Hill article on McCain's response to "bitch" question ignored "excellent question" remark
SUMMARY: In an article about a report from CNN's Out in the Open on Sen. John McCain's recent exchange with a supporter in Hilton Head, South Carolina, The Hill reported that McCain's "campaign laments that CNN portrayed the event as though McCain did not defend [Sen. Hillary] Clinton forcefully enough. The senator, in the short video clip, expressed his respect for the former first lady." But the article did not note that McCain described the question -- "How do we beat the bitch?" -- as "excellent."
A November 14 article in The Hill by Klaus Marre reported that "[t]he camp of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hoped to capitalize Wednesday on what it says was a biased report on CNN about a campaign event at which a McCain supporter referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as 'the bitch.' " The article, which the Drudge Report linked to, referred to a McCain press release and email reacting to a report on the November 13 edition of CNN's Out in the Open by anchor Rick Sanchez. Sanchez noted McCain's response, during a campaign event in Hilton Head, South Carolina, to an audience member who asked, "How do we beat the bitch?" The Hill article reported: "The campaign laments that CNN portrayed the event as though McCain did not defend Clinton forcefully enough. The senator, in the short video clip, expressed his respect for the former first lady." But nowhere in the article did Marre note that McCain described the question as "excellent."
Further, The Hill did not mention that while the clip Sanchez aired showed McCain praising the question as an "excellent" one, the clip also showed McCain saying: "I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party."
Moreover, The Hill did not note that the email from McCain's campaign falsely claimed that "Senator McCain first responded by saying that he respected Senator Clinton, as he has said repeatedly throughout the campaign. Then, focusing on the question, he pointed to the new Rasmussen national poll showing that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat her in a general election." In fact, according to a video of the exchange, posted on YouTube by the Veracifier blog, McCain's first response to the question was, "May I give ... the translation?" He then added, "But that's an excellent question," before mentioning the Rasmussen poll. Only then did he state he had "respect" for Clinton. On the blog Talking Points Memo, reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted the email's false claim.
From the November 13 edition of CNN's Out in the Open:
SANCHEZ: You know, this could be real bad for John McCain. I want you to watch this that we're about to show you. You'll probably see its first pass here, and then I have a feeling you'll be seeing it a lot.
Producer comes in early in the morning today to my office and shows me this video. You're going to hear a McCain supporter. She refers to Hillary Clinton using really what is a horrible word that is used to do nothing but demean women.
Well, at the time, it was a supporter who said that. It wasn't until later on, when we watched the whole tape, which is what you're about to see, that you see McCain's reaction, or lack thereof, that we decided that this is both relevant and newsworthy -- an important information to this campaign.
All right, let me set it up for you. He's campaigning in South Carolina yesterday when suddenly this happened. Obviously, the word that's used here is very offensive. We'll let you listen to the entire thing so you can decide for yourself. Here it is.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do we beat the bitch?
[laughter]
McCAIN: May I give the -- may I give the translation?
[laughter]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Leave it alone.
McCAIN: The way that --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: John, I thought she was talking about my ex-wife.
[laughter]
McCAIN: But that's an excellent question.
[...]
McCAIN: I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party.
[end video clip]
SANCHEZ: "That's an excellent question," he says.
This is a fellow senator that he's talking about. No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, is John McCain done as a result of this? Is this going to become a viral video? This is the kind of questions that we got to examine at this point. We're going to be looking at a lot of these issues.
The November 14 Hill article, headlined "McCain camp goes after CNN," in its entirety:
The camp of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hoped to capitalize Wednesday on what it says was a biased report on CNN about a campaign event at which a McCain supporter referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as "the bitch."
Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said in an e-mail to supporters that CNN owes the Arizona Republican an apology for its reporting of the story.
The campaign laments that CNN portrayed the event as though McCain did not defend Clinton forcefully enough. The senator, in the short video clip, expressed his respect for the former first lady.
"The CNN Network, affectionately known as the Clinton News Network, has stooped to an all-time low and is gratuitously attacking John McCain for not sufficiently defending Hillary Clinton enough when a South Carolina voter used the 'B' word to describe her when John McCain stopped into a luncheon yesterday at the Trinity restaurant in Hilton Head, S.C.," Davis said in his e-mail.
The McCain campaign manager portrayed the CNN report as an attempt by the liberal media to stop the surging Arizona Republican.
"The liberal media has figured out that John McCain is the only thing that stands between a Hillary Clinton presidency, and they are therefore trying to stop the McCain comeback," Davis said. "Simply put, CNN is scared that John McCain will beat Hillary Clinton. They are right to be scared."
The e-mail to supporters comes with a call to support the campaign financially.
"We need your help," Davis wrote. "We need you to stand with John McCain, a man of honor, integrity and love of country, against the liberal media and liberal blogosphere that are trying to bring him down."
Earlier Wednesday, McCain's South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs had condemned the CNN report and anchor Rich Sanchez.
"It is disappointing that Mr. Sanchez would choose to engage in sensationalism in the hopes of generating a story," Jacobs said. "It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN.
"If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Sen. McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Sen. Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail, as he did at Monday's event in Hilton Head," Jacobs added.
He thought the question...How do we beat her, was an excellent question.
To imply that "Bitch" was part of what he thought was "excellent" about it is a stretch.
Would you have the same response if someone asked "how do we beat the n-word?" and he had the same reply?
Wouldn't you expect him to condemn that immediately? Do you not see it as the same?
or when in 2004 a Democratic Candidate called the President a Miserable Failure. calling someone a failure is as bad as calling them a "Bi*tc*"?
Sue - to answer your question: no.
You are right Sue. Spectacular Failure, Incredible Failure, Complete Failure and Historic Failure would all have been much more appropriate.
calling someone a failure is as bad as calling them a "Bi*tc*"?
Until you feel you need to type it "f*il*ur", because it's so "bad", it's nowhere near as bad as calling them a "Bi*tc*".
SAVE DEMOCRACY!!!
VOTE INDEPENDENT!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!
They are all bad, it shows how horrible our nation has become. Divided.
Wrong Sue. It can be demonstrated that Bush was a failure at his job. This is no worse than saying he did a poor job. The attack on Hillary was personal. And although the person who said it may believe it, McCain was obligated to denounce it. By not doing so leaves the impression that he believes it also.
It's not even "personal" because Clinton isn't a "bitch." It was purely an ad hominem, toss around by someone unable to address issues and preferring instead to simply make a crass remark.
It in no way resembles calling someone a "failure" -- a remark that goes to the heart of what is the Bush administration: incompetence. One of the key issues in the upcoming elections is Do we want to continued the FAILED policies of this current administration, or move in a different direction. To even begin to have that discussion, you have to start from the point of discussing the failure.
Excellent points Marv.
It's not the same, at all. Don't insult receivers of the n-bomb.
Of course it's not the same. As nasty and unacceptable as the "b" word is, it hardly rises to the level of such an offensive and repulsive slur such as the "n" word.
Easy for you to say that b*tch isn't egregious ... you're a guy !
As was the original poster who said btch was as bad as the n-bomb.
You employ perfect Repug logik. >:-)
Sorry, but A=>B does not mean B=>A.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, and I'm not a "Repug". If the original poster, who is a guy, said it was the same, then being a guy myself cannot solely disqualify me from offering an opinion. We're on the same playing field.
I didn't say YOU were a Repug, I said you employed perfect Repug logik, which often includes the kind of logical error I referred to.
Why do you think b*tch is not the same as n*gger ? Explain, please.
I would argue that, while both words are offensive, btch is more widely used and more accepted as less-offensive than the n-bomb. You can say btch on regular TV, the word has meaning as both "witch" and "servant/peon" (as well as the literal definition), is not racially-focused. I think that the n-word also conjures up a lot more violent hate groups of American history than btch does. Although it's pure speculation, I would bet my mortgage on a poll of Americans finding that btch was less offensive than the n-bomb.
I doubt that Isea Thomas will use the term "bitch" an more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2007/09/12/2007-09-12_brownesanders_slams_isiah_thomas_in_sexh.html
I was very very happy with the outcome of that.
We're talking about Senators here, not characters on TV.
I believe you're thinking of Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy. Isiah Thomas used to play for the Detroit Pistons, and then went to work for the New York Knicks.
I was really disappointed, myself. At least us "Bad Boys" fans still have Joe Dumars to look up to.
I never said one word was as bad as the other. I asked Jeter2 a question about what he thought. While I don't think they are exactly the same, McCain's first response should have been a condemnation or correction of the 'lady' who asked the question.
Exactly. Why didn't McCain reprimand the questioner? Seems to me he 'supported' the assertion in a not-so-subtle manner... guilty by omission, if you will.
Why would he reprimand the questioner? He is trying to obtain the support of the people in that room. Reprimanding her would make YOU happy but it wouldn'thelp him a bit. He is running for the GOP nomination. You don't admonish the base. He indicated that he respected Clinton. Normally you don't call a person a bitch that you respect. He was caught off guard and responded accordingly. I guess he should have put the lady in the headlock and made her apologize, but that sure wouldn't have helped in getting the support of others in that room. It would have made some Hillary supporters happy, but they ain't going to vote for McCain anyway.
Why would he reprimand the questioner?
Because that is what a True Leader does (to paraphrase Pearlene.)
Regardless of the audience. According to that logic, he should rename his bus to the Straight Talk when it is Politically Favorable Express.
Mountain out of a molehill fits this issue to the T. Look, no candidate prepares for situations like this. This was an informal gathering of the GOP base with whom McCain was pandering to. You want him to react as you would and if he doesn't it proves he would be an ineffective leader? That is quite a stretch. From a pure political standpoint, you can't expect any candidate, to reprimand the people he is trying to obtain support from. The lady who asked the question is the one with a character deficit. He explained his respect for her and diverted this as tactifully as he probably could given the situation. Your attempt to show that McCain agreed with this lady because he did not immediately admonish her falls short.
"This was an informal gathering of the GOP base with whom McCain was pandering to."
Thats it in a nutshell isn't it? So much for Mr. Straight Talk. How about a bus called Pandering Express? Excellent question, no?
Yep, that is pretty much it. He wasn't speaking to a large crowd of undecided voters. He wa in a small room surrounded by a a group of GOP base supporters. That kinda makes it rather informal, unrehearsed, and to continue to admonish him for not using your response, made in hindsight, just shows you have little understanding of the political campaign process.
"That kinda makes it rather informal, unrehearsed, and to continue to admonish him for not using your response, made in hindsight,"
remind what was my response that I wanted him to use. Since I have such "little understanding of the political campaign process.", I don't remember what that was.
Mountain out of a molehill fits this issue to the T.
Chris mountain out of a molehill only IF you've never been called a bit*h. It's like if you've never been called the "n" word, you can't really understand what it feels like. It's not pleasant and I'm sorry but McCain like my self is pretty damn old. By now you should have the skills to explain to the lady (can't call her what I'd like) while her question was excellent it's not one you would be willing to respond to in the manner she used. He's a freaking US Senator and over the age where he should have the ability to lead by example.
Because a man with Class would do exactly just that. Next!
A man with class would do exactly what? Tell the lady that "no you're the bitch". Come on.
Not that, dummy.
He would tell the questioner that she is out of line by asking her question in that way - not by making a lame comedy bit out of it.
McCain is no Lettermen so he should just drop the BSing.
That's a great point. McCain has this reputation of being a straight talker. And this is probably an example of "McCain being McCain." Except, is that who we want handling tricky diplomatic discussions for us in critical moments?
Regressives jumped on Dean for his yell and tagged him as a loose cannon. Perhaps McCain should be examined under the same microscope, and voters need to decide if this guy is really someone we want handling delicate matters of state.
Yeah, I'm sure we would enjoy having McLame dance into the UN singing his stupid 'Bomb Iran' song. He could even give Bush a run for his money with that one.
God, I cannot believe what is happening to this country. I really can't believe it.
"He is trying to obtain the support of the people in that room. Reprimanding her would make YOU happy but it wouldn'thelp him a bit."
For one thing, if a supporter says "I wish somebody'd kill Hillary", you don't withhold a reprimand to get their vote.
It's a matter of what you deem acceptable. McCain would have saved himself some grief by answering, "That's not acceptable". An immediate reprimand (perhaps that's too strong a word) would indeed have "helped" him, contrary to what you say.
Instead, McCain said "Let me translate" and complimented the woman on the "excellence" of her question. Not even a pretense of wondering just who "the b!tch" was, which would have been more appropriate.
In my opinion, it was a misjudgement on McCain's part, one I'd bet he would do over, if he could.
Sadly, the original poster is correct in saying that a GOP candidate wouldn't and shouldn't admonish the questioner because he wants that vote. And that, sadly, is how the GOP base thinks. It says a lot about the base of that party. And people wonder why there is a political divide. You saw it right there in that question.
He indicated that he respected Clinton.
Interesting that NOBODY MENTIONED CLINTION. Interesting that McCain knew exactly what the questioner was getting at. Interesting that he preferred to joke about it rather than simply ask "Who are you talking about?"
And with that, we got some insight into McCain.
What is interesting is that you would be assuming that there would be someone else the woman is talking about. I guess the lady could have been talking about Obama or Edwards but the word "bitch" is usually a derogatory term toward females. Hence, the immediate agreement that Hillary Clinton was the person the woman was referring to. As for the question that everyone else also knew who the term was referring to, there may have been some discussion about Hillary Clinton immediately before the lady's question. Waht does it matter really?
Well, that means that Rush needs to quit using the term 'Breck Girl' when referring to John Edwards since he isn't a girl.
What is interesting is that you would be assuming that there would be someone else the woman is talking about.
What's interesting to me is that you keep trying to defend the use of "Bitch" as a synonym for "Senator Clinton." McCain blew it. If he had any respect for Senator Clinton as he stated, he would not have dubbed the question as "excellent." There's nothing "excellent" about calling Senator Clinton a "bitch."
You say it would have "helped him" by correcting this woman. How would it have helped him? Do you think it would have helped him garner more support from the people in that room, who are die hard GOP anyway? I guess it could have helped him steer clear of admonishments from people who would never vote for him anyway, but in the end what does that matter?
but in the end what does that matter?
Exactly. Civility, decency, and diplomacy aren't skills or traits required by a President of the United States. We've gotten along just fine without them for the last seven years.
Oh, wait, no we haven't. We'll be digging out for decades because our current president lacks those traits and skills.
IT MATTERS.
In other words he was pandering to a nasty Hilary hater, so much for the strait talking huh?
As Pat Buchanan pointed out defending HRC in front of a room full of right wing nuts is as politically suicidal as supporting comprehensive immigration reform in front of them.
McCain knows this.
He was clearly pandering rather than standing up and being a real leader.
I think McCain could have handled it better. I'm not sure if he should have admonished the woman who asked the question, though.
If I were McCain, I would have said something like this:
McCain: "To whom are you referring?"
Woman: "Hillary, of course!"
McCain: "Well, name-calling doesn't do anything to promote the discussion of the real issues in this country. As for Senator Clinton, I respect her immensely; however, we can beat her - and your underlying question, sans ad hominem attack, is a good one." (and then he tells how McCain's campaign can beat Hillary's).
I see that as both letting the woman know that the name-calling is unacceptable, but the question is a good one (how does McCain beat Hillary?).
I'm a Kucinich supporter, so I'm not so worried about Hillary. She'll probably win, and I've come to terms with that. I'm sure she'll do the best she can, especially with all of the personal attacks that will ensue after she is elected. The right-wing will do what they can to derail her and her agenda. Hopefully Democrats will come to her defense.
That's a great hypothetical McCain response.
That is pretty good analysis. I can agree with that. he could have handled it more tactifully, but hindsight is 20/20.
A real leader to who? The people who wouldn't vote for him anyway? Look if you think for one minute that dergatory terms aren't used about Republican candidates on the campaign trail by Democratic supporters than you're fooling yourself. Political campaigns have included vitriole since the beginning fo this country. Historical examples abound of supporters sayng vile things about the opposition. It would be absolute political suicide to tell your potential supporters that they are short on character.
A real leader to who? The people who wouldn't vote for him anyway?
Are you saying that GWBush isn't my president because I voted for another candidate?
As an AA woman I find both terms equally offensive because the intent to demean is inherent in both words. I have also been on the receiving end of both words in my life time by people in authority, police officers to be precise. I honestly don't beleive that McCain would have entertained a question from a supporter that referred to Obama as the N-word or either as a Halfrican and he should have set the person strait right from the beginning. It wasn't an excellent question, it was an ignorant question.
His response that it was an excellent question was based around the premise of how does one beat Mrs. Clinton, hence his pointed response about poll numbers. This "guilt by association" position is rather juvenile.
The questioner didn't mention Clinton.
Does it matter ? Would it be OK if the questioner were referring to Pelosi ?
It would make no difference at all. From all the posts on this and on the other isn’t a hoot to call Hillary C. a B thread I’ve gathered that none of the Conservatives here see anything wrong with calling a sitting female Senator a B or understand that many women find the use of this term absolutely inappropriate and offensive. I'm just surprised as to why the conservatives here didn't call McCain out on his pandering to Hilary haters, because I know they really really hate political panderers. Now I do know they find political pandering offensive.
.I find it interesting that you guys want to dictate what is considered to be 'offensive' or not and the 'level' of the offensiveness. Each individual can make that determination for him/herself.
Speak for yourself only, guys.
I said it was nasty and unacceptable, which it is. However, it is not in the same league as the "n" word, sorry, that is my opinion.
Obviously, you're 'opinion' is biased.
What if Laura Bush was called the B-word? Would you possess the same lack of outrage as you do now? Or do you reserve your outrage in defence of those who are only on your 'side'?
If you can't follow the logic, then don't. I never said I condoned the word at all, so your outrage directed at me is ridiculous. I am merely comparing the two words against each other as the poster earlier did. They are not the same on the offensiveness scale, for me. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics, that is even more absurd. It is not an ideological difference, so your introduction of Laura Bush is inane.
There is no 'scale', fool. Offensive is offensive. Period. You're just picking nits... trying to play some BS semantics game to put the best possible spin on an offensive comment.
So why is the "b" word floated around network TV all the time, but the "n" word never would be allowed? Of course some words are far more offensive than others. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.
Television censors are not the arbiters of what is offensive.
I know a lot of guys who call each other n*ggers like they might use the word "pal" or "buddy".
But proferssionally, they are both totally unacceptable and offensive because they are prejudicial words that, as I said in another post, are meant to degrade and subjugate.
You agreed that b*tch is unacceptable, so what do you think McCain's response should have been ?
See below.
The B-word wasn't floated around network tv back when I was a kid... a mere 20 years ago. They also didn't show bare asses on the tube back then either. I'd say probably because society's 'standards' have been lowered.
What do you think? You think it's 'acceptable' for the standards to be lower now? what about 20 years from now... should the Eff word be 'legit' for network tv?
I only used that as an example of what our culture deems more offensive than the other....of course 30 years the "b" word was not used in any respectable conversation, now it's thrown out on TV with abandon by nearly everyone.
On the contrary, the "n" word has become even more offensive than it was 40 years ago, thankfully, and you rightly do not hear it spoken in any respectable dialogue, because it is so blatantly awful.
You didn't answer the questions asked of you...
Oh, for crying out loud. No, I do not condone the coarsening of our culture at all. And No, I do not believe the "f" word belongs on network TV.
How about the coarsening of our political rhetoric? Think that's a good thing?
No.
Good answer because it is the CORRECT answer. Now we can conclude that Rush, Sean, Savage, Beck, and that pansy-voiced Levin are all 'out of bounds' when it comes to decency and that they should be marginalised. Perhaps they should be relegated to satrad since their content is deemed offensive.
I rest my case.
because the TV executives are primarily male who don't "get" the offensiveness of such a sexist term?
I'm female, and I'm telling you that it IS in the same league. It's an offensive biased gender-specific term which is meant to degrade and subjugate.
I hope you don't call your female coworkers or family members or friends "b*tches" just because YOU don't find the term offensive.
If you have to lie, then don't address my posts at all please. Where did I say I did not find the term offensive?
Never mind, your opinion is irrelevant to me.
You're right. You said it was "nasty and unacceptable".
Why do you feel that the 'b' word in this situation is not as bad as the 'n' word in the same type of situation, e.g., when a legislatori receives a question referriing to a peer ? What do you think McCain's response should have been ?
Because I feel the "n" word is far more injurious and offensive than the "b" word is. They are not equal in my opinion. Obviously they are both offensive and uncalled for, that is not the issue. I just don't happen to think they are comparable.
As for what should have been McCain's response > "I'm sorry Madam, please rephrase your question in a civilized manner and I will be happy to answer it"
Or maybe he should have said "excellent question, B*tch." ;-)
Now THAT would have been sweet (unacceptable, but sweet nonetheless)
How is n*gger more injurious than b*tch when referring to a professional peer ? I think they are equally injurious. Remember, women have been oppressed just as blacks have in this country. Black men got to vote before women did !
I have said my piece on this, obviously we disagree.
So if some one called your wife, daughter or other female loved one a bitch you would console her by saying "at least they didn't call you n*gger that would be worse"?
I'm just trying to figure out exactly which part of the quicksand you're staking out here.
I'm just trying to figure out exactly which part of the quicksand you're staking out here.
I'm totally stealing that line.
If you used either epithet in the workplace in the same way (as part of a pattern), you had better believe you would be putting your company at the same risk of a lawsuit for hostile environment discrimination.
Has it ever occurred to you that, unless you are a female, you aren't the best judge of the offensiveness of a term intended to denigrate women?
Ask Rush. I'm sure his answer will be interesting given that he has tremendous difficulty in holding onto women in relationships. Guess his fat wallet doesn't mean that much after all.
Tommy ask a Black woman which word she finds more offensive or if she would rather be called the N-word over The B-word. They are equally offensive, and I wouldn't tolerate being called either by anyone.
Because I feel the "n" word is far more injurious and offensive than the "b" word is. They are not equal in my opinion. Tommy
From a both a woman and African American they BOTH are offensive, period!
The same thing can be said about your 'opinion' just as well. If you cannot respect another poster's opinion then your opinion isn't worthy of respect either.
So get the hell off your high horse... you're not above anyone else here.
Exactly. These guys on the Right want to pick nits and establish some ridiculous 'moral relativity' scale for what is considered 'offensive'. The N-word - now THAT'S just horrible... no go. But the B-word - not too bad... maybe PG-13 - keep the young kiddies away - but not too shabby. And 'total f*g' - well, what a hoot! That just gets a complete pass... even the babies can chortle over that one!
Jimmycraghorn, thank you for your 'n' word analogy !!! That illustrates perfectly the problem with McCain's response. No candidate would ever allow such a question ... "How do we beat the n*gger ?" ! The candidate would immediately chastize the person who asked the question, and perhaps even request to remove him/her from the audience. In fact, the other audience members would probably remove the person !
And you just showed how the analogy is inappopriate. Thank you.
Explain your Repug logik, please.
Athiest, nobody cares if you're offended when you repeatedly call other posters names. Keep that in mind.
You're offended by "Repug" ? You said you weren't one, why would you be offended by it ?
Now that I'm thinking about it, Dexter, if you're a black guy then your offense at n*gger is no longer something anyone should concern themselves with because surely, at some point in your life, you called someone a name.
Are you SURE you aren't a Repug ? Because your thought processes are incredily Repug-like.
He's in denial. Just like Larry Craig. :)
I agree with you whole heartedly. I made that point in a previous thread on this topic.
JimmyCraghorn
Would you have the same 'touching' concern for using the word BITCH if the person was Ann Coulter?
Be honest.
If you're talking about a Repug shill fielding a question about "that b*tch" Coulter, then yes, the question-receiving shill should take offense.
'touching' concern? wtf?
'touching concern' = when a Republican congressman worries about one of his underage pages so much that he either (1) must touch himself, or (2) much touch the underage page.
much = must
i regret the error.
That was an excellent comment, arsehole!
The word 'bitch' was part of the question so your belief that it is a 'stretch' is incorrect. And Marre obviously is stupid by ignoring the 'excellent question' remark. Yet another example of those ill-trained 'journalists' attempting to rewrite what was actually said.
Give me a break. If a democrat did the same thing you'd be all over them.
Yeah yeah, & I'm sure if someone called Bush or any of the Republican candidates a moron or an SOB or whatever you'd be outraged....after you stopped laughing.
sarcasm off
Oh, I get it. So if one side does it then it's perfectly all right for the other side to do it too?
Guess what? BOTH SIDES are full of it! How's that?
Except what was the word on Biden on the first day of his campaign when he referred to Obama as "clean" and... what was the other part? I forget. DEAD ON ARRIVAL. Democrats almost instantly turned their back on the guy's chances because of what he said.
Campaigns are by their nature dirty. But it's clear that regressives are far more adept at throwing mud.
Oh, I agree. The Right is much better at it. What galls me is that they whine whenever the libs do it. The Cons think they are the only ones who are granted a pass at mudslinging.
The rules have changed.
B*tch is gender specific, and beyond that it implies a particular kind of woman.
It's moot to speculate whether or not a Dem supporter would ever ask such a question ... the Repugs don't even have a female Pres candidate, and probably won't for another 5 decades.
Btw, even if the supporter had used a non-loaded adjective, like "assh*le", it STILL would have been incredibly offensive because no political representative should allow such language to be used when referring to a fellow legislator. It's horribly unprofessional ... but so was the "Bomb Iran" song, so what do we expect ? McCain lacks the kind of tact that we really need in a President.
"...the Repugs don't even have a female Pres candidate, and probably won't for another 5 decades."
Thank God for that. I cannot possibly imagine Lynne Cheney running... of course, she would be right down their alley - hypocritical as hell (think her trashy book as an example).
At least I didn't call her a bitch... and if anyone ever deserved that title...
Along this thread ... I'll bet they have at least one female candidate next cycle, one they know can't win the nomination but they'll want to try to prove that they aren't as archaic as they actually are. (It's amazing that there isn't a single black Repug in Congress !) So who do you think the puppet female candidate wiill be for 2012 ?
I hope it would be that godawful Marsha Blackburn. She would be eaten alive in ANY debate. She couldn't even handle Shuster's grilling a few weeks back. LOL!
But they could have a Black Woman for VEEP. Notice how Ms. Rice has been brought out in the forefront recently. Rove is getting ready to cover his bases...Black Candidate for President---Black Woman VP.....White Woman for President...Black Woman for VP. (Now that would put the good old boys down South in a quandry)
P.S. I don't believe for one minute that Bushs' B*y Rove is away praying for his soul. I don't think any God out there, not sure how many religions there, would have enough forgiveness to enlighten his black heart.
The problem with Rice is that she is too smart and not submissive enough. They don't like Rice, although they recognize her value as a black female, but I don't really think they want someone with a brain in the VP office who might butt heads with the Pres. The need someone more vacuous. Remember Harriet Meiers' responses to her Supreme Court questionnaire ? Now there's a good Repug prospect. :-) Some good credentials, but docile and obedient.
As others have noted: the better response for McCain would have been "I'm sorry, but who are you referring to, 'mam?".
But, instead, McCain --with his "excellent question" reply-- acknowledged that he knew who "the b!tch" in question was and wasn't immediately concerned about it.
But it's all good anyway, isn't it, as long as The Hill and others ignore that inconvenient fact.
I propose this as the best response from McCain:
"Your question is inappropriate and I will not answer. Next question ?"
Athiest, I would've been just fine had McCain answered it that way, but just because he didn't doesn't logically equate to a condonement of using that language. You're choosing to ignore completely that McCain said he respects Clinton before he even answered.
No, according to the transcript above, McCain first said "let me translate that" and "excellent question", before he said anything about "respect".
Adding one more thing:
Unless you're saying that "the answer" really didn't start until he addressed the substance, after the prelude about translations and the excellence of the question. To which I'd disagree. The answer is the answer, in its entirety. Not just certain parts of it.
I think he saw pretty quickly that he needed to acknowledge his respect for Hillary. He just should have showed it more right away.
I really think it's much like "bomb Iran". He's not a very sophisticated and tactful person, and he opens his trap before thinking. I'm not saying he's a necessarily bad person for that, but we really do not need someone to continually open mouth and insert foot as our President ! I would hate to see him make some coarse joke about another country's leader, only to realize too late that he committed a faux pas.
The "respect" he offered came after he (and apparently many of you) assumed that "bitch" referred to a United States Senator.
By even answering the question, he showed disrespect.
I'm no campaign consultant, but it seems obvious that your suggested response would have caused them a lot less grief.
Now the right-wing smear machine is going after Sanchez for reporting this.
IMHO this is a mini-macaca moment and will blow over. But it shows the unbridled hatred on the right of anything to do with a Clinton. I guess that means they're scared of her.
Of course they're scared. It's easy to tell when they are scared when the volume of worthless 'mockery' and horrible attempts at being 'funny' - all in the name of 'discrediting' Hillary - rises exponentially.
Here's a fact that those dummies in the 'biz' are seemingly unaware of - mockery and cheap humour don't work with this voter. What DOES work are straight facts and intellectual discussion without all the 'window dressings'.
The point of the question was how do you beat Hillary, which McCain referred to as "excellent". He did not say it was "excellent" to call her the name. McCain referred to a need to "translate", meaning the format the question was given to him in was not the correct one to answer, or that he wanted to answer.
It's making a mountain out of a molehill & reeks of desperation by MMFA & the biased Left wing media trying to blow it out of proportion & prop it up as a "viral video".
While McCain could have admonished the speaker, & in hindsight may wish that he had, he went on to say he respected Hillary.
Of course that's never enough here for some.
I know, they're leading it to become "viral." George Allen absolutely made a racial remark by calling someone a monkey/tribal name he made up based on that person's skin color. McCain stated his own position (he respected Hillary) but did not scold someone for referring to Hill using another name...two completely different scenarios.
Why are you making excuses for McCain ?
A person who had REAL respect for someone wouldn't have tolrated that question from the moment it was asked. He wouldn't have hemmed and hawed and then finally made some weak statement to cover his butt. We don't need a President who is such a wimp that he can't act immediately on his self-proclaimed moral standards.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check Edition:
I want all my good, good liberal/left friends to try this experiment. Take a legal size tab and draw a line down the center. On the (far) left side write down all the names that you, your friends, and the libs in the MSM use to smear George Bush. On the right side you can write down all the names used to attack HRC.
Compare the two lists - now, in all honesty, do you whiners really have anything to complain about?I didn't think so.
That list is going to definitely be leftside-heavy.
That depends entirely upon the objectivity and the standards applied:
If true, then the names applied to Bungle are not smears, and must be stricken from your list. To smear that recalcitrant Repugnant deserter, would exceed certainly my vocabulary, and likely mine is as good as most here. On the other hand, examine the listing of smears applied to the Clintons, and lo! Most lack that element of veracity, qualifying as true smears.
Well, here's two from the Far Right: 'Hillary Rotten Clinton' and 'Her Thighness'.
Whoever first ID's the piece of filth who uses those terms on a REGULAR basis wins a bag of bunny treats. LOL...
My guess: Rush Limboob
Nope.
Hint: he's a big-time doggie lover who is shilling his new book to the point of absurdity.
Why would the Dog Whisperer make up those names about Hillary?
Because he and his miserable 'show' appeal to mental defectives such as himself.
It should be obvious that the issue Media Matters talks about is McCain's response to the question -not the questioner- and the media's under-reporting of it.
Thanks, and now you can get back your legal pad.
Unbelievable. You can debate either way if one is worse than the other. I am black. I don't appreciate the n-bomb. I've never met a woman that truly believes they are female dogs. My beef isn't with the word itself. My beef is a. a woman said it and b.McCain wasn't forceful enough in opposing that view of a fellow senator. There should be some level of respect from people who are in office. How can we respect our elected officials if in public forums they are called deragatory names? Another question, has a male ever been refered to as a bitch on his campaign trail before? Why now? The answer is easy - because Hillary is a woman, which would then mean it is deragatory. Like I said on a post earlier, you can get away with so much hate when you're conservative and this is the party that harbors the conservative Christian vote.
First off, don't act like McCain called Hillary the word. 2nd, McCain said that he respects Hillary before he even answered the question, so don't act like he didn't acknowledge that the ASKER's question had a disrespectful element. 3rd, it's not McCain's job to preach or correct someone's choice of language; McCain stated how he felt about Hillary, and those are the words you take.
You have very low standards.
1) Please don't tell August Heat or anyone else here who is making excellent points what to do. AH is not your child or servant.
2) If you would be so kind as to review the sequence of events and consider the merit in what others have said before launching into a lecture, you might learn something.
August, I had the same reaction, unbelievable. It seem that the hate level towards Hillary has no bounds. There is no limit as to what conservatives right-wingers can and will say and it’s all acceptable. One has to wonder how McCain would feel if someone ask the question of his 95 year old mother, “How do we shut up the old bi*ch up”, when she made her comments about Mitt Romney and Mormons. I as a black person do not appreciate the “n” word and I as a woman do not appreciate the “b” word. If McCain were truly a gentlemen his response to the old woman’s question should have been “I can’t truly answer your question because I don’t refer to any woman, even someone I truly oppose as a bit*ch however I can tell you that polls have shown that in a head to head match-up with Senator Clinton, I beat her by 3 points”. Be a man and act like a gentleman, not like a snotty nose school boy who heard a naughty word and laughed. I hear conservative/right-wingers complain bitterly about rap music’s use of the word bi*ch referring to black women but it seem OK to ignore and even laugh about referring to our former First Lady and US Senator in a derogatory term. One has to wonder what the conservative right-wingers reactions would have been if Momma Bush had been referred to as a fat, old racist bit*h or Nancy Reagan as a dried-up bit*ch. Oh I could guess what the reactions would be to those comments. Men should be teaching young men and boys by example, not allowing any woman to be referred to as a bitc*h in their presence. McCain wanting to be a leader should learn to act like one.
I keep saying it, keep up this kind of crap and YOU will be responsible for Hillary winning the election.
I keep saying it, keep up this kind of crap and YOU will be responsible for Hillary winning the election.
You mean as punishment?
I'd rather be grounded & sent to my room thank you ;-)
*Just a little levity here Pearlene, cause you sound really heated*
Hey Jeter, I'm not exactly happy that some of you guys can't see why it's offensive. You simply don't call a woman a bitch and if you keep silent as McCain did it's means that HE finds the term bit*ch when applied to Hillary acceptable. You don't have to actually say it but if your silent and don't object I can only assume you agree. IMO, this 'Hillary is the devil' crap coming from conservative right-wingers is leaving a real sour taste in my mouth. You don't like her, I get that. But find real issues to fight about not the old Clinton crap that conservative right-wingers have regurgitated over and over. The nastier they get the more sympathy she receives.
Here Here Pearl!
Indeed ! Thank you, August and Pearlene for your great remarks !!!
I love how the women here are saying it IS offensive, but the guys are insisting that it's not. That's like telling a black person to not be offended by n*gger. Amazing.
"I love how the women here are saying it IS offensive, but the guys are insisting that it's not." ATHEIST
To be fair the guys are not saying its OK. I don't think I said or implied that anywhere.
As for some of the others, Even Chris, Tommy, Jeter and Dexter said it was offensive. They just differ on what McCain's response should have been.
Jimmy, I don't think Atheist meant that all men here said the same thing. And if you look at the remarks of some of the people you noted, you will see that some have not simply acknowledged a term is offensive; they have tried to tell women that being called a b**** is not as bad as calling a person of color a n*****. That is objectionable particularly when the two posters here who are arguably in the best possible position to compare the terms - women of color, because they have the target of both terms as well as other incidents of discrimination - have said quite clearly that both terms are equally objectionable to them. In other words, where do these men (probably most if not all of whom are white) get off not listening to and learning from people who are in a BETTER position to know?
You may be right. I was responding to what she had written, knowing she would have the chance to make that clarification for herself.
That's all I'm saying. Come with some substance. Stop hating on her because she's a woman. That's all Carlson, Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc. do.
They hate her because she is a STRONG woman and that threatens their worldview that women are 'supposed' to be 'weaker'.
They'll get over it after she wins the White House. If they can't... well, that's their friggin' problem. They can spend the next four years shopping for therapists or, in Rush's case, shopping for drugs.
They'll get over it after she wins the White House.
Yeah, just like when Bill Clinton became Pre--
Oh, maybe not.
I hope she wins. Even though I am no big fan of her... I hope she wins the White House. ANYTHING to drive those psycho talkers into having insane wigouts, coronaries, and strokes on the air will be well worth it. And I hope that she is a two-termer with BOTH houses going to the libs. I PRAY for it.
There going to have to build a wall of secret service around her. I think she may really be in danger from one of these HC haters
I am SO afraid of that ! There are too many wingnut nutcases with guns.
Rabbit,
While I'd prefer just about anyone else, I don't think Hillary would do a worse job than the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Unfortunately, I do believe 8 years of the Clintons will result in a continuing divide in this country. It may not be their fault but they are a divisive political entity.
I imagine Rush Limbaugh might secretly be cheering her on. He'd be all set with 8 years of anti-Clinton material.
But Rush would still be an angry, small, pathetic little man whose 'vision' of the country will have been rejected by the voters and I take great joy in that. He can waste another four or eight years of his miserable life thumping on his Golden Mike and screaming about Hillary until his head explodes for all I care. Same thing applies to all the other nutcases on the radio... Savage, Levin, Beck, etc.
Oh, and the Clintons are 'divisive' because a great number of IGNORANT people are allowing themselves to be 'divided' over them. Funny how some politicians who were oh-so-OFFENDED (gasp!) over Bill's blowjob turned out to have not-so-pure lives themselves. In other words... they were better off keeping their GD mouths shut about Bill instead of exposing themselves as a bunch of worthless hypocrites.
THAT is what is truly dividing the country - HYPOCRISY.
I don't think Charles Manson would do a worse job than the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, personally.
What I wonder is, who would not be divisive? Bill Clinton was a pro-business moderate. Supporting NAFTA, GATT, China's favorite nation trade status...all the same positions as Bush 41, if I remember rightly. He was no raging liberal, by any stretch of the imagination.
It would seem to me like if the nature of the current right wing was capable of dealing with any Democrat, then they would have done so with Clinton, instead of throwing an 8-year long tantrum.
So what is it that makes you think it's going to be any different for Obama, Edwards, or anyone else? Just curious.
Bias. The only bias is in you're post my fellow American. The left could've really piled on Kreig when he got caught soliciting sex in a public restroom and he received more criticism from his own party. This isn't bias its facts. Let me ask you this do you call your sister or mother or wife a bitch? Then how is this making a mountain out of a molehill. It's disrespectful to say the least and what made it worse is that McCain basically condoned this comment by not clarifying who the questioner was talking about.
Did McCain call Hillary that name?
Someone referred to a "bitch." McCain apparently knew who was being referred to.
Of course he knew, just as you probably knew when yu first heard it. Did you realize that there is a presidential race going on and there is only one woman in the entire field running? Did you know that the word "bitch" is by a far usually used as a derogatory term for females. Connect the dots, theeeeere ya gooooo, goooood jooooob.
And that makes it right... how?
McCain dubbed a question that referred to a fellow Senator as a bitch as an "excellent question." Part of the "excellent" question dehumanized a candidate for the highest office in this country. McCain didn't slap it down as he should have were he truly had respect for Senator Clinton.
"McCain basically condoned this comment"
Exactly.
My take is that McCain got nabbed in an unguarded mode at that moment. That he actually really does condone calling Hillary a b!tch, I can't know, but I'd bet he recognizes that, if he does, it's bad for business to make it publicly known --outside of his roomful of supporters. I'd wager that he would answer the question a bit differently had he the chance to do it over.
I'd add that the bottom line is that the media ought to report McCain's "excellent question" response and let the viewer or reader judge for themselves.
To some, it matters. To others, it doesn't.
But there's no downside to giving the public more information, and that's what the media should have done here.
Dave, I respectfully disagree that McCain could reasonably be assumed to have "condoned" the btch comment, but I agree with you that it's worth noting in any article that McCain answered the question and noted the question was excellent.
The point is that the media isn't serving the public when it decides to pick-and-choose what parts of the transcript they want to print.
Give us everything. Let us decide.
That includes "the b!tch" as well as McCain's immediate "Let me translate/excellent question" response.
My own personal take (and tho I wouldn't vote for McCain, I don't dislike him) is that McCain botched his immediate reply, and should have at least pretended he didn't know who the woman was talking about. That would have saved he and his campaign the trouble of dealing with the subsequent effects.
And to the other conservative poster who wants to turn this into a George Bush vs. Hillary Clinton smear match, be real with yourself. Most of the vile comments directed at Bush comes because of his policy and decisions. How much of your hatred towards Hillary has come from sincereley disagreeing with her policy?
Right.
How much of your hatred towards Hillary has come from sincereley disagreeing with her policy?
August so true. They simply hate her period. You rarely hear complaints from conservatives right-wingers about her voting record or her possible policy decisions. However you can always count on the conservative right-wingers to question her laugh, her clapping, her thighs and the fact that she decided to stay with her husband after he cheated on her and they feel no shame in the fact that they spent 40 million dollars to publicly humiliate her for doing so. Un-freaking believable.
Pearlene it is frustrating, I just wonder at what point the average American who's on the fence about Hillary will getting tired of being told she's a B and not actually seeing any of those qualities.
I'm not acting like anything. I never said he called her that. Are you reading my post? Get your facts straight. My problem is the acceptance of such language in a public forum. Where did he acknowledge that the woman's comment was disrespectful. That's my problem with you conservative apologist you want to pretend you understand what someone is saying or thinking when they've said nothing. He never, never acknowledged anything of the inappropriateness of the question. And again would this be treated so lightly if it were a conservative woman running for public office.
First off, you have to hit "reply to comment" otherwise your reply just gets lost in the greater thread.
To answer your question, I'm not a conservative and certainly not a conservative apologist, but I do try to make sure I and others call it how it is. It is your opinion that somehow McCain is condoning the name that Hillary was called, but he did not agree with the questioner, and he made a point of saying he respects her...and we can both agree that respecting someone does not including calling them the b-word. If you feel that he had an obligation to correct the person and scold them, we can agree to disagree on that. As far as a "conservative woman" goes, they and others take their fair share of name-calling from this web site's posters and many others, and no, I don't care.
Thanks for the tip. In response to your response I'll say this: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if you respect someone and a comment is made about that person in their absence that causes laughter at that person's expense, don't you stick up for the person you "respect" I know they are running on opposite parties, but last time I checked she's an American citizen. This is my fear, we are so gone in our society today that we've sacrificed dignity. Without dignity in a political setting how do we separate our leaders from the voters? Citizens can be vulgar and inappropriate, elected officials are supposed to have a certain level of class. I just feel like he basically condoned those comments by not speaking up about the appropriateness. It may be a stretch, but that's just how I see it. I don't like this language.
It's disturbing that, in the video, McCain clearly and obviously knows, as does the entire room, --immediately-- who "the b!tch" is.
I'm not surprised at the room's laughter, but that's disturbing, too.
(As is the comment about "the ex-wife", but that's another story).
It's recognizable in McCain's physical response, as well as the fact that he never once questions just who the woman is asking about.
A different reply by McCain was called for here. I have no idea of knowing this, but I'd be willing to bet he'd agree.
It's disturbing that, in the video, McCain clearly and obviously knows, as does the entire room, --immediately-- who "the b!tch" is.
Aw come on Dave, you can't be serious.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do we beat the bitch?
Considering Hillary is the only female running for President that McCain would need to beat [or any Republican candidate for that matter] do you really think it was a huge mystery that she was referring to Hillary?
Of all the things for you to zero in on, this is just silly.
"do you really think it was a huge mystery that she was referring to Hillary?"
I didn't say I thought it was a mystery. The disturbing fact is that it isn't to this roomful of laughing people, including, unfortunately, McCain, who I happen to respect and like.
Appreciate the "silly" comment tho, thanks for the dialog.
August,
So what is he supposed to do? Should he have admonished that women in front of the entire room? That may have made Democrats who support Hillary feel better, but it wouldn't have helped him. Let us not forget that McCain is running the GOP nomination. You don't win by pissing off the base. The base constituency is who was in that room.
I think you should cut the man a break given the situation. He was asked an unexpected question in front of people with whom he is trying to obtain their support. It seems unrealistic to say that he should have stopped right then and there and admonished that woman for her description of Hillary Clinton. He said he respected the woman, is that not good enough. You can not expect a man running for the Republican nomination to do things that will please Democats. That is what happens during the general election. They all move to the middle. Had this occurred during the general election campaign, you may have seen a different reaction or at least a different spin from his campaign following the occurence. Anyway, I don't know about you, but I don't call people that I respect a bitch.
I agree. I know he's not going to help her. I just feel like if questions like these are not shown to the nation that they are out of bounds we will continue to have conversations like this.
In the near future I might add.
Fair enough. The systematic dissolution of civility is a depressing trend in our society, to say the least. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier postition here. It just seems that some people are admonishing McCain for not shootng himself in the foot.
Thank you achrispage!
You just explained this as honestly & intelligently as I have seen written anywhere [here or other sites]
Now let's talk about Edwards $400 haircuts or something just to break the tension...just kidding! ;-)
Let's take it further...forget about the haircut..let us up the ante to a trillion dollar war..now that is fun. Just kidding...it is probably 2 trillion by now.
So what is he supposed to do? Should he have admonished that women in front of the entire room? That may have made Democrats who support Hillary feel better, but it wouldn't have helped him. Let us not forget that McCain is running the GOP nomination. You don't win by pissing off the base. The base constituency is who was in that room.
Why is it so hard to understand that calling a woman, any woman a bit*ch is offensive. Now I 'm suppose to excuse McCain because he does not know how to tell an old woman you don't call a US senator a bi*ch? And I'm suppose to vote for this man as the leader of the US? If he can't explain to an old woman why it's unacceptable to call a woman, any woman a bit*h he has issues with leading.
Pearlene, only Bush and Cheney are permitted to berate people...REMEMBER...when the mike was open, they joked about a reporter being an A**hole...it was cute according to the Rushies. And then our Renowned VP dropping the F-Bomb on the floor of the Senate...why, because the other guy deserved it.
XOF NEWS.Where up is down, gray is blue and RIGHT is wrong...Special Report....
MCCAIN is officially over..thank God. XOF also reports that MCCAIN is a B*stard but we say it in a loving way.
Puleeeze!! As if you would vote for him anyway. You are primarily guilty of admonishing McCain because he did not react to this question that way you wanted him to. Therefore, based on that alone, you form the supposition that he somehow agrees with this womans assertion. Nothing could be further from the truth here. He told the audience that he respected Hillary Clinton. That is how he handled it. Just because he handled it differently than you would have liked to seen means nothing. He ain't trying to get your vote, he is trying to win the GOP base that was in that room. so you admonish him for not dressing down that woman and effectively shootng himself in the foot.
Yeah, he's trying to win all the Twenty-Percenters who would vote for him regardless of whether he admonished the idiot questioner or not. Same way that Bush/Cheney won half the country in spite of the 'major-league assh*le' thingy. The 'base' didn't desert the Moronic Duo for Gore over that swipe, did they?
So you have no point.
So what you're saying is had McCain responded with a request for civility he would have lost votes?
No, I'm saying that he would have taken the chance of showing those people that he could not be a formidable candidate against Hillary Clinton. Again, this was not some kind of pre-rehearsed event in which McCain practiced his response. I would say he was likely surprised at the woman's lack of tact. It was a spur of the moment response and he qualified his future remarks as well as distanced himself from the questioners remarks by indicating his respect for Mrs. Clinton. I just don't see how you would agree with the woman's assertion by saying that you respect the person that was just called a bitch. Do lyou think the lady who made that statement respects Hillary Clinton?
SAVE DEMOCRACY!!!
VOTE INDEPENDENT!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!
Another example of the roadblocks that the two party system creates.
I find it interesting that MMFA decided not to identify the sex of the "McCain supporter" who asked the question.
Anyone want to take a guess?
ps. I heard a rumor that it was a planted question. Oh wait... That was'nt that a student in Iowa? ;-)
You mean besides the fact that the transcript reads:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE
?
I guess that wasn't obvious enough for some people.
Hahaha.... I missed that part. thanks for pointing it out. (As others did in their posts.) My apologies to MMFA.
Not that I condone the use of the language, but I thought it interesting that it came from the woman in a public forum to describe another woman.
I wonder if there was any feigned outrage during the
Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala that raised $7.5 million for the newly minted Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material
"I Xeroxed my behind and I folded it up in an envelope and I sent it back with a big kiss mark on because we're Democrats — we're not afraid to laugh,"
July 09, 2004 Celebs Turn Out for Kerry-Edwards Fridayhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125141,00.html
"Whoopi Goldberg"
Let's try to somehow compare a private comedian's remarks to remarks by a U.S. Senator running for president's in response to a question, and lack of coverage of same in the media.
That wouldn't be changing the subject very much.
Dave,
You make a good point as you have throughout this thread.
My comparison does not equivocate directly to McCain's. I realize that. However Kerry and Edwards listened to Whoopi's comments and did not chastise her, (correct me if I am wrong.) So I only tried to point out to others who might be upset with McCain because he happens to be Republican, were in some cases, defending Whoopi back when that issue arose.
Having said that I agree with you regarding McCain. You have said it much better than me.
I'm well aware of that Goldberg story. And so were the right-wingers, who were all over it for days.
(It obviously hasn't been forgotten by them, has it?)
The story was hardly buried or ignored by the media. The right would make sure of that.
And I don't recall any right-wingers saying anything in defense of Goldberg at the time, like "well, Bush and Cheney swear too...".
Dave,
It looks like it is one of those days. Not to pre-empt HBL but I meant to write equivalent where I wrote equivocate.
I guess we're going round on this. Both sides unfortunately use language that they shouldn't. On the plus side, it seems that the discussions here have risen above a lot of name calling. I'm happy to see that. :-)
Dave, it was a fundraiser for the Dem ticket.
Justice and truth in the USA - FACT CHECK EDITION:
Yeah, MMFA is really "upset" when the word BITCH is used - (I only had a few minutes to search, but I'm sure I could find a lot of times the word BITCH was used with no problem at MMFA)
------ begin quotes -----
Coulter is a lying venomous bitch- MadlyBushBoozled / Saturday December 25, 2004 01:29:01 PM EST http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230015
re: Coulter's book tour diatribes continued: Kerry wantsOk...I'll jump. I'm a woman (a libertarian, btw) and I think Coulter is a mouthy, greedy bitch who cares more about attention and money than she does her own country.- dewey / Sunday October 10, 2004 03:08:29 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment http://mediamatters.org/items/200410090003
Not sure
Well, I was not being disruptive during her speech, except that I laughed intentionally hard at Coulter's attempted punchlines that failed miserably. Some guy a couple seats down yelled at her: "Go back to Germany you bitch!" Then all hell broke loose, conservatives around me began demanding that I be thrown out although I had done nothing wrong, and when the police showed up....well there is no point fighting guys with guns is there?
- blueblood / Friday April 21, 2006 11:34:22 AM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment http://mediamatters.org/items/200604200006
What a waste of flesh!
She knows what she said, she knows what it means, she knows how destructive her words are, she clearly doesn't give a damn. She deserves nothing but contempt. Anyone fragging this bitch would be wasting good metal. Hey Annie, why not take a good slug of that bleach you use on your hair? That would be one way to shut this tramp up for good.
- John the Elder / Thursday June 22, 2006 08:09:22 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment http://mediamatters.org/items/200606220013
------ end quotes -----
===============================================
I will point out that no one complained about the use of this term when applied to Ann Coulter.
This is so transparently hypocritical that it's really Hillary-ass!
Uh, those are examples of Ann Coulter getting her BS thrown right back in her face and deservedly so. Wanna take a guess on who drew 'first blood' in those examples, hotshot?
So you think that there are times when it's perfectly OK to call a woman a BITCH?
Is that really the point of this topic? The word BITCH is wrong - unless, of course, it's a conservative woman you hate?
Never said that. Try again.
HOWEVER, if people are going to come out swinging then they should expect to be challenged and even struck back. Not saying I AGREE with the use of expletives in that manner but it can be expected.
See, you guys on the Right think that you can trot out Coulter, Savage, Beck, etc. and let them spew their trash with impunity. Well, it doesn't work that way anymore. People on the Left are swinging back. Quit your whining over it.
Actually, the "stop whining" phrase is OUR copyright protected slogan - since we're the guys are constantly telling MMFA to STOP THE STUPIC WHINING!!!!
A WOMAN (that's right, it was, after all a WOMAN) calls Hillary a BITCH (and I'm going to use the word because I'm tired of seeing one term after another become something we cannot use because it not politically correct) and MMFA spends an entire week BITCHING about it.
MMFA needs to shut its pie-hole already.
You didn't address the 'meat' of my post... rather, you took the 'safe' way out by complaining about my use of the phrase 'stop whining'. How about addressing the POINT that was made?
You have confirmed once again that conservatives really do have poor debating skills as a lot.
as a lot of what?
;-)
Oh, for God's sake, look up the definition of the word 'lot'!
"STOP THE STUPIC WHINING!!!!"
Can I have your permission to put that on a T-shirt?
No, that's copyright protected too. You can put "Left/libs at MMFA are hypocrites" since it's public domain by now.
"MMFA needs to shut its pie-hole already."
Or else.... what? You're going to post another message?
Maybe TWO! (I've really got my dander up today.)
Media Matters, you've been warned.
I'm sure MM is giggling over JuTru's lame posts...
If Media Matters gets their dander up, too, then oh boy---it's every man and woman for themselves.
And please, RabbitLuvr: Stop the Stupic Whining(tm)
Who's Stupic? He sounds Polish ,sort of Slavic.
Vladimir Stupic?
I did not know that John the Elder and blueblood were running public campaigns for President of the United States.
Good luck, guys!
But now that you're in the media spotlight, watch the language.
It's not as tho some right-winger has to dig around in the 2004 archives to find a dirty word you once said.
And remember how nice Ann Coulter treats you, too. So be nice and respectful to her in the same way she is to you.
Someone mentioned this in an earlier post and I think it's important: Hillary Clinton is a very strong and outspoken woman.
People who cannot tolerate a woman who strives to achieve and who is able to take control and make things happen without a man's help are quick to apply the "b*tch" label to that woman. This is not a friendly term, this is not Paris Hilton greeting Nicole Ritche. Not at all. "B*tch" is a derogatory gender-biased insult meant to convey that the woman has overstepped her bounds. The people who cry "b*tch" are offended by qualities in women which they revere in men. To them, men and women are not equal, women are subordinate, women are not allowed to have strong personalities, women should never be in control, etc.
Worse, "b*tch" implies cattiness and triviality. A woman who complains could very well have a legitimate reason to do so, but call her a "b*tch" and suddenly her legitimate complaint is reduced to a pissy mood. A man defends himself against personal and professional attacks and there's no problem, but a woman defends herself and suddenly everyone is on her case, she's angry, "on the rag", PMS-ing, etc.
Let me tell you, it is NOT fun to have these kinds of limitations placed on you, or to be reduced in such a manner.
To those of you who think that "b*tch" is not highly offensive, the other women here have made their positions clear, and I have made mine clear. It IS offensive and should not be allowed. We cannot control speech, but we can insist that our political leaders be decent and diplomatic and respectful, not just after they realize that they're going to get nailed, but immediately because their decency is intrinsic.
if mccain would have been a little quicker with his thinker he should have said. 'i have a lot of respect for jon edwards... etc.'