From “Talking Points Memo” - commentary on political events from a politically left perspective - the Web site of Joshua Micah Marshall:
“I have always had somewhat lukewarm feelings about Hillary Clinton. It took me years to forgive her for her "baking cookies" comment. At the time I had just given birth to my first child and decided to leave my job as an attorney to stay home and take care of my baby. I have been on the fence throughout this campaign, liking John Edwards more than the others. The media coverage of Sen. Clinton has caused my blood to boil. I cannot bear to witness blatant misogyny. Gloria Steinem's article in the NYT this morning was so on the mark. If I lived in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Sen. Clinton today. I would not allow the talking heads to tell me who to vote for or declare this race over. And I certainly was not going to participate in the sexist BS that has been spewing out the mouths of the likes of Chris Matthews.”
- TPM READER, MS, Josh Marshall, talkingpointsmemo.com, 1/8/2008, 9:19 P.M.
***
EXPAND YOUR MIND: So, what worries Gloria Steinem?
***
POSTSCRIPT:
Primary coverage, 11:30 P.M. – “I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
posts library
-
▼
2008
(69)
-
▼
Jan
(24)
- 'Pushing my FEMA button'
- A billion here, a billion there
- Up close & personal
- 'The medium is the message'
- 'Paper of record' picks Hillary
- 'Suffer the little children ...'
- No title
- A hobbit speaks
- Dum, de dum dum, driftwood!
- Eye on Wall Street
- 365 days to go!
- McCain no shoo-in
- South Carolina GOP primary
- 'A prince and a great man'
- The Dickens eagle
- 'Stop all the clocks'
- AT&T ripoff
- Matthews blames 'racists'
- BACKLASH!
- 'Brave New World'
- Dueling debates
- The audacity of hoke
- The privilege is ours
- Touch and go
-
▼
Jan
(24)
dreams
A warm welcome to the naturally curious, the politically engaged and constant learners. I am a retired newspaper editor with a fickle foe, retinitis pigmentosa, or RP. While my sense of sight is waning, my "vision" is not, and, by God, I can still see my dreams!
simply ...
- B.J.
- South Carolina, United States
- constant learner
traffic reports
fair use notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of current issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
7 comments:
Time will tell whether Chris Matthews remembers his vow to not underestimate Hillary Clinton and sticks to it. Maybe he and other talking heads read Gloria Steinem's article and got the message she expressed loud and clear. Perhaps they don't want to open their mouths to much and prove Ms. Steinem 100% correct!
Jan also read an article that told about Glenn Beck having "butt surgery."
http://www.aolvideoblog.com/2008/01/08/news-host-fesses-up-to-surgery/
Several hilarious comments are left with this article. You might want to check it out, expecially if you need a few laughs.
Happy sails to all...
In the immortal words of Chris Matthews, Frodo simply says "Hah!"
Frodo, trained as a behavioral scientist, ain't bad at telling you what happened. For real insight, ignore everything but the numbers. The projections were that O'Bama would win by maybe as many as 10 percentage points. If you consider just the total votes cast for O'Bama and Clinton, and Frodo would caution against that, that would've meant that O'Bama would have gotten about 12,000 more votes than Clinton. Instead, he got about 5,000 less. So the pollsters could've been absolutely "right on" about everything but 17,000 votes. 17,000 out of roughly 400,000 total votes represents an election error ratio of about 4%.
The attempts to manifest emotion or reaction to anything are probably sophomoric. Given that there wasn't anything else among all those individual vote totals which was far from projection, it is reasonable to say that the Clinton-Obama race was not statistically significant. The lessons to be learned are all about how lawyers shade opinions, and how sometimes guilty people go free.
Frodo will go into greater detail tonight, since the Georgia-Georgia Tech game will not be televised.
With all due respect, Mr. Frodo, you are a male hobbit and do not understand the point of this post. How could you? Ms. Steinhem’s op-ed piece reveals the subtlety of the sexism in this election coverage. Do you think my “sophomoric” ramblings are the only concerns being raised?
Go Hillary! I just wish those assholes would shut up and let Nature take HER course!
Well said BJ, about the underlining sexism that exists, even among friends.
It's understandable that old timers think as they do. The next generations will be better.
And that Chris Matthews should be booted out the door, with a shoe up his you know what!
I feel that, in this arena, I should never never make this comment. And that's a bad feeling. But I have a serious question here. She's not my candiate for president, and I am not sexist. Must I be seen as sexist?
First, Eowyn, I have to ask: are you all shook up? Did you feel the effects of the earthquake? I couldn’t help but think of you!
To answer your question: certainly not! Not voting for Hillary would no more make someone a sexist than not voting for Obama would make someone a racist. This post is not about candidates. This post and my previous comments have been about responsible journalism.
MSNBC’s election coverage for months has made Fox News look “objective.”
From 5 a.m. until 10 p.m. my TV is on MSNBC (when I’m not listening to books on tape). Unless you actually see the coverage for yourself there is no way to express how sexist and biased it has been.
Newsppaers have always endorsed candidates on their editorial (opinion) pages. This is done after much deliberation as a service to readers.
Television news has always taken a lot of license when it comes to objectivity.
I assert that with today’s 24/7 cable news, this is a new phenomenon in modern-day politics – one not seen since the days of “yellow journalism” – the days when William Randolph Hearst said, “You provide the photos; I’ll provide the war.” And, there should be concern about how it affects our national elections.
If the remarks made on MSNBC for months had been racist, the FCC would have shut them down. So, how is it that sexist remarks are acceptable?
Ms. Steinem’s article points out how subtle sexism in this coverage has been. I have pointed out the more obvious.
Post a Comment