So according to Clinton supporters, Keith Olbermann is a disgusting sexist.

[TheWraith]

Because, apparently, he was willing to call Clinton on her dishonesty and the use of the fear card, trying to scare Americans into voting for her, despite his self-admitted high level of respect for the Clintons.

Speaking the truth--that the Clinton camp was playing dirty, and asking them to stop--makes him, suddenly, a woman hater. No proof needed, no evidence required, he just IS, because they say so.

Along, apparently, with Rachel Maddow, who started out this primary season very positive and preferential towards Clinton, before souring on her at about the same time Keith did.

So too we must apparently add to the list of misogynists Margaret Carlson, Chuck Todd, Jonathan Alter, and anyone else who points out the objective reality of the campaign.

And Clinton supporters here still have the gall to claim that Obama supporters are the ones using random accusations to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

[tekisui]

1. You are clearly a misogynist.

:P

[bigtree]

2. no. my wife says it's because of the way he refers to the women he reports on

we do hold independent thoughts out here. It is possible to like his Bush stuff, hate (or love) his partisanship in our primary, and regard him as a sexist. Go figure.

[melody]

3. I'm female and I don't think Keith is sexist in the least

What "references" does he make?

[peacebird]

*any* criticism of her Royal Highness is sexist by default.... (sarcasm)

[melody]

9. So I've noticed n/t

[papau]

14. I agree -"like his Bush stuff, hate his Obama slant in our primary, and regard him as a sexist"

[TheWraith]

15. And he just happened to start being a sexist after he began criticizing Clinton? Right.

Pardon me for thinking you all run in lockstep, when the same talking points get repeated ad nauseam every day by every member of the Clinton shouting brigade who still has breath in their lungs.

Care to offer an instance of sexism in Keith's reporting? Eh?

[bigtree]

18. look, if you want to see posters here as some pack of idiots, that's your business

I don't give a fuck enough about the television opportunist to debate what my wife thinks about him with you or anyone else. But, it is possible to have different perspectives on individuals, and, to hold more than one opinion at the same time.

I think your own view of Clinton supporters is sick. We are voters. We have as much right to our opinion as anyone. In fact, our votes and our opinions represent a little less than half of the votes between these two candidates. To believe that either side has some lock on virtue in this campaign is delusion. To dismiss Clinton supporters as a mere 'shouting brigade' is amazingly ignorant.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Right on, bigtree!

:thumbsup:

[joeybee12]

4. What you Bots will NEVER grasp is that your opinion is not TRUTH

nor is it fact nor objective...get over yourself because the world does not begin and end with you.

[melody]

8. No, but one would expect a little reason to go along with someone else's concept of "truth"

And who are "bots"? Do you always use pejoratives for groups of people?

[jenmito]

11. If he's a sexist and hates Hillary, explain this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255520/

[TheWraith]

17. That's rich.

When you stop telling me that if I someone doesn't agree with you, they're a sexist, THEN we'll talk.

[melody]

5. I've been called that, too -- and I'm a feminist

Most people seem to think if you treat the genders equally, that somehow makes you sexist. I can recall my father-in-law
suggesting that women wanting equality meant they "want to be superior" so I guess we should take these assertions in the
same light -- an emotional reaction not based on reason.

[MichiganVote]

6. Is he? Good cuz' I've been looking for a new one.

[tekisui]

7. Seriously, though. There was a great article in The Nation.

It was about the "Old Guard" feminists vs. this generation. The old guard is committed to challenging the status quo. Period. It doesn't matter so much which woman, but a woman. They come from the era of having to challenge and were the ones who brought us to this point. I can respect that view.

The new feminists, and I count myself with them, grew up benefiting from the advances made by the old guard. They didn't grow up having to re-fight those battles. They have had more opportunity, but still recognize the inequalities. They are more selective and do not feel the immediacy of challenging the male status quo.

Hillary, I think, could do well(or could have done well) to bridge these two together. Much like Obama had to explain how he benefited from Wright, but is different from him.

[OzarkDem]

22. Then the new feminists

who take the advances made on their behalf for granted will be in for a big surprise when they lose some of those rights.

Your choice.

Your argument also presents a false dichotomy. Women of our day could be feminists and still get along with men. Not sure what happened, but tis sad that "new feminists" have to act like weaklings and hookers to attract the men of today. I feel sorry for you. I guess that means we can expect to see divorce rates rising again.

Our male peers were much smarter, more liberated themselves. They weren't threatened by women who acted as their equals.

[AllentownJake]

24. Huh?

Weaklings and hookers? In a lot of ways they are tougher than you old gals.

[tekisui]

25. I don't think they take it for granted.

They are building on it. They were raised to believe, and have lived as though we are all actually equal. They are stronger for what has been done before them.

I don't see any of the strong women in my circles acting like weaklings and hookers. Quite the contrary. They do not compromise for any man.

The men have a long way to go. I think the feminist movement needs to invest in the education of the men of today. They often lack respect and self-confidence, and that leads to sexism.

[OzarkDem]

26. If true

then you have much in common with my generation of feminists. Don't ever take the advances we gained for you for granted. They can disappear.

[tekisui]

27. I take those words with great respect.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

10. It is important

to remember that Keith supported Senator Clinton until her about January 8th or 9th. That makes some of the Clinton supporters attacks on him rather questionable, in my opinion. I think that the attacks on him are of the same quality as those aimed at Governor Richardson.

[planetc]

12. Hi, Wraith! You're a spook, aren't you? eom

[TheWraith]

16. No, I'm an alien from the Pegasus galaxy.

Are you now seriously reduced to suggesting that people who disagree with you are CIA plants? That's 9/11 forum territory.

[PoliticalAmazon]

13. They seem to like O'Reilly pretty well, tho. Maybe they don't know...

...what "misogyny" means?

[ronnykmarshall]

19. OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!

[OzarkDem]

21. No, he's a boring, pedantic one

which is even worse.

He's a one trick pony, the Billo of the left.

[JoFerret]

23. According to me

he is.

[question everything]

28. He and his guests

Not necessarily sexist but certainly pro-Obama from the start.

Jonathan Alter is a regular guest and his columns in Newsweek have been full of adoration. He actually admitted that, being born in 1957, he always felt like a stepchild to the baby boomers.

Eugen Robinson claimed that "MLK is ours (blacks')". No, MLK is ours - all Americans'.

All his guests from Newsweek have been biased toward Obama since the Coronation Issue after Iowa which I was leafing through when the results of NH were arriving.

And since then I pretty much stopped watching the program. It is not that he calls on Clinton's mistakes and questions her campaign. It is that Obama is untouchable.

[AX10]

29. I no longer watch MSNBC or read Newsweak.

As you said, in the realm of MSNBC, Obama is a "saint".

Eugene Robinson claimed that "MLK is ours (blacks')". No, MLK is ours - all Americans'.
Robinson can go to hell. MLK is not his property!