Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

As many of you know, Keith Olbermann left his 6:00pm slot there for any number of reasons many of us would be willing to suggest were the true reasons. Regardless, he has been gone for a number of months now (though not off the tv – he found another cable channel to take him).

You will never believe who they found to replace him.

But before I make the big reveal, it seemed that Olbemann’s likely successor was Cenk Uygur, of “Young Turk” fame. Indeed, he was on the path. Or so he thought. But then something strange happened, according to Mr. Uygur (h/t to Harp2 for this video):

For those of you who may not have internet service that supports videos, suffice it to say, Mr. Uygur was told that he would not be stepping into Olbermann’s shoes because some in Washington didn’t like his “tone,” according to Mr. Uygur in this NY Times article (which also highlights the NY Times incredible bias):

[snip] Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.

[...]

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added. [snip]

Of course he didn’t. That’s why Uygur claimed that the head of MSNBC met with him, and told him that they were Washington Insiders.

Just as I am so sure the White House had nothing to do with MSNBC indefinitely suspending the editor of Newsweek, Mark Halperin, for a comment he made on “Morning Joe.” Oh, wait. Yes they did. (Now, I do not think it was appropriate for Halperin to use the language he did about a sitting president, but honestly – the things people said about Bush and Clinton were pretty harsh, but I don’t think either one of those presidents had their toadies call the network and insist the person be let go. We do have an amendment about what people can say, after all, whether they like it or not.)

Okay. So, it is not going to be Cenk, since he has the unmitigated gall to actually question what Obama does once in a while. No sirree, can’t have THAT on MSNBO.

Wanna guess who it’s going to be? Oh, you won’t – this is just so freakin’ glaringly biased for Obama, you would never believe that an alleged news channel would hire this man for such a prime slot. But you would be wrong.

It’s the Reverend Al Sharpton. I swear. It isn’t official as of this writing, but it is “Imminent,” according to the New York Times:

[snip] Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. [snip]

Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is now going to have one of the plum, prime, slots on MSNBC. He is SO impartial, so even handed, in his outlook and statements. And I trust you know that it total and complete snark on my part. Of course, he is wildly partisan, taking offense where there is none, taking on causes that have little merit, and on and on Io could go. One thing is for certain about the good reverend – he loves to be on the tee-vee, so no doubt, this is a dream come true for him.

As for MSNBO, come on already, make it official. Go ahead and change your logo to this:

Seriously, I think we would all have more respect for you if you were honest about who and what you are. As a bonus, my partner, who created this for me, said you can even have it for free.

Until then, I imagine you will keep pretending to be a “news” source with the likes of Al Sharpton as your prime time host. And I imagine a lot of us will be laughing at you for it…

Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits – including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations – GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.

“How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?” Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. “And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.’s tax status “outrageous.”

“At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are worried about our nation’s deficit we should be punishing–not rewarding–companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and taxpayers of billions of dollars,” he said in a statement. “This sort of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White House appointment.”

Why did it take the honorable Mr. Feingold so long to notice? Please forgive my cynicism but it is quite apparent that most politicians no longer speak out to help the American people – they speak out to help themselves. If indeed he does have a mind to challenge Barack Obama for the nomination in 2012, this is awfully good timing to start noticing corruption that was all too apparent to the rest of us three years ago.

Ironically, CBS also reports that President Obama has lambasted the very tax loopholes that companies like GE take advantage of. So are you telling me he is not aware of this contradiction?

The only people not aware are the ones who don’t follow the news closely enough to know the President is railing against the very people he has been helping all along. There seems to be a current bent to punish small businesses who create the bulk of jobs in this country in favor of crony capitalism and powerful über companies who wield far too much political influence as it is.

By the way, during 2008, GE owned NBC/MSNBC and also owned Newsweek. These are three organizations that morning, noon and night posted grossly favorable press to Mr. Obama in 2008 while trashing his primary opponent Hillary Clinton with a zest not before seen. That’s quite the coincidence…

MoveOn was so busy denigrating Hillary and trumpeting Obama beyond all sense, I suppose they did not notice the coincidence either. Did they not think there would be some sort of quid pro quo?

And if President Obama finally notices the “coincidence,” you can be sure he will not throw Immelt under the bus unless and until it is politically advantageous to do so.

Editor’s Note: Special thanks to our videographer Truthtelling007 who has a great compilation of Larry Johnson’s appearances on television. (See a list, and the link to all, in the right column.)

With the closing down of Countdown, I can now say I have a fairly complete archive of the show. Regardless of the opinions people have against/favor of Keith Olbermann…it was the guests that I was looking for. Guests over those 8 years included Larry Johnson, Lawrence Wilkerson, Matthew Alexander, Malcolm Nance, The Wilsons, and many others that I think we can agree are valuable experienced voices. I don’t let hosts distract me if possible.

From the archive: Larry appeared on Countdown in April 2006 to discuss the attack on his former boss, Mary McCarthy and comments on Porter Goss, Valerie Plame and others:

COMMENT FROM LARRY–I enjoyed going on Keith’s show before he turned into a pompous parody of a serious newsman. It is one thing for Keith to rant at George W. Bush. Bush deserved every rant in my book. But Keith missed his chance to occupy the high ground in the middle. Instead he became (or always was) a venomous partisan. I stopped getting invites to appear on Keith’s show once I came out in favor of Hillary. In this aspect MSNBC and FOX are just alike. Fox put me on the persona non grata list after I had the audacity to speak out about the ideological influence guiding the Fox team behind the scenes.

One big difference between Fox and MSNBC. Fox is successful. I don’t know shat Olbermann plans to do next but like Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg we have seen his highwater mark. It is now clear that Keith is no Edward R. Murrow.

Bernie Goldberg discussed Obama’s Fall from the MSM’s “slobbering love affair” recently, based on research he conducted for his book of the same title Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and evidenced by recent statements from prominent members of the media:

Gee – is it possible that some folks are really starting to get what we were trying to tell them (and for which we were roundly dismissed with charges of racism, sour grapes, and much worse)? Even some folks in Hollywood are getting it now:

Here’s the thing, Gene – maybe if you had actually done some homework, maybe looked at the local Chicago papers, or thought to yourself, “huh – I wonder why we can’t see Obama’s transcripts, or medical records, or any paperwork at all from his time in IL?” Or even, “why did Obama have to get everyone thrown off the ballot to win his IL seat?” Or how about, “Why did Obama’s team expose the sealed divorce records of both front-runners for the US Senate seat?” Or maybe, just maybe, THIS question: “Why is this guy running after being in the U.S. Senate for 143 days?” Maybe then you wouldn’t have wasted your vote, and be regretting it now.

I have to say, I LOVE Jane Lynch, so I was thrilled to see that she got it. I have tried and tried and TRIED to tell my Obot-loving family that Obama does NOT support same-sex marriage, just the same as the woman they love to hate, Sarah Palin.

While I am speaking of Obama, SC Gov.-Elect Haley was on Greta discussing Obamacare the other night (and thanks to fellow writer, Eastan, for alerting me to her appearance):

Yep – she’s going to be representing our state, and I have to say, I am glad of it.

Anywho – so some in the media continue to wake up (others, not so much – three words, Olbermann and Maddow), but there are signs of life now among not just the media, but the Hollywood cheerleaders, too.

Okay, so NOW do I get to do my “Told You So” dance? Hmm – that wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season, so how about this: Welcome. We have been waiting for you.

Breaking News: As of this writing, the Senate has voted to allow DADT to advance. Finally. I knew this was going to happen – it would be left until right before the new Congress came in. But it appears DADT will finally be repealed, thank heavens (and no real thanks to Obama – if anyone should be thanked for this, it is Rep. Patrick Murphy, who has pushed for repeal tirelessly). A final vote should be forthcoming this weekend, but it looks good for repeal!

The Courage Campaign has highlighted an important aspect of DADT repeal about which you may not have heard. This from an email I received today:

Here’s the skinny: the Senate vote was the last legislative obstacle. Now the bill will head to President Obama’s desk for his signature. But even after the President signs this law, no one can serve openly. Certification is first required from the President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary of Defense. It’s part of a backroom deal cut months ago, and it’s ridiculous. We’ve seen how the Administration has dragged their feet over the past two years on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. We can’t let that happen again.

It is not a done deal yet. We must keep the Administration’s feet to the fire on this issue so that all Americans who wish to serve may serve.

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

As for Mr. Sajak, the same thing. This was then. To give you an idea, this is what Keith used to be like:

Funny, right? Perfectly entertaining. But something happened in 2008 that just seemed to send him off the rails. Mr. Sajak seems to feel the same way, given he issued an apology, which he did through Ricochet.com:

[snip] Keith tended to wear out his welcome at stations and networks, and he bounced around to several places before he found his niche at MSNBC. When he first went on the air there, he was actually quite entertaining. He was wry and amusing, and he looked at the news at a kind of cockeyed angle that I enjoyed.

I’m not sure how he morphed into the bitter-sounding, hate-mongering name-caller he’s become, but I’m sorry he did. I liked the guy, and he was always a good guest. Maybe it’s just show business and trying to find a place in it and building an audience, but I don’t know. We were never friends away from the show, so I can’t even guess what drives him.

I do know that to whatever extent the political well has been poisoned, Keith has dumped more than his share of venom into the water. I’d like to think he knows that and maybe even regrets it. I liked the Keith Olbermann of 1989. This tape reminded me that I miss him. (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, you will get zero argument from me that Olbermann dumped more than his share of venom into the political well. The extent of his poisonous ranting has been well documented.

But you know Mr. Olbermann was not going to take this lying down. Why should he? He is probably one of the few people who can be suspended from work, and make his employers apologize to him in order for him to return. Go figure. Anyway, the long and short of Olbermann’s retort is that Sajak did not introduce him to a national audience. Yeah, okay, Keith – whatever you say (am I alone in not believing what he says? Yeah, didn’t think so.).

I appreciate Mr. Sajak’s taking the time, and bearing the responsibility, for apologizing for unleashing Olbermann onto the national scene, but it isn’t his fault. We don’t blame the Wheel of Fortune man. How could he possibly know that the funny, quirky sportscaster he had on his show was going to turn into someone who said crap like this:

Yikes. And anyone who listened to this man during the 2008 Primary knows for Olbermann to throw the terms “sexist” at someone else is just laughable. Laughable. The manner in which he has talked about both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin make him the last person in the world to be taken seriously hurling that charge at another. Who could forget statements like this from the lips of Mr. Olbermann, “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” So, this man, who is threatening violence against a woman, and not just any woman – a sitting US Senator, thinks he can call anyone else a “sexist”? Yeah, that would be laughable if it wasn’t so despicable.

Again, anyone who watched him during the 2008 Primaries/Campaign know the type of rhetoric to which Mr. Sajak was referring. He couldn’t know, couldn’t possibly know, that this is who the once-funny sportscaster would become…

While we are on the topic of ranting hosts from MSNBC(O), I would be remiss to leave out Olbermann’s counterpart, Rachel Maddow. I cannot help but wonder, how is it that people who actually work in the media, on television, are not aware that there is video documentation available to either support or dispel their assertions? I continue to be amazed that so many of these people seem to forget this, as illustrated above.

In the case of the Rhodes Scholar, Rachel Maddow, you would think a Rhodes Scholar, of all people, would know there will be video archives of programs on her own network, especially since she likes to use video archives of other cable news, like, say, Fox.

Evidently not. Recently, Ms. Maddow had a little holier-than-thou moment in which she asserted that guests on Fox News shilled for money, thus engaging in politics, something people at MSNBC(O) would NEVER, EVER do. Oh, no, in her most sanctimonious tone, she claimed MSNBC(O) was all about news, not politics, according to this very good Johnny Dollar piece. Would you find someone on MSNBC(O) shilling for cash for their political careers? Absolutely not. How dare anyone even suggest such a crazy thing! No doubt Ms. Maddow would say something along those lines, given her umbrage at Fox allowing such a thing on its programs.

The thing is, she would be wrong in a big way, as this video by Johnny Dollar makes clear:

Oops.

So, not only is this Rhodes Scholar unclear on the concept of having video tape of her own news outlet, but of the term “HYPOCRISY.”

Honest to pete, how in the world can she be so freakin’ hypocritical, so pompous, and not see it? Or is it that she just doesn’t care that she’s a big liar? I guess being a Rhodes Scholar doesn’t automatically imply one is ethical, so there is that. But really, her sanctimonious, arrogant, condescending attitude toward Fox for the very same thing guests on her network have done – with impunity, especially Alan Grayson (and THANK YOU, FLORIDA for not voting this man back in), is just absurd.

But you know, Ms. Maddow does seem to be in the right place there at MSNBC(O). Any network that employs the King of Pomposity, Keith Olbermann, and Angry Man, Ed Schultz, would be a great fit for the condescending hypocrisy of Rachel Maddow.

Keep it up, Rachel. You’re making Fox look better and better.

But there is one other “change” that has reared its ugly head since the Obama campaign began, and that is the war on women. You know, the “Bros Before Hoes” (a slogan and t-shirt), “Sarah Palin Is a C…” t-shirts, the Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers,” the “Life’s A Bitch, Don’t Vote For One” (in regard to Hillary Clinton) t-shirt, and on and on. We saw them all too often during 2008, with men (and some women) wearing them with glee.

Add to those displays the “comedienne” Sandra Bernhard threatening Sarah Palin with being gang-raped by black men (racist much, Sandra??) should she dare come to New York. Or Randi Rhodes, at a fundraiser for the Great Uniter, Obama, calling Hillary Clinton a whore. Oh, wait – I mean, “a big fucking whore.” N.O.W., Naral, Planned Parenthood, all supporting the man in the race (and as recently mentioned, the California chapter of N.O.W. endorsing the man in the governor’s race over the pro-choice woman, and supporting one of his aides calling her a whore).

And we cannot forget the blatant misogyny of many in the media since 2008. Three names sum it up: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster. Need I say more? Not only did many in the media routinely make sexist, even misogynistic statements, but they routinely failed to cover the news, like the young men yelling at Hillary Clinton, “Iron My Shirt!” You and I both know damn well had anyone yelled out at Barack Obama, “Shine My Shoes!” we would be hearing about blatant racism in the campaign to this day.

All of which is to say, the misogyny is not limited to displays by men, unfortunately. Too many women are all too ready to throw their lot in with them. I suppose their “logic” is that they should join in lest they be treated the same way by these same men. Perhaps they think if they side against women, too, they will be spared the horrific treatment that is becoming all too acceptable. It is just a bit disturbing when it comes from groups whose sole purpose is to support women.

Taken together, it makes the story below not so surprising, sadly. Not that it isn’t emetic, mind you, but it is not surprising. Not after all we have seen since 2008, the t-shirts, the slogans, the flipping off by Candidate Obama of Hillary Clinton, the “sweetie” remarks toward a reporter, also by Candidate Obama, as well as the hint of PMS when he claimed Clinton might “get down periodically,” or Obama’s claiming that his challenge to the status quo “brings the claws out,” along with the general rage against powerful women, both Democratic and Republican for having the audacity to run against men. The nerve of these women, those who dared to run for president, or governor, or senator, or representative – how freaking dare they?

Those attitudes, both subtle and overt, have an effect. They are, as Obama likes to say, “Teachable moments.” But what these messages are teaching our young people is sickening. And that brings us to this from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, “Yale Fraternity Apologizes For Pledge Chants About Rape” (h/t to Pat Racimora):

The Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale University apologized on Thursday for offensive chants against women that were shouted by new recruits on Wednesday evening. The young men, blindfolded, were marched through a part of the campus where female freshmen live while shouting, “No means yes, yes means anal!,” among other inflammatory chants. The pledging ritual sparked an outcry from Yale feminists and the Yale Women’s Center and a commentary in Salon.

Yep. Yale. The Salon article states:

[snip] Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste.” But this sort of hateful crap isn’t a “lapse in judgment.” It doesn’t innocently happen that you’re guiding male pledges by young women’s dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn’t a forehead-slapping slip-up, it’s a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. [snip]

I’ll say. But not just at Yale. Young men, and women for that matter, need reprogramming in general that treating women like this, whether they are young or old, is simply unacceptable. It is not okay to threaten young women with rape, just as it is not okay to threaten a political figure with gang rape or to attack a candidate based on gender and not on their political stance. The entire country could use some “re-programming,” including Obama. Now THAT is some change I can support, and the sooner, the better.

Women in this country deserve at least that much, don’t we?

My physical therapist doesn’t know that I dwell in the world of politics except when recovering from major surgery (and thanks, everyone, for your support and concern. More on that below…). At my last visit with him, he brought up politics. First, he bashed Fox News, and anyone who would watch “such trash”, claiming they make up news to suit their points, not report the news. I mentioned to him that Bret Baier routinely has someone from NPR on for the discussions at the end of his show (since he mentioned he likes NPR), and that Fox routinely has Democrats on. He said they were only the wimpy ones, though, not tough ones. Hmm. So, you know, they don’t count. Like the current head of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, I suppose. Okay. Whatever. Let’s find a way to not let facts influence our opinions. (I might add, before 2008, I had the same opinions about Fox, having never watched it. I believed the spiel from the DNC, Jon Stewart, MSNBC, and others. But they (Fox) were the only ones who treated Hillary Clinton with a modicum of respect, especially Greta Van Susteran, so I started giving them a chance. Turns out, they are not as horrible as the Democrats made them out to be.)

Meanwhile, my PT thinks MSNBC is just fine, naturally, and really only operates to counteract the vileness that is Fox. You know, they are performing a service, see, lest people fall under the spell of that horrible Fox machine. Misogynistic rhetoric by Keith Olbermann directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Campaign was not something my PT noticed, but if there was anything, he suggested that I probably just noticed it since I am a woman. He couldn’t think of any instances in which he heard anything misogynistic from Olbermann at all.

I am not kidding. He said all of this with nary a thought that he could be making an ass of himself, or that he was being just a tad sexist his own self by minimizing my saying something was sexist because I’m a woman. (I wonder if a person of color says something is racist, does his/her saying so automatically mean they are just being too sensitive? Or is this something left more for us little ladies when we cry foul on sexism?)

That set the tone for what came next. The PT insisted that I was completely, flat out, absolutely, completely, couldn’t possibly be right, wrong when I said that that Obama stated there are 57 states, or that he said the Great Lakes are in Oregon, or that his parents were inspired to have him because of the March On Selma, even though that event occurred 4 years AFTER his birth, unless this information came solely from Fox News. You know how we women folk don’t really know nothing and all. Well, I quickly found him an article from the LA Times, “Barack Obama Wants To Be President of These 57 United States,” and asked if THAT was sufficient for him, even reading him this quote:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he’d also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, “”I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh.” At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?)

I asked him if the LA Times would suffice. His response? He would have to look it up for himself. He is sitting there, seeing the LA Times masthead on my computer, but even that was not sufficient. Yeah, whatever, dude. Not only did he refuse to acknowledge any of the above instances of Obama misspeaking, but also blew off Obama’s claim that Hillary Clinton won Kentucky because it borders Arkansas, apparently, not understanding that Kentucky borders Illinois’ Southern border. His explanation? That for the people there, at least, it was a “psychological” closeness, so it made sense they would go for Hillary Clinton. Huh?? Wow. Oh, and I mentioned to him that the MSM did not do its job vetting Obama, that had Bush or ANYONE else, said these kinds of things, they would still be talking about them. Seems maybe MSNBC didn’t provide him with as much information as he thought it did (or Jon Stewart, whom he mentioned as one of the people from whom most young people get their news). Ahem.

And you know what his immediate response was to the litany of “mistakes” Obama made? One thing – Hillary and Bosnia. Right. Her exaggeration of one story is equivalent to all of the misstatements and flat out lies of Obama’s. Gotcha.

But here’s the thing – that example cam tripping right off his tongue, but he knew NOTHING about Obama’s gaffes and lies. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

But that is just one guy. We know there are so many more who don’t notice the sexism because they are not women (according to my PT’s logic). For instance, how about California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown denying that a woman being called a whore is as bad as a racial slur? Not only did he deny it, he dismissed it out of hand. He sure does know how to win a woman over, doesn’t he?

I can make it a bit more local. Our SC Democratic nominee for the US Senate, Alvin Greene, was apparently just trying to flirt with a young woman when he showed her pornographic photos for which he has now been charged with a felony. At least that seems to be what his attorney was saying in this Washington Post article when the attorney said this:

“He was attempting to flirt with a young lady who had no interest in him,” Eleazer Carter told The Associated Press. “While the charges are very serious, I think it boils down to, when a lady turns you down, has it reached a criminal offense?”

That’s all it was, people – why is everyone making such a big deal out of it? Sheesh, c’mon, already – you little women need to stop being so sensitive.

Which is apparently what the California chapter of N.O.W. thinks in terms of calling women derogatory names. Yep – turns out they think it is A-Okay. You know what I mean – the Jerry Brown “hey, baby, being called a whore ain’t such a bad thing,” from the recent debate with gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. WTH??? Add to that Alvin Greene’s “just flirting” assertion, and I just had to share this recent experience. Holy Moley.

And speaking of physical therapy. I am still pretty busy with my daily regimen of physical therapy and dealing with high levels of pain (so, um, that’s my excuse if there are any typos or anything. The PT did say this is what happens when your bone and muscle are cut. It hurts, like being hit with a police baton right on the tibia over and over 24/7 for 6 – 8 weeks. Yep, sounds about right.). I have missed our conversations, but also haven’t been in a place where I can give the time I would like to fully engage. So, thank you again, everyone, for your thoughts and prayers. It means a lot to me. I am working up to writing more regularly, I promise.

But I’m not talking about any of that. Nope, I have some interesting little news tidbits for you.

First up, Rep. Maxine Water’s attorneys are irritated that she is still being investigated. Yes, they want the Ethics Committee to “Leave Maxine ALOONNNEEE!” They assert that since the formal probe is over, the Ethics Committee should knock it off. But as The Hill article indicates, they aren’t the boss of the Ethics Committee:

[snip] Unlike criminal proceedings, however, the ethics committee itself, not a judge, determines whether Waters’s legal arguments are accepted or dismissed. For that reason, it’s unlikely the panel will halt its activities after receiving the letter from Brand and Herman. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So, there’s that. Perhaps it didn’t occur to them that Rep. Waters might have committed additional ethics violations. Just a thought.

Second up, and you’re going to love this, is Ed Schultz, of MSNBO and Air America fame, had himself a little “Mel Gibson” moment, as this NY Post article, “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Goes Bonkers.” Just wait until you read why:

MSNBC talk show screamer Ed Schultz had a meltdown in the network’s 30 Rock newsroom, shouting at staff, “I’m going to torch this [bleep]ing place.”

The hot-tempered anchor of “The Ed Show” lost it during a phone call in the packed studio and slammed down the phone before exploding.

As astonished MSNBC staff members fell silent, Schultz glared around the room and yelled, “[Bleep]ers!”

A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” [snip]

But wait – there’s more:

[snip] Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.”

Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. [snip]
(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Poor Ed – not feeling the love. Just breaks your heart for him that the MSNBO Execs love Keith and Rachel more, doesn’t it? Oh yeah, my heart bleeds for him.

Finally, did you know that the other name by which the Tea Party should be known is the KKK? Oh, yes, indeedy. Check out this OBC, I mean, ABC, report:

Did you catch that quote at the end? Apparently, Rev. Fauntroy didn’t since he justified his remarks with this explanation:

[snip]Fauntroy attempted to explain the comparison to white supremacists by saying that organizers behind the “Restoring Honor” rally are the same people who cut audio cables from a sound system the night before the historic March on Washington and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that certainly makes it all better: Tea Party = White Supremacists. I mean, c’mon, who could possibly take offense at that connection? Never mind that it is completely false, but hey – you know, that’s all he meant by it. No big deal or anything.

Good grief. All because the Tea Party dared to hold a rally around the same time they are being compared to KKK members? I have to say it – Rev, Fauntroy completely missed the message Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was trying to impart. His son said it all – his father “would not want to limit voices.” So, why is Rev. Fauntroy attempting to do so with this incendiary speech? That’s what I would like to know.

I am sure there are more stories out there that we may have missed. Let’s have them!

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

I might add, after the big 18 minute speech, we can also add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman to the list of people whose Obama-fog is being lifted. That’s quite a trifecta, and in large part due to the Obama speech about how we would deal with this devastating oil spill, all 18 minutes, which apparently lacked specificity. Just ask Olbermann. Wow, who even knew this was possible?

But to be fair, Stewart’s rehab back into the Reality-based community started earlier than the MSNBC Trifecta, not waiting for the speechifying of the Flawed Analogy Maker in Chief. At least from what I have seen in clips. But when I saw this on Tuesday night, I admit, I was stunned:

Holy moley – it’s as if this BP spill has finally broken through all of the Kool Aide induced amnesia, and some folks are finally starting to put together the pieces like we did during the primaries. Though Stewart missed one – that Obama as president also supports spying on American citizens. But other than that, it was as if Stewart finally decided to look at all of the things we had been screaming about in 2008 and 2009. Of course, he had to have the obligatory dig at Sarah Palin. We can’t have it all be about how hoodwinked the Obots were by Obama or else their heads might explode, so Stewart used the favorite punching bag of the Democrats, Sarah Palin, as a way to reduce tension in their brains. Whatever. Maybe he’ll get over that someday.

It should be interesting to see how Stewart responds to Obama’s Big Gulf Oil speech on Wednesday night’s show. If Tuesday night is any indication, Stewart may have finally gotten it. Perhaps he’ll report on the Safety Award the Obama Administration gave to the Deepwater Horizon, even though the Bush Administration gave it citations, or the lack of federal inspections, or that Obama only has 20 minutes scheduled for his big meeting with the BP Oil Execs (and, WTH with that??), or even why in the world Obama is still kowtowing to the unions and not waiving the Jones Act so other countries can come HELP US with this spill? Will more members of the MSM start to put these all together, or just leave it to a few sites while they continue to protect the Obama Presidency (how’s that working out for you now, Chris Matthews?)? Time will tell, and soon enough…

So, thanks, Larry, for helping me to go back to “The Daily Show.” Maybe there is some hope after all, you think?

Naturally the race baiters, race hustlers and sycophants to the current administration are frustrated. Their heads really ought to explode when they watch this video. Please enjoy some tea party folk being interviewed at these protests*…since the MSM et al are so busy tellin you there are no black Americans participating in these rallies…

I wonder what the exploding heads will say now.

Chat away.

**********
* H/T Hot Air for finding the video.

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.

The other night, Stewart went after Olbermann for his baseless attacks on Scott Brown, the new US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see, I know how to spell it, even without spell-check! Ahem.). It was absolutely priceless, and is continued within Olbermann’s response to Stewart below:

Yeah, I think there is one person who was funny in that clip, and it sure wasn’t Olbermann.

Stewart gave Olbermann a couple of points, but when someone uses as a reference a video clip (a Brown rally) that has been discredited, yet still insists on making the point with no context (that what was shouted off camera related to a case on which Coakley worked), it is demonstrative of some of the hoops Olbermann will jump through to attack someone. It is disingenuous at best, but that is what we have come to expect from Olbermann. Bluster, innuendo, and attacks based on the thinnest of inferences. I mean, really, for Olbermann, of all people, to attack ANYONE else for being sexist, is just, well, laughable. Go back to the 2008 Primary campaign on just about any night, but this one in particular is pretty indicative:

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take “some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.”

Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

Now, WHO’S sexist, exactly, Keith? Yeah, uh huh – I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Scott Brown.

And since Jon Stewart mentioned John Edwards, I just had to see what he said about him. Here it is – a newsflash for “idiots”:

Well, I certainly cannot disagree with Stewart’s assessment of those who did NOT know this child really was Edwards, all protests aside.

Yep, I may just have to start watching The Daily Show again if he keeps going this way. I guess people really ARE starting to wake up! And about damn time, too…