Comments on: Do We Really Want A Bitch Fest?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:11:48 +0000

CTuttle @ 125

Dennis agrees with ya…
However, I believe Steny, Rahm, and Nancy have other thoughts, tho…

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._1102.html

I am dismayed that the progressive blogs are not beating the drums for something we all talked so much about not so long ago … this could be the last chance to impeach Cheney & Bush …

I think there are a lot of competing issues and the Mukasey hearing/trial is a big one right now.

I’d like to also think there’s a patience with Congress just now, while they sort out spending bills and how to get them passed without Senate Repubs just blocking them all.

Plus, there is the Kucinich bill to impeach — headed your way!

The impeachment of Deadeye Dick isn’t dead, just slightly delayed.

By: sf

sf — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:22:21 +0000

It’s not just sexism towards one candidate. It’s the “weak” on national security and the general values that are called “bread and butter” issues is how the right has always emasculated the democrat. Even through Bush’s results have been weak he’s made quite a spectacle utilizing traditional symbols of strength (military, tough talk etc.)

Now that a women is running on the Dem side the attack is the same but different. You are not the kind of WASP the hard right likes. The media is complicit in this with Matthews constantly calling the dems the Mommy party while bestowing the manly man virtures of the repub.

It’s all kind of sick and really disappointing that Modo, whose latest bookcover, looks as it does…has the audacity to be self-riteous about women’s gender issues with Hillary.

Remember her front page picture on the rolling stones. Hardly the picture of serious journalist.

By: Stogo

Stogo — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:05:55 +0000

Tanbark like a great white shark, your input suddenly rendered the “seals for Hillary” mute.
Joe ‘f*ck the progressives” Leiberman people!!! That is whom she supported!! She supported Joe “Bush lover” Leibermann and campaigned for Joe “The kiss” Leibermann. After the Ned Lamont gig and the glorious “F.U” she gave us by her vote on “Kyl-Liebermann” how can anyone on this blog support her?

By: sbgypsy

sbgypsy — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:11:14 +0000

Part of the problem is the long-term shift from a working press that gives us the information we need to be educated citizens (the whole point of the founders wanting to guarantee protections to the press)to a “media” that mainly wants and needs to entertain us to attract the maximum number of consumers (who used to be called readers).

I was a communications major in the mid ’90’s, and I’m here to tell you that the news media does not work that way anymore. If it did, KO’s Countdown would not be the ONLY news show around that tells our side of the argument.

No, the news in the US is a very partisan affair, since to decline the Kool Aid is to loose one’s job. We have deregulation to thank for that.

By: Tanbark

Tanbark — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:53:06 +0000

What Katie said.

By: Katie

Katie — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:45:10 +0000

Can someone explain to me how everything has gotten to the point that it is a gender issue/ It is almost pathological with the Clinton thing.Everyone knows what Dowd is about but if she is writing about anyone else including other females that is just shrugged off. Of course she is who she is and has been after Bush et al for years-whoever is in office..
I have spent my entire adult life in a male dominated career and now after all these have to get on the blogs I enjoy and see all the crap about Clinton and how we must now all bond together because this candidate is being picked on from all corners.and she is a woman so of course we must sstick together ad nauseum. it is a sad day ladies and it a sad commentary from this great site. It is far past time for Clinton to start answering questions and be treated equally with the others. Last I checked this is still not a monarachy ,nor a coronation yet.

By: randy evans

randy evans — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:58:00 +0000

“It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it.”

Wow. That is so wrong I am just speechless.

“If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.”

What have I “disrupted”?

But hell, boot away. If rational disagreement about Hillary Clinton equals misogyny to you, Ms. Hamsher, you’ll be doing a lot of booting over the next 12 months.

By: Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:43:29 +0000

I get it. You hate Hillary, you hate everything about her, and if you don’t have anything to hate about her you’ll find something to hate about her.

It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it. If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.

By: randy evans

randy evans — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:38:21 +0000

“If it does it, they may take us to a far, far better place than we have ever been. ModDo, meanwhile, seems intent on knitting while the traditional media turns into a guillotine.”

What the Dickens…?

By: MS

MS — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:36:19 +0000

Maureen Dowd makes me think of the Ricky Gervais character in “Extras” who (when panicked) repeats the cheap catchphrase “are you having a laugh?” that he despises and is ashamed of. It seems like Ms. Dowd observes events only in order to find some way to shoehorn them into her “trademarked” style. She has employed this technique so many times that now it comes off as hackneyed and cliched. It seems to me that she is petrified to step away from the “witty/jaundiced” formula that won her a gig on the Times editorial page. There really seems little point in reading her columns past the first sentence or two. She can be counted on to cough up a variation on the same column that she has already written 50 times before. It’s sad and cowardly.