We're not buying

Saw this some time ago at Shakesville, which led me to the Women's Media Center, a worthy enterprise if you haven't visited their website.

Now is as good a time as any to post the video, Sexism Might Sell, But We're Not Buying It!

WMC president Carol Jenkins wrote in a press release:

“As our new video shows, the media’s sexism is not specific to a candidate or campaign. But the presence of a woman, front and center at last on the national political stage, has sent shockwaves through a media grappling with ongoing problems of diversity. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has cast a spotlight on the institutionalized sexism that The Women’s Media Center was founded in 2005 to combat, providing us with a unique moment to examine ourselves and the media we consume. This is about the inherent and unnecessary obstacles that women face every day in speaking out and participating in the national dialogue.”

The WMC is working in partnership with Media Matters. You can sign the petition to protest the sexism of national broadcast news here.

Sexists on sexism

Ah, wonderful harp music is playing as my news media boycott continues. Speaking of...

How does a news network further undermine its credibility? By asking two punditheads who have made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton to evaluate whether sexism has played a role in the presidential campaign. I kid you not! Who orchestrated the nonsense? MSNBC, of course!

During the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle, "[D]o you think we'll be looking back on the coverage and on the conversations pertaining to [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's run for the White House and will sexism play a key role in what went wrong?" Barnicle responded: "No, I think the further we get from this election cycle, I think reality will play a much larger role in what has happened in this election than reality is playing a part now." Later, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan stated: "[T]here's resistance to a woman being the nominee, but by and large, I think the fact that she's a woman has helped her here." But as Media Matters for America has noted, on the February 26 edition of Morning Joe, Buchanan made the admittedly "sexist" comment that when Clinton "raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it's -- as I say -- it reaches a point ... where every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another." Additionally, on the January 23 edition of the program, Barnicle had said of Clinton: "[W]hen she reacts the way she reacts to [Sen. Barack] Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court, OK? Looking at him that way, all I could think of ... was this fall, if it's [Sen. John] McCain that she's facing, McCain is likable. She's not."

After Buchanan criticized Clinton's voice on the February 26 Morning Joe, Brzezinski responded: "Oh, Pat, you're lucky you're not in the studio, I'm telling you." Buchanan said: "I know that's a sexist comment ... but there's truth to it! ... There's truth to it." He continued: "It's very difficult for women to reach those kinds of levels effectively, as it is to make them sort of a rally speech. They're not good at that." Brzezinski replied: "There is something so wrong with what you're saying, and what I fear is that the effect may be exactly what you're saying because of this double standard that people can't hear strength from a woman without using the B-word, and quite frankly, if that is what people are going to take away from this, it just seems to me as, well, everything that the Clinton campaign is arguing then." Buchanan had stated earlier: "[I]t's very tough for a woman. You see two men going back and forth at each other, you say, 'Boy, they're really going at it.' ... And you see two women or something, and say, 'Boy, what a catfight this is.' " During the April 23 edition of the show, Buchanan said of Clinton's speech following the Pennsylvania primary the day before: "[O]nly once or twice did that voice start rising to the level that every husband in America at one time or another has heard. You know, where it starts going up."

Barnicle made his January 23 comment during discussion of the January 21 Democratic presidential debate, among an all-male panel that included co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist, and correspondent David Shuster. [Emphasis added.]

They also talked as if Hillary is out of the race by refraining NBC Tim Russert's edict that Obama is the nominee and "no one’s going to dispute it." Bah!

Watch the Barnicle & Buchanan circus show in living color at Media Matters, a lot more including an noxious reference to President Billary.

Honestly, can news programming get any dumber and more clueless about its sexism?

Media and Republicans: BFF

Must-read column every Friday: Jamison Foser at MediaMatters.org.

Yesterday's column headline sums up the present state of media bias...

The media render the RNC obsolete

The media favor Republicans. What you need to know when you watch, listen, and read... The media favor Republicans.

A side note: Tony Snow, former Faux News anchor/Bush's WH press secretary, has joined CNN. Wolf Blitzer must get exhausted acting as a press agent for John McCain.

Clinton, Obama and the P-word

Don Imus is hopelessly sexist. And, hey. Misogyny isn't just for women anymore. The uncouth, ever-offensive Imus aims his seething piehole to spit at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with one sexist shot:

During the April 17 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than" Sen. Hillary Clinton. While discussing the April 16 Democratic debate, Imus said he thought that co-moderator George Stephanopoulos was "great" and that the debate was "fine," adding: "I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other." News anchor Charles McCord interjected, "But then," and Imus continued: "And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is."

As Media Matters for America noted, on the March 7 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asserted that 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."

Despite his being fired by MSNBC and CBS in April 2007 -- his show is now syndicated by ABC Radio Networks and simulcast on RFD-TV -- Imus continues to attract prominent guests. From April 1 to April 17, Imus hosted Sen. John McCain, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, Washington Post media critic and host of CNN's Reliable Sources Howard Kurtz, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford. [Emphasis added.]

The morally bankrupt media continues to deem the blatantly sexist and reprobate behavior of Imus as acceptable in the marketplace of ideas. Look at who's still patronizing this unrepentant sexist dinosaur: a presidential candidate and leading media personalities. What's their excuse? Gotta email, express my disapproval, and ask what are their reasons for appearing on Don Imus' show. I want to know. What are they up to?

It's bad enough to hear the B-word thrown around as if it's a normal term for people to use--and it's not--but the P-word rates up there with the ugly group of demeaning epithets that dare not be spoken aloud, not in civilized circles or in the public arena. In Imus' cesspool of imagination, it's OK to use the P-word. In fact, it's fun, completely spot on. Never does he think of the denigration of femininity inherent in the P-word or its power crudely hewn to dismiss and devalue men and women.

Don't you wonder what advertisers are sponsoring Imus? I do 'cause I will cease to buy or recommend whatever service or product they offer in my sphere of influence.

I may be a Hillary supporter, but it is not ever OK to use misogyny against anyone. Ever.

The contacts to complain via Media Matters:

ABC Radio Networks
customerservice@abc.com
ABC Radio Networks

When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

While I'm thinking 'bout it, send Media Matters some love. They provide an incredible service keeping the media in their sights and holding them accountable. God(dess) love 'em for the heavy-lifting they do regularly.

NOTE: You can watch it on video at the link.

Hillary Clinton and the B-word

Original photo by Charlie Neibergall/AP via Seattle Times obviously altered.

Marc Rudov has been snorting artificial testosterone and smoking stupid crack again. His denial is staggering. From April 10, Your World With Neil Cavuto. Of course, it's from Faux News:

CAVUTO: All right. To New York City, the gender card in play against Hillary Clinton's camp. Elton John with these choice words at a Clinton fundraiser last night.

JOHN [video clip]: I never ceased to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some of the people in this country. And I say, to hell with them.

CAVUTO: All righty. Marc Rudov says that Elton is way off-base. He hosts the Marc Rudov radio show. Lis Wiehl says Marc is plain wrong and that Elton is right. So, Marc, what do you find offensive?

RUDOV: Well, this is exactly why men shouldn't allow the vagina monologue to become a dialogue. Hillary Clinton, who's living by the gender sword, is going to be dying by the gender sword. She sends in Elton John to do her hissing when she's having a catfight with America. It's ridiculous for anybody to throw around the misogyny word. When she was the presumptive nominee, we never heard anything about misogyny. But when things go badly -- when she's not getting what she thinks she's entitled to -- all of a sudden it's misogyny. And that's just as bad as throwing around the racism word. [Italics mine.]

Hold up for a fact check. Wayback machine from Nov. 29, 2007, before the first presidential primary votes were cast: Hillary hatred finds its misogynistic voice: "Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is the target of sexist attacks all over the Internet. An anti-Hillary group on social-networking site Facebook.com titled "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" has more than 23,000 members."

M'yeah, have another hit off that pipe, Marc. Stupid crack is cheap.

WIEHL: "Hissing," Marc? I mean, that sounds kind of women-hating right there, my dear.

RUDOV: Does it?

WIEHL: But let's look at the evidence. I mean, let's look at the fundraiser that McCain was at when he was asked by somebody at the fundraiser, "How can we beat the B-word?" I mean, can you imagine if they had used the N-word? Or the other B-word for a man who doesn't know who his father is? Can you imagine the outrage that would have happened there? You go on the Internet -- you look at Internet sites that say, you know, "Life's a 'B' -- don't vote for one," or "Hillary, you shouldn't be running for president, you should be running the dishwasher," or "Hillary, stop running for president and make me a sandwich," or the T-shirts that say -- this is -- I'm not making this stuff up. It's out there.

CAVUTO: Really?

WIEHL: It's out there.

CAVUTO: Who came up with the making the sandwich one? 'Cause that's pretty clever.

WIEHL: It's on Facebook. It's on Facebook.

CAVUTO: All right. So, Marc, you hear this stuff, right?

RUDOV: That's mild compared to what they say about me, Neil.

CAVUTO: Well, actually, it is, Marc. It is -- it is mild.

WIEHL: Well -- that's another story.

CAVUTO: But if Elton John is playing into that view, you think he alienated people last night.

RUDOV: Well, not only that -- he's totally wrong. This is a gynocracy. Women have all the rights and privileges. The reason that Hillary is losing is because people don't like her. That's all it is.

WIEHL: But Marc, it's -- you're buying into that old thing. It's the old thing, Marc, of if a woman is aggressive, then she's, again, the B-word. If a man is aggressive, he's just assertive and claiming his own. I mean, the woman can't win. And also, look, when you've got Saturday Night Live --

RUDOV: That's not true.

WIEHL: When you've got Saturday Night Live several weeks ago, you know, pillorying what was going on in the media and saying, look, you know, "Obama, do you want a pillow?" and really making fun of the fact that Hillary has had a tough time, a tough go of this -- that's Saturday Night Live. Come on, Marc.

RUDOV: I'm sure that the Joint Chiefs of Staff can't wait to report to a commander whose representative is Elton John. . . This is absolutely silly, Lis. You know what? The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one. . .

WIEHL: -- that is crazy. How can you say that? How can you call her a B-word? You don't know the woman. She doesn't act like that to you. That is just wrong and outrageous. And you -- you, Marc Rudov, are exhibit A of exactly what Elton John has been talking about. . .

RUDOV: -- but the fact of the matter is, if a man -- if a man is assertive and aggressive and nobody likes him, he won't get any results. So being assertive -- there's nothing wrong with that if you're a woman. But if you're assertive and nobody likes you, you're going to get nowhere. And that's really what it is. There aren't any male executives who are disliked who are effective.

WIEHL: Marc, you know as well as I do that that label is never attached -- the other B-word is never attached to a guy who's just being assertive and running for something. It's been attached -- you go on the Internet, you look at the T-shirts out there that say, you know, "Hillary should have married OJ. We would have been all better." There are T-shirts out there that say that, Marc. . .

CAVUTO: But that's not the majority.

RUDOV: Lis, there's no misogyny, there's no misogyny --

WIEHL: That's not the majority, but Elton John [unintelligible] that some people say that --

RUDOV: She's dying by the gender sword, and that's all that it is -- that's all there is to it.

CAVUTO: All right, can we get back to the sandwich analogy? That one --

WIEHL: You like the sandwich? Or the running the dishwasher?

CAVUTO: That one I could understand. . .

Hey, Neil! Go wash my car. And, Marc... Go to rehab! That fake testosterone has rotted your brain.

Watch the video for the full effect if you dare. Lis Wiehl holds her own. But, crikey! This is what passes for news? News?!!

PREVIOUS SPIEL:

• Marc Rudov calling Dr. Freud

• Marc Rudov's sexist problem

Psycho Babel

Photo by Brian Lary from inside a radio tower

Clinton Derangement Syndrome abounds in the media in a sickening incarnation:

During the April 7 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, radio host Tammy Bruce joined the growing list of media figures who have purported to diagnose Sen. Hillary Clinton with a mental disorder, asserting of Clinton, "Well, there's an actual psychiatric term called mythomania, and it's part of a larger psychiatric scheme of people who make up fantastic stories to bolster their own image." As supposed evidence of Clinton "literally making up things out of whole cloth," Bruce claimed that Clinton had discussed "Chelsea being at the World Trade Center on September 11th." In fact, Hillary Clinton did not claim that her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, was "at the World Trade Center on September 11th"; rather, as Media Matters for America has documented, Hillary Clinton said that her daughter had "gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit."

As Media Matters noted, in a February 25 National Review Online blog post, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow wrote, "Now I'm no psychiatrist, far from it, but I think a simple answer is that Senator Clinton could be depressed." In a February 27 New York Times column, Maureen Dowd wrote that Clinton "has turned into Sybil," an apparent reference to a book and movie about a woman who developed multiple personality disorder after being severely abused as a child. On the February 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, commentator Jack Cafferty claimed Clinton "[r]esembl[ed] someone with multiple personality disorder." And on the February 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Chicago Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman asserted that Clinton's behavior "comes across as a little schizophrenic." As Media Matters further documented, in her book The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 2007), Republican strategist Bay Buchanan suggested that Clinton may have a disorder "involving narcissistic personality style," and was quoted in an article about the book as saying, "[W]e are talking about a clinical condition that could make her [Clinton] dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief."

A clinically-trained mental health professional would never attempt a psych evaluation from afar but these pundits--who aren't qualified or evidently self-aware enough to diagnose their own shameless behavior--do. Puh-leeze. They're snarling Hillary-hating loudmouths with a megaphone at their disposal to disseminate mindless irresponsible pronouncements and fork-tongued propaganda.

You can't miss the misogyny in some of the rhetoric, in Kudlow's case, a blog post entitled, "Hillary's Mental Roller Coaster"...

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed Hillary's erratic, roller-coaster, mood swings these past few weeks?

She's all over the map. Irritable and angry. Manic. Pessimistic and sad. One minute she's shedding tears, the next minute she's shouting and attacking, then she's sarcastically ripping on Obama, and on and on it goes.

C'mon. We know a sexist dog whistle when we hear it, the implication that Hillary acted like an unhinged, hysterical female. The "sarcastically ripping on Obama" likens to Marc Rudov's whiny characterization of "when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' " What Kudlow wrote doesn't unveil anything truthful or relevant: it's chatter exposing him as an exaggerator, whose embellished tale delivers a dramatized slimeball he can toss.

Not only is our media the worst, sleaziest press corps possible, but they're predatory and paid handsomely, some of them multi-millions, to say depraved, toxic, inflammatory nonsense. They do it to get people to watch The Show, to read Their Words, to listen to Their Shtick and they're smirking all the way to their estates in Nantucket having reeled in the rubes who lap up their craptoids as if they're M&M candies. Those media darthlings who haven't made it that big yet are slobbering rapaciously in their quest for "Millionaire Pundit Values."

The sane choice of any sentient being is to turn 'em off with the realization, "Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamned amusement park." Which applies to the Tower of Noise, the babbling bobbleheads, the media's hit men, The Village.

UPDATE: Susie Madrak picked up on Dick Morris' lie, his contribution to the towering Psycho Babel.

The Hillary Clinton edition

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind



Clinton and Scaife... Uh oh! Josh Marshall, Kos, and the Boy Blogz, who have contracted a terminal case of CDS, won't be happy. As eriposte warned, Hillary Clinton meeting with Richard Scaife could stimulate the "sound of several heads exploding" in the netroots Obamasphere.

See snips from The Left Coaster of an article by Scaife on "Hillary, reassessed." One comment from Scaife: "But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed. . . Call it a 'counterintuitive' impression." Now eriposte's closing, "Very troubling indeed. Sen. Clinton has this ugly and detestable habit of impressing people who get to know her well - especially independents and Republicans! The result? A powerful Republican and media magnate who hated the Clintons came dangerously close to endorsing her! We certainly can't have that! After all, according to The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules it is only acceptable if Republicans endorse Sen. Obama - he who has courted them aggressively - in support of his campaign of hope, unity and change."

The Goddess will git you for that! Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women on McCain's veep pick: "I've seen a number of stories this week suggesting that Condi Rice wants to be John McCain's VP. If the old guard Democrats were to succeed at pushing the woman off the Democratic ticket only to face a Black woman on the Republican ticket, that would mean there really is a goddess and she really is pissed. And it would mean that Democrats might well be waiting another 50 years for their next 2-term president." Go read the rest from Egalia. Truth meter: 100%. M'yeah, the Goddess is pissed!

Destroying Hillary in the press. . .and: Susie Madrak shared notes from EschaCon that included Media Matter's Eric Boehlert, who said, "...it goes back to Gore’s press in 1999 which was 'really unfair and really weird.' What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, 'gotcha,' and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that." Ya think?!!!! No disrespect intended, but the Boy Blogz have smeared Hillary relentlessly and turned a blind eye to Barry's faults and exaggerations. And what about Hillary bloggers? Boehlert has been "interviewing Clinton bloggers for a book... how bloggers are affecting the 2008 presidential campaign, and was 'shocked' to hear again and again that people felt they could no longer speak freely in the blogosphere. . . bullied into silence." More.

Sexist attacks on Hillary hurts all women! Read and learn: "Why calling out misogyny matters" by zuzu at Feministe, a superb, in-depth post and worth your time. Intro graf: "I’ve gotten a lot of criticism lately whenever I do a post about the primary, and, specifically, about misogynistic language or sexist framing used to tear down Hillary Clinton. Invariably, someone accuses (and it’s always an accusation) me of being a Clinton shill, or grills me about why I don’t write a whole bunch of balancing posts about racist language and framing being used against Obama, or tries to dismiss what I have to say because Clinton did X, Y or Z that the commenter found offensive." Highly-recommended reading. (H/t Susie)

Hillary can seat MI and FL! Barry's BFF Donna Brazile is wrong and Clinton is right. "Clinton can actually gain a majority on [the Credentials Committee], and thus seat the existing Florida and Michigan delegations." Of course, it depends on Hillary winning enough delegates in the upcoming contests. Details at TalkLeft. I wonder if my blogger friend Bryan in Florida has heard about this? Best solution is a revote but Obama's opposition, DNC bias, and those pesky Republican state legislators... Still.

The dream ticket: Mentioned earlier in an update to "Hillary Clinton will go all the way," but worth repeating: The Cuomo Dream Ticket Plan. I'm biased thinking that Hillary should top the tick' for many reasons, but bring it on!

Clinton fact checks Obama and the senator from Illinois has some explaining to do. Nine exaggerations ranging from taking "credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed" to "his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'" Why am I unsurprised?

A compilation of sources making the case for Hillary from admirals, generals, Ambassador Joe Wilson, Krugman on the economy, lowering taxes on the middle class, veterans, job creation, and more.

Who's the best candidate for fixing the economy? It's not wackydoodle "Let them eat cake" McCain or "cautious and relatively orthodox" Barry. C'mon, you know the answer. Hillary! If you watch the video at the link, notice how Donna Brazile repeats an Obama line about "crisis on main street." M'yeah, she's a DNC shill for Barry and a total disgrace for her cock-up involving the MI and FL primaries. But I digress. If you're worried about the economy, then Clinton is the best choice for prez. "[H]er policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive."

A dose of reality

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind

Housekeeping note -- The Night Watch will take the weekend off and become a weekday thang. I've got some sprucing up to do here at The RealSpiel, other topics to research and explore in-depth. So I'll keep tonight's edition brief.

DNC stupid and mean -- Has the DNC devolved into a total cock-up? Howard Dean can really piss people off. A discrimination lawsuit filed by Donald Hitchcock, the party's former LGBT outreach director, alleges retaliation and harassment by Chairman Dean and Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry. That's bad enough. But intimidation of the Washington Blade's editor and publisher for its coverage of the civil action... just... well, read Pam Spaulding. Michigan, Florida, and now this! I'm frothed.

Jamison Foser -- "Media ignore McCain's finances after obsessing over Dems" at Media Matters.

Twisty's back! With a sexploitation rip on Eliot Spitzer and the untold story, the ignored tragedy of the sex trade, the subverted narrative--"in a patriarchy, all women belong to the sex class, and are defined in terms of men. Men, on the other hand, belong to the default human class, and get to define themselves (and everything else)"--and the "jovial nonchalance with which the subject of prostitution is bandied about — and prostitution, I say again, is a human rights violation." Meanwhile, young liberal male dudes don't think twice about a weekend lap dance at a titty bar. Where's my labrys?

Time's up! Hecate is soooo right about Iraq: "I was driving around Bethesda today, running a bunch of errands, and, as I sat in traffic, I couldn't help but notice a number of completely bleached-out 'Support the Troops' ribbon-shaped magnets on the backs of SUVs.... ...If your war lasts longer than the dye on the cheap Chinese pieces of shit that are sold to promote it, you lose. That's it. War over. Bring the troops home." Go read what she has to say about immigration. Goosebump scale: 10. (H/t to Avedon for referring to Hecate.)

For a dose of immigration reality, Dave Neiwert served up a giant spoonful of facts at Orcinus. You hear teevee rants about how "illegal aliens" are taking American jobs and lowering wages, right? Go read Dave. I wish Lou Dobbs would but he's got a schtick and he's sticking to it.

It's 3 a.m. in America's economic meltdown to paraphrase Tom Watson. "In New York, you can feel the nerves - the big Wall Street failures, and the looming threat... ...There's a slow panic out there, and it's going to hurt the little guy in every corner of the country.... ...[T]he red phone is ringing. Who will answer?"

M'yeah, Digby, Cafferty is a big honking idiot. Greedy bastards, a-holes, egobots, tools, and idiots. That's our media reinforced by the raving wingnut brigade.

BlehPo: I started to skim Saturday WashPo op/eds but why bother? SSDD. One lumped Geraldine Ferraro and Eliot Spitzer together under the headline, "Two Errant New Yorkers," and I thought, besides the Empire State, what do these two have in common? A dumb op/ed. That was enough. I don't have the patience to pick it apart at this late hour. If this is what passes as Serious Punditry at WashPo, then in comparison, Bob Somerby is an off-the-chart editorial genius. Maybe he is. And funny!

With Josh Marshall's latest Clinton blame game, The Stepfordization continues. OFB moolah must be good, no?

I heart Ellen DeGeneres and so does Kevin Naff.

Marc Rudov's sexist problem

Maybe Rembrandt didn't have this in mind

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, how sexist is Marc Rudov? With emphasis in bold:

During the March 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly hosted Marc Rudov, author of Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables, to discuss "What is the downside of having a woman become the president of the United States?" Rudov's initial response to the question was, "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?" O'Reilly responded: "But guys have mood swings, Marc. And you know they have other control issues, as we just heard with [New York] Governor [Eliot] Spitzer and we saw with various presidents. So come on now, let's be fair." Rudov then asserted: "Well, you know, I'm joking. Of course, the main problem I have is if a woman has a female agenda. If she doesn't have a female agenda, if she just wants to be an executive for all the people, then all I care about is if she's qualified. And I have no qualms about having a female president. But if we take [Sen.] Hillary Clinton, she specifically does have a female agenda." Rudov later added: "But Hillary embodies the female agenda. She wants to be the feminist in chief. She represents women. It says so on her website. And a lot of women are voting for her because she's a woman." O'Reilly hosted Rudov and Republican strategist Margaret Hoover as part of a new segment called "He Said, She Said," in which O'Reilly and his guests will "deal with issues from a gender-based point of view."

Also during the segment, O'Reilly asked Hoover: "So it would be OK with you if a woman was elected president and then tilted her policies toward women? It would be all right with you?" Hoover replied, "Absolutely not, because you're gonna be president of the United States. You're president of women and men, African-Americans, Hispanics, everybody. So you don't run with identity politics. You don't run as a woman only representing a -- women." O'Reilly then stated, "But she -- but Hillary Clinton is."

As Media Matters for America has documented, on the January 4 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Rudov stated: "When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' " Rudov also described Clinton during that program as "nagging" and "shrill."

First, women are half of the population so any president--female or male--should address women's issues.

Does Rudov oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton's policies on women's issues or is he too incurious to know what they are?

Does he think that to "strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women" is a bad thing? And if so, why?

Does he advocate pay discrimination against women?

Shouldn't women have access to family planning services, especially low income women? Is he pro-choice or does he want to rescind Roe v. Wade? How about the "morning-after" pill?

Hillary proposes "microfinance programs that enable women to start their own businesses." What's wrong with championing job creation via women-owned enterprises?

Does Rudov support or oppose sex trafficking?

I could go on with questions that obviously Marc hasn't pondered, that is, if he's capable of considering issues that impact half of Americans. His characterization of a "female agenda" demonstrates his ignorance and his disparaging remarks aimed at Hillary make him sound like Archie Bunker.

Watch the video but I advise removing sharp objects away from your 'puter screen:

I give Rudov a 10 on the sexist scale. Or maybe he's just plain stupid. M'yeah, probably both.

What's just as dumb was Obama's sexist dog whistle alluding to Hillary's problem periodically.

What say you?

Smearing Clinton again over Obama's religion

The mischaracterization of Sen. Hillary Clinton remarks over Obama's religion enters the realm of malignant absurdity. As previously documented at length here at The RealSpiel, Hillary never said Barack was a Muslim and left no doubt about it. But again today:

A March 10 editorial in the New York Post characterized as "cheap shots and low blows" Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent comments made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that "Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim." The Post then quoted only a portion of Clinton's response to 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" In fact, during an interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim and likened the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.

From the Post:

Beyond that, there are the cheap shots and the low blows -- as, for example, when Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim, acknowledging that he isn't one "as far as I know."

Let's face it: The Hill-and-Bill machine has a record of scandal and sneakiness that runs all the way back to Arkansas. And the potential for dirty tricks is huge.

In fact, 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. 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 said, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim." Clinton answered, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim ... or implying, right?" did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? There's no ... No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Additionally, the Post did not 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."

You've got to laugh at a gutter tabloid that regularly delivers "cheap shots and low blows." Consider the source, folks.

However, a few rubes--perhaps prodded by political operatives--continue to obsess over five words from Hillary--as far as I know--reading dubious scripts into the phrase, inferring that it was a calculated ploy, a qualifier that perhaps, just maybe, Obama is a Muslim. What utter nonsense. As far as I know means based on what I know. . .according to what I know. . .as much as I know. . .from what I know.

Most likely, based on Clinton's own words, as far as she knows, there's nothing to the rumor because, as she further elaborated, she has been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. To take those five words--as far as I know--out of its context edits Clinton's full response for mendacious purposes.

Hillary-haters will infuse their own biased and specious fallacies as to what Clinton meant. They claim she hedged.

Saying, Of course not, is not a hedge.

Saying, there is no basis for that, is not a hedge.

Saying, I take him on the basis of what [Obama] says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that, is not a hedge.

Saying, No. No. . . is not a hedge.

To perpetuate the questioning of Hillary's words is not only intellectually dishonest, but the tactic is also an obsessively-driven attempt to demean and destroy Hillary Clinton.

But there's another exercise to misrepresenting Hillary's words: By doing so, the press casts doubt on whether Obama is a Christian by repetitiously haranguing Clinton and indirectly maligning Obama. This is how the game is played--dissembling words out of the mouth of another to concoct a smear attacking the ultimate target. It's a two-fer, a combination shot, and a sneaky dirty trick of our fetid press corps. Over and over the public hears maybe Obama is a Muslim. See how this ruse works?

Let's face it: The New York Post isn't esteemed for its journalistic integrity, the same Rupert Murdoch fishwrapper that falsely declared, AL GORE, LIAR is the same birdcage liner that compared Howard Dean to--quoting the Boston Globe’s Cathy Young--“Hitler, Goebbels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Brezhnev. It’s a wonder that Mao and Saddam Hussein didn’t make the cut.”

Two other examples of Post lies readily available from The Daily Howler:

Deborah Orin, The New York Post, 3/18/99: A few years ago, Gore boasted that he and his wife, Tipper, had been the inspiration for the tear-jerker Harvard romance, “Love Story”—he ate his words when the author said no way.

New York Post editorial, 3/19/99: Gore, recall, claimed that he and wife Tipper were the inspiration for the 1970s best selling novel “Love Story”—which came as news to the book’s author, Erich Segal.

And the truth:

In November 1997, Gore made a fleeting remark that turned out to be accurate; he said that he had once seen a newspaper story in which Eric Segal was quoted saying that the main characters in Love Story had been based on Gore and his wife. (The three had been friends when Gore was in college.) As it turned out, Segal had been slightly misquoted in the news report Gore had seen—the male character in the book was partly based on Gore, but wife Tipper had been no role model. . .

. . .Key point: Segal defended every word Gore had said. There had been a report like the one Gore described—and the male character in his book had been based on Gore.

I laugh at anyone who takes the New York Post seriously and I reject slimebags who truncate quotes to exploit political advantage.

This crap needs to stop. And now.

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.

Neal Boortz, hate speech of the week

Winning hearts and minds:

Boortz continued smearing Muslims on the August 10 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show, during which he stated, "It is perfectly safe to say all terrorists are Muslims. All of them. If it was not for the religion of Islam, this world would be a much, much, much more peaceful place today. If it were not for the religion of Islam, there would be many thousands, maybe tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people alive today living peaceful, happy, and fulfilled lives than there are. Agony, misery, death is occurring all over this world, brought to us by the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam."

Although Media Matters for America has not documented Boortz using the specific term "raghead," on the July 19 edition of his radio program, he called the prophet Muhammad "a phony rag-picker" and stated that Islam is "a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."

On the August 4, 2004, edition of his radio program, Boortz mocked Shahada (the Islamic creed), which reads, "There is no true God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God." Boortz then stated, "Say that with conviction, folks, and the next thing you know, you're strapping on a suicide bomb." During the same broadcast, Boortz read from a book titled A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam. Boortz read a list of topic headings -- "It goes into things like the universe, and the cosmos, and how wind moves clouds" -- before making his point: "I'm looking for the part in here where it tells them to go out and kill people who aren't Muslims. And then I don't see it." Boortz then dismissed Muhammad as "a guy who got bored selling secondhand clothes," and then started a religion.

Apparently, Neal didn't get the White House memo.

$20 Whorowitz, O'Lielly, and the con-apparatchiki

On CNN Larry King, $20 Whorowitz defended comrade Ann Coulter, who has been assailed for her toxic waste dumping (funny what passes for talent at publishing houses), and he executed a precision strike as tight as a Rumsfeldian post-war plan for Iraq. Whorowitz demonstrated how it's done (with emphasis):

Appearing on the June 12 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, right-wing activist and author David Horowitz again defended right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's recent attacks against widows of victims from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, declaring that "Ann has done us a service," adding: "It wasn't Ann who crossed the line. It was these widows who crossed the line." Characterizing Coulter's personal attacks on the 9-11 widows as "satire," Horowitz echoed others in the media in suggesting that the underlying point Coulter was making in going after the widows -- that Democrats and liberals use victims as advocates for particular causes because they are insulated from criticism -- was "perfectly legitimate." In fact, far from being immune from challenge, the individuals Coulter cited as examples of "infallible" advocates promoted by Democrats have faced strong Republican opposition and, quite often, ad hominem attacks from conservatives, as Media Matters for America has demonstrated. Indeed, Horowitz himself smeared one such person -- anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan -- during the CNN broadcast, stating that Sheehan is "a disgrace" who "defamed her own child" who died in the Iraq war.

So "satire" is what the right-wing punditry calls ad hominem attacks? I must remember that explanation. Why, I must be writing satire even as I type! Ha!

You've got to smile (as if you've discovered the owner of a silent fart) at the alleged use of victims as liberal "advocates," a creative invention for a member of the con-apparatchiki. Could it be these protesting "victims" were already of a liberal bent so other liberals came to their aid? Nah, that's too simple and logical for a $20 Whorowitz who fancies underlying nastiness. But perhaps the comrades of the con-apparatchiki, having seen a Bush WH exploit 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! ...think that everybody does it, so they--the opposition--must too. I also recall that a certain NFL star, the dearly departed Pat Tillman, was promoted as a heroic poster child for the war by the Bush Administration, that was... until the news came out that Tillman supported Kerry over Bush and opposed the Iraq War. I suppose IOKIYAR (it's OK if you're a Republican) to use fallen soldiers to bolster one's glorious adventure even if it is without the family's permission. But isn't that using a victim, a dead soldier, as an advocate for the war? Didn't Bush cross the line exploiting Pat's death? Isn't that disgraceful? Don't tell me that $20 Whorowitz might criticize the Bush WH as a "disgrace" having "defamed" one of our soldiers!? Banish the thought. Zip it. A double standard liberates the comrades of the con-apparatchiki.

Whorowitz hurled a lot more ga-jizzle so click on over to Media Matters. No one takes the pulse of media better than MM in exposing discrepancies, disinformation, blatant propagandizing, lies, and plain ol' kookiness... like the latest installment from O'Lielly.
Another comrade of the con-apparatchiki, Bill O'Lielly, appeared with Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning to add his two cents to the Coulter the Impaler controversy by saying that she preaches to an angry choir through her use of personal attacks, which he stated was "terrible" and "wrong." Odd... could Bill suffer from early senility? Because he has forgotten his own expert personal attack technique:

As an example of his opposition to personal attacks, O'Reilly cited his appearance on the January 3 edition of CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, in which host David Letterman challenged O'Reilly's criticism of Sheehan.

Regarding his exchange with Letterman, O'Reilly told Lauer:

O'REILLY: I never attacked Cindy Sheehan personally. I said her politics are far-left, she's being run by far-left elements. Period. Letterman said I have no right to say that. I said, 'Baloney.' OK? I can criticize her politics, but if I had criticized her personally, that would have been wrong.

O'Reilly further stated that "If I start to personally attack, people walk away" and accuse him of being "a right wing nut."

Despite the fact that O'Reilly has made this false claim before, regarding his treatment of Sheehan -- a claim that Media Matters has debunked -- Lauer did not challenge him on the assertion or point out prior instances in which O'Reilly did in fact engage in personal attacks on Sheehan. These include:

• Claiming that Sheehan was "dumb enough to allow" herself to be "run by far-left elements who are using her."

• Claiming that Sheehan "has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country" and "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq ... feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous."

• Including Sheehan on a list of "coward[s]."

Additionally, Lauer failed to challenge O'Reilly's false suggestion that he does not engage in personal attacks, a striking failure given O'Reilly's comparison, on the November 30, 2005, broadcast of Today, of those who advocate a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to Hitler appeasers. Media Matters has also documented numerous other instances of O'Reilly attacking those with whom he disagrees.

Media Matters offers quite a file on flippity-floppity media punditry and politicians who say they despise personal attacks, accuse others of making them, and then, amazingly, do it themselves. Confusing morality!

So, I'm puzzled. Is lying and viciousness the brand of morality that the Right thrusts onto the public stage these days? What about the Oval Office? Is Karl Rove the kind of guy our kids should emulate? If the preznit still coddles Rove, doesn't that say it's OK to lie, smear, play dirty, and cheat... just don't get caught?

Conservatives talk about how America has succumbed to moral decay. The con-apparatchiki attempt to offer us answers, blaming liberals for too much permissiveness and opportunism, but I think the Right ought to just... Look. In. The. Mirror.