Damn.. Candy Crowley is beset with neck-warts..

[SoCalDem]

whew..it's just a necklace.. carry on

[XNASA]

1. What kind of necklace?

[ewagner]

2. Turtle-neck

to hid the hickeys?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Southsideirish]

3. That's a necklace??? I never saw anything like it.

[SoCalDem]

4. It's one of those multi-strand, fishing line wth beads thingies

look cute on a young girl, but NOT on Candy:)

[Deb]

5. Fish On!

A very a-lure-ing necklace. :rofl:

[KittyWampus]

63. A-Lure-Ing! Ouch!

that one hurt :)

[mitchum]

6. It's dental floss

Candy is a trencherwoman

[BringEmOn]

7. Candy Crowley walks into a bar with a frog on her head....

...you know the rest.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. This woman......

........ is a neck wart. On her best days.

[Neecy]

9. ewwww

Forget the neck, check out the chin(s)!

[imenja]

10. she's actually a good journalist

and no wonder CNN has so few of them when people pick apart their appearance. The audience, and evidently some on DU, prefer a pretty air head to someone who knows what they are talking about. So next time you complain about why TV news has gotten so bad, ask yourself why.

[GOPisEvil]

11. Good journalist?

She is so far up shrub's ass that if he stops quickly, she'll come flying out his mouth.

[imenja]

16. not very perceptive are you?

I'm amazed at how bad so many on DU are at discerning the political allegiances of TV journalists and personalities. Most remain completely oblivious to the fact Matthews has been writing anti-Iraq war columns for two years. Crowley is a Democrat, but what she is mainly is a decent journalist not afraid to ask tough questions. When she substitutes for Wolf Blitzer on the Sunday show, she holds the guests to the fire, she asks follow up questions. Blitzer simply moves from one subject to another and rarely engages in a substantive manner.

Crowley's abilities, however, have nothing to do with this thread. It's simply one more example of the fact that some resent the fact that women they don't fit the hegemonic beauty image dare to appear on television. It's time to break free of internal colonialism and stop letting the corporate beauty and entertainment industry determine who and what is valuable in our society.

[GOPisEvil]

18. Excuse me?!

I watched her "reporting" during the campaign in 2000. Bush called her something nice, and she's been gushing over him ever since.

WHERE did *I* call her appearance into question? I called her ABILITY into question. She could look like a beauty queen, and it wouldn't matter. She is lousy at her job in my humble, non-perceptive opinion.

[imenja]

22. this thread is about appearance

Not her abilities. So trying to adopt some moral high ground now is ridiculous. My comments, quite obviously, were directed generally rather than at you personally.

[mondo joe]

31. Maybe you should replace your pretty lady avatar with a pic of Candy

Maybe that would help!

[imenja]

34. and that is supposed to be a response?

to your obviously false claim that you don't care about her appearance, when your thread is obviously focused on just that? Not a persuasive debate technique.



By the way, my "pretty lady" is Dante Gabrielle Rosetti's, "Persephone."

[mondo joe]

36. What false claim? I never made any claim at all.

Could you get a grip?

And I know about Rosetti. But in the interest of a society that doesn't judge people on the basis of appearance maybe you should use an intelligent but less "pretty" woman as your avatar.

[imenja]

41. Okay, I'll be sure to check with you on the next one

Was my SpongeBob avatar sufficiently unattractive for you?
Rossetti, like most Italians, painted plump women. So Persephone wouldn't pass the test today.

By the way, what the fuck does my avatar have to do with anything? That hardly suffices as an explanation for Neanderthal views of women. Fascinating how you deflect a discussion of sexism onto women. It's always our fault, never yours. Hey, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the Bush administration. Deflect and cover.

The claim I referred to above resulted from confusing you with the rest of your Flintstone buddies on this thread.


On Crowley's political biases, see post 35.

[mondo joe]

45. Oh honey, don't get cranky with me over your errors.

[imenja]

54. what angers me

Is ultra-reactionary discourse that seeks to disempower women. When people attack a professional woman based on her appearance rather than her abilities, they work to oppress all women. That was the intent of this thread and the reason for my outrage. Now if you believe women should not stray beyond the kitchen, then you will want to continue to support these kind of attacks on women in the public sphere. But, on the other hand, you maintain some idea of equality, I suggest you think more carefully.

What suprises me is to see ultra-reactionary rhetoric on a liberal website.

[mondo joe]

55. The only ultra reactionary here is you. Why don;t you back up your

claim that Crowley is a democrat?

Your own failures do more to diminish the perception of women than any observation about that Bush-sucking-media-whore Candy Crowley's necklace.

[imenja]

59. so what's the problem?

Have you never done any reading about gender and beauty images in American society? It's not exactly an obscure academic field. There have been a number of popular works, Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi, for example, that make clear exactly what this sort of language is.
Your continual efforts to deflect the subject--first to my avatar and then to her political affiliation--is nothing but an effort to obscure the larger issue. If I can find evidence demonstrating she is a Democrat, I will provide it. But let's assume for the moment that I'm wrong, that she actually is a Republican. That doesn't change the fact that this thread is part of a dominant discourse that judges women on appearance rather than ability and therefore disempowers all women regardless of political affiliation? Of all the people on CNN, why Candy Crowley. Why not the young red headed woman who is clearly Republican? Why not Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs?

It's very clear exactly what is going on here. And I'm tired of people who claim to be liberals engaging in ultra right-wing ideas. It's sexism pure and simple, and not just on the part of men. Women too contribute to their own subjugation.

[mondo joe]

60. Have I done reading? I was the first man ever nominated for the

women's studies award at my university.

The subject is your absurd claims that you refuse to even try to back up.

Why even CLAIM she's a democrat if you can't back it up?

You're making me think you're really a freeper trying to give feminists a bad name with your humorless, baseless reactionary stance.

[imenja]

73. Women's studies?

Then why support the misogynist position that this thread takes?
You choose to focus on one post in which I said she was a Democrat and ignore my main argument? Why? Is it that you know I'm right? Or perhaps it's that equal rights are not something you value and are afraid to admit so? You continue to deflect from the main issue I raised.

Now why is it that you hate Candy Crowley? Because you think she might be a Republican? Because she's fat? Or because she's a woman? And why her over the hundreds of other so-called journalists on the air? She at least as credentials and is not simply a talking head. And it doesn't surprise me that some choose to place their resentment toward conservative skewed media onto women's bodies. It's so much easier than actually developing a thoughtful critique of the media.

I can't actually prove she is a Democrat, but nor can you prove she isn't. The Freepers obviously think she voted for Kerry and accuse her of having been in morning on Nov. 3. So while you may think she's one of them, they don't claim her for their own. I think she does vote Democratic, and I base that on having watched her over the years. Since the majority of journalists do vote Democratic, it's not a stretch. There is a huge amount of republican outrage toward her on the web, and a lesser amount of Democratic outrage. Given how bad most on DU are about discerning political allegiances of TV personalities, I trust my own impressions above the group think mind meld. I've seen Matthews described as pro-war and Larry King described as a Republican.

If you have anger regarding a reporter's political leanings, write a thread saying so. But when you participate in attacks on a woman's appearance, you engage in highly sexist behavior. Surely so meting sunk in during those women's studies courses?


Here are some links about Crowley and her supposed liberal bias.

http://www.coffeehouse-at-end-of-days.com/2004_election /

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/2004_04.html


165. Candy Crowley will grow a mustache to even more poorly report Republican positions while the Socialist media will hold a wet tee-shirt contest to determine what nymph will be the next pro-Democrat party reporterette.

Nostradamus Jr. Kaliher utilized the conservative

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4bc02122d6.htm

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cmolin/2003/cdm_0331.s...

http://www.hillnews.com/living/060304_crowley.aspx
"The barefoot correspondant"

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9743 /

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0%2C20812%2C...

[mondo joe]

78. Observing that she had a funny looking necklace isn't misogynist

But your humorless, irrational and illogical rants are a bad caricature of the worst stereotypes of feminists.

[imenja]

83. Send back that award

Because if you don't recognize sexist language when you see it, you don't deserve it. It's not exactly graduate level gender studies.

[mondo joe]

85. When you can form a cogent argument I'll consider your advice.

For now you're barely good for humor. :-)

[imenja]

86. your argument is a constantly moving target

From my avatar, to whether Crowley is a Democrat, my lack of a sense of humor, and now your assertion that my argument is less than cogent. And no where do you address the substance of my argument other than to insist that if I object to your ridiculing of women based on appearance, I just don't have a good sense of humor. Forgive me if I'm less than impressed.

It's really not very complicated. Either you value equal rights and behave and speak in ways that reflect those values or you don't. You decide.

[mondo joe]

89. Honey, your argument is that noticing a funny necklace = unequal rights.

There is no need for an argument in response because your position is absurd.

You furthermore make assertions of fact you can't back up.

Please understand, this isn't a debate - you're the humor here, however unintentional that may be.

[mondo joe]

64. By the way - no one judged her ABILITY on her appearance. Her Bush-

sucking-media-whoring demonstrated her ability nicely.

And like Rush Limbaugh, her fellow Bush-sucker, her generous weight was noted. But no one here confused her ability with her appearance.

And rest assured, if Wolf Blitzer wore that ugly ass necklace he'd be mocked as well.

[imenja]

74. oh really?

then what is this thread about?

[mondo joe]

80. The thread is about her funny looking necklace and your absence of humor,

near as I can tell.

[imenja]

84. yeah, just don't have a great sense of humor

Never did get into seeing frat boys in black face either. I'm a real pill.

[mondo joe]

87. Yes, noticing a funny looking necklace is exactly like wearing blackface

or burning crosses.

Boy, you called that one!

[imenja]

88. you're lying to yourself now

if you think this thread is merely a comment on jewelry. Not very convincing. Warts to Fat Hactress. So yes, it's just like wearing black face, exactly the same thing.

Now if you don't see sexism as worthy of the same attention as racism--and women as valuable as men of color--the parallels won't matter to you.

[mondo joe]

90. Tell me, is noticing a funny necklace more like a cross burning? Or more

like blackface?

[Neecy]

20. um....

Please cite your source that Crowley is a Democrat.

[Skittles]

94. LOL...................David

sans glasses I thought the original opinion came from YOU. I was fixing to schedule a quick trip to Austin to set you straight! :o

[mondo joe]

12. By what standards is she a good journalist?

Seriously.

[democracyindanger]

13. Whaaaa?

Crowley's among the worst of the worst. If Chimpy stopped short, Crowley's mug would pop out of his mouth.

Why has TV news gotten so bad? That's easy--it's because people consider hacks like Crowley good journalists.

[imenja]

17. who on TV do you consider to be a good journalist?

and why not make that the point of the thread rather than her appearance?

[democracyindanger]

33. On TV? Not much to choose from.

Christiane Amanpour, when they let her on. John King and Suzanne Malveaux, occassionally. That's about it. But I'd give my left arm for a 24-hour Helen Thomas channel. I guess that makes her a beauty queen, huh?

Crowley's a hack. A shill. Go rent Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, "Diary of a Political Tourist." The movie's pretty bad, but worth it to see Crowley giggling about how much "fun" it was to ignore the issues of the Dem primaries and concentrate on things like the price of haircuts and windsurfing. Then come back and let me know how great a journalist she is.

[imenja]

35. the freepers hate her too

So you're not alone. You may see her as a shill for them. They see her as a shill for the Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/880670/posts

http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1990/watch19900801.asp

http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/1997/nq19970210.asp

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/cat_cnn.html

When people stop expecting journalists to act as mouth pieces for their own political positions, we might get some decent news.

[Neecy]

39. wow...

Do you keep a little reference folder just for Candy Crowley? Impressive.

WAIT - maybe you ARE Candy Crowley!

I'm still waiting, Candy, for proof that you're a Democrat. Is that in your folder, too?

[imenja]

43. a google search

ten seconds. Doesn't take much energy or thought, but evidently more than you're willing to muster.

Why don't you try to find evidence of Republican registration?

And if you want to post threads talking about her and other journalists who you see as conservative, go right ahead. But that's not what this is. This is yet another attack on women's appearance. Nothing more. Any excuse you try to use for it is nothing more than hot air.

[Neecy]

44. but, wait

Why don't you try to find evidence of Republican registration?

I never claimed she was a Republican. You, on the other hand, made the bold statement that Crowley is a Democrat. I'm asking you to cite your source for that claim. Can't do it, can you?

[imenja]

56. Does that make you feel better?

about engaging in ultra-reactionary misogynist rhetoric? If she is a Republican, it's okay to engage in discourse that seeks to disempower women by judging them on their appearance rather than their professional abilities?

To me it seems quite obvious she is a liberal. If I can find some evidence of it, I shall provide it. But let's for the moment assume I'm wrong, that she is a Republican? How does that change the fact that this a post that criticizes a professional woman based on her appearance rather than abilities? How does it make it anything other than what it is: an ugly manifestation of sexism that harms all women, regardless of their political affiliation?
That is what disturbs me about this thread. I would find it no less repugnant if we were discussing Condi Rice.

[mondo joe]

57. So you post assertions you can't back up in the least? Nice.

[imenja]

72. okay, back up yours

[Neecy]

62. uh-huh

You didn't say that it was 'quite obvious that she's a liberal' - you stated with certainty that she's a Democrat.

"ultra-reactionary misogynist rhetoric..."

I'll bet you're just a riot at parties. Wanna hang out sometime? I'd love for you to meet my friends - kinda show you off, y'know?

[imenja]

71. it's real simple: do you value equal rights or not?

And if I am to judge by what you've written in this thread, the answer is clearly no. I'm sorry that it cramps your style to be called on your sexist bullshit. You may think misogyny is great party fare. Some get a kick out of burning crosses. Those aren't parties I'm interested in attending. I'll keep my social affiliations to more cogent members of the human race, thanks anyway.

[democracyindanger]

40. Great. She's an equal-opportunity hack.

So I'll remove "shill" from the reasons that she's a sucky journalist. Crowley gets to make a horizontal move from "hack because she's a shill" to "hack in general," right next to Blitzer. Not that I'd bother to read the rantings of people who START with the supposition that ALL news media is liberally slanted. I just want to disabuse you of the idea that mocking Crowley's appearance exists independent of her suckiness. Her suckiness encourages mocking of her appearance.

[SoCalDem]

15. She can read a tele-prompter..that's IT..

she loves her Bushie-Man..She beams when she says his name:(

[imenja]

19. I find it shocking

what poor powers of perception many on DU have. I address this more thoroughly above.

[SoCalDem]

23. Helen Thomas is not "chickie"..but SHE's a journalist

I couldn't care less what a journalist looks like..I just expect them to tell me what happened..without the spin :)

[imenja]

26. oh really?

that's why you posted a thread about her warts. Not passing the bullshit meeter.

[SoCalDem]

28. she chose a bad necklace.. that's ALL..

I loooked up without my glasses, and thought I had a swarm of gnats on the tv.. upon further inspection, I figured out what it was.. Sheez.louise :P

[RetroLounge]

24. Well, luckily people like you are here

to set us straight.

:eyes:

RL

[imenja]

29. If you want to start a thread discussing her political biases

go right ahead. It beats cheap attacks about her appearance.

[RetroLounge]

47. Fat Hacktress

She is...

RL

[imenja]

51. That's what your idea of debate is?

and you accuse TV journalists like Crowley of being hacks? Suddenly, Alan Colmes looks like a Nobel laureate.

[RetroLounge]

65. Colmes is an emasculated punching bag.

any other questions?

RL

[imenja]

75. How insighful

that's an awfully big word for you.

[sundog]

61. .

bwhahahaha

:P

[mitchum]

69. LOL!!!

That was fucking beautiful, man :)

[imenja]

37. see post 35

[RetroLounge]

49. No thanks.

:hi:

RL

[imenja]

79. I know reading is really hard

wouldn't want to tax the grey cells.

[RetroLounge]

21. Hah Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Oh, wait, you're being serious?

She's a fucking media-whore bush-sucking asshat wingnut.

What the fuck version of CNN have you been watching?

RL

[imenja]

25. compared to whom?

Who on television passes your test of good journalism?

[mondo joe]

27. YOU said she's a good journalist. By WHAT standards is that true?

Please be specific.

[imenja]

30. I responded to that above

to GOPisevil's post

[imenja]

32. By the standards of her profession: awards won

"In 2003, Crowley won an Emmy for her work on CNN Presents Enemy Within. She won the 1999 DuPont-Columbia University Silver Baton Award for her coverage of the impeachment and trial of President Bill Clinton. She won the 1998 Dirksen Award for distinguished reporting on Congress from the National Press Foundation and the 1997 Joan Shorenstein Barone Award for Excellence in Journalism for her coverage of Bob Dole's campaign for the presidency. She received the Associated Press Broadcasters' Award for spot news reporting for her coverage of the Reagan campaign, as well as the AP Award for in-depth coverage of the 1980 Reagan campaign. Her reporting on more than a dozen 1992 U.S. Senate campaigns was runner-up for the Joan Shorenstein Barone Award for Outstanding Journalism. Crowley also won the Columbia University's Armstrong Award for Freedom is My Woman, a documentary on a prison cellblock takeover."

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/crowley.candy.html

[SoCalDem]

38. and O'reilly won a Polk award

:P..

come on..it's just a bad necklace.. It would have looked just as funny if Monica Novotny or Daryn Kagan or Alex (nit)Witt had worn it :)

[democracyindanger]

42. I won Best Uncle in the World

I have a trophy to prove it, too.

[RetroLounge]

46. The Onus is on you

So are you pissed about the fact that she's a repug-sucking whore?

Or that she should have her own reality CNN show, Fat-Hacktress?

RL

[SoCalDem]

48. Retro..Retro..Retro

:spank:

[RetroLounge]

50. Yeah, I know, Bad me...

:hide:

RL

[imenja]

53. it's internalized colonialism

You engage in politically reactionary discourse that seeks to disempower women. Now you may not like feminism or feminists and you may choose to ally yourself with patriarchy and oppression of other women. But you should at least be aware that is exactly what you are doing. Many of us want the opportunity to advance in our careers based on ability, rather than appearance. We do not all want to live under the political, economic, and cultural control of men. We have the right to be judged on the content of our character and abilities in the professional arena. In this thread, you contribute to efforts to make that more difficult for women. I suggest you think about if you really want to promote ultra-reactionary values.

[Neecy]

58. oh, please

Crowley, a woman, has advanced the agenda of one of the worst oppressors in history. These threads, while indelicate, are more of a reaction to her long history of Bush-worship than anything else.

When I first saw her, I thought to myself, "Gee, isn't CNN culturally advanced to put this morbidly obese woman on the air?". I was thrilled - really. It seemed like progress, that her intellect and ability counted more than her bloated, screen-filling visage.

My delight at CNN's enlightened approach in putting ability above appearance - long missing in news reporting - quickly turned to dismay when I saw her sneer and grimace during her coverage of the Gore campaign trail - as opposed to her orgasmic, hushed-tones-like-she-was-in-a-church-reverence when she covered Bush. Then, I was like, "What's UP with this fat bitch?" That's when it started for me, I admit. Yes, it's reactionary, but it's hardly a vehicle of patriarchy, since I'm also a woman and, as mentioned, my first impression was positive.

[imenja]

77. so why not write a thread to that effect?

Rather than supporting one that attacks her appearance?

When you attack or contribute to attacks against women based on appearance, you do more than support patriarchy. You contribute to the oppression of women. There is no two ways about it. It's a simple fact.

[RetroLounge]

66. internalized colonialism?

Oh please...

So hows that Thesis coming along?

"Internalized colonialism among Democratic forum posters who think Candly Crowley is a Fat Hacktress."

:eyes:

RL

[mitchum]

70. LOL!!!

and that was also beautiful :)

[imenja]

81. internalized sexism

though for you it's not internalized, it's overt.

[imenja]

52. no, rather I'm astonished

that this kind of politically reactionary thought is found about people that call themselves Democrats.

[RetroLounge]

68. Shocked, Shocked I tell you!

RL

[imenja]

76. ever hear of the 14th amendment?

equal rights? Do you find that funny as well? Slavery, Jim Crowe, Plessy v. Ferguson? Are you going to the junior high Halloween dance in black face as well?

Of is it just women that you despise?

[Skittles]

93. LOL

she is a f***ing bush whore

[democracyindanger]

14. It's the truth trying to escape

[JI7]

67. she is a right wing whore

i remember she got that ugly disgusting angry look on her face that she always gets when reporting on Democrats when Mary Landrieu won re-election.

[sleipnir]

82. I thought it was the leftovers from her munching 12 Big Macs

Crumbs, everywhere when this woman eats.

[onager]

91. Stop it, I'm dying here...

:rofl: :rofl:

"Fat Hacktress" will be all over the Internet(s) before dawn!

A few things I'll never forget from sElection 2000:

1. Learning that $hrub had nicknamed Crowley "Dulce" ("sweet"). I still think this was a misunderstanding, and he really nicknamed her "Douche."

2. As other posters noted, the reverential, teen-with-a-crush gaze whenever Crowley was interviewing Bush. I'm one of the most dense people in the world when it comes to these kinds of signals, and not even I could miss that. Whenever Crowley oozed over to $hrub with a microphone, she practically left a snail trail left behind her.

Jebus! You'd have thought the woman had just spotted a rack of lamb and a whole cherry cheesecake.

3. As also noted, the obvious sneering and condescension whenever Crowley deigned to cover the Gore campaign for a few nanoseconds.

There aren't many TV News Readers of either gender I respect any more, though Christiane Amanpour and Helen Thomas would certainly be near the top of the list.

If all this makes me a colonialist misogynist racist poop-head, I can live with it.

[MisterP]

92. I thought it was "Butterqueen"

[Moderator]

95. Locking

A silly thread turns to a flame war, not to mention the fat jokes.
Sorry.