NBC's Mitchell apologizes for "redneck" comments
On the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Andrea Mitchell apologized for comments she made on June 5 regarding Sen. Barack Obama's appearance that day in Bristol, Virginia. As Media Matters for America and the Huffington Post noted, on June 5, Mitchell described the area as "real redneck, sort of, bordering on Appalachia country."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: And now, a point of personal privilege. I owe an apology to the good people of Bristol, Virginia, for something stupid that I said last week. I was trying to explain, based on reporting from Democratic strategists, why Barack Obama was campaigning in southwest Virginia, but without attribution or explanation, I used a term strategists often use to demean an entire community. No excuses, I'm really sorry. As they say, when I make a mistake, it's a beaut.
As they say, when I make a mistake, it's a beaut.
Like marrying Alan Greenspan????
Funny.
But the real question for her is: why in the world did she say it in the first place?
It's not just a mistake-- it's a tendency, an impulse. That you can't apologize for...
You're probably an elitist if...
Tommy, I do not even think Andrea is a liberal.
Afterall she was buddy buddy with Imus for many years.
Sue,
Imus is buddy buddy with Liberals & Conservatives.
There is none. She's not. These people just blow it out of their butt.
New script: higher gas prices are being caused by "liberal politicians." It's gaining traction.
Sue, I didn't say she was a liberal elitist, she is a liberal who happen to make one elitist comment, for which she has rightly apologized.
Tommy, Andrea Mitchell is no more a liberal than Laura Ingraham is.
Tommy,
How can you tell if Mitchel is a liberal or not? I hope it isn't mind-reading again.
That is often an excuse I have seen for mere projection of a personal bias. Personally I believe the point is moot, but I would not label her one way or the other unless I had a reason to do so and could mention some examples.
Beware Sue, Some of our wonderful posters like Julia and Ellie/Sue/bottleblonde may now go after you because you liked that she apologized.
Sue then became Ellie and Notthatgeorge. She has reappeared as Bottleblonde and attacked Sueeld over the weekend claiming she was BobtheP because Sueeld agreed with the thread about MSNBC on Friday. Basically bottleblonde/ellie/sue/notthatgeorge do not like any one being crtitical of MSNBC , otherwise they feel that means you support FOX. Nice logic .
Sue then became Ellie and Notthatgeorge. She has reappeared as Bottleblonde and attacked Sueeld over the weekend claiming she was BobtheP because Sueeld agreed with the thread about MSNBC on Friday. Jlyons
Of course that's a a gross distortion of what happened. Sueeld told JuliaJayne that she had stopped attacking Olbermann months ago. I provided her own words to show that less than 2 months ago she was attacking saying that Olbermann was disgusting. I used her own words to dispute what she said to JuliaJayne. I didn't claim she was Bobthep because she agreed with any thread. I said that she's Bobthep because others who have spent much more time here than I have had already shown that to be true. Sueeld apparently has stopped attacking Olbermann for the last few weeks, only to have that role taken over by Bobthep.
Sueeld was trying to claim that she should not be criticized by JuliaJayne because she no longer attacks Olbermann. Sueeld is going to have to live down that reputation, and I was defending JuliaJayne. There's a big difference between making an out of the blue attack on someone else, like Jlyons did on this thread, and me defending JuliaJayne from an unfair attack by Sueeld.
That is not what happened Notthatgeorge/Sue/ellie/NomoBush
Instead on focusing on the MSNBC topic, you went off topic and made it appear that Sueeld was defending FOX, when the topic had nothing to do with FOX.
You have been caught with your sockpuppet names, and I for one will no longer take your vile attacks sitting down.
What I typed was exactly what happened. Sueeld had it pointed out that she doesn't have the standing here because she has had an obsession with Olbermann. Sueeld tried to attack that argument by saying that she has not attacked Olbermann in months. I used Sueeld's own posts to disprove that attack and show that she was not being honest. It was not a smear on my part.
That's what happened. You're out of your mind if you think that anyone is fooled by your deceitful twisting of reality.
I did not take it off topic. I defending JuliaJayne from an unfair and untrue attack that Sueeld made.
It is you who is making the vile personal attacks.
Sueeld was trying to claim that she should not be criticized by JuliaJayne because she no longer attacks Olbermann
Bottleblonde what do I have to do with this thread? Have we met before? Did I cut you off in a parking lot? I think I have a stalker.
;)
Bottleblonde and attacked Sueeld over the weekend claiming she was BobtheP because Sueeld agreed with the thread about MSNBC on Friday.
Jlyon brought you up! Did you really miss that? How is it possible that you think it's okay to blame me for bringing up your name when I didn't bring up your name?
ME stop the games?
Who's the one who feigned ignorance of why I was bringing her name into the discussion when it was clear that it was because of what YOU said that HER screen name got brought up?
Who's playing the games? You and Sueeld.
Why don't you understand that anyone reading these posts can see that? Answer me that. Your personal attacks make you look bad, not me.
Also Bottlebonde on that thread you posted statements by me from March and April , and some from BobtheP who I am not.
Last I looked its now June, hence I have not been critical of KO, to me he has been the bright start at MSNBC the past few months.
You said you had not talked bad about Olbermann in months. You talked bad about him less than 2 months ago. You've talked bad about him in the last few months.
You said you hadn't. I provided proof from your own comments that you had. I also provided evidence that you and Bobthep, who is either your sockpuppet or your clone, had both done it. You somehow think that you could claim that you didn't deserve JuliaJayne's criticism because you hadn't attacked Olbermann in month. Not only was that not true, but it is also undeniably true that you have such a reputation that she did not deserve any criticism from you for calling you on your behavior. I defended her, and you then sicced your dogs on me.
Thats the Ellie717 we remember. Hateful and vile.
No, I was not hateful and vile, so if this other poster was posting stuff like I am, she was not hateful and vile either I guess.
You, on the other hand, are undeniably hateful.
I used Sueeld's own posts to debunk what she was claiming. That's not hateful or vile. That's what Media Matters does every day, and it's not hateful and vile when they do it either. When Bill O'Reilly claims that Media Matters is a smear site and he lies about what they did, Media Matters then covers that additional lie by him and they debunk him. It's not hateful and vile when they do that.
Proving something is not hateful and vile.
Sue then became Ellie and Notthatgeorge. She has reappeared as Bottleblonde and attacked Sueeld over the weekend claiming she was BobtheP because Sueeld agreed with the thread about MSNBC on Friday. Basically bottleblonde/ellie/sue/notthatgeorge do not like any one being crtitical of MSNBC , otherwise they feel that means you support FOX. Nice logic .
It's a long story D.
I may write a book about that other evil Sue someday ;-)
I get confused to.
All I know is that some on here think I am BobtheP.
Its getting quite funny to keep track of all the personal fights.
This is a deceitful poster attempting to smear me for no good reason because I copied the exact words another screen name used.
Bobthep and Sueeld and Jlyons are all in league together and when it suits them, Tommy and Jeter team up with them.
I'd like to make sure that everyone notices on this thread the personal attack on "me" comes without cause and only serves to distract from the real point of this thread.
I'd like to make sure that everyone notices on this thread the personal attack on "me" comes without cause and only serves to distract from the real point of this thread.
The real point of the thread is another MSNBC personality was insensitive. Of course in your sick mind Sue that means that we support FOX. You are an MSNBC apologist.
I'd like to make sure that everyone notices on this thread the personal attack on "me" comes without cause and only serves to distract from the real point of this thread.
The real point of the thread is another MSNBC personality was insensitive. Of course in your sick mind Sue that means that we support FOX. You are an MSNBC apologist.
The real point of this posting by Media Matters has nothing to do with me, but you felt the need to attack me. The real point of this thread is that an MSNBC personality apologized for her insensitive remark. That means that she recognized her error. Compare that to Fox News, who claims to be fair and balanced.
The fact that you claim that "we support Fox" is strange. Now you can speak for these other people who you say are not your sockpuppets? There is no denying that Sueeld tried to claim that MSNBC was the most offensive cable news channel on TV, for which she was called out by at least 3 different people. It was sheer lunacy to ignore Fox News and highlight MSNBC. That's what you and Sueeld get called out for.
Care to comment Nomobush/Ellie/Sue/notthatgeorde on how Chris Matthews is mentioned by Sueeld? Or does that not matter. Oh thats right your just here to disrupt the board.
Care to comment Nomobush/Ellie/Sue/notthatgeorde on how Chris Matthews is mentioned by Sueeld? Or does that not matter. Oh thats right your just here to disrupt the board.
It would be you who disrupted the board with your off-topic attack on me. That was your doing.
Don't you know that everyone can see what you're doing, and that you're not getting away with anything? I didn't go off-topic. You did with your personal attack on me.
What does Matthews have to do with Andrea Mitchell, by the way? They are too different people who are not responsible for what each other says.
Does it feel good to misrepresent what I said, take the comments I made out of context and distort reality? I have commented on this issue on this thread and others.
The method of someone losing an argument is your method here.
Bobthep and Sueeld and Jlyons are all in league together and when it suits them, Tommy and Jeter team up with them
I have been asking JLyons to stop with this, so please do not make me apart of your infighting.
Tommy I am glad you also picked out quickly that bottleblonde was Sue. Lets go back in Memorylane since Sue/Ellie wants to do that to everyone else. this was when she was Nomobush, of course before being banned. The writing styles are so similar.
It's not true, and you know it.
Tommy said that the jury was still out, and they jury's not still out. He said that some studies say one thing, and some studies say another, and that's not true either, because there's not a single study that says that manmade global warming isn't happening.
I challenged his statement, just like 7 other people did.
Then Tommy misstated what a study about the sun and global warming had to say, and me and about 5 other people disputed that too.
Slothrop and Crimson2 and Jawill and Jimmy Craghorn and Dan Grady and Pete592 and What happened to Gannon and Greek Furnace and MHK and Draftedin68 and NativeOfSF all echoed what I said. All of them had similar arguments to what I had and pointed out the paucity of Tommy's arguments. Here are some of their comments in regard to his initial statement.
"If the jury is still out, they must be the dumbest 12 people on earth."
"The solanki study does not mean what you think it does. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
"The jury is not still out."
"Its the jury with Pauly Shore as the foreman. The only reason they're still out is because of his zany antics."
"Face it pal, the only jury that’s out is on your conscience!"
"Yet another canard, "the jury is still out."
"I don't think the jury is still out, but I think there are people that would like us to believe this."
"If I had a hammer...And, I was sure it would help, I'd beat myself in the forehead to stop the pain from listening to toadies like Hume."
I just had a really scary thought-- what if JLyons, Sueeld,Bobthep, sue , ellie,bottleblond, nothatgeorge and NoMOBush were all the same totally batsh*t person?
Col, what if we are all the same poster? That would be even more scarier.
Stop it Doris, you're freaking me out :-O
You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!
It's pretty clear who some of the sockpuppets are on this site.
It's clear who attacked JuliaJayne for no good reason when Julia made a great point about the hypocrisy of Sueeld. I defended Julia from that criticism and the ceiling caved in on me.
Because you are the queen sockpuppet.
Sueeld makes a good point about how horrible MSNBC is and you go on attack becuause she did not mention FOX, which is not even mentioned in the thread.
You are kidding no one Sue.
I agree with you. I have always tried to be respectful to others, I just wish others would not accuse me of being BobtheP. Its insulting and they come across as two faced when they are accused of being sockpuppets.
I am critical of MSNBC and somehow that means I support FOX. The logic is mindboggling.
And hopefully you will stop your vicious and baseless attacks on Sueeld.
I have yet to make a single baseless attack on Sueeld. What I did was copy her own words.
She said that she had not attacked Keith Olbermann in months and therefore JuliaJayne shouldn't be criticizing her for her former behavior. I did a simple Google search and found several examples, one less than 2 months ago, where Sueeld attacked him, calling him disgusting and other derogatory things.
Quoting someone's own posts is not a baseless attack. It's what Media Matters does every day. They don't make baseless attacks, and neither did I.
You got nothin'. And everyone sees it. Everyone.
SUE:
I'm Liberal, and whenever I hear this woman speak, she angers me with her framing, her bias, and her use of Rightwing narratives. If she's so damn LIBERAL, why doesn't she make me HAPPY when she speaks?
I'm having trouble finding the National Journal's ranking of Mitchell.
What ranking did you use to arrive at your lableling?
Her slant on reporting from the times I have seen her or read her reports. I suppose each person has his or her opinion about her ideology, depending on their point of view, that is fine. So some may view her as a conservative, their right.
MMFA obviously thinks she is a rightwinger, because they are the only ones who make these types of insulting comments.
That is not true Tommy.
For me it was a pattern of insensitve remarks at MSNBC the past few years. She continued it. Good for MMFA for telling us about this. I think all anchors at MSNBC need to go ahead and attend a sensitive training class. They say some of the most outrageous things.
As shown here, MMFA considers her to be neither.
MMFA obviously thinks she is a rightwinger, because they are the only ones who make these types of insulting comments.
Not true, Tommy. I just did a Google search, and found negative comments about Andrea Mitchell on Democratic Underground and Ariana Huffington's web site.
And Wikipedia lists this site as one of its sources on Andrea Mitchell: http://polnews.50webs.org/andreamitchell.htm
The overwhelming weight of evidence is that Andrea Mitchell is a conservative. Plus she's married to Alan Greenspan. Do you REALLY think that Alan GREENSPAN would marry a liberal?
Here's an article from HuffingtonPost called "Andrea Mitchell's Prime Time Lies". which do not sound like a liberal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/andrea-mitchells-prime-t_b_10973.html
The overwhelming weight of evidence is that Andrea Mitchell is a conservative. Plus she's married to Alan Greenspan. Do you REALLY think that Alan GREENSPAN would marry a liberal?
Overwhelming evidence? Where? I think Mitchell is one of those few in the media that really can't be pigeonholed as a Lib or a Con.
And as for her marriage being an indicator....well how about Matalin & Carville? Or me & my Democratic/Liberal wife?
And as for her marriage being an indicator....well how about Matalin & Carville? Or me & my Democratic/Liberal wife?
There are exceptions to every rule. I see no liberal tendencies in anything Andrea Mithell has done.
MITCHELL: I was trying to explain, based on reporting from Democratic strategists, why Barack Obama was campaigning in southwest Virginia, but without attribution or explanation, I used a term strategists often use to demean an entire community.
When have Democratic strategists used this the term "redneck"?
EXACTLY!!! How can people not see that, sheesh.
When, just name me a date, and then post the stinking link!
Is this an "apology" ? .. NO ..
This is a tarring of Democratic Strategists to whom she "neglected to attribute" the comment.
This isn't a mea culpa, this is a smear of Democrats. "THEY said this", she says, "and I just forgot to tell you it was THEY not ME who said this" she says.
Hardly an apology at all for saying these people were rednecks. This is just an appology for missing an attribution, really. The Democrats were the people who really have no respect for the people there, right ?
Good cya Mitchell. Your republican friends and bosses will be proud.
You are a turncoat dried up old prune. Imus use to like you. You are now on the "NO HEAR" List.
Go home to Greenspan and try it with the lights on. Maybe you will see how you got to the top. Or on the top. Viagra does work.