'cackle' descriptions for Hillary actually did mean much of the time.

       She's a typical young inheritor of the work done by older women who pooh-poohs (which is her #1 activity toward people not in agreement with her) any idea whatsoever that Clinton was the recipient of a lot of overtly sexist treatment, without end.

       I'm sure she felt whatever was done was deserved, and I saw a brief glimpse of realization come over her as he equated her laughter with Hillary's "cackle" ...

       Hillary was never that obnoxious though.  It was an embarrassment to watch Maddow carry on like that.

    Parent

    And Joe likes Clinton, actually (4.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    so may not like Maddow trying so hard to be one of the boyz throughout the campaign.

    That said, even Joe had to be one of the boyz with the "cackle" crap.  Joe, dontcha know that dozens of nice things said can be wiped out with one crack like that?  

    Yes, we keep score.  You betcha we do -- we sadder but wiser grrrlz learn to do so to survive.

    Parent

    my 2 cents (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    Joe tried very hard to find something gentle to chide Rachel with.  He said on Morning Joe (IIRC) that he loves Hillary's laugh.  They were doing a segment on Hillary moments after she withdrew.  

    Joe has joked since March that he is in love with Hillary.  So, no, I don't think he was making a witch reference.  

    The only reason I wasn't pleased was that Rachel is not worthy for Hillary to spit on her, let alone for her to be compared to Hillary.

    Parent

    sexism is sexism (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    whether it is directed at a woman you like or a woman you dislike, sexism harms all women.

    And of COURSE he's making a witch reference. That is his entire purpose.

    Parent

    sexism is wrong certainly in any (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    regard but many of us can't jump up and down for maddow without first referencing her pathetic performance toward hillary. i won't let it pass. maddow deserved to be taken to task. her behavior is not acceptable. and joe was totally wrong to reference hillary in his comment. i will also say that joe defended hillary over and over and over during the primaries while maddow was just awful. women who bash women are disgusting.


    Parent
    women who bash women are disgusting (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    i will let the irony sink in for just a little longer.

    Parent
    irony that i take women to task for (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    bashing women? history is full of this. nothing new! and women who try and join the ole boy's club over the women who worked hard to get them there? then these women who make it show distain for other women? no sympathy for maddow from me but sympathy for women and hillary!

    Parent
    i take it you are a man, then (none / 0) (#86)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    of course it's nothing new, but you feel very comfortable bashing women for someone who claims it is out of bounds.

    Parent
    please! i am a woman and have worked (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    for women's rights. furhtermore i worked for hillary and don't appreciate the bashing of women especially from women like maddow who owe a lot of their success to the hard work many of us have done in the past.

    Parent
    it's not like we disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    I just think your dislike of Maddow is overriding a basic principle here - that sexism against one woman hurts all women. Scarborough is in the wrong, and as awful a commentator Maddow has been, as timid and unwilling to recognize and call out sexism on her own network as she has been, she does not deserve to be dismissed with a sexist remark.

    If Maddow deserves criticism (and I think she does), then make it. Don't excuse sexist slurs against her, and don't say that women should never bash women and then turn around and bash a woman.

    Parent

    if you read my comments, i think you will (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    see that i agree the "hillary cackle" comment is unworthy to use at anytime. it is wrong. however i take to task maddow who has enabled over and over the worse bashing of a woman publicly since the so called A was given to hester pryne(fiction i know). so excuse me if i don't have much sympathy for one of the original condemners. karma is a bxxx.

    Parent
    The topic is sexism by Scarborough (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM EST
    not how Maddow treated Hillary.

    I don't think Maddow, or we, deserve a sexist remark from Scarborough.  It's not karma or payback, it's petty and wrong.

    Parent

    so was maddow's behavior in the (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    primaries. i see you ignoring that. how convenient!

    Parent
    That's what I asked before. (none / 0) (#143)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    Was Maddow sexist in her comments about Hillary?  If so, I didn't hear it.  Did TL cover this.  I would have a completely different opinion of Maddow if she herself was sexist.  As far as not standing up against sexism at work or by colleagues, I don't think she should have to risk her job by calling them sexist.

    Parent
    she sat silent and actually laughed (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    when hillary was demeaned. perhaps in your world demeaning is ok for the so called greater good but not in mine. when one woman sits there while another woman is unfairly attacked, demeaned, flamed, heckled, scorned then IT IS NOT OK. but hey you soldier on with that attitude.

    Parent
    Laughing while someone is unfairly attacked is (none / 0) (#158)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    not OK in my book.  What I've seen so far from Maddow is good work, but I'll gladly look at or listen to any clips that prove otherwise.  

    Parent
    furthermore the subject is (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    sexism and it relates to maddow's past behavior during the primaries. that has been the subject and not obama's current positioning on iraq.

    Parent
    i have (none / 0) (#108)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    read your comments, and i think you are a very good commenter. i guess maybe i just view your opinions of maddow as slightly OT (but who am i to judge?) as they are beside the point of Scarborough's sexism. Otherwise, the suggestion would be (which I understand you aren't making) that some women deserve sexism.

    i appreciate the back and forth on this.

    Parent

    no neither women or men deserve (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    sexism. i condemn joe's remark and have several times on here. i think you misinterpret that maddow deserved to be bashed with sexism. well, no but i have no sympathy for her. and karma does have a way of nailing us with our own mistakes. that is karma.

    Parent
    Watch the video. (none / 0) (#77)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    I put a link upthread (and downthread).

    Parent
    i watched it. maddow was definitely (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    out of line on there. sad to say she is starting to remind me of some of the commentators from the far right i used to yell at on the screen. of course she represents the liberals and we have needed more spirited and informed commentators for sure. i feel clark is better representative of what we need. clark informs and maddow for all her so called intelligence irritates.

    Parent
    How was Maddow out of line? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    Her laugh or her opinion that Obama didn't flip?

    Parent
    sigh! for some i guess it is like porn. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    when you see it or hear it, you know it. maddow was trying too hard to defend something that can't be defended. what a shame she didn't defend the mistreatment of women with as much vigor. but the subject's of obama's swing to the center is the subject for another diary.

    Parent
    Since I agree with Maddow's position (3.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    that Obama isn't flipping, I don't see her as being out of line as she tried to defend it.  Obama was asked point blank by Charlie Gibson:
    So you give the same rock hard pledge [as David Plouffe], that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home.
    He replied:
    Because the commander in chief sets the mission Charlie.  That's not the role of the Generals.  Now I will always listen to the commanders on the ground with respect to tactics.  Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq.  

    Our candidate brilliantly answered Gibson's direct question without giving the GOP a soundbite that would let them make him look silly or inexperienced.  
    Maddow is right.  Obama did not say "Yes, I pledge to get them out of Iraq in 16 months."  The other talking heads are wrong when they say he did pledge it.


    Parent
    like i said, that is the subject (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    for another diary.

    Parent
    I still don't get why you say (3.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    she was out of line for making a point that his position on Iraq is consistent.

    Isn't that her (and our) job?  

    Parent

    i'll leave your deliberate ignoring (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    of the topic of this diary to btd. please address your remarks to our diary blogger.

    Parent
    He Loves Hillary's Laugh (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    I wonder what he thinks of McCain's, or Obama's or Huckabee's or Edwards'...

    Parent
    you know what Joe said? (none / 0) (#184)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    After Hillary withdrew?

    I chose the wrong time to fall in love!



    Parent
    If That's how He Treats The Ones He Loves...n/t (none / 0) (#188)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:51:12 PM EST


    Parent
    intent is not the issue (none / 0) (#198)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    Joe was pissed and he lashed back.  His unfiltered views showed through.  For all his "looove" for Hillary, he also, obviously doesn't think highly of her as a woman or he would never have even unconsciously reached for the "cackle" metaphor, let alone used it.

    Joe and Maddow are just doing what they are paid to do - entertain us to unthinking, unreflecting sleep lulled by distraction after distraction while tweaking us with a little hostility every now and again to get our attention and force an emotional response - in this case - our anger displaced towards them rather than towards the real issues.

    There is very little unscripted live TV.  It's like Pro-wrestling - the basic moves and throws and who wins is decided before the cameras roll.

    Parent

    '...something a lot worse..." (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    Wow,

    'the Hillary cackle' is pretty loathsome enough in my opinion.

    It's an example of the creepy schoolyard mentality insults Clinton endured simply because she was female. I haven't witnessed anything similar generated by the MSM against either Obama or McCain that matches it for pure ugly irrelevance. Why comment at all about her laugh, her clothes etc.? Because she's a woman.

    I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a woman and I noticed every time some smirky put down was leveled at her and her alone.

    NOW, here's evidence this particular one is getting implanted in the media meme as a 'clever' putdown of other women (and, by extension, Clinton herself AGAIN) every time one of them annoys some media boy.

    Maddow cleaned Scarborough's clock a couple months ago--so much so he walked off the show early. I hope she or some other female does the same to him or anyone else who indulges in this petty childishness next time.

    Complaints to the network etc and ongoing serious debates are one thing: A good rejoinder, or better yet a string of them on air in real time, humiliating the offender would help make these things disappear faster--and be so much fun to witness.

    Parent

    I honestly don't see (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    what some lefties see in Maddow.  She constantly parrots talking points very fast.

    No thanks.  I like Joe S. a lot better, b/c he is honest, and he gives opinions based on experience (they could be wrong, but at least he has convictions).  Another person that I usually respect is Harold Ford.  

    On the other hand, Maddow is full of hot air, and always plays a shouting match.  She is in the same club as Keith O. and is annoying as hell.

    I have no patience for that kind of television.  

    Parent

    To Each His/Her Own (none / 0) (#187)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    If Scarborough had 'just' referred to Maddow's laugh as "A" cackle, I wouldn't feel so angry.

    It's dragging Clinton into it, continuing some odd media obsession with her mannerisms and clothes etc. and applying it to a colleague who is also a woman who was apparently annoying him that really ticks me off and needs to be repudiated.

    It disrespects both of them. Maybe you feel Maddow had it coming. Clinton wasn't even there.

    I wonder if Harold Forde ever laughed at him if he would tell HIM he had that Clinton cackle down?

    Parent

    I don't excuse Joe, but just perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    he knew that the worst insult in Maddow's mind was to tell her she sounds just like Clinton. :-)

    Parent
    I will resist...I will resist... (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:57:13 AM EST
    Wait, it's working...nope. Lost it.  Ok, I will try again.  

    But one line comes to mind:  "Ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light?"

    What's that from? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Batman (none / 0) (#189)
    by CHDmom on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    The Joker, I believe when he was talking to Batman's parents before he killed them, that part could be wrong, but it was Jack as the Joker.


    Parent
    No schadenfreude (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    I'll just wait and see who leads the charge besides the reliable few.

    In a way, it's a great litmus test.  Which women are worth defending?  All women or just a select few?

    Tangentially ... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:30:58 AM EST
    I wonder who is worthy of the moratorium on criticism after death?

    If Rush Limbaugh were suddenly called to his reward, how many people would piously assert that "now is not the time" to air any criticism?

    Parent

    Let me suggest that the line be drawn (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    at Jesse Helms.

    Parent
    A-men! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    Got the news at the orange.  They are busy eulogizing him.  Something about attending the funeral to make sure he is really dead.

    Wonder if the Rev Phelps is busy?

    Parent

    It is not about "which women" -- (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    it is about womanhood.  

    Because it is about our daughters not women yet, about girls unborn yet.  

    Are attacks on masculinity about "which men"?

    Parent

    women are worth defending but (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    blindly jumping up and down in a politically correct manner leaves me saying no thanks. i agree there are other better ways to take her to task for acting in a rude manner. the cackle clinton comment was so unnecessary. maddow jumped on the bandwagon of the women under the bus brigade, so excuse me if i don't have a lot sympathy for her. she needs apparently to be taken to task. maddow needs to learn some table manners.

    Parent
    Standing Up for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    It's not so much about defending Maddow.

    HER name is not attached to this despicable characterization that is so fraught with nasty associations.

    What, after all, cackles?

    Hens? Witches?

    Bad enough when it was leveled at Clinton. Now they're auditioning it to become a routine snicker news guys can use to put down other women they're threatened by or who get too mouthy.

    Myself, not even a Clinton supporter, I think she deserves better than to let this slide into pop usage with her name and (misrepresented) image attached to it.

    Parent

    There is no excuse for it (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:03:20 AM EST
    There is no excuse for Scarborough's sexist and belittling comment to Maddow.

    And there was no excuse for Maddow's complicity in the sexist comments towards Clinton and her supporters during her MSNBC tenure.

    Maybe Maddow will eventually learn the lesson that you are preaching BTD - when you go along with it, it hurts all women, including potentially yourself.

    Sorry but I just don't see the sexism here (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    has it come to a point that a man cannot compare a womans laugh with another womans laugh without being sexist? Or how about a woman comparing a man to another man, is that also sexist?

    Seems to me if we socially outlaw such things that we might run out of things to say. Comparing women to other women and men to other men by the opposite sex is probably as old as man & woman themselves.

    My lord, if I kiddingly tell a woman she laughs just like Julia Roberts am I being sexist? If a woman tells a man he laughs like Bill Clinton is that being sexist?

    Now I agree and deplore the sexism by the likes of Tweety and company during the election but there is real sexism and then there is not. When you have two people like Maddow and Scarborough who are doing a talk show where the format is to argue and disagree and trade barbs calling that sexism is a bit over the top IMO. I don't take offense when I hear women on TV refer to a man's testosterone levels.

    Seems to me we are taking this sexist thing a bit to far where it interrupts a normal flow of human interaction. And I do mean normal. Who has not commented to the other sex and compared them to someone else. That's just natural.

    Parent

    Not even worth a reply (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    Sorry. I get that you don't get it.

    Parent
    i think it was a sexist (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by sancho on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    putdown, viciously ironic (as joe s. often is), but i wonder if maddow does. she may distinguish sexist put-downs from "hillary" put-downs. such was her implied logic when hillary was still in the campaign. hard for me to feel for sorry for her until she recognizes the sexism she enabled--the worst (or most dramatic), imo, since the rise of television.

    but thanks for pointing it out, btd, since i dont watch cable news anymore.

    Parent

    Well try answering (none / 0) (#24)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    some of the questions I asked in my post Molly. Am I that far off? I don't think so.

    Again, if I hear a woman laugh and she sounds like Julia Roberts and I tell her so is that Sexist?

    Parent

    talex, most of us responded to the (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    "hillary cackle" comment here. that was used along with ugly comments about hillary's shape, face, etc during the campaign. i agree maddow is one who doesn't get it and doesn't deserve much sympathy. but we want women treated with respect. maddow deserved to get her hands slapped. no argument there.

    Parent
    How Often? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    How often do you hear men on 'news' or opinion programs comparing the laughs of other men on panels or of male politicians?

    I haven't even heard any comments about Obama or McCain that compare with the nonsense focused on Clinton at times--her laugh, for God's sake?

    If it were something done all the time to everyone I wouldn't care. Well, I'd care about the sheer childishness of it, but hey, it's the media. But it isn't done all the time. It was done exclusively as far as I can tell to Clinton.

    I'm not a knee-jerk reactor to every instance, great and small, of sexism wherever I encounter it but even this Obama supporter with no great love for Senator Clinton saw the way this worked sometimes. And letting it now get enshrined into the common parlance as "the Hillary cackle" (and clearly meant as a putdown) is not an option, as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent

    If I may add to daring grace's comment (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    it's more than just comparing the way two women laugh.  The "Hillary cackle" is an actual video that is mailed around and posted on right wing websites.  It is composed of clips of very fake sounding laughs from Hillary pasted together to make her look silly or weird and not presidential or strong.  It's a terrible video and it's meant to be demeaning and cruel.

    In addition to cackle refering to a witch sound, it's a inappropriate for Scarborough to reference a right wing propaganda tool.


    Parent

    "The Clinton cackle" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    That's all I have to say. If you don't get it, I've learned it's impossible to make someone get it. No disrespect, but I'm not interested in this, it's silly IMO. Bye.

    Parent
    Oh it's the word 'cackle' (none / 0) (#35)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    that bothers you? OK. Bit to be honest I have heard women say another woman has a cackle. If you look up the wrod it is not necessarily a derogatory word. It describes a certain type of laugh. Even men can cackle. The word is not gender specific.

    Or maybe anything thing Scarborough says is immediately deemed sexist.

    Parent

    ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    the "does that bother you?" gambit. Translation: "are you THAT oversensitive?"

    Please learn a little bit about the history of sexism before you toss on and on revealing your ignorance. There have been dozens of takedowns of the "Hillary cackles" meme that several people in the media put forward during the primary season. Find one and learn. Shakespeare's Sister would be a good place to start.

    Parent

    Cackle, cackle, scribble, scribble... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by katana on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Oh it's the word 'cackle'...it is not necessarily a derogatory word.

    I can't tell whether you're simply having a bit of fun, or you've actually fallen down the rabbit hole.  But given your boasting about your expertise in psychology and human relations, I'm guessing the latter.

    Let's postulate this: your wife cackles, your sister cackles, your daughter cackles, and your mother really cackles.  Not derogatory.  Not offensive. Why don't you ask your wife, and your sister, and your daughter, and your mother if they enjoy having their laughter described as cackling.  

    As to to your other hilarious hypothesis...

    My lord, if I kiddingly tell a woman she laughs just like Julia Roberts am I being sexist?...

    ...What does that have to do with Scarborough and his remark to Maddow?  It's the straw-man syndrome carried to absurdity.  If Scarborough had compared Maddow's laughter to Julia Roberts', or Meryl Streep's, or Kathleen Battle's, do you really believe this thread would exist?  Or are you simply so inept at debate that you think any analogy fits any circumstance?

    The point, which you so militantly (and mysogynistically) deny, was that Scarborough compared Maddow's laugh to Senator Clinton's (supposed) cackle, because he meant to demean them both.  As did you.

    Parent

    Try not being reductionist (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    Try looking at the broader context, not just the dictionary definition of the word.

    Parent
    Do you say "the Julia Roberts cackle"? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    Do you get it yet?

    Parent
    A normal flow of human interaction (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    is prescisely why the sexism is hard for some to see.
    Scarborough epitomized boorish, condescending males and was transparent in his antipathy for Maddow.  Haranguing the infinitely smarter and more likeable Maddow was simply his daily reiteration, without Mika on hand to titter and diffuse the offense.  He is one of those guys who just can't hide his dislike as hard as he tries. I suspect he thinks he is doing a good job, but the camera doesn't lie.  Maddow's political reasoning is brilliant and compelling, capable of operating from a rich reservoir of perspectives with analytical skills, nuanced understanding and persuasive argumentation.  She also defends her ideas with poise and genuine grace.  No wonder that she can make some men feel defensive, insecure and antagonistic.  She was trying to laugh good naturedly when she was clearly out voted in Scarborough's juvenile request for a show of hands to determine panelists' support for her position. Joe, obviously not happy with her response, took a  nasty swipe insulting Maddow's laugh instead of her position.  His timing was swift and insulting, and effective, as the laughing ceased.  The sexism is inherent in the put down of a Maddow because of her laugh rather than her opinions expressed before this snippet of the show .


    Parent
    maddow has poise on here? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    we didn't see the same tape.

    Parent
    Normal doesn't mean good (none / 0) (#200)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:54:50 PM EST
    The normal flow of sexist put downs flow from us so readily that few of us even notice them.  That is normal, but not good.  Cackle means cackle - it is a put down leveled only to women.  It is never used in any other context but a put down to deflect a woman's laughter, especially when she is not being compliant (as a cackling witch, or when she is being stupid and a mindless flock member clucking about).  There is nothing kind in what the term implies.

    Parent
    Maddow and sexism (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    Good reply.  In Maddow's fervor for Barack Obama she has been silent at the sexism directed at Hillary Clinton (as have most so called progressives).  The comment about Hillary's laugh -- or "cackle" to the boys -- was about being a witch.  Witch's cackle.  Maddow is now in the witch league according to Scarborough.  They have had previous run ins.  She basically show him up for being stupid and he crosses his legs and lapses into women hating as a response. No love lost there.

    Parent
    maddow does not deserve to be on (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    tv anymore. there are so many good able women who are just as smart and more sympathetic to the women in this country. rachel has shown she has one interest and that is herself.

    Parent
    Maddow on TV (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    I dunno about that.  Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and has a doctorate in political science.  I'm thinking she is one of the smartest political commentators around.  I've seen her grow through her early Air America days to now being an MSNBC "analyst" and have mostly enjoyed her commentary although I do not share her rabid support of Sen. Obama.  She can get snarky at times but it is nothing compared to what the guys around her do. I wish she and Scarboro would take it outside.  

    Parent
    sorry i am no longer impressed (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    with resumes. i watch and see how they perform. if they fail, off they go. i won't find excuses for lousy and failed commentators. there are so many women from our own jeralyn to some of the other bloggers like the confluence that would make us proud. rachel failed, off she goes.

    Parent
    And I used to love her (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    She was able to make great commentary w/out stretching the truth like Randi Rhodes.
    And then she got on the Obama train and forget any semblance of objectivity.
    She may be smart and educated but she has sold out.

    Parent
    Excellent (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:56:46 AM EST
    comment.

    Parent
    Typical and disgusting. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    But I've come to see sexism is the ultimate best tool in the political tool box for stopping would-be female Presidents.  It works especially well when Democratic men use it.  The mere label "D" makes it near impossible for women like Maddow to see it.

    And how did Maddow react? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:09:16 AM EST


    Humor (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    What irks me to no end, is that usually when a sexist comment is made, the "victim" has no immediate redress.  If she says something, the reaction is usually, "gee, what is wrong with you girls, don't you have any humor".  "feminists are humorless"  

    But, if you see how racism is treated, it's typically obvious to everyone when it comes to the humor.  No one would dare tell someone who is victimized by a racist joke, that they are humorless.  

    And don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    "strident"
    "bitter"
    "politically correct"
    "whiner"
    "playing the victim"
    etc.


    Parent
    Yep. I have gotten that -- but (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    at the same time when told we feminists have no sense of humor, I have been told to stop laughing and even smiling so much or I would not be taken seriously.

    I have survived some very sick workplaces.  Well, with scar tissue.  That is how we get that thick skin we also are told to get, if we wish to get along with the guys.

    Parent

    Oh, for crying out loud. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    Watch it here.

    The tape is even longer than I tought.  More than 10 minutes of Rachel being utterly obnoxious.  

    I really suggest BTD put the youtube video up, for people to decide.

    Parent

    Nothing that happened before (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    justifies sexist behavior.

    There is no context that would justify the comment.

    Parent

    You do realize that your comment (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    suggests that it's okay because she deserved it, don't you?  Not unlike that CNN commenter who said that it isn't wrong to call a woman a b!tch if she actually is one.

    I didn't see the segment, but I know this: intelligent and rational people do not have to stoop to the level Scarborough did in order to call someone out for obnoxious behavior.

    Parent

    Here's the test: Do guys "cackle"? (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    Yes, from that tape (thanks), Maddow was awful -- the war is no laughing matter -- and Joe could call her out on that.

    But there were other words to use, other comparisons to make.  If a guy did what Maddow did, would Joe have compared him to Hillary and called his laugh a "cackle"?

    Maddow merited criticism.  That is different from sexism, which never is merited.

    Parent

    You're exactly right on the word cackle, (none / 0) (#117)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    it's definitely specific to women, with the intent to create the image of stong women as witches, evil, b!tches, etc.  
    But I disagree that Maddow is laughing about the war.  She's clearly laughing at Scarborough because he's wrong about Obama flipping on Iraq.


    Parent
    Very confusing. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    I thought Scarbro was one of the very few MSNBCers who covered Hillary favorably in the primaries, on Morning Joe.  And who also decried some of the sexism in the coverage, no?

    As for Maddow, who was far from the worst anti-Hillary offender among the left in the media during the primaries (that would be Olbermann and Ed Schultz), I wonder if this gay feminist liberal had some things to say about the sexist coverage on her radio show.

    I seriously doubt it all went unmentioned, and I suspect (though can't prove) that she spoke out against it on AAR -- probably by putting it in the same political equivalency context as racist remarks, she would claim,  directed at Obama by the Hillary backers.

    she did nothing of the sort on aar (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:16:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Really Dr Molly? (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    You've listened to all those hundreds of hours of the RM Show on AAR during the primary season and can say with certainty that Rachel never addressed the sexist media coverage or at least in the equivalency manner I suggested?  

    My memory is different, and that's from just from occasionally sampling her show in the past 6 months at AAR.  So the likelihood is she's addressed the issue more than once or twice in that time period, and probably at least once as I remember it in the sexism/racism vein.  

    She does have 3 hrs or so per day, 5 days a week, and the primary contest was very long this year.  You don't think it's not only possible but very likely she discussed the media coverage and the sexism angle?

    Parent

    bizarre argument (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    The absence of evidence is evidence I guess. Whatever.

    I never once heard her address sexism on AAR, but I did hear her deny and excuse a lot of sexism on both AAR and MSNBC. But I guess since I haven't listened to every single second of her radio show, there might just be a chance that she did do what you claim and I just wasn't there to hear it. I'm sure you have some evidence somewhere for this..... But, if not, let's just keep pretending you're right because the absence of evidence is now evidence until otherwise proven.

    Parent

    Look, no one should be punished (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    to that extent, listening to AAR.  

    Parent
    LOL. She addressed it the same way all (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    other media addressed it during the cycle.  Claiming it was no big deal or non-existent and that it paled in comparison to racism.  That's the way MSNBC covered "sexism" during the campaign and Ms. Maddow was certainly part of that brigade.  And I listened to her daily until I could no longer take it.

    Parent
    "I wonder if, I seriously doubt" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    and "I suspect" but cannot prove -- unquote Brodie.  But by the next comment, all is asserted without question, and any who suggest otherwise based on being listeners, too, do not know what they are talking about.

    Split personalities?  One that did not listen and can only suspect, one that came out and can assert -- and attack?  Fascinating.


    Parent

    Air America (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    I listen to her.  She did not tackle the sexism aimed at Hillary Clinton.  Maddow is a supremely smart woman who has risen fast -- really fast -- and will probably get her own show on MSNBC.  A lesbian like Maddow does not get where she is by rocking the boat hard.  KO can get away with it.  Straight liberal guy.  As soon as she starts the same stuff as KO she will be a dyke and gone in the ether.

    Parent
    there is no excuse maddow can give (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    for her behavior toward clinton during the primaries that i will accept. she has shown a great interest in her career and little else. i can't work up a lot of interest for another so called liberal commentator on msnbc since ole ko hasn't worked out so well.

    Parent
    Exactly right (none / 0) (#191)
    by bridget on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    I am still boycotting TV and haven't seen the clip (just can't bring myself to do it just now) but when Scarboro compared her laugh to a HC cackle, did Maddow take this opportunity and told him that it was sexist and rude to talk about Hillary's laugh in that way?

    I bet not?

    Did she ever hold the  boy's and girls' punditfeet to the fire when they ridiculed and maligned Bill and Hillary day after day? Of course, not. She and also Eugene Robinson who was absolutely unwatchable loved it all and joined in with open-mouthed grins and laughter.

    How das the saying go again? If you lie down with dogs, you get up with flees ...

    Maddow has nothing to complain about. She wanted a spot on the NBC boy panel and she got it. She wants to be one of them.

    Those who watch Air America, did Maddow ever complain about Randi Rhodes' nasty sexist Hillary rant which now has a secure place in the history books? Did she say that RR was a disgrace to her profession? Anything?

    Parent

    Again like another you assert as absolute fact (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    something you cannot prove.  I asserted something that was opinion based on somewhat vague memory about a show whose host has hundreds of hours to fill over a 6-8 month period and a topic that was being discussed vigorously on the nets.  Let the reader decide which one is making the more plausible case.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    Maybe your opinion backed up by vague memory is correct and Maddow did address the sexism on her show.  I missed it and that isn't due to vague memory.  

    Scarboro has blasted Maddow before. He even walked off the set during a break and wouldn't return.  He does this crap to Mika B every morning. So, I figure he can't control himself around women who confront his "authority."  The women, Mika B and Rachel M. in this case, barely fight back.  Maddow's laugher is a fight back but an ineffective one -- very passive aggressive crap the same as he threw back at her with the "cackle" comment.  They don't think much of one another but Maddow needs to find more effective ways to debate him.

    Anyhow, I stopped listening to AAmerica when they brought Ron Kuby on.  

    Parent

    I saw her on NBC (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    Your case strikes me as utterly implausible.

    Parent
    Btd, it becomes all the more (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    plausible as we consider something I don't believe has been mentioned in this thread yet -- that it was  Rachel Maddow on the night of the NH primary who brought up indirectly the notion of media anti-Hillary sexism as she explicitly mentioned the name of one Chris Matthews as a prime reason why Hillary rebounded:

    MADDOW: You want to know who they're blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they're blaming for this late showing in a big vote for Hillary Clinton? They're blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing specifically Chris as a -- not only for his own views -- but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.

    (from MediaMatters, 1-22-08)

    So much for RM not raising the MCM's hostile and sexist coverage against Hillary.  

    Probably she brought this up on her 1-23-08  radio show too ...

    Parent

    She didn't condemn the sexism then (none / 0) (#155)
    by tree on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    and her framing was all on "blame" and not on "credit". Why would anyone "blame" Matthews for Hilary winnning in NH, unless they were deep in the tank for Obama?  I don't think that Matthews should have gotten credit for Clinton's hard won victory there, but I know for a fact that anyone who framed  it as "blame" was not condemning the sexism. And she never used the word sexism. She just called it piling on.

    And on the other question, yes, Scarborough made a sexist, and ironic, comment.  

    Parent

    My case being what? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    That she hasn't fought back?  I watched the show, too.  I didn't find her laughter offensive but I didn't find it useful to the debate.  Had it been useful she would not have been sitting there suddenly frozen in place by the "cackle" comment. She could not make her case that Obama has not switched positions so, IMO, she fell into a debate trap that she did not end up winning.

    Parent
    I wonder if Rachel has enough (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:15:03 AM EST
    objectivity that she will be able to see that what Scarborough did to her is exactly what was done to Hillary: voice an opinion and have it neutralized by a comment about a physical or personality attribute.

    I'm guessing not.

    And will she see that she contributed (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    to the culture that turned on her now?  Doubt it.

    Not excusing it, just noting that Maddow actually had a role in encouraging and legitimizing the culture at MSNBC -- a lesson sadly learned by many women who get co-opted by power, only to find that they're still not ever going to be in the club.

    This is why women and men must stand up to sexism and other forms of bigotry -- because what is done to one can be done to any.  But I bet Maddow still thinks, as she has said, that it was only about that woman.

    Parent

    She shoots... (none / 0) (#151)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    she scores!

    Well said.

    Parent

    Your powers of guessitude are strong, Anne! (none / 0) (#135)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    I don't think there's much hope for any objectivity this late in the game.

    Parent
    karma (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by salmonrising on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    Rachel:

    Now you know: What goes around, comes around.

    Yours was the last show I listened to before giving up completely on so-called "progressive" talk radio.

    BTW, why did a man gets so exercised when a woman greeted his solemn pronouncements with laughter? (rhetorical question) Maybe we should add a laughing woman to the old canard about a whistling woman being such an anathema.

    From what I gather watching online (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    snippets of Morning Joe, Scarbro has probably gotten used to running things and running roughshod over his female and male sidekicks whenever it pleases him to interrupt.

    Rachel Maddow, otoh, doesn't appreciate being interrupted and told this to his face once, in April, on MSNBC on air.  

    Joe probably just doesn't like the uppity types like Rachel.  Mika B -- in what I see as a somewhat demeaning throwback "newsgirl/weathergirl" appendage role for a media woman --  probably is someone who basically knows her place, in his view, or who knows how the show is going to be run and knows how to go along to get along.

    Rachel is also at least his match as a debater -- better in fact -- and in an area, politics, which JS thinks he knows more about.  

    Parent

    Maddow interrupts others plenty (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    of times -- leading to a great tv moment when she did so to Buchanan, and he gave her a lesson in how to take command of a debate that she won't soon forget.

    Parent
    the woman that joe has on in the (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    morning with him so leaves me unimpressed. i wonder if msnbc tries to find women that won't impress. there's a thought.

    Parent
    What Scarborough did was wrong (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    Unfortunately, it was also predictable. When women fail to establish boundaries of acceptable behavior (i.e. remain silent or join in when sexist tactics are used against others), it is only a matter of time when they will become the victim of the same behavior.

    In this case, though (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:41:27 AM EST
    it was Maddow who went way beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior.  Scarborough's "cackle" is pretty thin brew to put such a heavy accusation of sexism on, IMHO.  Of all the nasty stuff said about Hillary during the primaries, "cackle" is at the very bottom of the list of offenses.

    Parent
    Just because it's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    one of the "least" offensive of the bunch does not make it NOT offensive or sexist.

    Parent
    One of my mom's favorite expressions was (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    Two wrongs don't make a right. I believe that.

    Scarborough is a very clever commentator and with a little effort could have come up with a sex neutral put down. The problem is that the media does not feel that they must put in the effort.

    The ironic thing is that the tactic that Maddow was using, discounting what someone is saying by just laughing, is a standard Republican tactic. They have been using it for years. Wasn't fond of that tactic when the Republicans used it and not fond of it now.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh please. Repubs don't (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    have a monopoly on the age-old tactic of trying to denigrate your opponent's argument by laughing.  Dems have done it too, though not nearly as much as they should have in this modern era of Dem Wimpiness and Miss Manners delicateness.

    Interesting how some blame the victim here.  She isn't politically pure enough.  She asked for it by laughing at Joe -- crossing the line! say some here.  It's up to her,  a fairly new hire, to directly address and beat back the sexism at GE.

    Amazing.

    (see my post #87 above though -- Rachel did indirectly, but fairly clearly imo, bring up media and even MSNBC sexism in the political coverage against Hillary.  Now, do I wish she'd gone on Countdown, say, and done more of this?  Definitely.)

    Parent

    You're defending Scarborough (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    and maybe you don't realize that -- is it really what you want to do?  His behavior is the topic here.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    Perhaps you misread my post.  I criticize those who've been excusing the perpetrator of sexism, Scarbro, by pointing out RM's lack of political purity or prior shortcomings in calling out GE sexism.  Your post makes no sense.

    Parent
    Gross exaggeration and adding words and meanings (none / 0) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    not contained in an original comment is also a well know political ploy which the Republicans have used to their advantage. The "SOME PEOPLE" strawman is also a favorite Bush talking point IIRC. You have successfully adopted these tactics. No one will ever accuse you of Dem Wimpiness and Miss Manners delicateness. By the same token, I doubt that you will be accused of being persuasive either. But what the heck, one out of two ain't bad by some standards.

    Parent
    Maddow Can Handle Herself (none / 0) (#171)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    I feel no need to defend her in this.

    And if it had simply been the word 'cackle' applied to this, I might just shrug my shoulders...more predictable media sexist blather.

    He connected her laugh to a 'Hillary cackle'.

    It raises my hackles hearing any ongoing traction being given to a media riff about Clinton's alleged 'cackle.'

    Parent

    I would love to see (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    someone take Rachel Maddow to task for her enabling of the sexism on MSNBC.  Like someone said here, she really failed when it came to addressing the sexism and misogyny displayed by her coworkers.  Of course, Rachel like many others in the biz failed to be fair.
    Why no one in the gay and lesbian community took Obama to task for McClurkin, or the republicans to task for years of discrimination, or Log Cabin Republicans to task ...I will never understand.
    Oh wait the only openly gay people on the tube and with a public voice were either Log Cabin Repubs like Andrew Sullivan, Rachel who was in the bag for Obama and the guys from AmericaBlog and Mother Jones....

    Odd how the majority of people in the gay and lesbian community were for Hillary.  Yet their only representation in the media were either Hillary haters or Obama surrogates.
    Rachel remains a huge disappointment.

    Somerby has done it (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    and done it rather effectively. He has lambasted her on several occasions.

    Parent
    True, he has.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    Somerby has taken on most of the liberal press who were too lazy, too afraid, too corporate.   And I appreciate it.  Bob is my hero.  But I was hoping someone with a more public voice would take the likes of Maddow and others.

    Parent
    i can understand that (none / 0) (#89)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    however, Maddow is small time compared to Matthews, Olbermann, etc., who have been the targets of pointed critiques (not that they have understood those critiques). If Maddow's stature continues to rise, I think her attitudes will get wider attention.

    Parent
    I agree but what bugged me so much (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    is that Maddow is a women's voice, one of the few liberal women to get a chance to really stand up to be vociferous about sexism in the media.  And she did nothing, imo.

    Parent
    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    And here it is getting thrown in her face. It's still wrong, and she is fortunate that some people have the courage to defend her from it, even if she would not defend Hillary.

    Parent
    Haven't for a long time (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    I tuned in for the new show hosted by David Gregory.  Maddow was the reason I keep the channel blocked.  She was over the top like KO and wasn't worth tolerating to listen to some of the others on the show and I don't mind David Gregory.  I was hoping MSNBC would have one show I could tune into... nope.

    Rhode's Scholar? (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by OxyCon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    Maddow should grow the heck up and stop laughing in everyone's faces like she's some kind of superior oracle of truth. How old is she? Has she gotten through adolescence yet?
    Rachel can't complain (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    She lost the right to complain about sexism when she used it and was silent about others using it when it was against her opponent (or her candidates opponent). Of course it's wrong and Joe should be condemned about it, but Rachel can't condemn or complain about it with any integrity.

    I just happened to see that segment. As soon as it happened, Rachel got real quiet and didn't say anything about it. I have to admit, I smiled at the discomfort she must have felt and thought, ah, now maybe you will wake up and now have a glimpse at what the rest of us noticed during the primaries.

    The rest of the segment was amazing though. The panel showed the flip-flopping of Obama and called him on it and discussed it. Rachel the whole time, even though she saw and heard the tape of contradicting statements from Obama, just looked glassy eyed and said there was no flip-flopping, no contradicting, that Obama has always been for these things (not pulling out of Iraq, illegal wiretapping, not using public financing, not for gay rights (then for them, then against them), capital punishment for child molesters, etc.) and if you didn't understand that you were just stupid. I assume she'll say the same thing when he finally decides when life begins (at conception, and thus proclaim he's pro life) where Rachel will say of course he was always pro life, you're stupid if you thought otherwise. It's all just too precious.

    Missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    Rachel can't condemn or complain about it with any integrity

    Fine. We can.

    I can, and I am.

    Parent

    Lost the Right? (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    I like Maddow but she doesn't need me to defend her in the face of some sexist nonsense hurled at her on cable tv.

    What I loathe about this episode is how it lends legitimacy to this creepy "Hillary cackle" garbage by inserting it into a moment that didn't even involve Clinton herself and making it an acceptable put down for another woman who is speaking.

    It's like they're applying a trademark for dismissing women on the air and branding Senator Clinton's name on it. It stinks.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    The Hillary cackle expression is a right wing tool.  Links to the cackle video were mailed around with Limbaugh Operation Chaos encouragement to vote for her in our primaries.

    To hear it used on MSNBC and to see the normalization of that expression is maddening.

    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#180)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST
    Maybe that explains my reaction to it.

    Clinton wasn't there. She wasn't even remotely part of the topic of conversation and yet there was a silly/nasty comment that used her image being slung around.

    Aside from all the other insulting things about it, yes, it takes me back to the '90's when there seemed to be a new ridiculous Hillary slander generated every day by the VRWC.

    How far I guess we have still not come...

    Parent

    OK, maybe a bit strong (none / 0) (#186)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    yes, of course she has the right. And she should fight sexism whenever it appears. But I just remember her laughing the same way at people when they tried to say there was sexism against Clinton. She would say that's total nonsense and then laugh. So I'm a bit ticked at her and would find it a bit much if she complained when the same was done to her. But that's just me being ticked, your mileage may vary.

    Parent
    Paid to Talk or Laugh? (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by WakeLtd on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    When Maddow laughs at the claims being made that Obama is "flip-flopping", she is not doing good work for "her" candidate. I am assuming she is paid to be a commentator. If she finds the assertions made about Obama to be ridiculous, she should state her reasons. She can state this anyway she wishes - within reasonable guidelines, I suppose. But what does laughing as a response add to the conversation? Not much. The laugh does not really explain itself well.She could be laughing at the other commentators (a form of insult),or she could be laughjing at their ideas (not as insulting, but certainly flippant). Often when one person is already acting in a derogatory manner towards others, it will bring out an equally derogatory response. It may not be right, but it is not unusual.What Rachel Maddow was doing has a name: goading.

    I'm not her boss, (none / 0) (#172)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:04:18 PM EST
    so I'm not going to tell her how to do her job, but if they prefer she talk rather than laugh, they might consider telling Scarborough to let her talk.  He interrupted her repeatedly during the segment.  IMO he was wrong headed and her point was right.  Especially when she pointed out the difference between Obama "taking a centrist position because it's good for the general election," and "changing his position."    

    This clip shows more of the discussion.  See her part about 75% of the way through the video.

    Parent

    A distinction without a difference. (none / 0) (#194)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    The sad fact is that Obama, shall we say, clearly gave the impression that he was the candidate that would get us out of Iraq more expeditiously than the rest.

    It turns out that this is not the case.

    He will make no commitment to begin the withdrawal of our troops from day one of his tenure. He could easily do so if he were a strong leader. He could easily do so if he truly realized the horror of this conflict. This war is much worse than a "strategic blunder".
    It has ruined the lives of millions. It is a moral outrage.
    Can't he bring himself to speak the truth that America needs and wants to hear?

    He is as hazy as McCain. He is as hazy as Bush.

    He is not taking a centrist position because it's good for the election - whatever that may mean. He's taking that position because he is no different than the rest.

    Parent

    Rachel vs Joe (3.33 / 3) (#126)
    by yourkidding on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    As usual, a person of greater intellect & knowledge had poor sad Joe on the ropes, & as usual, after some pathetic attempts to give an intellignet response, Joe had to fall back on tried & true sexism.
    Maddow is a star on the rise, Joe is a moon way past his peak. Where else could a guy like that get a good paying job, FOX?, Congress?
    please no name calling on here. (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    this is not kos!

    Parent
    Hesitant Democratic Voters (1.00 / 2) (#204)
    by caesar on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    People who are still hesitant to vote for Obama are riddled with several problems:
    1. they are closet racists - seriously folks, take a deep long look at yourself while bypassing denial.
    2. they are willing to cast judgment on people with little or no evidence.
    3. they will not support him because they still, after all this time, know nothing about him.
    4. they are still clinging to the outside possibility that the American political system will still let Hillary steal the nomination.
    5. they refuse to go to his website or listen to him speak to learn that his policies are no different than Hillary's.

    Get over yourselves people and recognize that America is comprised of multiple ethnic diversities, and don't help perpetuating the typical American white-male bias that has plaugued our political system for far too long. It is not an accurate reflection of the diversity that America prides itself on.

    RM and JS have a history (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    at MSNBC -- at least two prior on-air sharp exchanges that I know of, both of which involved RM seeming to get the better of Joe -- and I can understand how Maddow would have felt it wasn't in her best interests to respond sharply and angrily to Scarbro, à la Ed Schultz to a RWer on Larry King .  Perhaps too she was allowing him to save some face with those previous encounters.  (I believe she covered this on her radio show yesterday, but I got in too late to get the gist of it.)

    He has much longer tenure at MSNBC, and has his own regular show.  His political and personal profile are a much better fit for what the suits apparently want in their talent.

    She just recently got hired as an analyst, has no show of her own and only occasionally guest hosts.  She's definitely below him in the corporate pecking order, and the network has a well-known track record of allowing with complete impunity all but the most outrageous sexist comments.

    She might have felt this was yet another time when she was better off not responding.

    joe looked like a real genius (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    next to maddow in the primaries. she is supposed to be so smart but i failed to see it on tv. i no longer listen to her on aa. maddow wanted to get into the playpen. she abandoned support of women so let her see what karma is like. the comment about the clinton cackle leaves me angry but not for maddow. i want women to be treated with respect and i reserve my first criticsm for maddow.

    Parent
    that's pretty obnoxious (none / 0) (#57)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    Of course she is a woman. This is an ugly remark.

    Do you want me to delete your comment? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:18:04 AM EST
    I assume you realize how offensive it is now.

    do bloggers still defend (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    other bloggers for making offensive remarks about michael Steele?

    I've seen a lot if things on the Internet, I rank the offensiveness of my comment a .... 5.

    Parent

    I will not fignify this with a response (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    For the record, I did not delete your comment. It was someone else.

    Get control of yourself.

    Parent

    I'm in control of myself (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    thanks for checking.

    Parent
    loving her laugh (none / 0) (#66)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    so much that he insults some else by comparing her to it.

    you're trying too hard, and i suspect it's because you don't like Maddow. neither do i, but that's irrelevant.

    BTD is spot on.

    Double Whammy (none / 0) (#69)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    The commenters at Mark Finkelstein's article are also being homophobic toward Maddow.  Edgar, your attack based on her gender and sexual orientation is not just unnecessary, but suprisingly boorish at a site like TalkLeft.

    I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    If it does, it should be deleted.

    Neither is remotely laudable (none / 0) (#80)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    it's disturbing you can see a way to frame it thus.

    I made my point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    But I do feel that how other bloggers have supported talking about michael steele applies but if I can't do it too, then ok then.

    Parent
    To complain about Scarborough you can email (none / 0) (#98)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    President, NBC News  steve.capus@nbc.com

    Vice President, NBC News phil.griffin@nbc.com

    And to complain about Maddow (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    and her behavior for months, too, same contacts apply.  Tell NBC to just stop the crap on all counts, by all commentators, and get back to journalism.

    Parent
    i'll bring this back around one more time. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:18:50 PM EST
    we need more female pundits to be sure. when one does get on televison and promptly tries to join the ole boy's club, it is very bad for women. when they join the bashing of the other member of the club trying to get the golden ring who is also a woman, it is beyond understanding to me. it says craven self absorption to me speaking only for me.

    Parent
    Maybe this has already been covered at TL (none / 0) (#122)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    but was Maddow actually sexist in what she said about Hillary?

    Not asking if she bashed Hillary or criticized her, but was she sexist?

    BTW, I agree that it's not up to Maddow to stand up against sexism at her new job.  The men there should have stood up against it.  

    Parent

    geez, when you sit there seeing (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    another woman bashed and you giggle about it, yeah IT IS GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG. stop defending that which can't be defended.

    Parent
    Maddow was laughing at Scarborough (none / 0) (#128)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    not "giggling" at another woman being bashed.

    Parent
    says you! (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Am I missing something here? (none / 0) (#138)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    As far as I can tell, Maddow was laughing at Scarborough because when she made the point that Obama's position on Iraq is consistent, he interrupted her and called him a flip flopper.  Seems to me Maddow's doing good work for our candidate.

    Parent
    you brought up the history (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    of maddow's comments through the primary, then hellothere pointed out that maddow sat there like a dope and laughed along with the boyz without defending Hillary.

    And now you say she was commenting on this morning's incident.

    I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, as you can't seem to let go of your point that "obama is NOT a flip-flopper." Got it.

    Parent

    I'm not being obtuse, nor did I bring up (4.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    I'm not being obtuse, nor did I bring up
    the history of Maddow's comments through the primary.  Hellothere brought it up:
    when they join the bashing of the other member of the club trying to get the golden ring who is also a woman,

    I followed up to ask if Maddow had been sexist.  No one has answered that.
    I'm also not chattering.  "says you!"  is what I would consider to be chattering.  My response to "says you" is not chatter, it's trying to get clarification.
    I am not mad at Maddow for not speaking out against sexism during the primaries.  Plenty of other people are doing that, me included.  I don't think just because she works there it's her job to criticize her coworkers.

    I am supporting Obama and I think his not being pinned down with a comment about getting out of Iraq that can easily be used against him by the GOP is brilliant.  Rachel Maddow standing up and refusing to agree that he flip flopped was good work.


    Parent

    you are deflecting the discussion (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    and providing a false defense for maddow. it is ok as long as she defends obama premise. that is a false premise. rude behavior from any side is wrong. we have all condemned joe.

    Parent
    I respectfully disagree that I am (none / 0) (#160)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:33:45 PM EST
    deflecting the conversation.  The topic is how Maddow was treated by Scarborough and Maddow's refusal to agree that Obama flip flopped is the reason he attacked her.  Her support of our candidate is completely relevant to Scarborough's sexism.

    Parent
    it has to do with rachel's behavior during (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    a discussion that just happened to be about obama's positions on iraq. rachel was being rude in my opinion and joe responded in a put down manner that is also not acceptable. that is what this diary is about now. i am sure you will find other diaries where you can comment on the iraq issue. yes, you are deflecting also respectfully!

    Parent
    OK. You see her as rude and I see her as (none / 0) (#169)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    effectively blocking a false claim against our candidate.  All I can say is that the reason Scarborough used sexism is because Maddow was doing something I agree with.  Therefore, it's relevant to the discussion.

    I'm not going lalala at you.  We're both against the sexism, so let's just leave it at that.

    Parent

    good idea! have a nice fourth! (none / 0) (#176)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:17:22 PM EST


    Parent
    many of the comments on here (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    deal with rachel's past history of not defending women. please stop chattering and trying to deflect the discussion. i reviewed your past comments.

    Parent
    this comment is meant for myleft mind. (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST


    Parent
    comment meant for myleft mind. (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Another false equivalency. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    RM's failure to robustly and repeatedly address media sexism -- though she did it once on the night of the NH primary, I think fairly clearly, and using names though not quite calling Matthews explicitly a sexist -- to the extent that say Gerry Ferraro was calling it out, just isn't the same as MSNBC hosts engaging, repeatedly, in sexist and misogynist behavior.

    Parent
    Wrong. Think big-picture (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    instead of parsing.  It's all of a piece.

    Parent
    Power Struggles Between Joe and Rachel (none / 0) (#152)
    by bmc on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    Joe Scarborough is a puffed up bully every single day to Mika, his co-host. Mika, having grown up with 2 older brothers, has an easy manner, and lets Joe get away with it, with humor and deflection most of the time. That's a survival tactic you learn when you're the only girl sibling and the youngest.

    Rachel despises Joe Scarborough's frat-boy and first-born attitude of invincibility; Joe despises that Rachel doesn't suffer his foolish and uninformed opinions lightly. The fact that she's in a same-sex relationship, has publicly discussed it, probably doesn't endear her to Joe either, his sentiments on that issue more to the right.

    But Rachel asked for the smackdown when she laughed at Joe Scarborough. I'm sure she's tough enough to take it. But neither one was the victim here; this is a power struggle between Rachel and Joe. Both are gunning for a fight, and it's playing out on the air.

    Haven't you noticed that Joe Scarborough doesn't appear on David Gregory's program much anymore? He got angry at Rachel one night on the show and walked off. Now, Rachel's hosting it in Gregory's absence, and doing a pretty good job of it, too. That's gotta gall Scarborough to no end. He's a competitive, overly confident, ambitious, arrogant guy. I oughta know. He used to be my Representative in Congress.

    we know joe and agree that he (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    can be boorish and wrong headed. it doesn't change the fact that rachel is also a major disappointment and has not defended women. shame on her!

    Parent
    Rachel Maddow is a feminist who fights sexism (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:44:44 PM EST


    Parent
    no, she isn't or at the very least she has (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    failed to do so during a period when a woman had a real shot at the presidency. what she did and didn't do has been written about extensively here. so closing your ears and singing lalalala while others discuss it doesn't change things.

    Parent
    I see no evidence of this at all (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:30:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Suspend him? He will get (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jake Left on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    a nice bonus for that bit of nastiness.

    cackle IS a witch reference (none / 0) (#199)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
     didn't you read the blogger just before? She asked - what cackles - chickens or witches.  So, however you want to deny words mean what they say - Joe was saying Clinton either laughs like a chicken or a witch.  Your pick.  The references to a "Clinton cackle" created by the media is what jumped to Joe's mind to use.  That is very telling.

    The whole point of using the term "cackle" is to be derogatory.  And, may I add, Joe was explaining that he "actually liked Clinton's laugh" because he was having to explain why he thinks of it as a cackle.  He wasn't being kind, he was covering his ass.

    context not intention (none / 0) (#201)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:16:58 PM EST
    Most stereotypical speech is under the radar and seemingly inncoent because we aren't thinking at the time we are speaking.  The context of blacks and watermelon is significant because it has a wide cultural context that implies "laziness" and is a dishonest and indirect way to imply this laziness to blacks.

    All words have their meanings and then their uses.  But, context is ever important.

    Joe meant to put down Maddow by using a put down he and others used against Hillary.  He is transfering the context of a culturally widely understood put-down - cackle - to Hillary, and then later, to Maddow.  It is now an evolving colloquillism - a Hillary cackle will differ from a cackle in general.  Perhaps by listing how this will be different, we can better see what many here are saying - it is meant to be a sexist put-down.

    i want to add one more thought (none / 0) (#205)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    as a footnote to this very interesting discussion. maddow does the obama campaign no good when she comes across in a biased(personal opinion here) demeaning manner to those who disagree. we yelled and wanted to throw things at the tv when the conservative pundits did it but now when maddow does it, it's ok. no, it isn't.

    Not everyone is in love with Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yankee49 on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:57:08 AM EST
    Did any of you mental giants every think that people laugh when they don't know how to respond?
    Rachel Maddow is entirely out of her league. However, given the direction that MSNBC is going in I guess they think she fits right in. NBC should be ashamed to be associated with a network that has unqualified "pundits" posing as journalists.

    Never mind sexism. Get some qualified women who know both sides of the equation who do more than emote cock-eyed opinions! Maybe then they would get more respect from everyone!

    More Sexism At NBC | 194 comments (194 topical)