MSNBC Democratic debate coverage rife with sexist stereotypes
Sexist references abounded during MSNBC's April 26 coverage of the first Democratic presidential candidates debate in the context of discussions about the only female candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY). MSNBC host Chris Matthews focused obsessively on the appearances of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, Michelle, to the point that NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reminded him that they are Yale and Harvard-educated lawyers, respectively. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson asked a Clinton campaign spokesman whether Clinton had an "unfair advantage because of her sex."
"Cosmetics"
During the pre-debate coverage, Matthews repeatedly discussed what Clinton would be "wearing" and asserted, "I'm fascinated by the visual." Matthews said of Clinton: "She's the only woman out there, so everybody else will be in charcoal or navy, and then everybody else will have a red tie, so she gets to be the distinguishing characteristic."
During the post-debate coverage, Matthews praised Clinton for her "dynamite" choice of pearls, which he also characterized as being reminiscent of [late actress] Grace Kelly, adding, "The cosmetics tonight are very important." Matthews also complimented Michelle Obama's pearl necklace. He declared that she "looked perfect," "well-turned out ... attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, 'classy.' "
Further, Matthews appeared to argue that many viewers would be basing their decisions about the candidates on how, in Clinton's case, the candidate was dressed, or, in the case of the male candidates, how their spouses were dressed: "Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle [Obama] -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance." When Mitchell interjected, noting "You're talking about two ... lawyers," who went to "Harvard and Yale," Matthews defended himself, saying, "Cosmetics are a part of this game."
"You can't be aggressive against a woman candidate"
Additionally, the MSNBC analysis focused heavily on stereotypes about female candidates, even though most agreed Clinton overcame those stereotypes during the debate. For instance, Matthews repeatedly asserted that "[y]ou can't be aggressive against a woman candidate on stage, or you're in big trouble," and wondered how the male candidates would overcome such a challenge. Similarly, during an interview with Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson on MSNBC's Tucker, host Carlson asked: "We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that's true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?"
After the debate, Matthews agreed with Newsweek magazine chief political correspondent Howard Fineman's assessment that Clinton "overcame all the questions of [whether] a woman" could be "tough[]" enough to be president:
MATTHEWS: I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has frequently commented on Clinton's voice, once claiming that "some men" think it sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard."
Matthews also warned of "that big green monster out there in the Atlantic Ocean called 'I'm not going to have a woman commander-in-chief,' " adding, "I don't know whether that head is going to emerge." Matthews has repeatedly made mention of a "gigantic monster," a "big, green, horny-headed ... monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself," as Media Matters has noted.
Admitting mistakes
While giving post-debate analysis during the April 27 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted that Clinton would never admit to "ma[king] a mistake" in voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution "because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment."
From the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Do the Democrats have history on their mind right now? Are they in that romantic -- I happen to like the romantic part of politics -- are they, the Democrats, in a romantic mood right now where they want to do something really historic and pick an African-American guy for president or a woman?
From the April 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: We were talking earlier about the difficulty the other candidates face in addressing and maybe even going after Senator Clinton on the stage. It does seem like all who attack Hillary Clinton come out the worse for it. Do you think that's true, and is it an unfair advantage she has because of her sex, do you think?
WOLFSON: I don't think it has anything to do with her gender. I think that she's broadly popular in the Democratic Party, and so there may not be a huge advantage to attacking somebody who is well-liked.
From MSNBC's April 26 pre-debate coverage:
MATTHEWS: And let me not miss my chance to talk about something I love to talk about, which is gender. All our presidents have been men. They've all been white men. We know the facts. What happens when one of these candidates pulls a Rick Lazio, as we saw in New York against Hillary, where he served her papers, basically, on stage; and everybody, as a woman, goes, "Well, wait a minute, what's this?" You can't be aggressive against a woman candidate on stage, or you're in big trouble. What happens then? We're gonna know.
OLBERMANN: I guess we will know.
[...]
MATTHEWS: What's she wearing tonight?
MARK PENN (Clinton campaign strategist): You will see that. I will not --
MATTHEWS: She's the only woman out there, so everybody else will be in charcoal or navy, and then everybody else will have a red tie, so she gets to be the distinguishing characteristic.
PENN: I didn't know you were so into fashion.
MATTHEWS: I'm fascinated by the visual, yeah, I am. Like whether somebody has a riser or not, those kinds of things. I'm always fascinated by that.
OLBERMANN: [Washington Post columnist] Gene [Robinson], we've never had to deal with this before. Chris raises a fascinating point. All of a sudden, we have, not just, as we said, the symbolic elements -- both for Senator Obama, Governor Richardson, Senator Clinton -- we have these practicalities. What is she going to wear, as opposed to what are they going to wear?
ROBINSON: Right, right. It's going to be a different kind of debate. It's going to look different from any other presidential debate we've seen because there's a woman there, there's a Hispanic, there's a black guy, you know, and -- what a setting for it, too. I mean, you know, a historically black college in the South where African-American issues are going to come to the forefront and have to be addressed and then debated.
From MSNBC's April 26 post-debate coverage:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the decision on the war. Mrs. Clinton, the Senator, has made a point of saying, "I'm not going to apologize." Fair enough. That's a political decision, in terms of --
WOLFSON: It's a substantive decision, it comes from the heart.
MATTHEWS: No, because also Republicans will use it against her and say, "It's a woman's right to change her mind." They'll play all kinds of gender games on her probably. But here is to what I don't understand. She has said that her vote to authorize action was basically to help the president negotiate a United Nations supervised inspection of possible weapons of mass destruction, which would have, apparently, had it succeeded, would have avoided the war. But then, if that's the case and if that's her position, as of now, why did it take her so many years to really attack this war -- to really challenge the war?
WOLFSON: Chris, I don't think that that's fair.
[...]
OLBERMANN: But, in that context, was what Senator Clinton said, which amounted to, if we are attacked, we should quickly respond -- sort of fill in the blank on who you respond against. Does that answer then become sufficient because it looks or sounds strong or has the same echoes of strength as the Bush administration answers have been, and, in fact, practice has been the last seven years?
FINEMAN: I think it was Hillary playing it right smack down the middle of the American electorate, having the tone right, the sense of toughness, overcoming in one evening -- I think she's overcome all the questions about a woman -- this is a big statement to make. I think that she's overcome all the questions about a woman on that stage.
MATTHEWS: I agree.
FINEMAN: She didn't command it unnecessarily, but she was utterly comfortable and in command when she had to be. To me, she settled the commander-in-chief question right there, if there ever was one.
MATTHEWS: I completely agree with that. I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.
SCARBOROUGH: But let's say, this is what she has to worry about because the only time -- we're talking about people in the spin room -- the only time people started to raise their eyebrows would be on an answer to where her voice started to go up.
MATTHEWS: At the end!
SCARBOROUGH: At the end, she started to sound a little shrill. That's the thing she needs to guard against. But, no, she has -- I think you're right. I think she has crossed that hurdle. There are a lot of people in the Democratic base who've been very angry with her position on the war, but, at the same time, she is doing what she needs to do. She's doing what a woman needs to do and what the Democrats need to do.
MATTHEWS: The cosmetics tonight are very important. First of all: her pearls, Grace Kelly -- dynamite. The pearls were great.
UNIDENTIFIED: No, let's calm down.
SCARBOROUGH: Here we go, the Philadelphia --
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, the pearls were great.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what? You just lost a lot of people.
MATTHEWS: I thought Michelle, whatever you say about Obama, his wife looked perfect -- perfect for the occasion.
MITCHELL: I don't do fashion.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: Perfect looking wife. She had the pears as well -- another Grace Kelly -- well-turned out, very dignified. Not dignified, attractive -- classy, as we used to say. Like Frank Sinatra, "classy." You know, I thought those things were important.
SCARBOROUGH: You're all Philadelphia, Chris Matthews. You're all Philadelphia.
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, those things are important. You guys are ignoring it. Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle -- and they said, "I like the fact he's got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that." They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance.
MITCHELL: You're talking about two [inaudible] lawyers -- Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.
MATTHEWS: That is --
MITCHELL: Excuse me.
MATTHEWS: -- can I talk about this for a second --
UNIDENTIFIED: Good-looking chicks!
MITCHELL: Yale and Harvard.
MATTHEWS: You guys jumped around for a week about poor, what's his name, John Edwards' haircut, you know. Cosmetics are a part of this game.
MITCHELL: That wasn't cosmetics.
MATTHEWS: What was that then?
MITCHELL: That was authenticity.
OLBERMANN: Expense reports.
MATTHEWS: Oh, OK, expense reports.
OLBERMANN: That was [inaudible] expense reports, but thank you for introducing Governor [Jennifer] Granholm [D-MI] into this particular part of the equation on the --
MATTHEWS: [Washington Post columnist] David Broder made that mistake.
OLBERMANN: -- on the public scale. But it's a valid point, and I think, we note it because we have a front-runner woman candidate for the first time, but, as Chris said, we have picked apart the appearance of the male candidates, too. Why -- what is the difference? What is the -- why is it invalid, suddenly -- is it political correctness? -- to raise the issue about a woman candidate and appearance and style and tone?
MITCHELL: No. I'm semi-joking, but I don't think that we talk about the cut of their suits or their jewelry. Tone, yes; substance, yes.
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: We don't wear a lot of jewelry to be honest with you.
FINEMAN: I second Andrea on this. I do, I'm allowed. Don't look at me like that.
MATTHEWS: The first pander of the evening was committed on this panel for the first --
FINEMAN: It won't be the last, I can assure you.
SCARBOROUGH: I can tell you that the first person I ran against was a female, and it is impossible to go after them in a debate. Remember Rick Lazio going over to Hillary Clinton?
MITCHELL: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: How bout George Bush Sr., the ultimate gentleman, the old money guy, saying, "I kicked her ass the other night"? Remember that line about [former Democratic vice presidential nominee] Geraldine Ferraro? That was a popular line.
[crosstalk]
SCARBOROUGH: We won't even repeat what he said about [CBS News correspondent] Leslie Stahl. But anyway, it is hard to go after --
MATTHEWS: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- a woman onstage in a debate situation. And, also -- and this sounds sort of shallow, too -- but, you know, guys always have to wear the dark suits. One night, she showed up in a debate in this bright red Nancy Reagan-type dress, and I'm like, "Oh damn, I'm sunk." There's no way to compete against that. When you talk about appearance, there are certain things women can do. But I think Hillary is more like Margaret Thatcher, in that people that voted for Margaret Thatcher weren't thinking, "Hey, I'm voting for a woman, I'm voting for a tough leader." I think the same with Hillary --
MATTHEWS: But she's a Tory. Tories get away with more than modern liberals.
SCARBOROUGH: I think Hillary Clinton, though, transcends gender. I think she's about something much bigger than that, that when people vote for her they are going to be thinking --
MATTHEWS: What does -- she transcends gender?
SCARBOROUGH: I think she does. Well, you can ask people what they think about Hillary Clinton, they will give you six or seven words before they say "woman." They'll say "liberal" or "Bill Clinton's wife," or this, that, and the other.
MATTHEWS: You are not -- you're not buying this are you, Andrea?
MITCHELL: No.
MATTHEWS: Not in a million years. She's not going to get by without anybody noticing she's a female.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm not saying that. I'm saying she is not identified as a female candidate first. She's not, and there's actually polling out there that shows that. Why does that shock you?
MATTHEWS: I think that that's a point of view. I've never heard that before because I think it's essential that she's a woman.
SCARBOROUGH: I'll send you [inaudible] the polls, tomorrow.
MATTHEWS: I think Colin Powell transcended ethnicity. I think that would be a case, but -- and maybe Barack Obama does -- but I think Hillary, in the end, I still think there's that big -- possibly -- that big green monster out there in the Atlantic Ocean called "I'm not going to have a woman commander-in-chief." And, I don't know whether that head is going to emerge.
MITCHELL: And, she's also trying to play to all those women out there, many women, who do like the fact that a woman is running and they have of all these websites organizing women.
MATTHEWS: And Howard's right. She passed the commander-in-chief standard tonight, and it wasn't a full pander, 'cause I'm joining you.
FINEMAN: I was about to do my second pander.
MATTHEWS: What is that?
FINEMAN: Andrea is right about the womanhood. She is -- the thing is, she is a woman, but she's showing that she can be plausible in that role, which is what was key. This format benefited her, ironically. Where she's going to have a problem is when she's cross-examined on her stance on issues, such as the war, such as health care, and so on. You've been doing it long distance for months, if not years.
MATTHEWS: That's not what you say when we're not on television.
FINEMAN: OK.
MATTHEWS: I'm just kidding. We'll be right back.
From the April 27 edition NBC News' Today:
VIERA: But she still didn't say "I made a mistake."
RUSSERT: The only one who will not say "I made a mistake," because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment.















This "liberal" MSNBC is--oh wait, never mind.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Pettiness keeps sinking to new lows.
Like I keep saying, it's all they got left. The positions of the two parties are exactly the same, so all they have to whine about are haircuts and genders and middle names. And the news corpos are hardly gonna hire anyone with any depth. That make make the sheep think that they're being conned, and they can't have that.
All righty then.
Matthews missed a chance to explore visual conformity as regards power and gender. Men tend to wear very, very similar suits and that ridiculously long phallus, the red tie, which ironically chokes them.
There is no standard suit of power for women to wear, thus conformity is harder to signal. And since there has been no female prez, there's no precedent for dress. They should have had me commenting on the clothes. That would have been fun.
MITCHELL: "I don't do fashion."
Now, there's a man conforming to male gender expectations, but, of course, he does do fashion. He's as much a fashion slave as your typical 14-year old female. However, his cognitive constipation and delicate masculinity precluded analysis.
Right on Holly. A television pundit, who spends hours at the haberdashery and must use make-up on his pasty white skin, calls out the looks card.
14 year old girl indeed.
It's about time Matthews loses his seat as the dean of MSNBC's political coverage.
He's aging poorly right before our eyes.
I watched this silly critique of the women of the debate last night, I noticed they didn't talk about Kusinich's wife. I initially thought she was his daughter, and Dodd has babies? My God Dodd is too old for me and I'm pretty sure my biological clock has tocked. Well, what can you say Matthews loves to act the fool. He's like a kid at a Chucky Cheese birthday party at these events.
BTW, I wish they would stop pairing Olbermann and Matthews up at these events. There is absolutely no chemistry there. I think Chris gets on Keith's nerves; and I think to keep from telling Chris to shut the f-up Keith just clams up and doesn't say much leaving Chris to blather on and on and on.... I also want to see how Tucker is going to act at the Republican debates because he pounced on the Democrats last night. If he doesn't challenge the Republicans just as agressively next week he shouldn't be allowed to attend any of these events in the future, because it will prove that he's too biased to be a neutral commentator. I don't think Scarborough has that problem.
Wow, and you think Olbermann is unbiased?
Where is she stating or implying that KO is un-biased?
He's like a kid at Chucky Cheese every night. What a braying bozo. Chris Matthew's voice is so irritating and he has the cajones to bring up Hillary's voice? That's rich. You notice Joe Scarborough has a tendancy to sound very strident? You'd have thought these guys had never seen women before. Those wimmin' are such strange and mysterious creatures. They are different than us.......ooooooh.
They're not allowed to talk about Kucinich, the only real liberal of the bunch. All attention MUST be focused on the right-wing Democrats. So sayeth Corporate America. You will notice this. He seems to be persona non grata in the corporate studios. There's a big right-wing agenda at work here, he doesn't fit into the plan.
I like Dennis Kucinich. I would vote for him.
So would I, actually. But the DNC will not allow him to have the nomination....he's not right-wing enough for their corporate and AIPAC masters.
Vote for him anyway, both of ya--he might win.
Who is your presidential hopeful for either parties?
I can appreciate the reality twisting I see in these reports as a form on surrealism just usually they're twisted, no flair, no art, but that statement that starts"That big green monster out there in the atlantic ocean." Dude! that is worthy!
...and just what do you think about all the talk of ladies fashions and female voice quality being discussed last night at the post-debate rap up? You know the topic of the thread. I thought maybe they had changed the topic of the show and was discussing fashion week.
were
Sorry, people, but men cannot "attack" women on any issue, fairly or unfairly. In this regard, she has a distinct advantage.
I'm sure many of you don't want to admit that, but really, if you look in your hearts, you will see that any time a man criticizes any woman for her position on a particular issue, he is automatically labelled a misogynist. This is an habit of the left which makes me want to PUKE.
Poor pukey guy.
Yes, usually this meme of yours is uttered while they are attacking the female. Grow up.
Holly, I think baity boy is suffering from stupiditis regurgititus.
Now, one of you gals scoot off and git Pukey some Maalox and a cold compress for his furrowed brow.
Spooky, I'd just be glad to sir. And I will look good while I'm doing it, maybe some nice heels (not too high - don't wanna look like a hoochie) and some of them nice pearls, real classy like. I just love tendin' to them pukey type males. I've always admired that Florence Nightengale - you know the gal with the proper job and all.
OMG - you're really sad
FWIW, I don't think you could ever look good.
Wow, that could probably go down in recorded history as the dumbest insult ever written on the Internet. Let me give you a hint, if you're going to attempt to get in a zinger about someone's looks, make sure you've actually seen them before.
Clams, he obviously said this before he saw me in my French maid's outfit.
...saw you which WAY in your french maids outfit?
You wanna see hot? Then you should see me in my English butler's outfit.
And when I intone, "Dinna is served, Sir," you could fry an egg on me.
I could respond to you by calling you a "girl" but that would probably be misogynistic too.
Please! if you want to come across as a hypocrite, you're doing a hell of a job, Janey
The mean man just called me a name!!!!You know he can't do that. Oh, but he just did it. Hey pal, maybe you're taking yourself a tad too serious this Friday evenin'. We're trying to have a rippin' good time and you are just ruinin' everything. Now take your Maalox and be a good trooper, mommy will be in to tuck you in soon.
i hate to be the one to break it to you, but my gender is not the one that can go from "bitch" to "victim" in 2.7 seconds. Many woman can, have, and continue to exploit this little fringe benefit. I think it's a fair question to be raised by Chris Matthews. Sorry it offends you, but if your stock in trade is being offended for to win arguments, I'm not entirely surprised.
Baity, see above. Too, too serious.
Usually this meme of yours is uttered while they are losing the argument. Shut up.
The Bill O'Reilly defense when getting spanked on a website. I suggest you take your ignorance and shove it in that dark dank orrifice where you usually keep your head.
Takemybaitplease5069:
You made my day! They took your bait, cleaned your clock, and threw it all back in your ugly face. You made a complete fool out of yourself. I'd be astonished if you ever post on this site again after that thrashing you recieved.
Change your name to "GatorBait" ... Those female Gators had you for a casual snack and spit you back out.
JuliaJayne, may I please, oh, please, oh, please be the president of your Fan Club?!? I'm serious. You're wicked funny!
As the President (for Life) of your Fan Club, I will polish your pearls and oversee your daily parade. Solon can be the Admiral (Yes, yes, yes! Your Fan Club will have a Navy!). Lynn will be what she always been: She Who Must Be Adored. Neon will the drum major for your daily parade. Mr. Helmet will carry the tuba (It's so big and heavy it'll keep him out of trouble.).
There will even be a role for Poor Pukey Guy: he'll the Pearls Clutcher, who will clutch your pearls (when you're not wearing them, of course), and be all a-twittered and a-tizzied because he and his ilk can't (allegedly) launch verbal Scud missiles at women.
Your devoted fan and wanna be Prez (for Life),
Holly
Holly, don't forget the fainting couch for baity.
Oh, yes, the fainting couch for Baity! He can clutch the pearls and take the vapors there.
Holly,
May I have pearls too? Nothing fancy maybe just a drop pearl on a gold chain with matching drop pearl earrings....and can we make Pukey boy the official pearl diver? He's got a lot of built up energy that needs to be spent. I think frequent dives for pearls would improve his attitude.
Indeed, She Who Must Be Adored!
I'm surprised any of you can keep a straight face talking about Hilary and "pearls", given the obvious old "sucking sound" from Monicagate..
LOL
Oh sorry. I forget, Lib's only have a sense of humor if Bill Maher tells them it's funny...
And yet she didnt act offended. It is fascinating to watch wingnuts come in with an agenda to get people to react in a certain way then when IT DOESNT HAPPEN, just pretend it did. Wow. Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing.
"my gender is not the one that can go from "bitch" to "victim" in 2.7 seconds"
You've nailed down the first half pretty well.
No conservative male pundit gets nailed by the Mainstream Media for attacking Hillary Clinton. You can attack a woman nowadays for her views, positions, and actions in the past. The Democratic candidates did that last night (well some of them).
Not even CLOSE to true. Men can easily attack women on issues without being called misogynist. What the right often does is make PERSONAL attacks of a misogynist nature. Like Beck saying she is a bitch. Thats not an issue. Then again LYING is that longstanding RIGHTWING tactic and thats what OUGHT to make you want to puke. Sorry. I forgot wingnuts have no sense of shame.
Hey Solon--
I'm just curious--in your opinion is it possible to be a left wing wingnut? If so, what public official and/or regular blogger on these pages would you describe as meeting that criterion?
Sure its possible to be a leftwingnut in my opinion. I cant think of any public officials that fit the description. Those who publicly flog the sort of conspiricy theories that they cannot prove like the moonlanding was a hoax or the government is run by a cabal of international Jews. Would fit the bill. I wouldnt argue with anyone who said Ward Churchill was a leftwingnut. Heres the thing. There are many fine conservatives. Good reasoned and reasonable conservatives, I disagree with them but when I am making an argument about conservatism I dont want to paint all conservatives with a broad brush so I use that term to differentiate between the type I am making the point about and the rest of conservatism. Its a way to make a distinction not a way to say all conservatives are wingnuts.
SOLON:
I will partially agree with your "there are good conservatives around" observation. Today's Rightwingers are NOT "conservative" in any recognizable way, and they represent today's Republican Party ... which is NOT "conservative" either. And the non-conservative NeoCons are represented all over today's Media ... TV, Cable, "think tanks", AM radio, newspapers, etc. ... carrying NOT the "conservative" message, but the NEOCON message.
Now, as to having a spirited DEBATE with today's rightwinger, I find it nearly impossible. This is because of two main reasons: (1) Their TACTICS are indefensible and despicable; lies, smears, personal attacks, innuendo, and the demonization of any who disagree. This hat-full of tactics does NOT promote good dialogue. And (2), these rightwing NeoCons have been in POWER for years, with a GOP led Congress, Bush in the White House, and functional majorities in all the Judiciary. In this position of power, they have done things that cannot be underrated nor forgiven. The HARM they have done to America goes beyond destroying our fiscal house, but includes the unnecessary and unjustifyable DEATHS of tens of thousands of people. Their actions also include torture and the trashing of our Constitution. To have a "reasonable" dialogue with people who promote and support such evil policies is impossible.
So, are there debates to be had with "conservatives" we liberals disagree with? Certainly. Can be done with civility, and may the best argument win. But these NeoCon rightwingers, who call everyone TRAITORS who don't agree with them, and who cheerlead sending our children to die in Bush's quagmire, and who salivate at the thought of holding prisoners without charging them with anything, and TORTURING them too? There is no hope for them; they are lost to humanity, and beyond any reasoning. The only thing that can be done is to remove these people from any position with a hint of power, and this includes in government OR punditry.
Which is why I use the term rightwingnut to differentiate them from the reasonable conservatives like Bruce, or Ben, Jeter or to a large extent Tommy and Wesley. IO, doesnt really make ideological arguments enough for me to place him as a conservative at all but he is reaonable . I agree the Bush administation isnt conservative at all more like radical statists expanding executive power and turning the federal government into a kleptocracy for the wealthy elite seems their agenda not anything recognizable as conservatism. As usual Tex you make good points. Your posts are always well thought out and I always enjoy them. Please keep up the good work.
ANd all the commentary from the left regarding Ann Coulter's physique (and don't play dumb and ask for sources- just look on here regarding any thread about Ann Coulter and some knucklehead will comment on her anorexia, her adam's apple, her hands, or her gerneral appearance) doesn't qualify as Leftist misogyny.. Oh my.. set off the hypocrisy alarms will you? Oh sorry.. you call that relativism.. my mistake.
And what pundits are making such comments to a nationally syndicated audience? Oh, I see you are AGAIN trying to equate what anonymous posters on a website are saying about Gangleskank in RESPONSE to her hateful screeds about us liberals to her ORIGINAL crude ignorance that she DOES spout to audiences from FOX and CNN. I guess that is you THINKING you are making a point. When you hear someone prominent say such things about her on CNN get back to us
It's always about that vague, faceless "Left" to you pukebags, isn't it? That undefined mass of nothing that somehow represents everyone you don't agree with and always take the stance that you don't.
Take your misogynistic "bait"? No thanks.
One of the things that moved me out of MSM news was the attention to the takling head's appearence. Somewhere my head made a connection that if this is a major thing in my news, then it probably isn't the news. It is sex, which while a sure adience drawer and is a nominal part of life. I'd like and I'd guess you'd like just the facts. Dress it up a little ok, but inform us. I'd like to read up on historic yellow journalism. I suspect it was a simpler story. The villians, money and asholes. There may be some continuity.
Matthews used to be sort of a puzzle, he would have decent nights, and then some that were just crazy blabbering.
He seems to be favoring the nutty side in this bit. When did he turn into Joan Rivers on the red carpet?
Besides being the fashion maven, the insults to the American voter are pretty striking.
"Yeah, I'm noticing them dames got some nice pearls on.GUys like a little a that when they're voting"
Is anyone surpised that Matthews is leading the charge on sexist talk? From MSNBC a network that tolerated Imus and Savage?
Well, he has made many statements in the past that lead one to think he's a closet gay and may have serious issues against women in general.
Geeze, so now Savage and Matthews are both secretly gay?
Red you know what its beginning to sound a lot like if some people don't like a pundit/talking head that person is automatically gay. I'm sorry but that just sounds like your one step up from calling him a dirty lazy n#g*er or something stupid like that.
Just saying a lot of people would be offended if you start calling people like that gay, without any proof. Or saying gay men have issues with women because they are gay. 99.9% of gay men I know have a lot of female friends and think women are usually better than a lot of heterosexual men.
aDifferent McCain, I know this has come up before, but what I think you're seeing as anti-gay is anti-hypocrite or anti'liar.
I try to watch it, as I've had it pointed out that remarks I've made were interpreted as insulting somebody for being gay, when I was actually addressing the hate and anger that come from people who aren't comfortable with who they are.
Plus, it's fun because it hits so close to home for the self-hating not-yet-out conservative gay crowd. ;0)
Huntingbeach
Yeah I know and I too make references towards the questionable sexuality of some of the most rabid homophobes. But I was just trying to keep Redking from going too far.
It was a little close to going over the edge (kinda using the edge as a tight rope).
And for this they decided to drop Fox?
I got the feeling you wouldn't know fun if it ran up and bit you in the crotch. Can I say that?
then again - your definition of a "rippin' good time" is whining about MSNBC anchors and their choice of words. Proceed.
Well, I'd like to respond but I have a rerun of Hawaii 5-0 on tivo that I need to get to. Man, lighten up.
yeah... whatever.... ciao.
PPG *, you're embarrassing yourself. Now, scoot. That bell you just heard ringing in your head was the recess bell. Go outside and play with your little friends. Or do your little friends live in your head? Either way, go play!
* Poor Pukey Guy (Self-described, BTW **)
** By The Way, BTW***
**** By The Way (Still)
I think Master Bait has adopted the Rush ploy- pre-emptively declare your "baiting" technique, then brush off the pointing out of its idiocy by saying"I was just messin' with you, you fell for it".
Whenever I tune in Rush, I ask myself "Can anybody be falling for this?"
Eventually, they show up here to answer my question.
Thats what I think too. I just figure batting practice is batting practice.
Yeah. A feeling is all you've got. A functioning cerebral cortex you DONT have.
Takeyourwhat?
Ok, you do realize your posts will probably be taken off. And before you scream about MMFA not wanting to hear people with different opinions, go read your past posts.
Its not about your ideas, its about the language you use. Remember young people do read this site and in all treating others in such a poor way is not a family value.
I don't want my children (if I had any) to come on here and read your profanity. At least the "liberal" posters on here use wit and intelligence in their name calling, not resorting to four letter words.
wit? like appending a "y" to make someone seem diminutive? or using the word "boy"? oh yes... let's not forget the use of the word "poor". That's REAL progressive wit in action.
Please. You people are no doubt used to getting inundated with trolls. I don't consider myself one of them. I lean left on more issues than I do right. Say what you will about that, but I believe that it distinguishes me from the wingnuts (which, btw, I've been called here) on the right AND the left. You people THINK you think, but your "Amen Choir" is only slightly more in tune than Limbaugh's.
I came to this site because of what I heard for the past 2 years on Air America Radio. I was impressed. Then I came here and found this selective deconstruction of minutiae. Boy was I disappointed! I suppose MMFA is just "doing it's job" but i find what they're doing a little disingenuous. But then again, you have David Brock as your "moral compass." I shouldn't be surprised.
The left has elevated the concept of "isms" to the absurd. That was the point of my original post. What tends to qualifies as sexism today is merely distinguishing a difference between the sexes (unless, of course, that difference represents a positive for the woman). I would provide examples, but they'd no doubt be deconstructed ad nauseum (to the point of puking, no less) by the peanut gallery.
As for talk of fashion the other night on MSNBC, can anyone here recall the Nixon-Kennedy debate? That's in every broadcast journalism 101 textbook. Unfortunately Image DOES matter. Our society, rightly or wrongly, gives women a sharper "sword" with respect to appearance. Properly executed, it can give them a decided advantage. It can overcome the obstacles which women face in politics. Poorly executed, it intensifies those obstacles. I think it's fair to discuss on TV and here (well, apparently not here in the left-wing echo chamber).
Alright, folks - deconstruct away! I'm off to other websites where I can get actually engage in discussion. even www.brickwall,com is better than this one - and it has more subscriptions.
Love,
"POOR pukeY BOY"
First I dont care which way you lean. Your first point was wrong, flat out wrong. Then you started in with ad hominems against very good posters with no substance whatsoever. THIS is the first post of yours I have seen that had ANY substance. And it made good points. Its true that the Nixon/Kennedy debate was a whole lot about style and not too much about substance. An unfortunate truth. It was a very early indication that the TV culture was not going to be good for picking candidates. However pointing out it has been this way before is not really a valid argument for saying it shouldnt be talked about now. The fact is you CAN disagree with a woman in politics on the issues without being called misogynist. When Pelosi went to Syria she was attacked on whether or not she should have gone. No one I saw called those who attacked on the ISSUE misogynist. They were WRONG about the Logan act but not called misogynist. Those who just call a woman a bitch or claim they can go from bitch to whining like a victim in 2 seconds however ARE being misogynist. You are not a victim here you were treated the way you were treating us. You dont deserve anything better. Leave, stay, spin in circles till you get dizzy, its all the same to me. However IF you post substantail comments you will SEE substantial comments. Post ad hominem attacks and rudeness and you cant expect anything better back.
Bait, ok you want an actual argument? Ok I like debating people.
I'm about to use Syllogistic Logic (so Tommy if your reading close your eyes).
your statements:
A. Women can not be criticized without the critic being called a mysoganist.
B. JuliaJayne will never look good and she is sad
C. Women have an advantage, going b#^ch to victim in 2.7 sec.
D. "Usually this meme of yours is uttered while they are losing the argument. Shut up." -takmybaitplease
E. Not knowing fun if it bit them in the crotch
A+B+C+D+E= you're a troll and wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the a$$.
Have a good night, and oh BTW telling people to shut up is not inductive to starting conversations. The people on this board like to talk about issues and also like to have fun too. Because dealing with these lies constantly can get depressing, Even if you are able to bring up a good point once out of 7-8 posts, the fact that the rest of your posts consist of personal attacks against people who you have never met before means you have zero cred here.
Well try as you might, Mccain, I don't think baity is gonna see your point. I mean I think he actually thought I had an episode of Hawaii 5-0 to watch.
master.... bait... HAHAHA I think HuntingtonBeachShitForBrains tried to make a play on words. btw, when did I ever indicate that i was "messin'" with anybody?
Jesus! can you people ever discuss an issue without name calling? Oh yeah - Sorry I forgot. That's another exclusive domain of the left. Proceed with your bile.
Yeah because you have been so polite. WE all get that you are a moron. Its obvious you are part of the Limborg. The adults are talking and your abject stupidity and trolling arent in any way adding to the discussion. Go back to your bridge.
btw, when did I ever indicate that i was "messin'" with anybody?takemybaitplease
I apologize if I misinterpreted your screen name. With the recent spinning by Rush L, weaseling out of his stupid comments by saying he's "baiting" the media, I assumed you were another Republican posting here armed with the latest weapons handed down by the "new media".
That and the fact that your first few posts were the typical feeble attempts to irritate other posters. As usual, these backfired , leaving you as the lone angry poster.,
I'll consider that you could be a Henny Youngman fan who works in a tackle shop.
HBL, that last line of yours about Henny Youngman and the tackle shop was priceless. I likey.
you, my friend are the troll. you just happen to be under your own bridge with your troll buddies.
Are you kidding me? Is that the best you can do? I know you are but what am I was weak in second grade. I am sure the Limborg can send a better representative to spout their groupmindspeak. You are out of your league here moron. I wipe my shoes on things that have more on the ball.
We're...trolls??? Well, that explains my warts. And my size 62 feet! And all these years, when I asked everyone who passed 3 questions, I just assumed that I was a curious, big-footed gal.
Now, where did I put my club? BTW, it's classy.
That baity boy was one hungry troll. I think it was actually Billo.
"I think it was actually Billo" - Juliajane
Well, the early "shut up" that PPG used would tend to support that theory.
**Advertisement**
Announcing Adifferent McCain's 3 day "How to be a Right Wing Conservative Debater" course.
In only 3 days you can learn to be a right wing troll.
Learn debating techniques, such as:
"Liberals are bad" "I know you are but what am I"
Also learn to attack a candidate/subject on appearance and other non-issue topics. Than how to act like a victim when people call you on it and claim its all about evil political correctness.
Session one: Pay for the course
Session two: Partial or full labotomy
Session three: Indoctrination by professor Micheal Weiner
Graduation address for the 2007 year will be given by Rush "drugs are fun" Limbough.
(BTW if anyone cares I got a 4.0 in Physics this semester, so my theory that "gravity is a lie, created by the CIA and the military industrial complex, to keep the average man down" is correct.)
I think people are missing a serious point: There was nothing of true substance in the debate where you could truly draw differences between the candidates except for the fringe candidates, Kuccinach and Gravel, so naturally to fill 3 and a half hours the network is going to talk about trivial issues. Were they sexist, not hardly, so stop your whining and sniveling about non-issues!! GEEZ!! And to be sure there are political analyst and pundits that make alot of dollars, $250,000+ analyzing just these same arbitrary things for the political campaigns also. It is simular to a person who analyzes the dress of potential jurors in a case to see their potential views and leanings. This happens everyday.
I think YOU are missing the point, which is that WE DON'T CARE about what Chris Matthews thinks about how Hillary Clinton dresses, or how pretty Obama's wife is. THESE ARE NOT THE ISSUES. We care more about their positions on the war, healthcare, and the economy than the number of pearls they wear or who designs their dresses. If they feel the need to dwell on these issues in order to fill 3-1/2 hours of broadcast time, maybe they should shorten the coverage a bit and get back to the MSNBC Doc-Blocs
Right. They don't want to discuss the issues. It would prove the "fringe" to be the best choice and the pro-corporate candidates to be the scum that they are. And since this is Corporate TV, the public is handed endless inanity about trivialities, to keep them stupid and focused ONLY on the pro-corporate candidates. All part of the Master Plan.
Cali---
The really important issues are:
1) How can we heap more taxes on each other, which will guarantee Utopia
2)How can we convince everyone that the sky is falling, in order to centralize more authority
3) Why don't we have a BIGGER amen choir, and one that actually has parts instead of, well--a disonant monotone.
I think the issues are more like how do we end the GOP policy of Lets get as many Americans killed as possible
Convince the crybaby conservatives they can stop snivelling while hiding under their beds
Can the Dems EVER compete with the message discipline and constant propaganda parroting the same thing with the SAME WORDS over and over and over and over until its like the droning of cicadas and should they even try
I guess if one didn't pity Matthews so much one could become angry or upset with his remarks.
He is just "Tweety" being "Tweety"!!!
The HUGE problem with their conversation is it's all about them and their opinions about trivialities, instead of about the substance of the debate. This tells me nothing about what the candidates said, or about the issues debated. Really, if MSNBC wants to make this presidential election campaign all about physical appearance and fashion sense, JOAN RIVERS and her daughter MELISSA would do it better than these yahoos, and the commentary would be more interesting and intelligent.
"It's going to look different from any other presidential debate we've seen because there's a woman there, there's a Hispanic, there's a black guy..."
Wow, that's so totally different from 2003's Democratic debates, where there was "a woman there, there's a Jew, there's a black guy."
I guess when there's a Hispanic in the mix, what the woman is wearing becomes a lot more important?
In STARK CONTRAST to the debating Democratic Presidential candidates, here's a racial/gender/ethnicity/religion rundown of the coming GOP Presidential Debate:
Sam Brownback -- white male, Christian
Jim Gilmore -- male, white Christian
Rudy Giuliani -- white Christian male, Italian extraction (Diversity!)
Mike Huckabee -- white male, Christian
Duncan Hunter -- CHRISTIAN, white male
John McCain -- white male, Christian
Ron Paul -- white male, Christian
Mitt Romney -- white male, MORMON (Diversity!)
Tommy Thompson -- white male, Christian.
Yeah so what the hell is your point? Are you so thick that you CANT get past superficials like race--why not talk about diversity of ideas, rather than skin color and religion. It is completely, utterly and totally irrelvant what the race/gender/religious affiliation of the candidates are. Try to keep your eye on the ball--a disastrous and immoral war that most of the Democrats voted for, for example.
But if you're just here for fun, why not try playing that game comparing the racial and ethnic composition of the Bush and Clinton cabinets.
YOU SAID: A disastrous and immoral war that most of the Democrats voted for...
They voted for a War On Terror based on a pack of RepubliCan't lies and Miss-information. RepubliCan'ts Can't tell the truth even if you tried pulling it out of them with a John Deare Trackter in Gramma Gear!
This is all about RepubliCan'ts. RepubliCan'ts created the mess in Iraq. Our brave troops were winning the War On Terror when the RepubliCan'ts decided to invade and occupy Iraq. The biggest foreign policy blunder of all time on earth.
This is just one of many blunders. Republicans Can't pass any legislation for the people. Like taking good care of War Veterans. Like passing minumum wage increases. Like giving the people a better deal on perscription drugs. Like universal health care for everyone. The list goes on and on and on.
The people spoke out in Novembers elections and will speak out again in 2008. RepubliCan'ts, you've planted yourselves into deep, dark abbiss. How will you ever recover? How will you ever win the hearts and minds of Americans again. I'm planning for a funeral in the year 2008. For that is the year the Republican Party will surely die.
Before you write the eulogy, I sure hope you work on your spelling. Not too bright, are you?
Kev
Why do you even bother posting if you cannot address the substance of the post? No one is impressed by your comments and it makes you look angry and defensive. Did his comment hit too close to home?
Hey Kevin:
Instead of addressing my valid points you called me names by saying I'm not too bright. By doing so you effectively lost the chance to intellegently disagree with the substance of what I have commented on. Therefore you lost a debate on the points I have made.
How Bright does that make you, Kevin?
I'm currently posting in a strange place, on an inferior computer, without a spell checker. I'm aware when I miss spell and I don't worry that much about it. Sometimes I Capitalize to bring more attention and sometimes I change the spelling on pupose.
I spell Republicans, RepuliCant's because they Can't tell the truth. They Can't govern a country. They Can't administer a War On Terror without creating a total mess. I could go on and on and on but I have other things going on.
Bye Kevin
Yep, a lot of Dems voted for the Iraqi quagmire. I'm ashamed of them.
But even today, Cheney and his mouthpieces, like Coulter, say that those oppose the war empower the terrorists. Your elected civil servants and your pundits created a climate where dissent is considered treason, as opposed to T. Jefferson, who consented dissent the highest expression of patriotism. So, the ultimate founding father is the antithesis of your Bush and Cheney.
As far as ideological diversity, Bush gathered a buncha yes-men and women. Even Reagan had Tip O'Neill over for din-din and ideological battle. Of course, Clinton is renowned for surrounding himself with those who differed. I suspect that Bush lacks the moxie, the backbone, the verbal skills, and the intellect for opposition.
I wonder if your revered T. Jefferson created an atmosphere of tolerance for dissent among the slaves on his plantation. Wake up and learn some of your REAL American history Holly--not the stuff that you find convenient to use to score your weak ideological points.
IO, Jefferson had slaves? Come on. Couldn't be.
IO, are you familiar with the concept that one discipline lags another. For example, technology lags physics. Physics lags math. Well, Jefferson's behavior lagged his concept of a republic, so while his behavior was profoundly ugly and small as regards slave-keeping, his unrealized notion of equality, democracy, and the pursuit of happiness are the heart of America.
Bush is the heartworm of America.
Sorry Holly but I am not so quick to forgive moral evils simply because they were carried out in a time when such evils were commonplace (though by no means universal--many people WELL before Jefferson spoke out against the evils of slavery). I wonder if Jefferson gave his slave Sally Hemmings the right to dissent before impregnating her? When hypocrisy stares you right in the face, it is very difficult for me to look away. Perhaps it is easier for you.
IO, you've really mastered feeling superior and in your spasm of superiority, you missed my point. Every generation and every person commits evil. You don't have to be a killer in Dafur to be evil. You can be the American man who permits this evil by his indifference to the killing. Or you can be the man whose smug ignorance brooks no change in his fossil-fuel burning behaviors as the Earth's temperature rises and rises.
One day, people will say, "But they knew what was happening. They knew that their profligate lifestyles were hurting the Earth and would one day hurt us, their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Why didn't they stop? Were they evil?"
And the answer is, "Yeah, in some ways."
But, hey, you have Jefferson, so you can overlook your evil. You get to feel superior to Tom. You're not alone in doing so: you have everyone in the world by your side. Some of us use Jefferson. Some use Bush. Some use Limbaugh. Some use Hillary.
But in dismissing Jefferson for his deep and horrid fallibility, you also miss out on the wisdom of one of our greatest Americans: dissent is essential.
The whole pundit culture is drivel. That's the point. There is no "there" there. They don't discuss facts because the facts are too inconvenient, not entertaining enough, too utterly brutal. And we have lazy, sycophantic journalists, talk show hosts and pundits who don't know what they're are talking about and depend too much on the RNC talking points and their corporate masters wishes (and the uninformed ideologically driven viewers). We are getting no news from the news. The U.S. is 53rd in the world in freedom of the press. And the rich, powerful and "elite" want to keep us unwashed masses as unimformed as possible. It is in their interest, not ours. Everything they do is in their interest. So they do silly things like talk about fashion and gender issues.
And the clubby press corp likes being near the centers of power and will do any dumb thing and say any dumb thing to serve their masters. They stir up people with pettiness like saying "women can't be attacked because they are women". Anything to keep you from thinking and voting in your own best interest.
Baity boy. You came on this board to be a troll. You know it, we know it. Don't come on here using infantile and generalized statements like liberal make you puke. You also said people were getting offended when they clearly weren't. You in fact made many projections which had no basis in reality. If you want a substansive discussion (or not -we like to play sometimes), then keep your talking points at bay and discuss things or throw a little humor into the mix. And it may be helpful to grow a skin.
And that's why I want to be the Prez (for Life) of your Fan Club.
Thanks, Holly. I'm a fan of yours for sure. I don't think baity will be joining though.
JuliaJayne, we're all hypocrites, but Baity was a turbo-hypocrite. He began by saying that one can't attack women and then attacked women.
Then he posted, "i hate to be the one to break it to you, but my gender is not the one that can go from "bitch" to "victim" in 2.7 seconds." Then he promptly shifted from boy-bitch to victim.
Baity, if you want to play nice, please return. JuliaJayne isn't just wicked funny. She's wicked smart too and there are others with big, honkin' brains, on both sides of the political divide.
BTW, thanks for the love, JJ.
Doesnt that remind you of the way Ann Coulter said the left used the 9/11 widows because as victims no one could disagree with them WHILE she was personally attacking them. The whole thing was like deja vu to me.
That's a good analogy, Solon.
I'm not joining the JJ Fan Club.
Guess I'm just a HollyCause Denier.
Hey,lemoc- that was pretty good. A successful pun, smoothly executed, demonstrating a grasp of humor.
You may be ejected from the Republican party for it, but nice one!
Lemoc:
"I'm not joining the JJ Fan Club.
Course you're not.
"Guess I'm just a HollyCause Denier."
Course you are.
But Lefty to Righty, just so you'll get it right, let me share something about JJ. She's the cerebral equivalent of Nadia Comaneci. Oh, yeah. Her cerebral cortex turns every which way but loose.
SOLON:
That Coulter tactic, echoed by "Pukey" here, is so REVEALING.
See, Coulter calls it the "Infallability Doctrine" of the Left, if the Left listens to and hears from people who are ACTUALLY AFFECTED by events which are in turn affected ... or CAUSED ... by political actions.
Thus, she has decided Michael J. Fox, DIRECTLY AFFECTED by policies on medical research because he has Parkinson's, the 9-11 widows DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the Bush Administration's policies on Terrorism PRIOR to 9-11 (none) because they lost loved ones, Cindy Sheehan DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the Bush Administration's Iraq "policy" because she lost her son there ... and now include the Tillmans ... that these people are "INFALLIBLE" (i.e. incapable of being wrong).
Several observations.
First, in courtrooms across the land, witnesses who have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE in any area are valued, because they bring DIRECT KNOWLEDGE and ACTUAL PARTICIPATION to the table, which outside commentators and uninvolved "experts" do not have. Juries do not consider these witnesses to be "infallible", but place greater weight on their testimony in the areas where there is direct knowledge.
Second, BUSH plays the most direct "infallible" card by claiming to get his marching orders from GOD HIMSELF. In other words, Bush is attempting his own "Infallibility Doctrine" which is the same one Monarchs of old claimed for themselves: Divine Inspiriation.
Third, and most important, Coulter knows it is ALWAYS proper to criticize opinion and policy, and to have a different point of view on any subject in American Politics. Debate and alternative viewpoints are always possible, by saying "I simply disagree with X's stance on issue Y, and here's why ..."
Ann doesn't want to do this.
She is talking EXCLUSIVELY about making ad hominem attacks. The "infallibility" she's talking about here is that insulting and smearing the Public Figures is her stock-in-trade, and making such ad hominem attacks rarely strikes people as too unfair, if she's trying to cut up a "public official". But when she uses these smear tactics on a citizen who has been affected by governmental policy, it is seen as unfair, cruel, mean, and uncalled for even by (most of) her supporters.
So, her complaint is NOT that these people are "infallible" when it comes to their opinion on policy, but that Coulter herself cannot use her usual tactics of smear and character assassination ... having NOTHING to do with the issue at hand ... and get away with it.
To debate THESE people, she has to stick to issues and facts, and this SHE CANNOT DO. She is unarmed and ill-prepared to engage in ACTUAL debate, in a REAL discussion of issues, and so she feels she has been UNFAIRLY LIMITED by not being able to use her arsenal of ad hominem attack tactics. She's like the pro ballplayer who is livid because she is prevented from using pine-tar on her hands when at bat ... because it is a prohibited "cheating" tactic ... and she is livid because she KNOWS that without her cheating, she can't hit a damn thing; she has be neutralized.
It goes without saying that if she was a REAL athelete, with REAL skills (instead of a hack poser who NEEDS to cheat), the particular restriction wouldn't bother her.
WOW! You nailed that one right on the head. Now, if only someone would actually nail HER right on the head. Just kidding, of course. We can't actually say or do anything to attack women, can we? Wait a minute...
Holly: "That was great, Tex. Ms. Coulter, would you like to rebut?"
Ms. Coulter: "Why, yes. Tex, like all Texans, is a big faqqot. Just kidding. Of course, like Rush, I'm telling the truth while I'm kidding. And, of course, I'm not homophobic. I just don't like the constraints of political correctness. And I don't like faqqots, Texans, widows, bunnies, and fascistcommietraitorneonazisatanicsweetJesuskillin' liberals."
Holly: "But isn't 'political correctness' just decency? Civility? Don't we avoid slurs to sustain dialogue? Don't slurs both clip dialogue and kill cognition?"
Ms. Coulter: "Oh, so, you're a traitorous faqqot too?"
Grace Kelly? Frank Sinatra quotes? Why does Chris Matthews insist on trying to convince his audience at all times that he is much older than he actually is?
Its at least as bad as his constant references to "ethnic tough boys" in inner city neighborhoods he's never been to, or his waxing poetic about "deadlocked convention deals" he isnt old enough to remember. This guy is just weird.
Also, he's obsessed with Hillary- I am absolutely convinced that at the core of Chris Matthews we find a very frustrated would-be politician (or "pol," as he and only he would say) who believes that if he had nailed Hillary first, he would have been President instead of Bill. He's never gotten over losing that race for Congress, and jealousy colors everything he does and says.
Sexist....you mean like Hillary talking about how she's going to "clean house" if she wins the presidency? Please.
Whahhhhht? She won't have to just clean it, she'll have to fumigate it, disinfect it or maybe just implode it and rebuild. The stench coming from there now is too disgusting and there are rats and roaches all over the joint.
But she's one of the orcs making it that way. She's a liar, she won't change a damn thing. She hasn't made an effort in the last six years, so I don't expect her to stop voting right-wing and become a Zapatista overnight.
Maybe I should have said "anyone" who gets in the office will have to do( the above in my post). Bang on Democrats all you want. They are still better than what's in there now even though you either can't or won't admit it. Ralph Nader ain't gonna be president anytime soon because he has NOT built a party. And repeating the meme that they are all alike doen't really accomplish much if you don't have anything viable to put in it's place.
So to please you, Redking, if Dennis Kucinich gets in there he will have to clean house, fumigate, exterminate and disinfect. The criminals in there now are far worse than any we've seen in quite some time and if you can't admit that fact, then you are not looking at reality. And please no more sermons about Israel/Palestine. I pretty much agree with you.
You mean from the last time she lived there??
Uh, men running for office promise to "clean house" all the time. It's just a political expression. Jesus, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrell. I suppose if she wins every primary, she better not congratulate herself on her "clean sweep," either! Oooh, that would be sexist!!
Better luck next time, dunce.
I'm torn.
Sex makes a difference. We should acknowledge the difference and accept it. Any reference to equality in political debate is simply addressing rights, not our personal opinions or social interractions. We should all have equal rights under the law but we are not equal at all nor should we aspire to be equal.
As for Mathews, I didn't find anything objectionable about his commentary. What people are wearing is fair game in our society, more so when the candidate is female. Not sexist but demonstrable public opinion.
Reading the posts between Libs and Trolls, I am reminded of the comparison between Christians and Athiests: Both sides argue vehemently based on nothing more than belief. Neither side has ''proof'' that they are right, they simply have taken opposing views based solely on opinion.
If we really are going to be progressive, don't we need to step out of the ''us vs. them'' debate style? Don't we need to acknowledge another point of view?
I'm agnostic, so, in most people's eyes, I'm a fence sitter. Not popular. Democracy is, very loosely, majority rule. Intellectuals and progressives will always be on the wrong side of the popular vote. Let's not try to make the intellectual point of view mainstream either.
Be gentle, I'm new at this. ;)
9VoltToys, regarding your quote, to paraphrase Al Pacino, "If I were the woman I was five years ago, I'd take a FLAME THROWER to your words."
Just kiddin'. Welcome.
Hey Holly,
I'm not sure what part you would roast... Suffice to say, I think you were trying to object?
Clarify for me, I'm not nearly as bright as some here.
Hun, I liked your post. I was just funnin' ya since you seemed tentative.
Whew! Having read a few of your posts u scared the bejeebus outa me. :P
9-V
I agree with much of what your saying, my issue with this story is that the average american is already un-informed about general issues and what little time the MSM does spend on substance based news should be on matters that allow us to pick the right candidate.
Nice post!
TY both for responding and making me feel a part.
I think the gen public is uninformed voluntarliy. When was the last time Bubba from Wyoming pined for a newspaper while sucking down his after work suds?
Unfortunately, our ideological view of how things "should" be is thwarted by how things are. It's fine to theorize about the future development of man but, in the end, we are currently at the place we have evolved to, not in our own evolutionary future.
I would say that Chris Mathews is less enemy than realist. He plays the game that is being played in the present. Like it or not, the loathed media mantra "if it bleeds it leads'' is only used because it works.
In the here and now, race, gender, sexual orientation and fashion do matter.
Welcome to Media Matters 9 Volts:
You Said:
Intellectuals and progressives will always be on the wrong side of the popular vote.
Were they not on the correct and winning side when we voted in November? I also believe they'll be on the correct and winning and popular side in the voting of 2008 for president.
I agree with most of your ideas and comments but I miss the days when the Limbaugh's and O'Really's and Others would not have been qualified to report on the important issues of the day.
For myself, Mathews would not stand a chance vs. a Walter Cronkite. Today too many of our news media outlets are spinning things Left or Right. Many viewers buy into the spin and the lies or they never really know or admit what is true. Many just resort to a defense of their political party regardless of what is true.
A very large segment of our population don't give a damn about any of this. The non-voters represent a huge percentage of Americans.
Hey Sam,
Point well made about the popular vote but that's sour grapes. Most of the dems that voted Gore aren't aligned with the far left.
In the recent (or not so recent, the memory is the second thing to go) Ben Franklin Bio, Our lovable cherub of a kite flier was allegedly one of the worst rumor mongers in the early political system. Made even worse because he owned several newpapers. I'm afraid human behaviour is neither better nor worse than it's ever been. Our proximity to our own little window in history makes it seem more important.
I see in Chris Mathews an unapologetic political "player". One who's been there, in the trenches. I'm exhausted by the knee-jerk reactions of our public on both sides of the aisle. The constant "offense" that both sides relish in pointing out day after day. It certainly can't be productive. Without quoting hard numbers, let's just say we're divided equally in this country. With the vilification from both camps we are, in essence, saying that the "other" 150 million people in America are raving lunatics not fit for public office.
I've known many, many people from California to Montana, from New York to Georgia and most were wonderful human beings.
I didn't bother to ask them what their political leanings were.