Bizarros still trashing Hillary

Click on the graphic for a larger image.

Someone make the Bizarro World journalists and pundits stop! Bob Somerby:

For example, Sally Quinn’s current post about Hillary Clinton is almost dumb-founding in its inanity. A person would surely think that what follows was offered as some sort of parody. No. It’s comes to us straight from the soul of the Post—indeed, from the paper’s “On Faith” section:

QUINN (6/10/08): Now would be the perfect time for her to find herself, to decide what she really wants. Give up the roar of the crowds, the banners and the balloons, the marching bands, the begging for autographs. Give up the naked ambition, the lust for power. Is it possible that she wants those things because she thinks she should?

The only way for her to gather this kind of insight would be for her to go away for awhile. Be alone. Be silent. Be with yourself. There is a wonderful retreat called Bhavana Society in West Virginia that would be the perfect place. Its founder, Bhante Gunaratana, talks in his book “Mindfulness” about the power of concentration or tranquility when one’s mind is brought to rest and “a deep calm pervades the body”. “The meditator focuses his or her mind on a certain item, such as a prayer, a chant, a candle flame, or a religious image, and excludes all other thoughts and perceptions from his or her consciousness.” Self awareness is the goal. Hillary talks quite openly about her faith and how it comforts her. This would be a perfect time for her to explore her faith, to delve more deeply into it.

Self awareness is the goal! Having stated this lofty ambition, Quinn gives Clinton the advice her cohort has always given: Please “go away for awhile” [sic]!

We’ll only suggest that you read the whole post. Once again, we’ll state the obvious: If you didn’t know this post was real, you’d assume that it had to be parody—perhaps the script for Candy 2.

But then, the mental styles of the insider press corps are constantly put on unsettling display. Quinn has been at the soul of this clan for a very long time now. By was of contrast, Matt Yglesias is very young; he’s still on his way to their tables. But here he is, reacting to Todd Purdum’s piece in Vanity Fair. This isn’t parody either:

YGLESIAS (6/2/08): It's hard for me to tell how much of the sleazy behavior that Purdum hints at here is actually true. Based on the record, it wouldn't at all be unlike Clinton for some of it to be true.

Some of it could be true, the lad judged. Though it was hard for him to “tell how much” of what Purdum “hints at” is “actually true.” (Translation: None of it may be true. More on Purdum’s work next week.)

How much more do you need from Yglesias? A question sometimes comes to mind when we sift the work of lads like this: How do they get this way so early in life? Likely answer: They’ve worked very hard at the task. But there again, you see the mental styles of your “press elite” on display.

And yes, there’s always more. You already live on The Planet of Chimps, and chimps have always loved to put their skills on vivid display. During Campaign 2000, Michael Crowley was flummoxed by 2 plus 5 (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/9/00); at the start of Campaign 04, he ran to be the first to complain that John Kerry liked wind-surfing—and even played show tunes on his guitar! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/10/02.) Sorry—no one ever gets that stupid without putting in a good deal of hard work. And sure enough! Yesterday, the baby-faced boy who put Bush where he is showcased his mental stylings again. His headline: “The Clintons’ Enemies List.” These were his thoughtful ruminations:

CROWLEY (6/11/08): The Clintons aren't exactly refuting charges of Nixonian tactics here [linked to Leibovich piece].

The threats of retribution against traitors is also the kind of thing you say when you've won and are amassing power. It's a bit odd to bluster this way when your influence is at a nadir.

The Clintons “weren't exactly refuting charges of Nixonian tactics there?” The Clintons weren’t quoted in the piece. In fact, here’s what Leibovich said about Hillary Clinton, based on things he says he was told by unnamed campaign officials: “Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her.” Wow! Her evil ways just never stop! But in the mind of a butt-kissing climber like Crowley, that sentence let him put “Enemies List” into a headline—a headline which said that Hillary Clinton had such a list—and it let him tut-tut-tut about what she “wasn’t exactly doing.” But then, many boot-licking boys like Crowley run to show that they will accept whatever narrative their clan may lay out for them. (Why on earth did Candidate Gore cite seven years as a journalist?) Yesterday, the term “Enemies List” had reached the top headline at The Huffington Post by noon. By the way: If you want to peruse the work of people who really can’t read a newspaper story, just scan the inaccurate, cosmically gullible statements by so many of Crowley’s commenters. Remember when we liberals used to claim that we were smarter than those dumb-*ss conservatives?

For our money, though, we may have been most struck by Nancy Giles, on last night’s Verdict with Dan Abrams. In fairness, Giles is barely a part of the pundit corps—and she clearly seemed to be sincere when she made the statement which follows. But should people of this type be on network TV? If your “press corps” weren’t so baldly dysfunctional, would this sort of thing seem acceptable? The exchange began with Abrams posing a hypothetical: Should Obama make Clinton his VP if it seems that she is needed to win the November election?

ABRAMS (6/11/08): Well, let me ask you this. Nancy, if the numbers show—if it’s close by the time he has to make the decision, and the numbers show in the polls that Hillary could make the difference, would that make the difference to you?

GILES: No.

ABRAMS: You’d still say it’s worth losing over?

GILES: No, it’s not worth losing over because I don’t think he’ll lose...I think it would be a real liability. But his whole campaign is new—change, not old politics. And Hillary—look, if he gets Hillary as his VP, he’s got to hire somebody to be the official presidential taster because you don’t know what`s going to be in your food. You don’t know what could happen. I literally feel that way.

Of course, many pundits have joked the Standard Joke about Obama needing a food-taster. But Giles showed no sign of joking when she recited the tired old script. She said she “literally” felt that way, and she clearly seemed to mean it. We were thus returned to the remarkable days when pundits sat on network TV and talked about Hillary Clinton, murderer....

Our morally-challenged press elites pull out the reruns: Hillary is a murderer, Bill is a philanderer, and The Clintons are making a Nixonian "Enemies List." Oh, they are soooo evil.

Where do news orgs--I use the term loosely--get these people? Rejects from soap operas or TV dramas? Failed screenplay writers? Comic books? Fact-checking has been outsourced to Bizarro World. When people want facts, they deliver fiction. To summarize the silly state of media and our darthling Blog Boyz like Matt...

The Bizarro code: "Us do opposite of all earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World."

CREDITS: Image from The Comic Treadmill.

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?

Unbridled misogyny

Joseph Cannon reported this gawd-awful Hillary-bashing news from O-bots go psycho:

And a new O-bot post at the Daily Cheeto bears this lovely title: “Senator Obama please take your foot and step on her throat!”

What's next from the DailyKooks? A call to waterboard Hillary Clinton into submission?

Sick.

The pledged delegate sham

Super-smart Paul Lukasiak breaks out why the pledged delegate count is a ridiculous metric for selecting a nominee:

As far as Obama’s supporters are concerned, a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/23 of a voter in Alaska. In Alaska, 8,877 voters chose the state’s 13 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, or 683 voters per delegate. In Ohio, 2,194,851 voters chose that state’s 141 pledged delegate. That’s 15,566 voters per delegate.

Or perhaps Obama’s supporters really think that a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/37 of an Alaskan voter. Based on the support of 4480 more people, Barack Obama picked up 5 more delegates to the Democratic Convention than Hillary Clinton in Alaska.. That’s 896 Obama supporters per extra delegate. Clinton picked up 7 more delegates than Obama in Ohio, based on her support from 229,873 more Ohioans, or 32,839 Clinton supporters per extra delegate.

In other words, if the Democratic National Committee treated the votes of Alaskans and Ohioans as equal, and gave Clinton an extra delegate for every 893 supporters in Ohio, Clinton would have received not 7, but 257 more delegates than Obama from that state. But thanks to the way in which the DNC allocates delegates, and DNC’s willingness to permit different states to select their Convention delegates in an undemocratic fashion, Clinton gets only 2 more delegates from Ohio than Obama gets from Alaska, despite the fact that Clinton’s combined popular vote advantage from these two states is over 225,000.

This is just one of the absurdities that lies at the foundation of the argument of Obama supporters that the person who wins the most pledged delegates during the primary season has a right to be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008. [Emphasis added.]

Paul offered a tremendous amount of information. I've clipped the opening grafs. Click over for the full picture. Part of Paul's conclusion deserves more attention than the A-List fauxgressives have acknowledged:

As of right now, Obama’s delegate lead is almost entirely from “caucus” states – states where each voter is provided with far more weight than in the primary states, and gives individual voters in heavily Republican states three times more influence than voters in crucial swing states when it comes to electing delegates.

Obama lead in primary states is only 8 delegates. Obama 8 vote lead in primary states is based on getting 71 more delegates than Clinton from states that haven’t voted for a Democrat for President in the last three elections, and where Democrats have lost by an average margin of over 16 points in the last three years. In terms of the primary vote totals, Obama is only close to Clinton thanks to these heavily Republican primary states, where he has a lead of more than 813,000 in the popular vote.

Clinton has dominated the primaries in crucial “swing states” and “heavily Democratic” states, garnering the support of over 51,000 more voters than Obama in these states, and winning 63 more delegates there....

...When Obama supporters argue that the delegate count is the only thing that matters, they would have you believe that the outcomes in Ohio and Alaska are not significantly different – only 2 delegates separate the outcome in the two states, and that is all that is important.

It is this kind of thinking that loses Presidential elections. [Emphasis added.]

I've posted previously that I had never paid much attention to the party's peculiar methods of nominating a presidential candidate. Jeebus! Eyes wide open now.

While the Blog Boyz continue their screeching about the pledged delegate count, my response to the Obamasphere is their argument is based on an astoundingly stupid and undemocratic system. UYATUPYRIO. Shame on the party. Paul asked the ultimate question: "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE?"

Malignant Absurdity, Vol. I

Cropped image of The Scream by Edvard Munch, 1893.
Oil, tempera, and pastel on cardboard.

I usually scroll past comments that express outrageously sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and general wingnuttia but maybe taking the temperature of BlogHell can heighten the awareness of the Malignant Absurdity™ that's eating away people's brains with divisiveness and hatred.

Something to ponder: are the authors below incurable wacky-doodle bigots or a vanguard of a concerted ratfucking effort? If you're unfamiliar with the term, ratfucking, a Wiki definition: "...an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks. It was first brought to public attention by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their book All the President's Men. Read on for details.

IOW, are Republican operatives (who refined ratfucking into a dark art) spoofing Obama or Clinton supporters to alienate voter blocs from the candidates and Democrats in general?

WARNING--highly offensive snippets ahead.

Last night's stumbling-upon comments... Clinton-bashing, misogyny, racism, verbal violence, and Obama disinformation via a WashPo post on Clinton in Indiana at The Trail:

Clinton is st8 ridiculous. Everyone knows men and women are different. The rest of the world knows this. Muslims keep their women in check. It's time for real men in America to do the same. If your a real dude, keep your women in the kitchen. The 21st Amendment was the worse thing to happen to America. It's time to take this woman out. The politics of change is here, and we got a skirt - thanks to the liberal media - and elite white ppl who are on some messed up idealogoical sh**. Men and women are different; history does not lie, and the rest of world doesn't either. This is troubling times we're in, and we need the politics of change. Hillary get yourself back in the hot kitchen. Real dudes, keep your woman from voting (thats the only group she got along with racist white folk), and keep them and Hillary in the kitchen where they belong. Our time has come, move over. 1.

Posted by: Treyshaun1 | April 25, 2008 8:49 PM

Treyshaun1, my brother. Once again your words bring tears to my eyes. When I see your comments on various blogs, I know that there will hope and real black leaders in the future. I can only pray that my son will have half your strength. It is time for us to unite and take this woman out. We've come a long way, and we got this woman whose still stuck in la la land. Racism is alive and well in this country, and these white folk will get whats coming to them. Our time has come, hehe. Treyshaun, my brother, stay up. 1.

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 8:53 PM

The next poster, JakeD, politely corrects the erroneous reference to the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition--the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote--and he also noted, "this is the second time I've seen it (mistakenly) used against [Clinton]." Hmmm, curious, isn't it? Followed by another raving wacky doodle, further descent into depravity:

I used to work hard and I used to follow the American Dream and tried to pick myself up from the bootstraps and provide opportunities for my children that I didn't have. I kept quiet and worked hard. I was accountable for my own actions, and knew that I determined my destiny. I would rise and fall by my own merits. But I have learned something from black people.

I HATE WHITE PEOPLE. Saying this, believing this, and blaming my economic situation on white people will get white people's attention. This is the lesson I've learned from black people. It works. I think I will now proceed to rob white people, kill white people, rape white people, and blame all my problems on white people.

Hard work has gotten me nowhere. I thank black people and white people stupid enough to listen to them for showing me that the American Dream is dead and traditional American values are dead. We live in a new era, and I'm ready for the CHANGE.

KILL WHITEY, RAPE WHITEY, ROB WHITEY IS THE NEW WAY OF THE FUTURE.

Posted by: Mexican President | April 25, 2008 8:58 PM

JakeD - your one intelligent white man (sarcasm added). Thank you sir, for correcting my brethren. I bet it makes you happy when we tripped up on one detail. Treyshaun is right though, we have the politics of CHANGE. And we got a racist skirt whose stopping the change for her own selfish ambitions. And its white folk like you who like focus on ever misstatement or mistake that black males make. Why don't you focus on your own pathetic life and your own inadequacies, time's are changing, and your time is done. My boy Treshaun, 1.

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Mexican President,
Are you serious? No one cares about your people or Asians. I'm tired of white folk talking about how successful Asians are, or why is it that some slant-eyed dude from the Orient can do well on SAT's, get into good schools, and get good jobs without affirmative action. Or why can't blacks work as hard as Mexicans. I'll tell u what boy, we ain't like u. We're not as stupid as Latinos and Asians to be toiling for the white man and trying to assimalate into his racist culture. We live in a government of white sponsored racism. If Latinos and Asians can't see that, thats they bad. CHANGE is coming, and we'll get u fools too. Our time has come. When your white master's time is done, who you gonna run to?

Posted by: Masai Hanley | April 25, 2008 9:06 PM

[...]

Hey Treyshaun and Masai, Obama has already planted the CHANGE in Kenya when he worked so hard to get Odinga elected. I don't think a lot of people know that Odinga is not only a communist Muslim whose first order of business was going to be to replace Kenya's democracy with Islamic law, but that he shares a vision with Gaddafi to see Africa become a Pan African/Islamic socialist nation. That's why besides Obama, Gaddafi also supported Odinga's campaign. Although Odinga didn't get to become president of Kenya, he was able to do a little ethnic cleansing of around 1000 Kenyans which secured him the title of prime minister. Anyway, now that he's Kenya's prime minister, any day now he'll attempt a coup like he's done in the past and kill the president of Kenya so he can take his place and finally impose Islamic law. I'm sure you'd both be much happier living in Kenya then in the United States. There you'd be able to fully appreciate and enjoy the CHANGE and even have a front row seat watching it happen. You can probably even join in on the ethnic cleansing festivities. May I suggest giving Farrakhan a call to help you out with the airfare.

Posted by: Ijane | April 25, 2008 9:34 PM

The spittle keeps flying if you dare to read the entire thread. After I scanned WashPo's Post a Comment policy at The Trail--"User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site...."--methinks someone is falling down on the job. Aren't they? Or...? Wouldn't be the first time the Pravda on the Potomac acted as a tool for GOP propaganda.

Are the above quotes examples of Malignant Absurdity™ or ratfucking or both?

POSTSCRIPT: When Anglachel referenced the violent rape-and-murder hate speech aimed at Hillary Clinton in her commentary on Keith Olbermann, she wasn't kidding. It's far more disturbing to read it on SCLBs.

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."

Wacky-doodle Dobson

Bless his heart. Dobson doesn't think all that clearly:

In a June 28 guest commentary posted on CNN.com, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson mischaracterized the same-sex marriage debate to baselessly suggest that there is strong public support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Criticizing senators who voted against the constitutional amendment for "turn[ing] their backs" on the "most basic social institution" of marriage, Dobson disputed the significance of "trumped-up polls" from the "liberal press" showing public opposition to the amendment by touting "the 19 states in which voters overwhelmingly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman." In fact, while some recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe same sex marriage should be illegal, that was not the issue before Congress. Rather, Congress specifically faced the question of whether to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Contrary to Dobson's claim, on that issue, the most recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree with those senators who voted against the constitutional amendment.

In a fit of what I suspect was dementia, Dobson compared banning gay marriage (less freedom) to ending slavery (more freedom). Can you believe it?! Po' widdle wing'ut. Such strange values.

As June polls have demonstrated, Dobson couldn't be more wrong about the U.S. Constitution and the anti-gay marriage amendment:

• 48% favor letting states decide, 38% favor the feds, and 13% don't know (Fox News, June 13-14)

• 51% say states should decide, 42% favor a constitutional amendment (ABCNews, June 5)

Poor thing also thinks gay unions will pave the way for "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey." See? He's so befuddled, he confused a naturally occurring biological trait with acquired illnesses. Maybe Dobson is the source of Atlanta Braves pitcher, John Smoltz, wacky-doodle reasoning, "What's next? Marrying an animal?"

Who knew? Malignant absurdity was contagious.