The aria of Tweety

Political correctness? The "big, boorish baboon sighs."

Bob Somerby reviewed Mark Leibovich's, "The Aria of Chris Matthews," a cover story profile of Tweety in Sunday's New York Magazine. As usual, Somerby hits the highlights and cuts through the fluff to unearth the gems: Like this one:

Consider Hillary Clinton, for instance. According to Leibovich, Matthews “notes that he and the former first lady like to ‘kid around’ when they see each other.” If recollection serves, this was Matthews’ interpretation in January when he interrupted a Clinton event to ask a loud, insistent question. In fact, Clinton’s distaste for Matthews seemed clear that day. But so what! When Clinton told Matthews he seemed “obsessed,” he just thought she was kidding around!

Late in the piece, Leibovich captures more of this cluelessness. To his credit, Leibovich makes Matthews and his wife discuss an unpleasant fact—Matthews has often behaved quite boorishly toward women on his cable show. The conversation produces this end:

LEIBOVICH: He bemoaned political correctness. “We’ll, we’re just going to have to survive this era,” Matthews said, sighing.

Poor Chris! Like other Bunker types, he seems to think that he’s caught in an anomalous era—an era driven by all that “political correctness.” Soon, we’ll return to the older ways, this big, boorish baboon sighs.

At any rate, Leibovich makes Matthews look foolish throughout—though it’s never entirely clear in such profiles how much of what’s published is fair. (In our experience, Matthews can also be completely personable and appropriate, as is true of most people.) But Leibovich also omits a great deal—including the most disturbing aspects of Matthews’ work in the past dozen years. On Monday, we’ll consider what isn’t found in this profile—the omissions which make this a bit of a surface treatment. Today, though, let’s consider four things which can be found in this piece. . .

Take a peek at Somerby's analysis. The Daily Howler never disappoints.

Obama on Hardball?

Found this promo at the Orange Sippy Cup.

For all the bluster about Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, and Richard Mellon Scaife, I wonder how the Boy Blogz will reconcile Obama's appearance on Tweety's horribly misogynistic show.

Oh, it's Clinton-bashing programming so no big deal.

Obama Rules exempt Barry.

IOKIYAO.

UPDATE: Hardball transcript

Don Imus strikes again

Channeling Chris Matthews:

On the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton won her campaign for a U.S. Senate seat due to "a sympathy vote," adding, "She came here, everybody felt sorry for her 'cause her fat ..." At that point, guest and Fox News host Alan Colmes interjected, asking, "[W]hy did she get re-elected?" Imus continued: "'Cause her fat, stupid husband was getting BJs from the poor little intern there in the Oval Office."

What? No refrain of the I-Man's infamous Hillary-bashing, The Lady is a Tramp? People will say Imus has lost his touch. Or he's out of touch. Or touched in the head. How about all of the above.

Perhaps Serious People--NBC's Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Scheiffer, and Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford--should stop validating a rotting cadaver's career of fouling up the air waves with hate-filled invectives and fatuous gossip. Oh, I suppose they feel sympathy for Imus' condition. Must be terrible for Don to be continually mistaken for a litter box.

RELATED LINKS:
The pillory of Hillary
The Imus media disconnect on sexism

Hillary Clinton never said Obama was a Muslim

A moo-cow edition for all you night owls


I've wanted to previously address this matter but the issue keeps resurrecting like a nocturnal vampire baring its fangs with new bites to add.

Did Sen. Hillary Clinton hedge about whether Barack Obama is a Muslim? No, she didn't. But our notoriously-biased mainstream punditheads continue to raise the issue as if she did. The venerable Media Matters of America provided the heavy-lifting by checking the facts. So follow along from the latest outbreak of misleading smears to the initial hit job [emphasis added in bold]:

Matthews again accused Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion

During the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that the question -- "Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" -- is part of a "tough trio of attacks" Sen. Hillary Clinton is using against Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race. As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has repeatedly mischaracterized Clinton's response during a CBS 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim." Contrary to Matthews' March 5 claim, her first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not." [3/6/08]

Wash. Post's Meyerson asserted Clinton "hemm[ed] and haw[ed]" over Obama's religion
In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "[P]arty leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian." In fact, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Clinton whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, and contrary to Meyerson's characterization, during the interview, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Meyerson did not note that Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not. "Nor did his column mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Meyerson has previously, and falsely, accused Clinton of "play[ing] the race card." As Media Matters for America documented, in a February blog post on the American Prospect website Meyerson described a phone call that a friend of his in Los Angeles received from what Meyerson described as "a high-decibel gentleman with a very exaggerated, old style -- Amos 'n Andy, in fact -- black pattern of speech, singing the praises of Barack Obama." Without any evidence to support his accusation or any indication that he had attempted to contact the Clinton campaign -- which subsequently "called the allegation "outrageous and baseless" and "completely false" -- Meyerson pronounced the phone call "a Clinton ploy against Obama."

Although the original Meyerson post was taken down, Meyerson posted a second item on the phone call, headlined "The Race Card in L.A., Part 2." Meyerson wrote:

My post occasioned some indignation when I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself, and I have no reason to think the campaign knew about it.

In asserting he had "surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported" Clinton, Meyerson completely misrepresented his accusation in the previous post, in which he blamed Clinton herself in the headline and referred to the call as a "Clinton ploy" and a "Clinton Dirty Trick." [3/6/08]

Fineman called Clinton's comments on Obama's religion "positively Nixonian"

During MSNBC's coverage of the Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4, Hardball host Chris Matthews stated that when asked on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, "Hillary Clinton took the longest time to answer Steve Kroft's question the other night. I don't know whether to read too much into it, but everybody has, that she played a bit of a game here." Newsweek editor Howard Fineman later said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." He added, "Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it." Fineman also said, "Hillary was brilliantly Machiavellian in sounding indignant while at the same time raising doubts about Obama."

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

During the March 3 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted that Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, he played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped so it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of so many ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt. [3/5/08]

Vieira falsely suggested Clinton didn't say Obama is not a Muslim

During an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on the March 5 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton: "On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, 'I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know.' Why not just say simply, 'No'?"

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to CBS correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, when Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim?" Clinton said: "No. No. Why would I?" Further, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Responding to Vieira's question on Today, Clinton said: "Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed." [3/5/08]

On Hardball and in Politico, Roger Simon misrepresented Clinton's comments on Obama's religion

On the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon falsely suggested that "the last thing [Sen. Hillary Clinton] said" on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes when asked whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim was: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." But that was not the "last thing" she said on the question. Clinton went on to say, "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets ... smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." Additionally, during the same Hardball discussion, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson claimed that Clinton "doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's [Obama] not a Muslim." In fact, Clinton's initial response to CBS News correspondent Steve Kroft's first question on 60 Minutes -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. ... [T]here is no basis for that" [emphasis added].

The next day, in his March 4 Politico column, headlined "Clinton plays victim and victimizer," Simon highlighted the phrase, "as far as I know," from Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and asked: "Doesn't that just continue a smear?" [3/4/08]

Matthews truncated Clinton's comments, ignored others to repeatedly suggest she gave up "chance to dismiss" Obama rumors

During the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Sen. Barack Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, Matthews played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped such that it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt.

While discussing Clinton's comments with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Norah O'Donnell, Matthews aired a clip of the 60 Minutes interview in which Clinton responded to three questions about whether she believed Obama was a Muslim. In response to Kroft's first question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- Clinton replied: "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Matthews ignored the fact that Clinton said, "Of course not," instead choosing to highlight an answer from Clinton that was truncated in the clip he played. In Kroft's third question, he again asked: "You don't believe that he's a Muslim -- or implying, right?" Clinton's full answer was: "No. No. Why would I? There's no -- [n]o, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. ... Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." However, on Hardball, the clip ended after Clinton said "as far as I know," which Matthews then used to suggest that Clinton was leaving Obama's faith in doubt. [3/4/08]

Drudge headline distorted Clinton comments to suggest she said "Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... "

On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know'...," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" [emphasis added].

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." [3/3/08]

Thank goodness, we have A-List bloggers disputing the nonsense spread by the Hillary-hating mainstream press, right? Wrong. Not when moo-cows like Josh Marshall rely on GOP operative Matt Drudge for his sourcing. As Bob Somerby explained on Feb. 26, 2008, a response to the accusation that the Clinton camp circulated a photo of Obama in Muslim garb:

WE’RE ALL MATT DRUDGE NOW: We began planning this site in late 1997, for reasons we can no longer clearly recall. At the time, the noxious and inane Matt Drudge was king of the political web—an entity which barely existed.

Ten years later, a vast “liberal web” has come into being. But, by now, we’re all Matt Drudge, as Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum made quite clear in yesterday’s posts. Drudge says it—and our “intellectual leaders” repeat it. Life thus becomes very easy.

But then, as Grover Norquist once said: “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are very unpleasant. But when they've been ‘fixed,’ then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful.”

The issue, of course, involves Drudge’s pronouncement about that photograph of Obama [in Muslim garb]. Mooing contentedly, Drum observed that Drudge’s post was “ambiguous—who distributed the photo—who did it go to?” Indeed, Drum’s caveat put matters mildly; as any advanced fifth grader could see, Drudge didn’t say that “Clinton staffers” had sent the photo in question to him; he simply said that unnamed Clinton staffers had “circulated” the photo (where, he didn’t say), and he quoted an accompanying e-mail message—without saying who the e-mail had gone to. Do you mind if we draw two simple conclusions—conclusions so simple a child could reach them? First: In all likelihood, no Clinton staffer sent the photo to Drudge, or the brilliant fellow would have said that they had. Second: For all anyone knows, some Clinton staffer sent the photo to a friend in Obama’s campaign, and the photo and e-mail proceeded from there. Is that what happened? We have no idea. But then, no one but Drudge has the slightest idea what facts (if any) lay behind his report—which didn’t keep a pair of moo-cows from mooing the Drudge story forward.

It would be hard to find words low enough to capture the work of these two cheerful bovines. Even as of this morning, Drum still hadn’t updated his post to include Howard Wolfson’s conference call, in which (quoting Greg Sargent at TPM ), Wolfson “strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama.” Having mooed his affirmation of Drudge, Moo-cow Kevin withdrew from the scene, failing to comment on Wolfson’s statement. And if anything, Moo-cow Marshall played things even dumber—as he often does in these latter days. As he so often does now, Marshall rushed into print with a premature judgment (the Clinton camp surely did it!), then back-pedaled in a rambling, barely-coherent “update” (same link)—a non-clarification clarification of a type he has come to master. Incredibly, Marshall eventually linked to Sargent’s story—while pretending that Wolfson’s statement didn’t go beyond what had already been said. Not being stable-boys ourselves, we won’t bother to scoop Josh’s piles; you can limn his posts for yourself. But go ahead: Read his original post, then his update, then read his link to Sargent’s report. There’s nothing new here, the moo-cow said, as he linked to a report which opened like this:

“On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.”

If you didn’t click on Josh’s link, you wouldn’t know how absurd his characterization was. But certain types have long played this game. The assumption: You rubes won’t bother to click on that link! Therefore, you won’t see that what has been said is pure, Grade A, moo-cow nonsense.

It would be hard to find words sad enough to capture these posts by these two cheerful cows. In 2002 and 2003, these “very serious” fellows were giving assent to an oncoming war with Iraq. (Each of the pipe-puffers flipped, or semi-flipped, in early March 2003.) But as of today, they’re even more content. Today, they just wait for Drudge to declaim. Then, they type this: What Drudge said!

Readers, are you happy? We’re all Matt Drudge now! Drudge says it—and we agree to believe it! Meanwhile, Keith goes on the air to complain about what those *ss-holes at SNL said. We’re all cheerful moo-cows now, given this level of leadership.

And what did moo-cow Josh Marshall have to say about Hillary's denial on 60 Minutes that Obama was a Muslim? He insinuated that "there is some iffy hedging" and bellowed, "For me it's on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge. Why the 'as far as I know' line? On the other hand, at other points, she seems pretty unequivocal. But mainly I'm curious to hear what you think."

Well, I've thought about it, researched it, and so has Media Matters: It's ridiculous to conclude that Clinton was "iffy" about her denial that Obama is a Muslim.

I purposely left in the redundancy of Hillary's quotes supplied by Media Matters so others reading the snips won't suddenly feel the urge to morph into "cheerful bovines" happy to repeat the nonsense of Josh, Matt Drudge, Tweety, and the other Village Idiots.

UPDATE: Add another via Media Matters:

NY Times' Herbert misrepresented Clinton's comments about Obama's religion, asserted they were "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign"

In his March 8 New York Times column, Bob Herbert misrepresented recent remarks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that they represented "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date." Herbert wrote, "[60 Minutes correspondent Steve] Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.' " But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during the interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Indeed, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was, "Of course not."

Our fetid press corps writes the sleaziest things on a daily basis but the rubes fall for their tripe all the time. People will read what they wish to fit their biases in defiance of evidence. Too many suffer from Clinton Derangment Syndrome, bless their hearts.

The pillory of Hillary

Be gone from here, ye witch! God created man to rule!

Rembrandt's 17th century painting, The Anatomy Lecture of Dr. Nicholas Tulp, is a portrait about patriarchy depicting the all-male sanctum of science and reason. Creating a parody, I replaced Rembrandt's patriarchs from Amsterdam of 1632 with those of today's conservative pundits and political operatives to add a contemporary political narrative suddenly intruded upon by the ever-gaining presence of a powerful woman, a presidential contender. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Arguably, the new faces may not best the men of the 17th century in attitudes about women, however, science and rationality hold little sway over the current group. The talkingpointfürher, Ken Mehlman, chairman of the RNC, third from the left leaning over the cadaver, and his con-apparatchiki, the right-wing media propagandists who surround him, perhaps wish to place Hillary on the slab next.

Changing the approach of previous Hate Speech of the Week posts (here, here, here, here, here, and here) I thought I would examine sexism aimed at Hillary Rodham Clinton courtesy the Media Matters of America archive.

In today's media, insidious misogyny catapults Hillary bashing to new heights and sometimes with the language of the 17th century. Don Imus flogged Puritanical superstition:

Earlier in the show, during an interview with an impersonator of former President Bill Clinton, host Don Imus echoed his recent attacks on Sen. Clinton [in which he called Hillary "that buck-toothed witch, Satan."]. Imus asked, "[h]ow's Satan doing? Your wife." The impersonator responded: "Oh, she's fine. Bitch."

Remember the Puritan fools who hung witches in Salem? Those 17th century misogynists suffered from hysteria and fanaticism. What's the excuse for 21st century throwbacks?

Homophobic closet cases despise Hillary too. She has shapely legs and a husband who escorts her openly in public. Rather than face their secret envy, bitter drama queens plot revenge. Long-rumored as a major closet case, Ken Mehlman deserves to be outed according to the Barney Frank rule.


In tandem with Scarborough, Mehlman shared the same branding iron to try to burn Hillary with a familiar mark:

On the February 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) -- host of MSNBC's Scarborough Country -- asserted that "there is a shrillness in [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] that comes out on TV whenever she gets excited about something." Referring to a speech given by Clinton "a year ago," Scarborough added: "[E]very time her voice goes up, she gets very shrill, very un-Clinton-like, if you're talking about Bill Clinton."

Scarborough's remarks echo those of Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who repeatedly described Clinton as "angry" on the February 5 broadcast of ABC's This Week:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): We're just about out of time, but before we go, I have to ask you a question about 2008 and the candidate that all the Democrats are talking about, Hillary Clinton. For the Republicans, is she the dream candidate or the Democrat you most dread?

MEHLMAN: ...I don't think the American people if you look historically elect angry candidates. And whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger.... ...And when you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've got your talking points ready.

Yes, they do. How many ways can you brand the B word into Hillary without speaking the word? That's the game plan besides just plain lyin' about her or chastisin' the little woman of the WH when she neglected her Stepford Wife housekeeping duties. My, my. How many Ward Cleavers still pine for the days of Leave It To Beaver? Or do they miss the days of the Puritans?

For the most vile attacks on Hillary, we can always rely on a bloodthirsty and brain-addled rabble to throw rotten tomatoes and other unsavory projectiles. Michael Savage slung an elephant-sized dungball of blame for increased hostility in the Senate on the likes of Hillary and female senators. Men are never at fault in the Savage magical kingdom. That's women's work.

Limbaugh resurrected his scurrilous suggestion that Hillary as First Lady conspired to murder Clinton's White House counsel Vincent Foster. When he's not characterizing Hillary as a screeching ex-wife and "men will know what [he] means by that," a woman who puts her pants on one leg at a time like every other guy does, then Rush peddles gay-baiting sexual innuendo about her supposed lesbianism, which elevates Hillary's stature, IMO. Or, he quakes about the perceived Hillary threat to male testicles:

LIMBAUGH: But a lot of Democrats are worried that, you know, she doesn't have what it takes. She doesn't connect on TV. We talked about this. She doesn't come across as friendly. She doesn't -- she, you know, she's like -- my favorite name for her is Nurse Ratched. I mean, we created this whole concept of a testicle lockbox in connection with Mrs. Clinton. I mean, she has that kind of appeal to people. She's -- you fill in the blanks here.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: If I were [Washington Post assistant managing editor] Bob Woodward, I would be on a lookout for Mrs. Clinton and her testicle lockbox, because she has just been snookered....

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Now if Hillary does become Kerry's VP, will she have to change her positions to be on the same page with Kerry or will Kerry have to change his? [laughter] Don't forget that testicle lockbox, folks. [laughter] Just 'cause we haven't talked about it in a while does not mean [laughter] that it's -- that it's been buried.

There's something Jeffrey Dahmer bizarre about a mind that fantasizes about women storing male body parts and the suggestion hints at a peculiar understanding of male bondage apparatus for who would know about such devices? Rush shouldn't worry about testicle lockboxes. But what makes Limbaugh think Hillary or lesbians would want to preserve male organs in a box?

Republican chest-pounding necessitates bashing Hillary and that's Sean Hannity's schtick. Comparing a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to a vote for Hamas or Hezbollah, Hannity jousted with a call-in critic.

CALLER: The [Iraq] war was the greatest mistake in my lifetime.

HANNITY: It was not. You know what? It may be the greatest success in our lifetime, if, in fact -- if Reagan was betting on the fact that it is inherent in the human spirit to be free, that we are endowed by our creator that all men are created equal, and that given an opportunity the people in the Eastern Bloc would ultimately rise up and help in the beginnings of freedom. So, too, can it happen in this part of the world.

CALLER: Well, so, too, can it happen that they vote for Hamas, like they just did.

HANNITY: Well, the Palestinians -- this could be the beginning of democratization, and liberty and freedom in that part of the world. Do you deny that's a possibility?

CALLER: No, I don't deny it, but they can also vote for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank --

HANNITY: Well, you could vote for Hillary Clinton tomorrow, too, for crying out loud, [caller], but, I mean, does that mean that we sit back and do nothing?

CALLER: Well, don't send American kids to die for democracy in some damn place -- god-forsaken place on the other side of the world. I'm not for filling up Walter Reed hospital with a bunch of Americans because Sean Hannity is frightened.

HANNITY: Nobody is for that. Well, with all due respect, [caller], it's not a matter of Sean Hannity being frightened, but maybe you forgot -- I haven't forgot that 3,000 people died. We were attacked. It was the worst attack in history. They were at war with us for 10 years, and we didn't do a darn thing, [caller], and 3,000 people perhaps died unnecessarily.

For 9/11 exploitus ad nauseum, one could assume that Hannity topped the WH payola list to personally parrot a Karl Rove concoction that liberals give aid and comfort to terrorists while real men make war. But media whores like Hannity lay down across the big brass bed for free. He enjoys bashing Hillary with homespun rhetoric, hyperbole worded for those god-fearing folks back home, for example, that Hillary would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself. Sometimes Hannity makes stuff up. When vanity rules, loyalty glitters bright on the air waves.

On loyalty, Matthews aims to please:

On the September 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews, in a discussion on the prospects of a 2008 presidential bid by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), stated that Clinton "may not want to risk being another Dukakis -- this time in a dress," marking the third time Matthews has referred to the unsuccessful 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in describing Clinton's potential presidential bid, as noted by Media Matters for America (here and here). Matthews speculated that, like Dukakis, Clinton could lose "by eight points and humiliat[e] herself." Later, Matthews declared, "[G]o see Deer Hunter if you think [Clinton] can get elected president," adding that "Midwest guys" whose "idea of heaven is out hunting with the beer cans and shooting a pheasant or a bear" are "not up to modern women as president." The Deer Hunter was released in 1978.

[...]

In addition to his reference to Clinton as "Dukakis ... in a dress," Matthews has also called Clinton "witchy" and "sort of a Madame Defarge of the left," and pushed Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to call Clinton a "socialist," as Media Matters has noted. Matthews also devoted a great deal of time to focusing on a May 23 New York Times article that addressed the state of the marriage between Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, asking at least 90 questions on the subject.

Evidently, Matthews joined one of dem thar beer-guzzling hunting trips and got freeze-dried in 1978 under a snowy avalanche. His paunch survived but not his mind. With John Boehner, Matthews again raised the Hillary is a socialist talking point. Don't you wonder if the RNC connected a dedicated fax machine for Tweety in the MSNBC green room?

Stuck on Hillary's marriage--what married women should focus on after all--curmudgeon David Broder was excitedly a-twitter. Funny, I don't recall fashion attention given to what men wear in the Senate but Broder channels an inner fashionista:

But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.

[...]

But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.

Does Broder have a gossip queen in his closet just dying to come out? Sounds like it. Oh, someone invite David to tea! Ken?

Amy Sullivan, who strangely doesn't want Hillary to run, wrote last year about Clinton's critics:

Sometimes they go far beyond reportorial cynicism.... More recently, on the Feb. 20, 2005, installment of “The Chris Matthews Show,” a panel discussed Hillary's candidacy while calling her “Nurse Ratched” and a “castrating female persona”; things really got going when journalist Gloria Borger mimicked Clinton's laugh and mannerisms while her colleagues sniggered.

And that's coming from members of the mainstream media. The conservative press—never shy when it comes to Hillary Clinton—has spent the spring teeing up for another game of Hillaryball. The trial of David Rosen, the fundraiser for Clinton's 2000 campaign, who was accused of hiding about $800,000 of costs for a campaign event held in Los Angeles, came first. In the three months leading up to the verdict (Rosen was acquitted), the FOX News Channel ran more than a dozen segments on Rosen, including a “Hannity & Colmes” segment titled “Are Hillary's Presidential Chances Over?” Rosen's eventual acquittal merited barely a hiccup on FOX, which simply replaced Rosen coverage with segments on the next Clinton scandal story—yet another bestselling book taking on the senator.

The pillory of Hillary began during Bill's presidency, but now that she's a bona fide contender, the usual conservative suspects have flung back the dungeon door in an antiquated patriarchal fortress where medieval instruments remain well-oiled, metallic and sharp, prepared to eviscerate women powerful enough to claim America's throne, the Oval Office. A woman holding the levers of the world's super power? "Bah! Humbug!" shout the men's hallelujah chorus.

What all the Hillary bashing boils down to is patriarchal resentment of powerful women. Primate brains just can't handle the presence of a modern woman treading upon the same sacred ground upon which the founding fathers once stood. The ingrained pattern to objectify the master's previously-held chattel manages to frog-leap DNA memory strands generation after generation despite women's liberation in the 20th century. White patriarchy dies hard and hopefully the younger generation will hasten its demise.

So let's leave the wacky doodles in their time warp to hunt witches while women work to take over the country and tune the chorus out. The best revenge is living well. And then there's justice. Hillary could win in 2008.

Hate speech of the week

With so many choices for hate speech of the week, I decided to offer a roundup of some the wackiest as well as some of the more egregious punditry from the mouths of those whose obvious cluelessness earns them special recognition.

I fail to understand how Chris Matthews rates his own TV show on MSNBC. I guess they aren't picky. Maybe his ties to the Republican Party make him soooo special. His brother Jim is the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Pennsylvania after all. But with as much objectivity as a partisan storm trooper, Matthews offered this can of sludge:

On the August 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews conflated Islamic terrorists with those "who may be politically on the left," and presented a false choice between "honoring civil rights" and "tap[ping]" terrorists' "phones," suggesting that "honoring civil rights" could lead to "the deaths of thousands of people."

And it gets worse. Or better depending on your loyalty oath.

Discussing airport security measures with [former Homeland Security Secretary] Ridge, Matthews asked: "[H]ow do you identify someone who may be politically on the left or radical?" and added:

MATTHEWS: They may go to a couple meetings at mosques, whatever -- or I shouldn't say mosques, but meetings that are associated with -- with their background. They come from other countries, Arab countries, and they are in Newark somewhere. If a person is politically involved and they are anti-Israeli, for example, or anti-Western even, how do you stop them, even if you know all of that, from getting on an airplane?

You can read more wingnuttery here and a compilation of more oiliness here. Hey, maybe Matthews could join the NASCAR circuit. He's got the enough grease to go around.

Next, this makes you want to scream or cry depending on whether your hope is that women would act and speak more intelligently than a Barbie doll. Janet Rowland fails on informed comment (she may have flunked science) and carries water for homophobic hate speech that compares gay and lesbian unions to marrying sheep. Gawd! I just wonder how her marriage is at risk due to gay marriage? Hmmm, maybe she knows something about her husband that we don't. Colorado Media Matters:

On the March 17 broadcast of Rocky Mountain PBS' Colorado State of Mind, during a discussion of a referendum to allow domestic partnerships, Rowland said: "But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, that doesn't make it a marriage. Some people have group sex -- should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some people, the alternative lifestyle is bestiality -- do we allow a man to marry a sheep? ... What if somebody wants to marry a cousin or an aunt or an uncle? What if it's an adult with a child? Why do we say you have to be 18 to get married; why can't 11-year-olds?"

....I, obviously, I don't support gay marriage, and I think it's because it's going to take us down the road that we don't want to go, and I know some of you are outraged that I would compare bestiality to this -- 40 or 50 years ago, people would be outraged that we were talking about gay marriage, and it's just going to -- and so it does affect my marriage, because if marriage becomes about everything, then marriage is about nothing.

Ha! Malignant absurdity strikes again.

If you think that was nutso hate speech, enter George "macaca" Allen. Sara Robinson summed up Allen's attempt to bully an outsider:

Make no mistake: this was an aggressive act of social dominance, an intentional effort to humiliate and degrade a person based on his race and ethnic background, and his position on the other side of the political fence. Allen didn't appear to think twice about publicly insulting S.J. Sidarth, a native-born Indo-American traveling with Allen's campaign to tape events for his Democratic opponent. (Allen had similarly embedded one of his staffers with Jim Webb's campaign.) Sidarth was a kid with a camera -- just another part of the crew, hardly above the attention threshold of a senatorial candidate who's spending his days mingling with the rich and powerful. So what on earth inspired Allen to call him out, in the middle of his campaign speech, to the assembled crowd?

You have to wonder where Allen, who grew up in California, got this idea. By the mid-60s, not even George Wallace or Strom Thurmond would dare say stuff like this in front of the cameras (though we know that Nixon, among others, wasn't shy about saying it in private). They knew better. Everybody in politics, in both parties, knows better. How did George Allen fail to get the message?

Salon's Michael Scherer has a very well researched, thoughtful article up this morning (Salon Premium subscription may be required). While Allen's been acting like the word "macaca" just fell out of his mouth -- "as if he had suddenly been taken over by an evil spirit and spoken in tongues," Scherer says -- he presents the etymology of the word "macaca," (or "macaque"), a North African word for "monkey" that's long been used by Europeans in Africa as an alternative to the n-word. Scherer points out that Allen's mother was raised in Algiers and speaks five languages; she almost certainly knew the word.

Scherer lays the blame squarely on high social dominance gone wild:

To understand the full import of Allen's gaffe, it is worth taking another look at the video, which will live for eternity on the Internet and in political attack ads. It is not just a matter of what Allen says, but very much a matter of how he says it. He has singled out one member of the audience, a 20-year-old volunteer whose ethnicity already distinguishes him in a former bastion of the Confederacy. Allen is smiling. He is enjoying himself. It is exceedingly difficult to see Allen as doing anything other than connecting with the crowd by attempting to humiliate another human being -- to make him feel like an outsider, like he doesn't belong, like he will never belong. "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here," the senator crows. "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

The performance strongly suggests Sheriff's definition of "interpersonal domination" at work. Allen is being a bully.

Yup. But there's more to Allen than just this gaffe:

Scherer goes on to lay out Allen's resume as a bully, charting a typical path that begins in a family of wealth and privilege, rough-and-tumble play with siblings, "alpha jock" status as a high school football player, and his early (and apparently continuing) affection for the Confederate cause. According to Scherer, Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Republic,

asked Allen about the Confederate flag pin he wore in his senior photo at a tony California high school. Allen responded by mentioning the funding he is seeking in Congress for historically black colleges. Lizza asked about Allen's initial opposition to Martin Luther King Day, the noose he once hung on a ficus tree in his law office, and Allen's support of a Confederate History and Heritage Month that did not mention slavery. Allen deflected all the questions, while hinting that he was a changed man. He said he recently went on a "civil rights pilgrimage." He cares about genocide. He recently passed an anti-lynching resolution....

This new person is the one Allen wants America to see. But it is far from clear if that is the person he is. Political scientist Larry Sabato, who remembers Allen as a tough-guy jock back when they were undergraduates at the University of Virginia, said he thinks the gaffe last week shows the real candidate. "In these unguarded moments, Allen does show his true self."

My, my. The late Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott must be waving their stars and bars with pride. Media Matters has more.

Not to be outdone, Bill O'Reilly weighs in with his usual hostile brand of phlegm-specked spittle. Attacking George Soros once again:

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly attacked billionaire philanthropist George Soros for an op-ed Soros wrote, published that same day in The Wall Street Journal, on the "counterproductive and self-defeating policies" inspired by the "war on terror." O'Reilly called Soros an "incredible imbecile, with all due respect," and went on to clarify his attack, saying: "I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis." After dismissing Soros's commentary as "gobbly-gook," O'Reilly claimed that "Soros is a guy who doesn't understand evil, doesn't really even acknowledge it," despite the fact that Soros is "a guy who fled the Holocaust."

Bill doesn't have any limits to his wacky doodle diss-gracefulness. The next day...

On the August 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly argued extensively for "profiling of Muslims" at airports, arguing that detaining all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45" for questioning "isn't racial profiling," but "criminal profiling."

Discussing the August 16 rerouting of a flight from London to Washington, D.C., due to a passenger disturbance, O'Reilly posed the question: "Is profiling Muslims the answer?" Apparently answering in the affirmative, O'Reilly declared, "[I]t's long past time for the USA to stop the nonsense and institute profiling at airports" because "[w]e're not at war with Granny Fricken. We're at war with Muslim fanatics. So, all young Muslims should be subjected to more scrutiny than Granny." Yet, despite advocating for profiling all "Muslims between the ages of 16 and 45," O'Reilly declared that such profiling "isn't racial profiling," but rather "criminal profiling" or, as he later termed it, "[t]error profiling."

You just can't make this stuff up!

Who can defend Ann Coulter's hate speech attacking the 9/11 widows by accusing them of enjoying their husbands deaths? Well, an enabler like Mary Matalin can.

On the June 9 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Republican strategist Mary Matalin joined other Republican strategists and media figures in defending Ann Coulter's attacks on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- articulated in her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), and in media appearances promoting the book. Asked by host Don Imus to comment on Coulter's remarks that the 9-11 widows who criticized President Bush were "reveling in their status as celebrities" and "enjoying their husbands' deaths," Matalin expressed agreement with Coulter's "larger point." When Imus challenged Matalin to condemn Coulter for her "repugnant attacks," including "calling these women harpies," Matalin refused, saying: "That's completely not her point," and that such remarks are Coulter's "stock in trade." She added that she would not condemn Coulter because "I don't know her" and "I haven't read the book."

Echoing Coulter, Matalin stated that "in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments," liberals "roll out messengers" that it is "politically incorrect to argue with." Additionally, Matalin asserted: "You lefty crazy people run around, calling us 'extra chromosome' and 'Hitlers' and 'Nazis' and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a 'harpy' and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire."

Sheesh. Inexcusable. Mary Matalin just earned her creds in joining the WOTPP.

Don Imus may have defended the 9/11 widows against Matalin and Coulter, but he also has his tendency to go off the deep end. He may have called Coulter's spew "repugnant" but he didn't object to smearing Hillary Clinton:

On the July 24 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as having "more baggage than Paris Hilton on the Riviera." Suggesting that "calling her [Clinton] the front-runner is silly at this point," Alter instead touted two potential Republican candidates -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt [tar baby] Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Earlier in the show, during an interview with an impersonator of former President Bill Clinton, host Don Imus echoed his recent attacks on Sen. Clinton [in which he called Hillary "that buck-tooted witch, Satan."]. Imus asked, "[h]ow's Satan doing? Your wife." The impersonator responded: "Oh, she's fine. Bitch."

But when did we expect truth from Don Imus. Did he set the record straight when Tony Snow announced that "President Bush never linked the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein." No. Since when is Imus in the business of telling the truth? More egregiously and insidiously, his producer showed him how it's done by sliming Lamont:

On the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk said that John Mark Karr, the man who reportedly admitted to killing 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey in 1996, "looks like Ned Lamont, actually." McGuirk then asked: "Is that who you want representing you, Connecticut?"

I have to admit, I never watch NBC or MSNBC. Too shrill. Too full of... well, you know, hot air.

Check back next Friday. There's always plenty of right-wing hate speech to report.

Props to Media Matters and Sara Robinson at Orcinus for making this week's roundup especially poignant.

UPDATE: Imus repeated his producer's smear, "...we thought [John Mark Karr] was Ned Lamont, the guy running against Lieberman.... ...we're supporting Lieberman, if you did not know that."