Quality "Journamalism"

Somerby reports on Olbermann:

THIS FELLOW JUST CAN’T STOP: Some “men” are born to behave this way. One fellow clearly can’t stop:

MADDOW (9/8/08): And so, you think [Obama’s] confidence is about what comes next in the campaign, not necessarily an undue confidence about where his tactics thus far have gotten him.

OLBERMANN: Well, look what he’s—he’s fought off this. He’s fought off this, you know—we found somebody at Schwab’s Drugstore in Hollywood and give her a screen test and now she’s Liza Minnelli and a star is born and we’re making her the vice president of the United States or at least the candidate on the ticket.

In this way, this fellow adorned the first few moments of Rachel Maddow’s first program! But then, some “men” are born to insult women; they keep it up to the day they die. KeithO seems to be such a guy. He’ll never stop gender-trashing Palin, even if it puts her consort safely inside the White House.

Speaking for me only

< Declaring Victory | Catholic Dem. PAC Survey: Palin Too Polarizing, Hillary Voters Go to Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obamaphiles seem determined (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    to keep shooting their candidate in the foot.

    By the way (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    Atrios made a similar point about Palin's "celebrity" the other day:

    Values update: Crowds and popularity are now good things.

    What's the difference between what Atrios said and what Olbermann said?  Well, for one thing, Atrios managed to spotlight the hypocrisy of the "celebrity" attacks against Obama without resorting to sexist frames.  And they said it couldn't be done.

    I think it is veyr different (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:57:54 AM EST
    There was nothing sexist in what Atrios said imo.

    Olbermann's comment is utterly sexist.


    I think (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    that you just said exactly what I said.

    You're right (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    Your faked me out rhetorically.

    Big deal (2.00 / 2) (#73)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    Anyone who can't handle that doesn't belong in politics let alone VP. He didn't say or even imply it was because she was sexy. He didn't even say it was because of her gender. He says it was the luck of the draw and instant celebrity. The McCain campaign's constant celebrity attack is the context. This was a shrewd move by McCain to pick a woman because divide and conquer is most effective. Let's talk about sexism when Palin nominates Robert Bork for SCOTUS.

    A ban from your threads is reward, not punishment. Bleh.  Probably 75% of TalkLeft's posts are yours. You're as divisive as Palin and no one loves your posts as much as you do.  Yes, saying that is 75% worth the risk of getting banned from TalkLeft altogether.


    It is no surprise (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    that the people who see no sexism in what Olbermann said seem to be the same people who saw no problem in comparing Hillary Clinton to Tonya Harding, or perhaps Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction, during the primary.  Oddly, there seems to be a substantial overlap between that group and the group of people who scream bloody murder at the mildest allusion to Obama's race.  

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#81)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    I never made those comparisons and have no idea what you're talking about. Nor have I ranted about Obama's race. I still don't see it at least no where to the extent it deserves a divide and conquer rant.

    BTW, my post was meant as a reply to the OP.


    I have no doubt she can handle it (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    That doesn't make it right.

    Comparing it to Lana Turner being "discovered"  at Schwab's Drug store is directly saying, let alone implying, that she was picked because she was sexy.

    I can't believe there is any argument about that.


    Of coures, they probably DID pick her (none / 0) (#93)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    because she'd be perceived as sexy.  From the emails I've gotten on right wing lists, they're playing that all the way.  

    So I can see why it's hard for people to understand that Olbermann is wrong to point out what they did.  By putting words to it (she was picked because she was sexy) he is also being sexist.  That's the crux.  

    The difference is that we'll criticize him for his sexism.  The guys on right wing lists just laugh about it.  


    It seriously (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jane2009 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    blows my mind that, after the last three months, there are so many remaining who just. do. not. get. it.

    But hey, keep it up! just please don't whine when the backlash flattens you.


    Um, (none / 0) (#114)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    Olbermann was sexist.  Sexism is wrong and counterproductive to our winning.  AND the GOP/Rove know that by picking Palin sexism would work in their favor.  Sexist men who were ignoring McSame and his campaign are now engaged, partly because of Palin's gender, her looks and her history outside of politics.  

    Here are some direct quotes from the many sexist emails being sent around on right wing lists:
    "Finally, we get to look at a babe instead of McCain's mug."  
     "... a fine pair of... mavericks!"  
    "Sportscaster?  Oh yeah!  She can talk our language."  

    I think the three key reasons they selected Palin are her ties to their conservative religious base, her gender and the lack of a federal policy record tying her to McBush.  The GOP is relying on sexism and Olbermann used it as well when he pointed out their strategy.  Not saying she doesn't have other strengths or skills, but if you don't think that Rove and the GOP are calculating enough to deliberately select a woman specifically because she's female, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  


    The point is not (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    whether Palin "can handle it". It's whether this is a productive strategy to get Obama elected.

    My Magic 8 Ball says, "Nuh uh. Bad idea."


    Any comments on this in the Left blogs? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:23 AM EST
    I di  not watch and doubt I will ever watch Maddow. I do not care for her schtick.

    Her schtick? (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    There are so few liberal voices out there. Just little support BTD? Just a little?
    So many self-hating liberals on this blog.

    I like myself enough (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    to know that I do not want you in my threads.

    You are banned from my threads. Do not comment any further.

    Feel free of course to comment in Jeralyn and Chris' threads.


    I'm sorry BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    The polls have me scared (and angry). And I'm upset that democrats seem to only form circular firing squads. I guess I was contributing to that however.

    BS (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    IF you have read me on the polls and the election, then your attacks on  me would not have happened.

    You take umbrage that I tell people what I think about Olbermann and MSNBC. I am used to it.  I do not care.

    But I do not have to take it in my own threads. I will not.

    You want to try tomorrow, then come back tomorrow, but no more commenting in my threads today.


    Self-hating? More like (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    liberals with principles. My principles AS a liberal prevent me from ever watching Olbermann again, ever surfing DailyKos, ever giving credence to attacks on gender simply because they come from the "liberal" side. REAL liberals (and REAL men for that matter) would never behave the way KO has. Nor would any liberal ever condone this type of behavior.

    Self-hating? I think not.  Critically thinking, yes.


    I agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    She's also terrible to listen to on the radio.

    Actually I like her on the radio (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    I think she does good interviews with authors, and gives relatively intelligent commentary.  I admit it is a low bar to clear in talk radio.  I have not liked her work on MSNBC as much, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt in thinking she had to respond to whatever nonsense Chris and Pat Buchanan were throwing her.  I'll watch her show a couple of times to see how she calls the shots.  But if this excerpt is any example, I won't be watching often.  Why does she even have KO on, when he has his own dang show?

    Never heard her on the radio (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    Do not like her on MSNBC.

    I didn't like her either (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    on the radio or on the KO show.  I will give her a shot though with her own show.  CNN has actually been decent for the past couple of weeks and Anderson Cooper is growing on me, like a fungus but nonetheless growing.  BBC is only on at 10 here and I am usually asleep and watching it in the morning makes me feel like i am a day behind.

    She's very good at building an argument (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    from the ground up.  She gets to do that in a 5-10 minute radio segment, not at all up till now in her little blurbs on MSNBC. I'll give her show a try to see what she can do on TV with more time.

    I love her schtick (none / 0) (#40)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    "One hint, Gov. Palin, in the midst of a huge economic crisis precipitated by the mortgage disaster, try to figure out even the most basic information about the institutions of the mortgage world before you talk about them into a microphone." Ouch.  

    more (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    "The Democratic Congress, inexplicably, has just abandoned plans to vote again on S-CHIP, even though it would make money of the Republican opponents.  It would put them in the position of voting against something really, really, really popular right before an election.  That's called "leaving the low-hanging fruit to rot on the vine.  And that's why Democrats worry about their party's electoral killer instincts"

    Nor will/can I (none / 0) (#50)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    BTD.  I just can't handle listening to her myself, its tired and seems contrived to me.  

    I watch Hardball sometimes still but mostly the only program I watch is Race to the White House depending on who the panelists are.


    I will probably watch it (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:46:08 PM EST
    I almost never watch MSNBC, but I am curious what the fuss is about.

    Sometimes I just have to say (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST

    This guy is our great liberal spokesman?  I'll have to find the clip to see Maddow's response to that. I have a feeling I won't be turning on MSNBC at 9 to watch her show though, if this is what she calls liberal talk.

    Salon coverstory (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by tres on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    this morning is much worse. I am not one to get upset at something that might be perceived as sexist. But the dominatrix comparison, and it got worse, made me shudder and gag at the same time.

    Just looked it over... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by badguppy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    Yeah, it was pretty bad. There a lot of comments after the article too. Over 400. I'd bet most were angry.

    Shades of "Spy" magazine's... (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    ...infamous Hillary-as-dominatrix cover from the 1990s.

    What are the odds we'd see Obama or other politicians painted as sexual submissives, or as "slaves" to their particular interests?

    Can you imagine the outrage if Obama were caricatured as an Uncle Tom or Step-in Fetchit? This kind of double standard just stuns me, although I should be used to it after watching the media over the last year.


    I saw that.. (none / 0) (#9)
    by addy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    And didn't even bother to read it. I've had my fill of that crap. Juan Cole's piece was very good though. Although I am not sure Palin would be so inclined to mix governing and religion as much as he claims.

    I watched a bit of Chris Matthews last night too (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    and he kept making veiled references throughout the show of how he was "consciously" making sure to be fair to all candidates.  It was amusing especially while he continued to interrupt and talk over any guest who wouldn't answer a question with what he considered the "right" answer.....

    Can someone tell me what Maddow's response was? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by wasabi on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM EST
    I didn't see her show yesterday and am wondering how she responded to Keith.

    I have to say (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KVFinn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    I'm a bit bewildered by all the stories about talking heads on TV.  

    I love the internet because I don't have to listen to all the shoutmatches between 'anchors'.  About the only tv coverage I can stand is C-SPAN or the Daily show.

    It's probably been posted here... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    before, but I just read it, and if there was any doubt as to the hole the Dems have dug themselves into regarding Sarah Palin, this should scare the crap out them....big time.
    Like I've saod before, McCain/Palin can be beaten, but not by the way they've been trying so far.

    If It's A Choice Between (5.00 / 12) (#48)
    by BDB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    hating on women or helping Obama, Olbermann's going to take the former every time.  He's been hating on women for fricking years.  Obama simply gives him a reason to dress it up as part of some sort of noble cause.  A common practice this year it seems.

    I've said all along that Obama and the Democrats were playing a dangerous game letting misogyny run rampant in the primaries.  Too many people enjoyed it.  Now it's almost impossible to get them to stop.  Sure, it's hurting Obama but they don't understand that because they're enjoying themselves too much.  I'd feel bad for Obama and the Democrats if they hadn't brought this on themselves.

    I don't want McCain to be President, but if he ends up being President, I can live with the narrative that the Democrats screwed up by alienating women voters through their acceptance of sexism.  So much better than the alternative, which is that the Democrats weren't Republican enough.

    Also, I love how the subject of Olbermann (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:58:41 PM EST
    continuously alienates many women (I would guess a great many of them former Clinton supporters) from the Obama supporter community, and yet, that's somehow our fault.  Sorry - I will sign on for Obama, but I'm not going to sit here and defend Olbermann when he happily spews offensive trash in the name of advancing progressive causes.

    And It's Alienating (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by BDB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    to read people who claim to be progressive - like Greenwald and Atrios - defend him.  As if his misogyny, which goes beyond politics and this election (see Somerby on his history of belittling women celebrities), is somehow irrelevant to cheering him on as a progressive voice or someone behind whom progressives should rally.

    Olbermann gets his ratings, in part, by denigrating women.  Forgive me if I don't think that's someone progressives should be rallying behind.

    And it sends a message - or rather confirms a message sent repeatedly for 30 years - that women's issues are not that important in the scheme of things to many people who call themselves progressive or Democrat.

    Which brings me back to the real gift Palin delivers to McCain, the opporotunity for so many Democrats to remind women that it's not everyone who hates them has an (R) after his or her name and that even those who don't hate us are awfully willing to overlook the hatred of their other fellow travelers.


    he's a former sportscaster (none / 0) (#88)
    by bigbay on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    that kind of humor was endemic at ESPN, during his time there.

    ok, this needs to be said: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    BTD, do you have some kind of "man crush" on olberman? it's somerby's (self-inflicted, god help him!) job to critique the media. he absorbs their inanity, so we don't have to.

    geez, he even (presumably in a medicated state), suffers the pain of reading the dreck maureen dowd, with the nyt's help, insists on inflicting on us. somerby does this because he loves us and, to a degree, the sound of his own typing (i kid, with love!).

    is it absolutely necessary for us to be assaulted with it here as well?


    olberman's a class A douchebag. most of us have known this for awhile. frankly, maddow lost it during the primaries, we all know this too.

    is there no safe haven from them?

    Red flag (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:35:49 PM EST
    With Olbermann, even when I was happy to hear someone finally trashing Bush on msnbc, I was put off by Olbermann's use of the phrase, "good night and good luck".

    What bothered me not so much the fact that he used Edward R. Murrow's famous sign-off, but did so without attribution.

    This smacked of supreme arrogance and, of course, out and out plagiarism. He ain't no Murrow, and he has no right to steal his words.

    So, when he revealed himself as the weird sort of beast that he has become since fame came his way, it was not surprising.

    We let these little signs go by unnoticed at our peril.

    he attributed it once (none / 0) (#97)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:48:15 PM EST
    during a commentary. After that he just used it every day.

    He is sooo far from Murrow.


    Olbermann does us a disservice (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    because he's easily quoted and recognizable to conservatives who hate liberals.  Now that he's dissed Hillary, it'll be easy to display his statements about Palin as sexist, which of course they are.  Instead of focusing on her inadequacies, he painted her as a fluff sex symbol.  That's exactly what the GOP needs - ammunition for 527 ads that will keep their base engaged and angry at us.

    Good analysis BTD.  It's one thing to have sexist jerks on blogs.  It's harder to blame the liberals, given that commenters are anonymous.  But when someone visible like Olbermann does it, it's enormously damaging to our side.  

    High road (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by artistmate on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    BTD...as a canadian liberal watching the meltdown of the democratic party I applaud you for your integrity. It seems liberals down there think that lowering themselves down to the republicans standards is the way to win. All that does is blur the differences in the two parties. I have been shocked to see democrats attack their own in the same manner as republicans attack them. You are one of the few left leaning bloggers I can read anymore...thanks

    Every day, another Headline, (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    The Wash. Post
    "Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home!!"

    "Now we've got her....."
    "The Smoking Gun........"

    and upon the slightest research......
    Another dud.

    The panic is beyond desperation,
    It's now humiliating and depressing.

    I'm not surprised... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    and my head hurts.

    I'm offfended ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    as a movie buff.

    Liza Minelli wasn't in any of the three versions of A STAR IS BORN.  Her mom, Judy Garland, was in the second one.

    And it was Lana Turner who was discovered at Schwabs!

    If KO's gonna be sexist, he might as well get his references right.


    "Speaking for me only" (3.33 / 9) (#30)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    Thank heavens for that.

    First, Somersby got the quote wrong (and KO got the star of the movie wrong).  KO said "...and now she's Liza Minnelli in "A Star is Born" and we're making her the vice president of the United States or at least the candidate on the ticket"

    The movie, "A Star is Born" has been made 3 times, 1937, 1954 and 1976.
    In 1937, the female lead was Janet Gaynor.
    In 1954, the female lead was Judy Garland.  As most likely know, she was Liza Minelli's mother.
    In 1976, the female lead was Barbra Streisand.

    So, KO got his movies and actresses mixed up, but the gist of the story - unknown woman promoted overnight by others and her own talents to heights of fame, fortune and adulation followed with the inevitable fall into degradation and despair when she hits the limits of her talents and/or the public's appetite for what she's selling - seems applicable to the current situation.  

    Two more scandals erupting today - (1) Palin charging the State for per diem while she was living and eating at home and also collecting per diem and travel for members of her family and (2) Palin's pet police chief barking about having to make the taxpayers pay for rape test kits for rape victims, rather than forcing the victims to cover the cost of those tests are pretty nasty.  One is a serious financial impropriety, and the other a grotesque abuse of women.

    But, hey, calling her Aimee Semple McHockeyMom is too, too mean!

    And, I always get a kick out of a man (that's you, BTD) telling the world what is, and is not, sexist.  Palin wants to play on the largest stage, so she has to take all the hits that come with it.  If (IF) some of them are truly unfair, that will out on its own.  IF she can't take it, that's reason enough to not vote for her.

    While we're spending time and energy on beating up each other - and one of the Dem's strongest supporters - we could be spending that same energy on beating up McCain and Palin.  But, I guess, that wouldn't be fair or nice, so we'll stand there and take it from them and do nothing to promote our own message, damage their brand (by exposing it as the political equivalent of plastic junk made in [insert placename] or "more of the same") or remind everyone just how badly they have trashed their own brand.

    The gist of the story (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    is that KeithO cannot help himself from gender-trashing a woman.  But hey, as long as it's a Republican it's alright. As it was when it was only Hillary Clinton.

    And it's sexist.  


    Look (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    I did not listen to it, but if it comes to believing you got it right on thew quote or Somerby, I'll go with Somerby.

    Second, Schwab's references Lana Turner, I am amazed that so many are quick to ponitificate on this without a clue what they are talking about.

    Third, if Somerby's QUOTE is correct, then there was no reference to the film "A Star is Born" but rather a statement "a star is born."

    If however, OLBERMANN was referencing the film "A Star Is Born," then it is Olbermann who got it wrong.

    As for my take on what is sexist, your comment is clearly sexist and an embarrassment for you. What you wrote is patently offensive. And I do not need to be a woman to know that.


    And of course (5.00 / 14) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    It is of a piece with many Obama supporters, some have been condoning sexism, especially Olbermann's sexism for months now.

    Shame on all of you.


    Which I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    is exactly the frame of reference Olbermann would be using for Palin if she were a man, or Tim Kaine - although I didn't know Olbermann was such a film buff.

    So, KO got his movies and actresses mixed up, but the gist of the story - unknown woman promoted overnight by others and her own talents to heights of fame, fortune and adulation followed with the inevitable fall into degradation and despair when she hits the limits of her talents and/or the public's appetite for what she's selling - seems applicable to the current situation.  

    And your summary doesn't really gel with what happened in the movie anyway.


    Really (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Badtypist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    I thought in the movie she eclipsed the man who initially promoted her career. She fell in love with the guy but he had a hard time handling it when she became the bigger star.

    It is not neccessary to use sexist attacks... (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by lucky leftie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:07:13 PM EST
    ...against Palin, there are plenty of issues on which she is vulnerable.   It is also unwise. I would think democrats would have figured that out by now.  

    Um, have you seen (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    "A Star is Born"? Because your plot description is way off base.

    Star is Born is about a younger woman who gets involved with an older male movie star. She becomes famous - more famous than he - while he spirals into alcoholic despair. At the end of the movie, he kills himself, and his widow accepts her Oscar as "Mrs. Norman Maine," at the height of her celebrity.

    James Mason was fabulous as Norman Maine, by the way.

    So before you go criticizing BTW/Somersby for a misquote, you might want to do some research yourself.


    The Lisa reference (none / 0) (#53)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    If Keith is as smart as he thinks he is, then the Lisa reference was another dig. Yep, we know Lana was the discovery, and in the Star Is Born it was Lisa's mother Judy, but when he says Lisa, he is pointing to her current reputation. For the last few years Lisa has been somewhat eratic with her personal life. I believe he meant to say Lisa. He knows who is who. If he said Lana or Judy, not all people know who he is talking about. But by using Lisa's name he is saying Palin is whacky and eratic.

    You mean 'Liza with a Z'? (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    Let's see how many get that obscure reference...I feel like Dennis Miller today!

    Yep (none / 0) (#111)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    That was her album. My Mom had it on LP.

    Liza Minelli likewise was NOT discovered @ Schwabs (none / 0) (#70)
    by SarahSpin on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    That was Lana Turner.

    Liza had celebrity parents.


    It seems to me (2.00 / 2) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    that Olbermann is making a playing on the celebrity schtick rather than her gender.  He's saying that she's just someone playing a role and not a legitimate option for VP.  How is this any different than when Dan Quayle was pilloried for being clearly out of his league?

    I really don't understand how we was insulting her gender.  Can someone explain this?  And please, no insults.  I'm not trying to be contrarian.  I just don't understand the context.

    Lana Turner was 'Plucked from the stool' (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    at the drug store for her sex appeal.  Comparing a politician to that is blatantly sexist.

    I think what I find (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    most offensive, all in all, about the coverage of Sarah Palin is the lack of imagination displayed in the frames of reference used to characterize Sarah Palin.  Beauty queen, movie star, mom?  That's all you've got?  And now we have dominatrix...tell me, what male candidates have to spend time manufacturing an image to avoid seeming like a dominatrix, or a cheerleader?

    Umm how bout John Edwards? (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    He was called a Breck girl among many other attacks on his alleged vanity.

    Wasn't Sarah Palin an actual beauty queen?


    Your argument (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    for excusing sexist attacks against Palin is to give us another example of the media being inane? Try this: Sexism is unacceptable.  It does not matter that they made a stupid comment about Edwards' hair.

    I'm not excusing anything (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    I asked for a clarification.

    And everytime I try to understand the point being made I receive a stream of derision because I don't "get it".


    Ruffian's comment (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    is your clarification.  You completely missed the Lana Turner reference.  What Olbermann said was not, as you say, that "she's just someone playing a role and not a legitimate option for VP."  He is saying here is someone selected for sex appeal, who was given one screen test (one meeting with McCain?), and is now in the spotlight.  That is a comparison that is sexist and bashes Palin for her gender.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    While I don't think she was picked for her sex appeal it seems fairly obvious that she was picked for her gender.

    Now politicians are picked for pure pandering reasons all the time.  But I am not sure that the campaign should be excused for pandering.


    But Olbermann here (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    compares her with someone picked for her sex appeal (Lana Turner).  Which is unfair to Palin.

    The point is clear. (none / 0) (#89)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    You choose to ignore it.

    Re: beauty queen (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    And that deserves repeated, obsessive mention for what reason?  It was 20 years ago.  It is completely irrelevant vis-a-vis her ability to govern.

    And calling John Edwards a completely empty headed women is demeaning to women and to Edwards.  It wasn't much different than calling him a p*ssy.  Nonetheless, Edwards didn't have to campaign while watching his back to ensure he didn't seem like a cheerleader or "psycho ex-girlfriend."  He was masculine enough to throw off any such charges.


    "Breck Girl" is also sexism (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    Because after all, there's nothing as denigrating to a man as comparing him to a girl.

    The knee-jerk gender stereotypes and negative view of women can be used against men, too -- but it doesn't make it okay, or any less anti-female, at its base.


    Well that works both ways (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    Most women aren't really keen no being described in masculine terms.

    And the end of the day there ARE differences between men and women.  


    Are you (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Jane2009 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    serious? The masculine tropes that get trotted out are things like "courageous," "strong," "powerful," and other qualities of (positive) character, whereas the tropes for women are focused on their looks.

    Most women are EXTREMELY keen on being described in masculine terms, because historically masculizing terms are positive and femininizing terms are negative.

    And of course there are differences between men and women,  but those differences are, again, trotted out to excuse treating women as less than, and keeping them in the little box labeled with the feminizing (negative) terminology, apart from the men.

    Maybe you should sign up for a Feminism 101 class.


    Really? (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
    How bout boorish, bullish, thickheaded, cocky, piggish, gorilla like, egocentric, belligerent, and countless other negative masculine connotations?

    And you seem to think there are no positive feminine descriptors.  

    Do you believe that gender specific language should be removed from public discourse?  Just curious.  


    None of those are (none / 0) (#127)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:47:26 PM EST
    used specifically for males. I suppose if you stretch it you could cite bullish and cocky for making reference to male animals, but neither are seen as referring only to males, and bullish is actually seen as a positive in its financial use.  Do you really believe that "boorish" "egocentric" "piggish" "gorilla like" "thickheaded" and "belligerent" are gender specific? You can't be serious. "Thickheaded", BTW, refers to the big head not the little one.

    I've told flyerhawk before (none / 0) (#131)
    by echinopsia on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:38:23 PM EST
    Maybe you should sign up for a Feminism 101 class.

    That this would help him understand a lot, but he doesn't seem willing to learn.

    So typical.

    And he will wonder, after Obama loses, why women didn't vote for him. OR for McCain.

    But he won't take Feminism 101 to find out what he's missing.


    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    Flyerhawk, you win a Clueless prize with this one. You really don't get it, do you?

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#135)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:44:22 AM EST
    This could get into a whole Gender Studies 101 class, which I don't want to do. What I will do is urge you to look back on the election season so far, and to elections past, and see how gender-specific language historically has been used to describe various candidates. Not gender-neutral adjectives, such as "belligerant," but specifically coded language.

    When a man is described as feminine -- "Breck Girl," for Edwards, and the famous, "practically lactating," for Gore -- it's always negative. Feminizing the Democratic male candidates is a tried-and-true GOP tactic -- look at the job they did on Kerry -- and it's distressing how effective it's been.

    When a woman is described in masculine terms, it's positive. Think to the primary, when Hillary was praised by those who admired her toughness not by being called tough, but for having "testicular fortitude." And then there's Carville's priceless, "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two." She's so tough, she's not just a man, she's a man with extra testosterone! And that's from her supporters!

    When opponents want to speak negatively of a woman, they generally don't phrase it as the presence of masculinity, but either the absence or superfluity of femininity. Either she's unfeminine or she's superfeminine, and both are bad. Either she's cold and unfeeling -- things a woman isn't supposed to be -- or she's hysterical and over-emotional.


    Your ignorance on these points (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    is longstanding.

    I was hoping that you and I would not go down this road again.

    Do you even get the Schwab's Drugstore reference?


    No I didn't (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    I don't pay much attention to Hollywood folklore.  But I did look it up now.  

    I guess I'm not going to get an answer.  

    So be it.


    I would refer you (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    to my comment above, for an example of how the celebrity point can be made without resorting to sexist tropes like vacuous starlets or cheerleaders or whatnot.

    How old are you? (4.57 / 7) (#47)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM EST
    It's a lead-pipe cinch we're not choosing you for the trivia team.

    get your stars straight! (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by 8mamameowkids on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    marilyn monroe is the one supposedly discovered in schwab's drugstore, judy garland starred in "a star is born" and liza minelli was not discovered, she was always there as judy garland's daughter. geez, keith, if you are going to be a sexist, get your sex stars status' right. you are not that young!!!!!!!!

    Lana Turner (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    Get your stars straight.

    In all seriousness, Olbermann has a history (none / 0) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    of depression or some other mental/emotional problems. I absolutely meant what I said yesterday about the Special Comments causing him to lose it.

    I feel like it would be in his own best interests to take a step back and look at the inappropriatness of his behavior.

    The truly sad part (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    is that Olbermann really doesn't get it. Too much time in the testosterone bathed halls of ESPN perhaps.

    What's "journamalism"? (none / 0) (#16)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    Journalistic animalism? Journalistic minimalism? Is that a new word you coined, or am I hopelessly uncool and uninfomed?

    And thank you again, for fighting the sexism wherever it may be.

    Oops, just looked it up. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    I guess I'm just clueless.

    An attempt to report the news marred with shoddy research, fact suppression, or a mere retyping of the press release/talking points.

    The description fits KO's work.


    I confess (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    I understand the meaning, but it seems like the actual word contains a play on words that I'm missing.

    Perhaps its akin to (none / 0) (#91)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    strategery, which has come to mean strategy done wrong -add another syllable to denote its incompetence?

    Heh (none / 0) (#119)
    by chrisvee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    That was SNL.  Will Ferrell as GWB. Good times.

    I guess (none / 0) (#118)
    by chrisvee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    I thought 'minimalism' in the sense of 'minimal journalism' but have no source to back that up.

    seemed fair to me (none / 0) (#36)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    Actually Keith is using the GOP's own celebrity talking point against them.  Which has been done in many places over the past few days.  

    Palin and McCain are running a cult of personality ticket, not an issues ticket. Their people have said it directly.

    How is he doing that? (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    How is he using GOP talking points by gender-bashing Palin?  Did the GOP start attacking Obama as a man? Last I saw, they had not.

    The only thing the GOP IS doing is defending the woman. Unlike what the DNC did for Clinton.


    ha (none / 0) (#46)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    They attacked Obama as a celebrity. Olberman here is jokingly attacking her as a female celebrity, crafted by studio force.  Would you prefer if she was compared to Steve McQueen?

    Mitt Romney himself took some heat for that. His chisled features caught some flack for having emerged from central casting.   Was that a slur on women? or men? Or just a political jab implying he wasnt a heavy lifter?

    I dont understand.



    And if (5.00 / 11) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    KO had said "They have their own celebrity! What hypocrites!" that would have been perfectly acceptable. It's that he cannot HELP himself from trashing the woman with misogyny that I find so fascinating.  Also fascinating? That you don't see how clearly he did so.  

    well (none / 0) (#55)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    She is a new to the national scene and she is being packaged.  They are lying about her record and creating a mythical being.

    In that sense it does seem like the studio system's creation of celebrity.


    You refuse to address (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    the actual problem: The gender-bashing.  I have no problem with going after Palin for her record, for her "celebrity" status, for her "packaging" but going after her on gender is what is so patently offensive.

    :Shakes head: I thought you guys would figure this out after what KeithO and Obamablogs did to Hillary.  Apparently not.


    well (none / 0) (#62)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    I was a Hillary voter but I just dont quite get this one.

    Maybe if you look at it through the prism of his previous Hillary rants, then it might make sense.  But I look at it in the context of the Obama-celebrity thing so I think its just not impacting me.

    KO aside, she does seem like a product of the studio system. Breathless discovery, packaging of the image, deceptions about the past, etc.


    The prism I'm looking (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    through is the prism of reality.  It was real when he attacked Hillary. It is real now that he attacks Palin.  It has nothing to do with a "Hillary prism." I denounce sexism and misogyny no matter who it's hurled at--even if it's Ann Coulter.

    Oh please.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    the prism of reality?

    Give me a break. There ARE other valid interpretations, even if you disagree.


    hear hear (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    nicely said.  People that have one reality are generally considered extremists and placed on gov't watch lists.  I don't like KO so everything he says sounds sexist to me. I recognize that and ergo do not watch him.  I view the statement differently in light of the "hottest governor, coldest state" buttons but it does not make me right or wrong.  

    Sort of reminds me of the Andrea Mitchell story out now:

    Here is what she said.

    Mitchel: Well, they think now that they have a story. They have a story of a working mom, she is a colorful character, an Annie Oakley... you know, Annie get your gun. They love her story, but when she tried to talk about Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, in western Pennsylvania, yesterday at a rally with conservative Republican voters, Hillary Clinton was booed. So, she can use the Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro analogy if she wants to in interviews, she cannot use that at Republican rallies.

    She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

    Now is she saying "only the uneducated will vote for Palin" in a negative snide manner, or is she simply providing what she interprets (correctly in my opinion) as McCain's strategy to target that vote as they will feel a connection with her?


    What I find (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Jane2009 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    interesting about this quote, is that there's an assumption out there that every (educated) woman who liked Clinton, will by default like Obama. What's being missed is the number of Clinton supporters across the board who didn't feel they could support Obama because of his lack of experience, regardless of his treatment of Clinton (which served to harden resistance, IMO). It's not that there's a sudden appeal of Palin; the default is to McCain. BTD is absolutely right; McCain needs to be hammered on if the women's swing vote is to be turned aside. Palin is all about the Repubs; McCain is where the swing issue is.

    you see (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    I didn't take that from the quote.  I will send it to my wife and she if she reads it that way..

    I think and have said here that there are a lot of women who will vote for Obama if only because they think that it will not be a step back for women's rights and not because they like him or think he is ready.  Many a vote have been cast for the lesser of two evils, in fact damned near every vote I have ever cast has been a vote against the other person.  

    If my wife responds today I will post it....


    Here's the dilemma for (none / 0) (#125)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:17:43 PM EST
    many women:
    We can cast our vote for the Democrat because the Democratic Party platform supports many issues that are important to women, including but not limited to our reproductive rights. But this election season, both the primaries and the general since the introduction of Palin into the race, has proved to us without a shadow of a doubt that sexism and misogyny are alive, well, and celebrated in the ranks of the Democratic Party.
    Or we can cast our vote for the Republican because he has elevated a woman to the second highest position in our country, shown her respect, and did it because his female advisers told him it as a good idea. The party platform has many things in it that we don't like, but we have been given an opportunity to be heard and just maybe he'll continue to listen after the election is over.
    Now some of us are not naive enough to believe that we can change the Republican stand on much, but others believe in Hope and Change and are willing to give it a try.
    The Democrats could stop the flow of women to the Republican candidate if they stopped writing articles about Palin, the Dominatrix, and made women feel less like second-class citizens in the party. Women who vote on issues have many issues to choose from. Refusing to accept the way the Democrats treat women is definitely one of them. We've been telling you this for months, and it may already be too late. Wake up. Although I would love to know what your wife thinks, she's just one vote. Look at the polls for the answer.

    nicely said (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    thank you.  My wifes vote is irrelevant, I was just curious as to whether or not she read it the same as you.  She has not responded but I am curious as to how we all interpret thikngs...

    I assume every educated woman (none / 0) (#132)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    will understand the importance of SCOTUS and it's affect on reproductive rights (and, in turn, the very fundamental understanding of reproductive rights as basic human rights).

    Palin does not understand that. She is George Bush in 2000.

    McCain is George Bush, 2008


    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    frame it that way at your peril.  The movie star - and not just movie star, but sex symbol/sexpot - references ignore her hard work and her charisma.  

    It's not like Olbermann is comparing her to Tom Hanks here.  The left blogs went ballistic when the GOP compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and they weren't wrong in doing so.  Is Olbermann now right?


    Olbermann is Paris Hilton (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    I wish John Syewart would have a go at him.

    Aren't there any real issues out there?


    Actually (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    the McCain campaign claims Obama is Paris Hilton.

    Yet most of you, BTD excluded, found nothing worth objecting to in that instance.  


    I objected to it. (none / 0) (#129)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:28:55 PM EST
    I am an Obama fan.

    sorry to go against your preconceived notions.


    I don't much care about Olbermann (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM EST
    I rarely watch TV news.

    I just don't understand why you guys are focused so much on him when there are countless other far more egregious comments made by others all the time.


    I saw that Alaska debate ... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    they ran on C-Span the other night.  And I watched whatever video I could find of her months ago.

    Palin created her own "packaging" long before McCain entered the picture.

    They may have plucked her out of obscurity, but she wasn't a diamond in the rough.  She was already a diamond.

    I'm no Palin fan.

    But I think Palin's emergence on the National scene was something that would have happened eventually anyway.  She didn't need an RNC makeover.



    she's George Bush (none / 0) (#130)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:29:59 PM EST
    yes she is. Complete with a folksy, exaggerated accent.

    less celebrity (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by addy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    than denying her a history. This obscure woman plucked from a chair at Schwab's because she, like Lana Turner, looks good in a sweater (my interjection not Olberman's) is implying that Palin has no past in politics. That she's some blank slate who's been picked for looks and not her accomplishments. It's insulting to her and to any woman when you think about it.

    And Lana got the last laugh. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    It turned out she had quite a career.

    heh (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    She is a new discovery nationally and she is being packaged.  He said it because that is what's happening. Thus all the lying about her record.

    Then she was a surprise package (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by addy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    because of all the assumptions made about her obscurity she managed to bring the GOP to it's feet during the convention and beyond. Expectations without regard to her popularity in Alaska and why that would be caught us flatfooted.

    hm (none / 0) (#65)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    Well, you seem pretty pro-palin. Personally, I'm a democrat so we probably are coming at this from different angles.

    That she is lying about her record and being carefully packaged is pretty clear to me.


    Denouncing (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    gender-based attacks is not being PRO-Palin and it's rude to pretend that doing so makes one 'not a Democrat.'

    ok (none / 0) (#74)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    Well, isnt this thread contains charges that those who dont agree with BTD arent real liberals (or even "real men" at one point)?

    The poster I replied to wouldnt even acknowledge that Palin is being dishonest, whatever you feel about KO or sexism.

    If you think he's a sexist, thats up to you. I dont follow him enough to know.


    My real men (none / 0) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    comment was directed at KeithO, who obviously is so insecure in his own manhood that he can only gender-trash any woman that he finds fault with.

    I'm 50 years old (5.00 / 10) (#71)
    by addy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    and have been a democrat my whole life. I'm not pro-Palin by any means. It's not my place to support her policies. It IS my place to decry gender bashing when I see it. That's what being raised a feminist will do to you.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by rooge04 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    A Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    would understand a purely sexist statement even when directed toward a Republican.

    Or maybe, I should say, a liberal would.  Democrats have exposed themselves as truly non-liberal.


    Olbermann didn't address Maddow's (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    question.  She should have cut him off and asked him to do so.  Hoping she didn't silently condone his sexist rant.

    Olbermann (none / 0) (#80)
    by AlSmith on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM EST

    I dont think the remark is sexist, just delusional.

    He is obviously hanging around the office thinking these things up and then springs them whether they are apropos or not.

    Maddow probably should have thrown him off the show then and there since it was obvious that he would not be providing any trenchant analysis.


    Speaking of quality journalism.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    Letting Andrea Mitchell report on the mortgage and credit crisis is wrong given her husband's role
    and I just saw the public editor of NYTimes justify their reporting.  No wonder they have no credibility anymore.

    THank GOD MSNBC is downsizing him and CM (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    best thing for us.

    They are negatively obsessed with women candidates.

    I'm old. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:03:55 PM EST
    Been around politics for quite a while. I remember the day that Clayton Williams lost the election for governor of Texas because he told a disgusting sexist joke to a group of reporters.

    Scary part was that he never did understand what was wrong with what he said.

    Scarier part was told to me by the late, great Billie Carr, a one-woman powerhouse for progressive politics in our reactionary state. She related how a group of big wig Texas Democratic politicos were celebrating Williams's dumb move. These guys not only repeated the joke but added to it. Billie just shook her head in frustration. Like Claytie, they just didn't get what was wrong.

    One of the problems with sexism is that it is so pervasive. It even lies beneath the conscious of many a liberal male. They watch themselves for any signs of racism and catch it easily in others. But they just don't see it when it is a part of themselves. Of course it is a part of the right-wing psyche, but it lurks here and on other progressive sites.

    Sorry, Billie. We're just not there yet.  

    Meant to say (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:09:34 PM EST
    that they don't recognize sexism in themselves. Left my preposition without a definite reference. Sorry.

    Go BTD! (none / 0) (#134)
    by scourtney on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM EST
    I enjoy TalkLeft, but I have to say 90% of the reason I come back is because of BTD's insight. So great to have honest criticism of the frathouse mentality in our media.