Russert suggests irony in women identifying with "self-avowed feminist" who showed emotion
On the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Tim Russert, referring to a campaign event prior to the January 8 New Hampshire Democratic primary during which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (NY) voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, host Tim Russert asked New York Times columnist Gail Collins, "Is it ironic that this self-avowed feminist went to New Hampshire, showed some emotion, and that seemed to be a real help to her with women voters?"
From the January 19 edition of MSNBC's Tim Russert:
RUSSERT: All right, let's start with Hillary Clinton. Gail, have you been surprised by Hillary Clinton in any way, shape, or form during this campaign?
COLLINS: Oh, no, I don't think so. I was surprised that she did so badly and looked like she was so much on the ropes when she got into New Hampshire.
RUSSERT: After Iowa.
COLLINS: But she's just extraordinarily, you know, just takes-a-lickin'-and-keeps-on-tickin' kinda person.
RUSSERT: Is it ironic that this self-avowed feminist went to New Hampshire, showed some emotion, and that seemed to be a real help to her with women voters?
COLLINS: You know, it did. And we truly, you know, we've -- it's such a great story, you really want to hang on to it if you possibly can. But if you look at women voters, women voters are conservative in sort of a nonpolitical way. They -- when something comes up they immediately go back and say well, wait a minute, what about this, and what about Social Security, and -- I mean, they're very sort of, let's take care of all of our ducks. And she -- I think even if she was a man, she'd be, in the end, the one that women would gravitate to.
RUSSERT: Interesting.
With aplologies to Tom Hanks....
"There's no crying in Feminism!"
Ya think Lil' Russ learned this from Big Russ?
Feminists are supposed to be un-feeling robots or something like that? Last time I checked, a feminist was one who fought for women's rights.
When has Hillary Clinton ever referred to herself as a "feminist?"
Never has. That's the lie here. Just because she has a career of her own, that makes her a bra burner?
What misogyny. And I'm a guy and I can see it for what it is.
The very clever Tim obviously still has that mindset. I guess the same ghost writer who told him who his garbageman father was also warned him about them uppity women.
Rightwing pundits, and Russert qualifies, are invested in the BLACK or WHITE, "With us or against us" polarized simplicity that divides into neat categories. GOOD and EVIL. Right and Wrong. Left and Right.
Human Beings are not just one thing. The most courageous and effective military man can also be a loving father, a sensitive musician, perhaps an artist. The most peaceful of men can lead movements against great power, force, and violence and be victorious. Martin Luther King is an example, Ghandi another, Mandella yet another.
To the Rightwing, a "feminist" is a cartoon character of rightwing invention, "dykes on bikes", bitter humorless unattractive females who hate men. This is the NARRATIVE that has led the likes of Limbaugh to label them "Femi-NAZIS", and to posit that feminism "is the way for ugly women to have easier access to mainstream society", and their GOAL is to have as many abortions as possible.
These cartoon-cutout stereotypes are what lead the likes of Russert to see an "irony" or "contradiction" that a "feminist" might show emotion.
There is no contradiction, these are human beings, and human beings are complicated, and cannot be expected to behave according to grossly incorrect and improper rightwing definitions.
To suggest there IS any "irony" is to accept the rightwing narrative, and to believe the stereotype as a PREMISE. Otherwise, no person with a brainwave would think to pose such a stupid question.
Russert again proves a reliable rightwing tool.
TEX,
So. Well. Said!
I agree Tex, only I'd cut him a little slack. They have so much air time to fill, and stupid things will inevitably emerge. When horse race is ALL you cover, that is. They could really fill their time with investigating the candidates' policy positions and how these policies are fleshed out (or not) and how the policies would work.
There is no excuse for the cable news bureaus and broadcast news in not covering the news. They need to have more bureaus around the world, with reporters in the field covering what is happening and what other countries are doing and saying, not just the tiny snippets that filter thru from time to time.
Is it ironic that this self-avowed feminist went to New Hampshire, showed some emotion, and that seemed to be a real help to her with women voters?
This sounds like a crafty worded Faux News push poll question. He should have followed it with "I'm not saying it's ironic, just asking if it is." He must have gone to the same school as Glenn Beck. Sounds alot like "I'm just saying..."?
Is it ironic
No.
Next.
Meanwhile CNN is engaging in it's favorite activity tonight, slathering praise all over John McCain, War Hero, Maverick and Patriot.
Every election night its' the same thing- the timeless struggle among the "best political experts in the nation" to see who can be more of a total schill for McCain than the others. Downright sickening.
I've written to CNN and asked them to drape a big McCain For President 2008 banner across the set and get it over with.
Ever noticed that when anybody else wins an election, it's the "voters" who have spoken, but when Hillary wins, it's her "organization" that did it?
All night on CNN and MSNBC, that's been the script. Obama success = voters, Hillary success = the Clinton machine.
Un-friggin-believable!
And I'm not even that much of a Hillary fan!
Exactly right.
If Blitzer, Crowley, Bennett, Brazile etc. etc. want to build little shrines to McCain and Obama in their closets at home, more power to them. But when they come on television, they should leave their hero-worship behind and just report the news. Apparently that's way too much to ask.
Today, we learn that Hillary's 51% in Nevada wasn't really a win, while McCain's 33% in South Carolina was a tremendous victory which establishes him as the obvious front-runner. What-EVER.
Oh and don't forget- whenever Hillary wins, we are reminded that she was ahead in the polls by a much larger margin last summer.
What that has to do with anything, only God and CNN know for sure.
q: what's the difference between a man with a remote and a woman with a remote?
a: a man doesn't have to stop flipping through the channels if a crying woman is on one of them.
What's the difference between a paleocon with a remote and a liberal with a remote?
The liberal doesn't have to stop everytime Pat Buchanan is on the TeeVee.
Ridiculous Russert regurgitates redundant and recycled retreads that really reek. I revile Russert who requires me to retch regarding his retrograde rhetoric. Really, Russert is rather rank.
There once was a potato named Russert
Who walks tall like a Buford Pusser
But the point of it is
He knows it's a biz
To back Hillary he knows is a buster
And on Washington Journal this morning-
"Rudy Giuliani is in Florida, tanned rested and ready, but he hasnt really competed anywhere, if he loses, he says he wasnt really competing, just like the Clintons, he says it doesn't count unless he wins."
I'm convinced that every member of the media is encouraged to toss out a gratuitous slap at the Clintons at any opportunity that presents itself, and if the opportunity doesnt present itself often enough, to just make something up. When has a Clinton ever said "that election didn't count, I wasn't really competing?" Bill Clinton in Iowa in 1992, when it was TRUE?
The nonstop Anti-Clinton avalanche from the media is just too much.
"that election didn't count, ..."
That part sounds more like W after he loses an election and then has the "Supreme Court" hand it over to him anyway.
"I want the "blank" -- oil company, baseball team, election -- and I want it now, Daddy!"
In the "Who We Are" page your organization claimed it is a "....progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." How can you claim to do that if you are biased?
I'm not saying that journalists or other media reps don't have a right to their opinion. The only problem I have is when media people report opinions as news! Sorry, but bias has no place in objective reporting! Biased news is in itself "misinformation!"
On that note, I took it upon myself to do a little research on FEC's website, and found that Mr. Brock made numerous contributions to Democratic candidates:
CHERYL JACQUES FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
08/17/2001 250.00 21990442620
(*Democratic Congressional candidate for MA)
SESTAK FOR CONGRESS
10/18/2006 500.00 26930520106
(Congressman for 7th dist. of PA)
FRIENDS OF HILLARY
08/18/2006 1000.00 26020630720
DONNA EDWARDS FOR CONGRESS
06/06/2006 250.00 26950258538
(*Democratic candidate for Maryland's 4th Congressional district)
CLARK FOR PRESIDENT INC.
12/18/2003 250.00 24980425442
(Democratic Presidential candidate during the 2004 election season)
Joseph E. Driscoll For Congress
06/14/2004 500.00 24961827809
(*Democratic candidate for 15th Congressional district in PA)
TAMMY BALDWIN FOR CONGRESS
04/27/2000 200.00 20990164208
(Congresswoman for 2nd Dist. in Wisconsin)
GORE 2000 INC
07/21/1999 250.00 99990070153
I never understood why some people contribute to Congressional or Senate campaigns for seats that are not located in districts in which they reside, unless they are trying to somehow aid or influence said contest.
Media organizations have the obligation to report the news in an un-biased fashon, not to favor one side or candidate as opposed to another. For example, Clear Channel Communications contributed to Congressman Jim Walsh's campaign (he is from the Syracuse area) and when I confronted a higher up at their local affiliate (WIXT) he refused to comment on his company's clear bias in favor of Mr. Walsh.
The 2008 Presidential election season has proven to be quite nasty, and it will get more so as time goes on. There's alot at stake. The more that so-called "objective" media organizations act like yours, the more likely it will be that whoever you oppose will win. I am confident that the American people can see through this bias and decide for themselves who to vote for, whether it be for Mrs. Clinton, Senator Obama or whoever.All of these great insults and attacks on Bush, but almost no one is talking about what Russert said, and if he was right or not.
There was exactly one post that made any mention of Bush before yours. There were several that directly addressed what Russert said.
He ws in fact correct
Exactly what was Russert correct about? That there was irony? No, it wasn't ironic. His bizarre implication that somehow feminists can't show emotion? That was wrong, too.
You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with facts.
She talks about the boys ganging up on her in her speech to an all womans college, and tells all how tough she is, but when necessary to get the female vote, she brings out the tears
It takes inner strength, it takes courage to bare oneself like that. I know real humanity is frightening to behold for one such as yourself. I know you've been conditioned by the likes of Ayn Rand, Goldwater Reagan et al to be contemptuous of suffering, to abhor human emotion as weakness, to believe that one's lack of material gain is a moral failing, but you've been led astray.
Your reactionary screed over Hillary's shining moment, and it was merely a moment, reveals more about your rotten core than it says about Clinton's strength.
POV,
I have no idea whether or not Clinton was genuine or not in her display of emotion before the New Hampshire primary. But even if she was falsely emoting in order to appeal to voters, how is that in any way "ironic"? Aren't politicians--male and female--known for kissing babies, talking tough, and using all sorts of emotional ploys to gain the favor of potential voters?
If Clinton was pretending to feel something that she wasn't feeling, then that's disingenuous and manipulative at worst. But she would also be in very good company with most male politicians. In no way, however, would this be "ironic."
Not only that, but we are supposed to believe, according to some posters, that Hillary can just "bring out the tears" whenever she wants to. Sounds like some people on this thread think that they've been manipulated by women in the past, are bitter about it, and are taking it out on Hillary.
I'd like to see someone prove that Hillary's "tears" (which did not in fact 'come out' at all) actually WERE a factor in her win- a big factor, a little factor, any kind of factor at all. Of course they can't - it's just part of the media narrative, "why we were so wrong in NH."
America no longer has ears for Russert and Matthews ....
Thank God for the remote...as soon as they appear, I make them disappear! The same goes for Morning Blow, I mean Joe, The O'Really factor, Low Dobbs, and latley Anderson 360, who in my opinion can do a 180. They remain to appear neutral while guest take jabs doing the Good Cop/Bad Cop Routine.
Their sponser's are wasting money.
I wonder how long it took Russert to come up with that question? Think he got a headache with all the strain?
I think the irony kicks in when the media spends a week clutching their pearls over Sen Clinton choking up, and ends up with egg on their face in New Hampshire.
The incident revealed a great deal more about the pundits than the candidate. Ironic, eh?