I Won't Be Coming Home Again

Cross posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

TalkLeft had an interesting post about a story in the The New Yorker, discussing requests by MSNBC executives to moderator Keith Olbermann to back off his sharp criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton:

At MSNBC, Phil Griffin was worried, and with good reason. The average "Countdown" viewer is fifty-nine years old, and forty-five per cent of the viewers are women, presumably Democratic--a fair description of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp.

Unfortunately, Phil Griffin is making the same mistake that many Democratic officials are making with respect to the presidential race. He assumes that angry Clinton supporters will just "come home":

But, just as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network's Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. "It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he's funny and he's clever and he's witty, and he's all these great things," Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. "And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go. "

I stopped listening to (via podcast, I live overseas) to Keith Olbermann more than a year ago because his anger became too much for me. At the end of every show, I was angry, frustrated, and pessimistic about the future of my country. Countdown was not my home before the election cycle and certainly won't be returning to it. But MSNBC was my home. It has been my preferred new sources for many years and was the first news source I would check every morning.

I think that taking for granted that Clinton supporters will just flock back to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC is as unwise as Democrats assuming that Democrats will rally around the nominee. From E.J. Dionne, Jr at the Washington Post:

In a report released yesterday, Gallup found that where McCain was winning 85 percent of self-identified Republicans, Obama was winning only 78 percent of Democrats.

Yet Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent in the survey, which was conducted June 5-10. Obama enjoyed a seven-point advantage among independents, but Gallup noted that even when independents were excluded, Obama still had a five-point lead because Democrats now outnumber Republicans 37 to 28 percent. When independents were asked their partisan leanings, the Democratic advantage reached 13 points.

In 2004, Kerry carried 89 percent of the vote among self-identified Democrats, according to the network exit poll, but Democrats and Republicans accounted for equal shares of the electorate. President Bush won with an even larger share (93 percent) of supporters of his own party.


That was Friday. This is today:

Voters are closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted June 12-14, with 44% of national registered voters favoring Obama for president and 42% backing McCain.

SNIP

Although the margin between Obama and McCain is now similar to what it was in the last few weeks of the Democratic primary race, the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters -- 15% -- not favoring either major-party candidate. This includes 7% of voters who say they are undecided and 8% who say they will not vote for either candidate (including 1% who volunteer they will vote for another specific candidate).

As a result, the percentages of Americans now supporting Obama and McCain are near the lowest seen for either candidate since Gallup Poll Daily tracking on the Obama-McCain matchup started in early March, and well below the high of 48% achieved by each at them at various times.


I submit that many of the 8% are Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama, but can't bring themselves to support John McCain. These voters are up for grabs and John McCain has been making a major play for them:

Citizens for McCain

At the beginning of this process, in January 2007, I promised myself that I would support the Democratic nominee no matter what. As disgusted as I am with the outcome, I am sticking to the promise and supporting Senator Obama. In a sense, I am "coming home" to the Democratic Party. But I won't be doing the same for MSNBC.

Frankly, I don't care if my not watching MSNBC has any practical effect on its ratings. For me, this is about my dignity. My candidate was drug through the mud--a victim of sexism and accused of racism and narcissistic ambition--while prominent Democrats stood silent, snickered, or sometimes, participated in the piling on. I'll swallow my pride and support the party, but I'm drawing the line at where I get my news.

The behavior of the MSNBC "commentariat" was deplorable and they have largely been unapologetic about their behavior. In fact, Keith Olbermann excoriated Katie Couric when she suggested that sexism had reared it's head in some of the coverage:

I may be forced to come home to the Democratic Party because there is no alternative that does not mean my acting against my own self interest. However, there most assuredly are alternatives to MSNBC, and the mainstream media need to be aware that dissatisfaction with the fourth estate is driving people to find and support these alternatives. The internet has provided new platforms for delivering and discussing news. Thumbing his nose at those risks makes Phil Griffin--and MSNBC--as vulnerable as Democrats who assume that the Clinton supporters won't pursue their own at the ballot box.



Display:


Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 8)

I just don't understand why sharp criticism of Hillary (and no, it was never sexist, but thanks for playing) is somehow verboten on television. God knows that Obama has about eight million "sharp critics" all over Fox News and the AM airwaves.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:12:09 PM EST

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 3)

Referring, of course, specifically to Olbermann...no doubt Rush, etc. has been sexist to her in the past


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 10)

But some of it crossed the line.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 4)

Due respect, but some examples please? I can think of two occasions where she was the subject of extended criticism - after assassination-gate and one on general race baiting.

I know that you will never agree on any culpability for Hillary on either of these things, but can you at least see how some might see these things differently, and might opine as to such on his television show?  


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 8)

This has been rehashed over and over again.  Either you believe it was over the top or not.

And no, she did not deserve to be called a racist or to be accused of waiting around for---I can't even write the words.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 2)

She was never called a racist. I haven't seen the other "special comment" so I won't comment on that, but every summary I've seen emphasized her invoking the specter of political violence, not specifically hoping for an Obama assassination.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 7)

That's exactly what he was doing.  He called her a racist.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 2)

Watch the segment again. She was never called a racist. KO urged her to clamp down on race-related rhetoric. No, those are not the same thing.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 5)

KO did the character assassination by association with that commentary.

He put the blame on Hillary for what Gerry stated (which was not picked up right away, if I remember correctly - the Obama campaign went out of their way to find that quote of hers).

He didn't mention that the Obama campaign did not use unfair and race-baiting tactics (such as the fairytale comment or Hillary didn't cry for Katrina statement)

KO, with his faux outrage, called Hillary a racist indirectly with his commentary.

And HE knows better.  the Clintons are not racist.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 5)

oh and he compared her campaign to David Duke.

unless there is another David Duke, I am pretty sure he was comparing Hillary to a racist.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is not racist but the Clinton's feel they are entitled to their positions and the support for AA because "they were good to them."

Not racism, but entitlement.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Entitled? (2.00 / 1)

What are you talking about?  Hillary campaigned HARD in states where the polls clearly indicated she was going to get smashed.  She worked hard for every single vote she received in the African-American community.  She campaigned in Alabama when the polls said she was would lose by 20 points and asked for their votes.  She walked into that state and said, "I'm told this is Obama country, and that Alabama supports him, but I want you to know that I support you."

And with all due respect, there were no women going around to female members of Congress saying that they would face primary challenges if they didn't endorse Senator Clinton.  Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., on the other hand, was making that threat to AA members of Congress who didn't endorse Obama.

If anybody was taking the AA vote for granted, it wasn't Hillary.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

You don't remember it correctly.  Actually, what would probably be a more accurate representation is this.  

Ferraro made the comment (echoing a comment she made about J.Jackson several years ago), and then when it WASN"T picked up.  She made the same comments AGAIN.

I'm sure that won't change your opinion, but there you go.


by NeverNude on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 4)

Oh no.  He said that she used the race card and had begun using the language of "David Duke."  He was calling her a racist without actually saying, "Hillary, you're a racist."


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 1)

He said Geraldine Ferraro used that language, not Hillary. And, objectively, Duke has said similar things in the past. If she doesn't like that comparison, Ms. Ferraro shouldn't have said what she did.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 3)

He repeated the charge that the 3am ad was racist. He said that her campaign had taken on the language of David Duke.

How can somebody who did such things--cut a racist ad and used racially charge language--not be a racist!?


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 2)

This is so frustrating...please listen to what he said. The "David Duke language" was a reference to what Geraldine Ferraro said...NOT Hillary. David Duke has said similar things in the past. If Geraldine Ferraro didn't want to be compared to David Duke, she shouldn't have made her racist remarks.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

I don't think that's correct.  He said that her campaign was speaking with the language of David Duke.

Regardless, the implication was clear.  Who would do what he said she did, but a racist?  He may have danced around it, but the implication was clear.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't even bother trying, Psychodrew (2.00 / 3)

You could come up with example after example - and still those convinced that MSNBC and all those who work there walk on water will refuse to see.  They'll either say that Clinton deserved it because she really was whatever bad thing was said or that no one at MSNBC ever actually said anything out of line.

It reminds me of a scene in the film "A Guide for the Married Man".  One of the characters comes home to find her husband in bed with another woman.  Despite her sharp accusations, the husband denies he's even there: "What bed?  What girl?"  And all the while he and the other woman are getting up, getting dressed and eventually leaving entirely.  The wife ends up alone in an empty room wondering if she imagined it all.

Well we didn't imagine it.  But you'll never convince anyone any different.  There have been two diaries I know of posted here featuring video snippets of the sexist attacks Senator Clinton was subjected to during the campaign - not the other bullshit, mind - just the gender bashing.  Even in the face of that, people posted comments denying they saw anything untoward.  And if you complain about it - bring up the subject as you have done here - you are immediately anti-Obama.  You're not, I'm not, we are both going to vote for him come November - but that's immaterial.  Clinton was a bad person, and bad people deserve bad things said about them, the end.

So give up, my friend.  There are just some people who refuse to see either the forest or the trees!


by The Fat Lady Sings on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how about some fairness? (2.00 / 1)

Seriously at least one of those videos though attempted to lay it all on the feet of Obama.

Seriously there are a number of people (on both sides) that need to go mediate, go hike, go scream, go punch a pillow but in the end they need to calm down and think.

Too many people are letting there emotions dominate thier thinking.

Frankly both campaigns faced intolerance, why must we play this stupid game of who was hated more? None of us win adn frankly the only winner is McCain and do we really want that?

I know I don't, hell I'm a college student barely making ends meet and I'm still planning on donating (later in the summer after some things come to pass) and have already signed up to volunteer.

I'm sorry that some people didn't get the candidate they wanted, but frankly they need to get over themselves and go look at how close Obama and Clinton are compared to how so completely not close McCain and Clinton are in terms of voting reccord.

And for gods' sake no more circle fire squads please?


-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life
by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The video I mentioned (2.00 / 2)

was put together by Media Matters in conjunction with The Woman's Media Center.  It did not, as you suggest, lay anything at the feet of Senator Obama.  It was a compilation of clips culled mostly from MSNBC pundits and commentators.  I refer you to Canada Gal's diary, "Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!" if you'd like to actually see what you're commenting about.

I also never said that I am voting for McCain.  I said the exact opposite, actually - but you seem not to have heard that - which kinda proves my point.  And for the record?  Sexism is wrong.  Racism is wrong.  This is not an either/or thing - and it has absolutely nothing to do with the election, candidates or who is voting for who.  They have always been wrong, they always will be wrong.  Period.  


by The Fat Lady Sings on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The video I mentioned (2.00 / 1)

Predictable and rather revealing how so-called progressives use denial and ad hominem attacks when they're called to account on sexist behavior and messages towards Clinton and women Dems.

Its as if they believe if they deny it enough times it will eventually go away and if they insult women voters enough times they'll eventually come back into the fold.  They haven't realized that the same stubborness and adherence to principle that brought success for second wave feminists hasn't been forgotten or lost.

I'll vote for Obama, but like so many others, I won't forget how Clinton and women of my generation have been treated.


by Betsy McCall on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sigh (none / 0)

Denial of what?

And I freaken dare you to show where I personally attacked any one.

I'm tried of the straw mans here and I'm tired of the misdirection.

I don't put up with sexism or racism peroid, I've even called my own freaken family on it. But then again why should i bother? You won't believe me anyways right?

Go read my above comment, the truth is that Obama nor his surogates (to my knowledge) acted or commented in a sexist fashion.

In fact the worst came from <drum roll> the right wing media and commentors!

Shocking isn't it?

I mean who would have thought the group that was hateful and demeaning of Obama would do the same to Clinton?

The one time I know of that someone who hadn't already proven he/she should be ignored a long time ago said and acted out of line was Chris Matthews covering teh NH. But if you actually followed what happened next you'd have seen that Matthews was clearly disciplined, told to knock it off or had his  behavior pointed out for him. How do I know this? Becuase Matthews never acted that way again and in fact went after Obama more then Clinton

Finally, there's nothing wrong with preservence and determination in fact I admire those qualities.

But like any virture too much and it becomes a probelm.

There is indeed a point at which one passes from deterimination and goes to just being a rock head (and before you take that personally I'm just as guility of that as any one)


-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life
by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you mentioned two videos (none / 0)

and vaguely said that we should have seen them on mydd.

Now because you didn't bother to mention them by name and the only video at all I've seen on mydd was a hit piece that was downright wrong and misleading; what should I have thought you were talking about?

As for that specific video, look I have more friends that are female then male I really understand that sexism exists. I also understand though that there is a little hypersenstivity going on here.

That said yes Chris Matthews is an ass, he's been an ass to pretty much everyone and will probably always be one. He doesn't call his show Hardball just becuase.

That said really most of the offensive ccmments came from the right wing media or right wing commentors (why is Pat Buchann even allowed into the building anymore? I mean seriously between Clinton and Obama he's just a hate monger), the same media that has called Michelle Obama, Obama's baby mama, the same media that accused Obama of a 'terrorist fist jab' and the same media that has said such racist BS that I've given up on them.

So then the question becomes what's your point? That the right wing media and right wing commentors are hateful people? That's not a news flash that's a news blip.

That said I do think that Chris Matthews went way overboard in NH and I tell you this if you had been watching his show it is obvious that someone at MSNBC that he reports to or someone he respects (or several someones) told him to moderate his tone and words and do it now. Because after NH as far as I know he never went overboard again.

So there you have it, we've now conclusively proven that

  1. Chris Matthews is an ass
  2. The right wing media is best ignored
  3. There is something like a 99% chance that the one time Chris Matthews was out of line it was corrected and corrected fast

That was what you wanted right?

Further I never said specifically that you were voting for McCain (and it would seem you in fact were the one not paying attention).

And yes I agree sexism is wrong, racism is wrong.


-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life
by drache on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh! You have friends who are female! (none / 0)

Well.  I guess that makes you an expert on being a woman in this society.  You know - I've heard people say things like that before - only the friends they mention usually belong to some ethnic group.  I guess the meaning's the same though - right?


by The Fat Lady Sings on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hhmmm (none / 0)

you know, I think I'm just going to take my mother's advice, since I can't really think of a nice way to answer that, let alone a way that doesn't involve me at least getting angry at just how trite and predictable and even baiting that reponse was; I'm just going to walk away

Think what you want of me frankly I don't care either way, you're just some random person on the internet that will disappear for me when I close the browser so

good bye may life favor you


-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life
by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hhmmm (none / 0)

you know, I think I'm just going to take my mother's advice, since I can't really think of a nice way to answer that, let alone a way that doesn't involve me at least getting angry at just how trite and predictable and even baiting that reponse was; I'm just going to walk away

Think what you want of me frankly I don't care either way, you're just some random person on the internet that will disappear for me when I close the browser so

good bye may life favor you


-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life
by drache on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

"he" never called her a racist.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some examples (2.00 / 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2 iM&eurl=http://shutthefreudup.blogsp ot.com/


by del on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some examples (none / 0)

Thanks for that link ~ what an awesome video!


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some examples (2.00 / 2)

I watched through that video - half of the comments were made by right-wingers (seriously, Glenn Beck??) and the ones made by KO were certainly sharp, maybe even over the top, but not sexist.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some examples (none / 0)

I have to agree...  I mean, have there been over-the-top comments made this election cycle...?  Hell yes, but to lay blame for all of them at the Democrats door seems unfair when you consider the sources in most cases.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 2)

Keith doesn't seem like he has anything relevant to say anymore.  He gets too emotional and histrionic.  It's like watching Bill O'Reilley except that Bill's outrage is somehow more plausible.  I remember when KO was calm and objective but now he's always squirming and defensive.

Like you, I used to have MSNBC as my main news source (along with Dailykos).  

Now I prefer MyDD and Fox.  If things get really Obama intensive here, I may migrate again.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

Why FOX?  WTF?


by mikeinsf on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 2)

I understand that Keith Olbermann periodically, when he's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost his appeal... But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for.

;-)


Grumpy, reluctant, sore-losing, unhappy, irritable Hillary supporter for Barack Obama 2008
by DemAC on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:21:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (2.00 / 1)

love the sig line  


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with wellinformed. (2.00 / 1)

Your sig line is priceless!


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just curious ... (none / 0)

Would you say the same thing about MyDD if it were too Hillary-intensive?

Is this comment about the candidate or the editorial approach?


by professor on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

laugh

has this sort of stuff found itself into the Onion yet? There's too much potential for it not to.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

Agree that KO is a hack.

Agree that foxnews has been unbiased during the primary

But using FOX as your primary news source? That's going too far. If you think about it foxnews was unbiased during the primary hate both dems equally, not because they are fair.


by devil on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

It's not my primary news source.  I get most of my news online.  It's the network that I most enjoy watching these days however.  I find Fox to be the only network willing to levy criticism at the nominee.  I find all of the criticism to be well deserved.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't have a problem with sharp criticism. (none / 0)

Now I prefer MyDD and Fox.

Like lamb and tunafish.


John McCain: The kids aren't alright, my friends.
by differance on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 10)

Look, MSNBC / Olbermann, Air America, Huffington Post and DKos became my  bastion of sanity since our long national nightmare began eight years ago.  And  it was after the Hillary 'piling on' from these sources that I became a strong supporter of HIllary.  Sharp criticism and character assination are two different things....I agree with the diarist 100% as I can no longer watch Countdown ~ and it used to be my favorite place to get the news.  Now I feel betrayed, I feel that I cannot trust Mr. Olbermann's 'assessment' of things as he proved himself to be blatantly biased against Hillary Clinton.


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 4)

Dude, again with all due respect, he's not a reporter - he's a commentator. He's a tame, liberal version of Bill O'Reilly. It's not his job to be unbiased and if you went to his show looking for that you were misled.

I don't understand why progressive Clinton fans were somehow shocked when their usual sources of news and community came out vocally against her. This is, after all, the politician who led the DLC, who invented the practice of triangulation, and who voted for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman. I won't debate the merits of her positions, but these are all issues of massive importance to netroots progressives and she was on the wrong side of all of them.

I honestly would like to hear your definition of sharp criticism and character assassination. In both "special comments" by Olbermann on Hillary during the primary, he was careful to emphasize how much he liked and respected her, but didn't agree with the current campaign trajectory. How is that character assassination? What could he have done better, or changed, that would have made you happy?


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 3)

When did she lead the DLC?  Do you have a link for that?

What did she "triangulate" as senator?

And her KL vote was good.  I supported that and her vote for the war.  Those who apologized were pandering, IMO.

Regardless.  I think KO is an asshole and I'm not watching him anymore.  Telling me that I'm a cry-baby or a sore loser with an ego in need of stroking won't change my mind.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (1.66 / 6)

You agreed with those votes. So what?

We are arguing whether or not the PROGRESSIVE media was biased against her.

OF COURSE THEY WERE!!!!!

You may be progressive on many issues but as far as war votes and saber rattling you are in the minority on those issues.

If you expected the majority of progressives to give her a pass on core issues you were unrealistic.

Progressive media's job is not unbiased coverage.

Arguable that's the mainstream media's job.

Progressive media reports and discusses issues from a progressive perspective.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly (2.00 / 6)

I wasn't expecting the progressive media to give her a pass on anything.  But I certainly expected progressives do better than accusing her of racism, of waging a "hopeless" campaign, of trying to destroy Obama so he loses in 08 and she can run in 12, of waiting around for tragedy to befall.

For a woman who has put herself out there for children's issues and universal health care--an issue she championed long before it became "cool," before it became a core issue--I expected much better treatment.

I don't care what other progressives think.  I was disgusted by KO and I'm not watching him or MSNBC or  reading their website again (unless there is some breaking news or exclusive I am directed to).


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great (1.25 / 4)

Just don't come to a progressive site to criticize him and not expect push back.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

oh - so now KO is immune to criticism?

OMG.  when did the democratic party turn into a bunch of goose-stepping republicans?


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:07:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (2.00 / 4)

It didn't.

Please don't imply that a comparison with the Nazis is acceptable.  I'm Jewish.  I don't take well to that at all.

As to pushback?  The point isn't that you cannot criticize Olbermann here.  You, and everyone else, is free to do so.  But don't be shocked if people who like him and his show defend him.

That's what was meant.  Don't overreact.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (2.00 / 2)

Criticism is fine.

I'm troubled by this notion (that I'm hearing from others) that no good progressive would dare criticize him.  That's silly.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh. I feel better now. Please link the Special (2.00 / 1)

Comment in which Olbermann BLASTED Obama (who I am voting for) for being too much of a sissy fucking coward to vote on KL.

Oh, wait.  He didn't attack Obama for not having the balls to record his vote in the face of AIPAC, did he?

Keep believing Olbermann is speaking truth to power.  Keep believing it he's a progressive champ, and not an Obama shill.  Keep believing he ONLY attacked the Clintons for things they deserved to be attacked for, and really hit Obama just as hard whenever he deserved it.  

Keep believing it, and calling ME a "deadender".  LMFAO.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 5)

From the DLC website -
http://dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

She triangulated, not just as a senator, but counseled her husband to do so as well in the White House. DADT was triangulation, as was NAFTA, as was the AUMF.

If you really supported her votes on K-L and the AUMF, that's certainly your right, and you were right to support her because those were her main contrasts with Obama. But I'm not sure why you'd expect to receive anything but hostility on progressive blogs for that belief - the liberal blogosphere has disagreed with the 2002 vote long before Hillary declared her candidacy.

I really urge you, if you haven't, to read Crashing the Gates. It provides a neat little summary of the progressive netroots (it's a little dated now, but still largely accurate) and it spells out the netroots' objections to the DLC-triangulation policies of the 1990's.

All that is by way of explaining that the opposition to Hillary wasn't "Hillary hate" or CDS, but long-held beliefs in how to campaign and govern and specific instances in which Hillary did not meet that criteria.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

Boy, it's a good thing ALL politicians don't 'triangulate'...Oh wait...nevermind!


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

Triangulation refers to something specific, not the average politician's waffling.

Are you going to post substantive comments, or are you just going to make drive-by comments like this one and call entire swaths of people sexists with no basis?


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

There's a difference between triangulation and compromise.  Compromise is accepting that you're not going to get everything you want and meeting the other party roughly halfway; triangulation is starting out halfway and then settling for something that's a little to the right of that.

In other words - Bill Clinton was probably as good as we could do in the Republican '90s, but he'd be on the center end of this year's Democratic slate.  I don't think you'd catch any of the people who ran this year proclaiming the era of big government over.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

I don't care about what the progressive blog say about her or the war votes.  I don't think opposition to her votes was CDS.  I think that taking commnets out of context and ascribing negative motives to them is CDS.

How was AUMF triangulating?  Can you explain that?

And she opposed NAFTA.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

She did NOT oppose NAFTA. She might now. I don't really care, because I support NAFTA (or at least its goals). I understand I'm out of the progressive mainstream with that opinion, and I don't whine about it when pro-NAFTA candidates get slammed here and elsewhere for their stance.

The AUMF was triangulation, in my opinion, because I think it was done purely for electoral reasons - Democrats, especially centrist ones like Hillary - didn't want to be seen as weak on terror. John Kerry also made this mistake and I did not relish voting for him because of it, but at least he had the temerity to apologize. Hillary did not - and that cost her.  


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

Apparently you didn't her floor speech from the night she cast that vote.  She outlined her reasons and she cautioned Bush against rushing to war.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 4)

Her speech means nothing...of course she's not going to say, in the chamber, that she's casting the vote to shore up her hawk credentials in advance of a Presidential run.

Just like you don't hand the keys to a drunk driver and tell him to be careful, it's ineffective to hand the authority to go to war to a warmongering president and admonish him to be responsible.

Whatever the merits of the vote, it was opposed by the liberal blogosphere well before Hillary declared her candidacy.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is CDS. (none / 0)

Her speech means nothing?  Ok, then why is Obama's speech such a big deal?

You dismiss her own words and explanation for the vote and insert your own beliefs about her actions.  


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is CDS. (2.00 / 1)

No, YOU are the one with derangement syndrome. Her speech does nothing to explain her vote. That was clear in context. I'm done with this conversation - if you want to relitigate the entire primary do it with someone else.


by authority song on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 2)

How many lives did that speech save?  How many lives did that vote take? As she was so fond of saying this year: actions mean more than words.  She voted for it and people died.  Period.


by mikeinsf on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

Which is a fairly silly standard since even if the War was a complete and total success, people would have unfortunately died. Sorry, try again.


by PegLeg on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 2)

Please.  Holding a politician accountable for a vote that to authorize an unjustified war is the only standard.  Saying her pretty speech somehow made that vote OK is the silly standard.

Now that the primary is over, can't it now be admitted that her vote was a shameful stain on her record?

Try again.


by mikeinsf on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

No, they can never admit anything, for some strange reason. The most disturbing thing, post-primary, is the complete inability to admit anything that was done wrong by Hillary or her campaign, and this bizarre insistence that Obama won only by getting in the mud, even as the list of Clinton smears against him easily outpaces those against her.

Whatever, I'm done with it. Vote for McCain if you must.


by authority song on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:11:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's triangulation: renewable energy (1.00 / 0)

Investing in research for renewable energy will

  1. create jobs
  2. reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
  3. reduce pollution and help the environment.

Triangulation is not evil.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's triangulation: renewable energy (2.00 / 1)

No - triangulation, in the case of renewable energy, would be panders to ethanol, which all candidates do. Its an effort to keep everyone happy, and accomplishes nothing in the process.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ethonal is pandering. Triangulation needs three (1.00 / 0)

things.

"Pandering on ethonol" is only one thing. Where are the other two.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Triangulation is evil... (2.00 / 6)

...if a Clinton is involved.

If Obama is involved, it's called leadership.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Triangulation is evil... (2.00 / 3)

It's called reaching across the aisle.

It's called the new politics.

It's called doing well with independents.

It's called....

Hey, wake up, Obama never voted against the war...

Ever since he's been in the Senate he's been the poster child for triangulation.


by MediaFreeze on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

She is the most visible member of the DLC.  Whether or not that makes her the leader is semantics really.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What specifically is wrong with the DLC (1.00 / 0)

Does anybody know?


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What specifically is wrong with the DLC (2.00 / 2)

What's wrong with the DLC is that it ushered in an alliance between corporate power and the Democrats that split the Democrats and that split gave rise to the Bush era.  Why have "corporate friendly" Democrats while you can have the real thing?  Thing is, Hillary is not a corporatist. Obama is much more likely to make the same miscalculation that Bill did and cozy up to corporate power in the hope of getting elected and that will be his undoing because they will pull the rug out from under him.


by MediaFreeze on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary not a corporatist? (2.00 / 1)

Remember her "Lobbyists are good" riff at the Kos convention? Hell, the reason her campaign ran out of money is because their corporate supporters maxed out early and the well went dry. She may not be a "Bushco" corporatist but by progressive standards she's about as corporate as it gets.


by 79blondini on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What specifically is wrong with the DLC (none / 0)

Right, because asking the DNC not to accept lobbyists' contributions and proposing a hike in the capital gains tax is exactly how you "cozy up to corporate power".


by nathanp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

Obama's campaign is chock full of DLC'ers, not to mention straight out right wing free market types like Austin Gooseby.


by PegLeg on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

Learn some basic economics - Austan Goolsbee is not a right-winger


by authority song on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

it's a shame that Obama does have some DLC type figures in his administration. He's not one himself however.

Goolsbee (or gooseby as you call him) are not right wing types. Not exactly my type of economist but not right wing.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 4)

Keith is entitled to his opinions, and I am entitled to form my own opinions based on his commentary.  I guess it should be no great surprise to find that Mr. Olbermann, who is, after all, a sports commentator first and foremost would be a tad bit sexist since it is a 'traditionally' male oriented venue.  

Perhaps when this primary season is just an old memory, it will be viewed with more objectivity by all sides.  For now I can only shake my head in disbelief when I see what I have seen within my own Democratic party over the past 6 months.


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

I find your comments (sports = sexism) far more sexist than anything uttered by KO on his show. In fact, no one has been able to provide me with a single sexist thing he said. Care to show me one?


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

Are you male?  That might explain why you would miss the blatantly sexist attitudes that were projected throughout this primary.  It's a pervasive thing ~ kind of like when I'm in my company president's office going over the financials and he will casually ask me to go refill his coffee, or make a copy ~ and trust me, he would never ask a 'male' in my position to do those things!  Did he say something blatantly sexist ~no!  If he were accused of being sexist he would vehemently deny it ~ and yet, there it is....


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 3)

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to take a lecture on sexism from someone who just insinuated that merely being male and interested in sports is prima facie evidence of sexism. I'm sorry your company president treats you like that, and if you don't like it you should complain or get a new job. It is incredibly sexist to pretend like all males = your company president, however.

I'd still like to see one good example of a sexist attack made on Hillary by Keith Olbermann.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 2)

Look, you're the one assuming there's a 'broad brush' here.  Do I think all sportscasters are sexist? No.  Do I think all males are sexist?  No.  Do I think Keith O is sexist?  Yeah, pretty much, along with a number of other members of the news media.  Sorry you don't see it...


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

You said that coming from a sports background made KO more likely to be a sexist - assuming, of course, that sportscasters are generally more sexist than others. Which in itself is, of course, sexist.

You're welcome to have any opinion you'd like, but I hope you can forgive others for asking for proof when you state that opinion. So I'm still waiting for a specific example of KO saying something sexist.


by authority song on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

Please stop twisting my words ~ go back and re-read my comments.  As for giving you examples ~ why bother ~ your mind is made up ~ there was no sexism ~ and Keith didn't call Hillary a racist ~isn't that what you keep saying?  Of course, comparing her to David Duke, a poster child for racists may have been too subtle for you...?


by Mags on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 2)

You need a better example.  As it was shown upthread, with video evidence, KO never compared Hillary to David Duke.  He said Ferraro used Duke's language, which is demonstrably true.


by Rorgg on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jocks' rights! Call the ACLU. (2.00 / 2)

Start a movement.


by catfish2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 0)

I guess it should be no great surprise to find that Mr. Olbermann, who is, after all, a sports commentator first and foremost would be a tad bit sexist since it is a 'traditionally' male oriented venue.

What an amazingly revealing statement of yours this is. The disturbing part is not, as another commenter pointed out, your implication that the sporting world must somehow produce a sexist. The disturbing part is that you implied it would because it is a "traditionally male oriented venue".

You didn't equate sexism with sports, you appallingly equated it with "male".


by nathanp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 7)

you know, I never heard KO talk with such venom about Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden - all who voted for AUMF

KO's attack against Hillary was NOT based on her AUMF vote.  

As far as what he could have "done" better?  Maybe not froth at the mouth about Hillary staffers being behind PassportGate (remember that gem?  I didn't see him apologize for the 2 hours that he was so gleeful about the prospect of the Hillary campaign being behind that - and then it was debunked)

and he spread the BS with the Geraldine comment.  First off, Geraldine left the Hillary campaign within a week.  However, I didn't see KO go after Obama when Obama "mislead" KO that Friday night with his "I never heard those comments before" meme and then the following tuesday, in Obama's speech on race, Obama admits that he had heard controversial stuff from Wright.

And KO's smirk and his tone about Hillary when talking about her wins.  Or even on the last night of the primary season, his comment about shoehorning, which he was slapped down by Tom Brokaw.

It was more than Hillary's so-called campaign tactics that pissed KO off.  I think he took it personally, because he quit his job in the late 1990's in protest over the Clinton investigation by Starr.

I can live without KO and MSNBC.  I am tuning into CNN more often and CSPAN is a regular stop for me.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree completely. (2.00 / 2)

This isn't over for KO.

The books are being written now and this is going to be re-hashed over and over again.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 5)

I am with you.

I cannot believe that Griffin had the nerve to state this

And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

first off, he is comparing KO to an abusive husband and the viewers as his spouse.  And no matter what, the battered wife will go back to the abusive husband.  

I think Griffin must have been on something (or perhaps off) to make that analogy.  As the ex-wife of a wife-beating husband, I find that offensive to even compare news coverage to domestic violence, which is serious stuff.

However, that being said, I am never watching KO again.  Sad, really.  I watched him when he was just a sports guy in LA (I used to live there) and watched him on ESPN, then when he made the move in the mid 1990's to MSNBC.  I was glad to see his return back in 2003 to MSNBC

However, KO went a bridge too far.  He jumped on the hyped up meme and alienated me (along with many others)

I wish him success with his new demographic - good night & good luck


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (2.00 / 1)

I didn't see it that way when I first read that comment, but you're right.  That would be offensive to anyone who's been in an abusive relationship.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BINGO: (none / 0)

I cannot trust Mr. Olbermann's 'assessment' of things as he proved himself to be blatantly biased against Hillary Clinton.

Thank you for stating how so many of us "deadenders" (i.e. those who WILL vote for Obama supporters but won't got back to Olbermann) feel, so clearly and cogently.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:56:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Won't Be Coming Home Again (none / 0)

I agree...I too "lived" to hear/see my fellow people on those programs, along with Randi Rhodes,(who absolutley broke my heart with the way she handled her complete bias and abandoned her political journalistic ability and reverted to just ENTERTAINMENT RADIO ala RUSH).
I happen to be a different breed, as far as since 2004 when I saw Barack speak at the convention, I have been advocating a UNITY ticket, because I believe they speak to each other's weaknesses and compliment each other's strengths. I have had 2 bumper stickers on my car since before the primary season really got underway...clinton/obama and obama/clinton. And although, because of the dire situation our country is in, I felt that Clinton/Obama would probably be a better choice (just because she starts out knowing many of the players in washington, heads of state, how to manuver in the west wing, foreign leaders...etc.) I truly never cared and would be equally happy with either.
So I did not start out thinking anyone would be biased, except of course the republicans.  I became completely dismayed and eventually angry that our so called progressive voices, that i looked up to and admired and hung on their every word, for 8 yrs.....turned out to be exactly the same as RUSH, HANNITY, O'RIELLY IF   you dared to
be for the other candidate.  I'm not talking about
McCain...............where the focus from our progressive media sources should have been focusing their ire towards.  I have never witnessed anything like the way she was treated not only by the main stream media, but by our own progressive network of AA, blogs, msnbc and others.  As a result I became angry.  I felt unwelcome .  And I am tired of feeling unwelcome. I am tired of the attitude....."she'll be back because (she has no choice) SHE HAS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.  I understand how easily I could direct my anger against Obama...and almost felt myself doing that.  And then I checked my gut. I remembered where I started and realized that it is not rational.  I am a Democrat and will vote that way this fall.  I hope Barack  is the man I think he is and selects Hillary to accompany him on the ticket....because this is not about them as individuals really...it is about our country.

That said...I think it is important to speak about this race and the overt sexism that ran rampant.  Those of you who don't see it (the loudest  of which seem to be male. go figure...)
are wearing blinders. Do your homework, ask yourself, would she have to anwer that question if she were a man.  Look up past democratic primaries and compare.  Did anyone care what they were wearing? How their hair was done? How loud their voice was? Did they tear up? called bitch, whore, reminds me of why we have ex wives?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is what has to be reflected on to get past the anger.  As a woman, the attitude of ... we have no choice because THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO...IS THE ULTIMATE INSULT.  Dont believe it for a minute.


by itsabouthevoters on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:48:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you lose (2.00 / 3)

just by stating that "sharp criticism of Hillary" was not sexist. You are right that not all of it was. You are wrong to think that sexism was not laced throughout some comments and reports by "some people".


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The legacy of Roger Ailes is MSNBC... (