Elton John Bashes Misogynists For Not Supporting Clinton

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a woman in "Hillary's demographic" <<gag me with several spoons!>>, I have to ask: what is misogynistic about saying, "I do not want THIS woman to be President"?

If it were based on fact, nothing. If it is based on a false image one has of this woman because of the image portrayed of her in the media, then it would not be so good.

The media spent 8 years bashing Bill Clinton and they included Hilary often enough. But think about what the facts actually are. Look at Faux News' incredibly blatant double standard comparing Bill Clinton to Bush (again the Daily Show illustrated it but it has been so blatant anyone not noticing is not looking). They bashed Clinton continuing to blame everything on him that was caused by Bush the first 2 years of his Presidency. After that it got harder and harder to blame Clinton but they have from time to time blamed Clinton for Bin Laden even though it was Bush who dropped the ball that at least Clinton had been running with.

And what came of it really? 54 million spent by Ken Star and he found no evidence Whitewater was illegal. It was a sweetheart real estate deal. Not good but a drop in the bucket compared the the corruption of Tom DeLay and Bush paying his cronies right and left. They entrapped Clinton into lying. And don't even bring up that crap it was about Clinton being above the law in poor little Paula Jone's lawsuit because the Republicans paid her $600,000 to file that lawsuit 2 years after the fact and after she continued in her same job that she was so offensively harassed in.

What does the rest of the news media do with this? Every little thing that hints of a scandal is blown way out of proportion. Hilary's taxes haven't been released, must be they are hiding their corruption, Hilary's legal papers weren't turned right over to Ken Star, must be horrible corruption being hidden there. Scandal is what sells the news. Facts don't.

Yet look at the pittance of coverage being given the fact Harriet Miers is in contempt of Congress and Bush's politically appointed attorney general refuses to file charges or enforce the Congressional subpoena for her to testify about Bush's corruption in of all places, the Department of Justice.

Faux News is leading the propaganda and the other broadcasters are following suit because they see that market share. And Hilary and Bill Clinton get an incredibly out of proportion image as far as corruption goes. We had 8 years of a fairly well run government under Clinton. If you just did a study of the media coverage, it would be really hard to tell that was the case.

 

[Cicero]

If it were based on fact, nothing. If it is based on a false image one has of this woman because of the image portrayed of her in the media, then it would not be so good.

The media spent 8 years bashing Bill Clinton and they included Hilary often enough. But think about what the facts actually are. Look at Faux News' incredibly blatant double standard comparing Bill Clinton to Bush (again the Daily Show illustrated it but it has been so blatant anyone not noticing is not looking). They bashed Clinton continuing to blame everything on him that was caused by Bush the first 2 years of his Presidency. After that it got harder and harder to blame Clinton but they have from time to time blamed Clinton for Bin Laden even though it was Bush who dropped the ball that at least Clinton had been running with.

And what came of it really? 54 million spent by Ken Star and he found no evidence Whitewater was illegal. It was a sweetheart real estate deal. Not good but a drop in the bucket compared the the corruption of Tom DeLay and Bush paying his cronies right and left. They entrapped Clinton into lying. And don't even bring up that crap it was about Clinton being above the law in poor little Paula Jone's lawsuit because the Republicans paid her $600,000 to file that lawsuit 2 years after the fact and after she continued in her same job that she was so offensively harassed in.

What does the rest of the news media do with this? Every little thing that hints of a scandal is blown way out of proportion. Hilary's taxes haven't been released, must be they are hiding their corruption, Hilary's legal papers weren't turned right over to Ken Star, must be horrible corruption being hidden there. Scandal is what sells the news. Facts don't.

Yet look at the pittance of coverage being given the fact Harriet Miers is in contempt of Congress and Bush's politically appointed attorney general refuses to file charges or enforce the Congressional subpoena for her to testify about Bush's corruption in of all places, the Department of Justice.

Faux News is leading the propaganda and the other broadcasters are following suit because they see that market share. And Hilary and Bill Clinton get an incredibly out of proportion image as far as corruption goes. We had 8 years of a fairly well run government under Clinton. If you just did a study of the media coverage, it would be really hard to tell that was the case.

Agreed. The media is guilty of allowing Hillary to make asinine comments and then having the temerity to allow these comments to go out over the airwaves.

FOX News has maybe 2 million viewers, yet they are the reason why Hillary is pulling second to Obama? Do enough, if any, Obama supporters watch FOX News to make this a valid connection?

FOX News is responsible for former Bill Clinton cabinet members and supporters now backing Obama?

Bill Richardson
Federico Peña,
William Daley,
Anthony Lake
Susan Rice,
Lorna Brett Howard
Richard Danzig,
Betsy Myers
Deval Patrick
Christine Samuels
Oprah
etc.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Are you trying to claim that conversation was not revealing about Mathew's true feelings about women in power? How much evidence would you consider convincing?

In fairness to Mathhews, in between slips back into Hilary bashing, he has gone well out of his way to avoid charges of personal bias.

Still waiting to hear how Matthews mere presence during DeLay's statements constitutes evidence of Matthews' misogyny. As well as how you justify trying to pass it off as such.

 

[Pardalis]

Are you trying to claim that conversation was not revealing about Mathew's true feelings about women in power? How much evidence would you consider convincing?

I wouldn't call it an innocent comment, but it's hardly evidence of anything. Please show me something more convincing than a small comment off the air.

Noticing the typical expressions of subconscious misogyny like statements that assertive women are, "female dogs in heat" (aka a word that rhymes with witch), and, "no one likes a woman know-it-all" (that wasn't "no one likes a know-it-all", it was, "no one likes a woman know-it-all"), is not being overly sensitive. That crap is deeply held subconscious bias. There is clearly a double standard comparing assertive women -> bad, to assertive men -> good.

Obviously we are not talking in the same realm of reality here.

I cannot read the subconscious of anyone's mind, sorry. Seems you can, must be great though, you're lucky.

Back to reality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Care to share your outrage over Condi Rice getting bashed now and again?

SG, has it occurred to you that having a vagina is not a guarantor of virtue, just as having a penis isn't a guarantor of virtue?

We now have you, who told us you saw Reagan's foul policies in El Salvador in the late 1970's (DOH!) and Hillary telling us about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. (DOH!)

Does that mean that all women tell tall tales for a political purpose?

Supporting Hillary because she is a woman is hardly a compliment to your alleged political acuity. It is gratifying to see that you accept that there are possible reasons to support a different Dem than she.

The path to wisdom begins with a single step....

DR

I'll shorten this to a summary of the facts I am concerned with:

Re Reagan - His anti-communist beliefs led him to make many bad decisions supporting right wing dictators who suppressed human rights. The human rights thing was overlooked supposedly for the greater good of fighting those communist dominoes Reagan feared.

Reagan was wrong. Communism fell on its own accord and our failure to support human rights was and continues to be inexcusable.

Conde Rice is made of the same cloth, only worse. Her attitude of superiority led her to tell Richard Clark, the head of counterintelligence, that she was "a principal", he wasn't, and she wasn't interested in his concern that, "Bin Laden [was] Determined to Attack Inside the United States". She is not concerned about human rights as evidenced among many things by the latest revelation that she was on the torture approval committee. And she is one of the biggest 'yes men' in a Presidential cabinet I've ever seen. Only this year has she even set out to accomplish anything with her trips to the Middle East and Africa. Where was she 7 years ago? Basking in self adulation.

As to voting for Hilary Clinton on the basis she is a woman, when you have 2 qualified candidates that support similar policies, then the deciding factors do come down to subtle differences. I do think Clinton is more experienced and Obama has more mistakes in his future to learn from. I also think women can have a different perspective and different priorities and as a group (IE individuals not withstanding) women are less inclined to settle differences with violence. I think that will be reflected in a woman President if it is Clinton. Rice might be less inclined to violence as a solution because she is a woman, but her negative attributes overwhelm any benefit one might have by the influence being a woman would have.

What is the difference in my bias toward women and the negative bias reflected in the media and in society, besides the fact I see positive attributes rather than negative ones? The main difference is in the supportable facts. And it is not the main reason I support Clinton. It is merely a minor difference adding to a decision that is very close to begin with.

Is it a fact women as a group are less violent than men? D'uh!
Is it a fact men and women as a group have different priorities? Of course they do.

Is it a fact women cannot lead, are too emotional, are bad if they are as aggressive as men, etc, etc,? I hope this is all I need to say to explain what is bias and what is recognizing real biological differences that the evidence rather than BS support.

It is beyond the evidence to suggest there are no differences between men and women on the whole. Individuals of course, are not confined to those boundaries. The differences fall on two overlapping bell curves.

If you were to say you preferred a male President because you are not interested in some of the priorities a woman might bring to the office, then I would say that bias was realistic. But if your perception is one of believing the differences are that women cannot run a country or wouldn't make a good leader, I would say you cannot support that bias with evidence or facts.

That is the difference.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still waiting to hear how Matthews mere presence during DeLay's statements constitutes evidence of Matthews' misogyny. As well as how you justify trying to pass it off as such.

So you missed the fact Matthews led the discussion? He praised DeLay (Delay was deeply involved, not just in corruption, but in earning millions via his consulting firm by using his position as Speaker of the House, to stop a Bill from coming before Congress that would have stopped slave labor practices including accused forced abortions in the US possession, Saipan). In doing so, Matthews was giddy over telling Delay that the people in the focus group thought Hilary was "a know-it-all". Matthews initiated that discussion, DeLay merely added to it as they laughed together about it.

So Matthews is praising this corrupt scumbag, DeLay, while joking with him about the Democrats but in particular, joking about Clinton using misogynist comments.

Wiki has a decent summary of the Abramoff involvement in the Saipan human rights abuses, Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal. You can find this corroborated by lots of work Al Frankin and Bill Moyers have done to bring this atrocity to the public's attention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Media Matters: Does Chris Matthews Have a Problem with Women?

Below are just a few examples of his sexist commentary:

* On the November 18 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Matthews teased a discussion by asking, " 'She Devil?' Republicans are absolutely demonizing Hillary Clinton."

* In November 2006, shortly after the Democrats took the majority in Congress, Matthews asked a guest if then-presumptive speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer (D-MD) were elected House majority leader.

* During coverage of a presidential debate last spring, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell was compelled to remind Matthews that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) wife, Michelle, is a Harvard-educated lawyer after he focused obsessively on her physical appearance.

* During coverage of the New Hampshire primary on January 8, he said that Clinton is the only viable woman presidential candidate "on the horizon." He couldn't think of a single female governor eligible to run: "Where are the big-state women governors?" he asked. "Where are they? Name one."

* According to a Media Matters study, Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and nearly three times as many positive remarks about the former New York City mayor as about Clinton, despite his professed neutrality.

Other members of the media are also speaking about Matthews' flagrant, persistent sexism.

* Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group): Sexist double standards and misogynist insults
* Salon's Traister: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong
* TalkLeft: It was a revolt of women sick and tired of the likes of Chris Tweety Matthews and the Media Misogynists.
* Daily Kos: Chris Matthews Outdoes Himself
* Daily Kos: Chris Matthews' Greatest Sexist Hits

Go to the link for the specifics before brushing off the summary as trivial comments.

 

[corplinx]

If you don't vote for McCain, its because you are prejudiced against vietnam veterans who appear so old you think they are civil war veterans.

 

[corplinx]

Reagan was wrong. Communism fell on its own accord

Yes. Running them out of money in the arms race and in Afghanistan had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chris Matthews Under Fire For Sexist Comments; News Bloggers, Posted Jan 17th 2008 12:36PM by Ada Calhoun

During an appearance on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews said of Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around" and that "he didn't win there [New York] on her merits." Matthews has referred to Clinton as a "she devil," compared her to a "strip-teaser" and called her "witchy." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys."

Repeats a lot of what Media Matters reported.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you don't vote for McCain, its because you are prejudiced against vietnam veterans who appear so old you think they are civil war veterans.

List the facts, and if they support your position, then bias is not likely a big part of your decision. Claim you "don't like her" or whomever, and I will suspect your motives. It is a simple evidence based proposition.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More corroborating opinion of Matthews:
Friday, January 11, 2008; Chris Matthews and His All-Boy Revue

Brothers in slime

Media Matters' Jamison Foser let fly on Chris Matthews this evening, pulling together an exhaustive summary highlighting the entire decade of egregious, stupid, out-of-left-field misogyny that he's been heaping on the heads of America's female politicians.

The whole text is worth reading -- it's a devastating picture, seen in its entirely, and it makes it painfully clear that, in an era of women speakers, women governors, and quite possibly the first woman president, Tweety's brand of twisted altar-boy misogyny no longer has any kind of place on the nation's airwaves.

Just in case some of you don't quite entirely understand how deeply offensive some of Matthews' leering, condescending cracks are, I'd like to put the sensible high heel on another foot and see how truly ridiculous it looks. Let's imagine that Matthews has been on the air for ten years regularly spouting comparable bilge about politicians from another group.

Let's consider, just by way of example, about how far his career might have gone if he'd been saying pretty much the same stuff about African-American men.

Imagine that, back in 2001, Matthews got on MSNBC and said of Colin Powell: "I hate him. I hate him. All that he stands for." Or that he told the Hardball audience: "Colin Powell bugs a lot of whites. I mean, really bugs guys like me on occasion....let me just say this, he drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Consider what would happen if he referred to Jesse Jackson as a "black devil," and likened him to Step'n Fetchit, who "steals whatever's not nailed down because he can." Or called him "Willie Horton." Or described white politicians who endorse him as "self-hating ni**er-lovers." Or described his walk as a "strut." Or wondered aloud if white troops would take orders from him, and laughed when his respondent called him on it. Or called him "uppity" -- on at least two occasions.

How would people respond if Matthews showed the same salacious interest in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage as he has in the Clintons'? Media Matters says they counted 90 questions on the matter over seven programs -- and then gave up counting. What if he badgered Obama aides on whether or not Michelle would be "a good girl," or guilty of "misbehavior," and warned that she'd better "watch it"?....

The rest is worth reading.

 

[Pardalis]

Is it a fact women as a group are less violent than men? D'uh!

Are you actually stating this as a fact or are you being sarcastic?

If you actually believe this to be true, then how so?

Have women ever been given the opportunity? Meaning, since males have pretty much always been in charge, then how can you say that given the same opportunity, women would have been less violent, since it never happened?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pard, I don't have to provide supporting evidence for the obvious. Don't waste our time here. Women do not start wars. They commit only a fraction of the murder and violence men commit. It's biological. Get over it.

Could we evolve into a more violent gender in the future? Sure. But we aren't more violent than men now and leadership has nothing to do with it. Individual women are more than capable of starting wars. I never said they weren't.

 

[Pardalis]

So you missed the fact Matthews led the discussion? He praised DeLay (Delay was deeply involved, not just in corruption, but in earning millions via his consulting firm by using his position as Speaker of the House, to stop a Bill from coming before Congress that would have stopped slave labor practices including accused forced abortions in the US possession, Saipan). In doing so, Matthews was giddy over telling Delay that the people in the focus group thought Hilary was "a know-it-all". Matthews initiated that discussion, DeLay merely added to it as they laughed together about it.

So Matthews is praising this corrupt scumbag, DeLay, while joking with him about the Democrats but in particular, joking about Clinton using misogynist comments.

You're still talking about that frivolous exchange off the air?

Haven't you got a better example? You're treating this snippet of video as if it was a "discussion", it wasn't.

 

[Pardalis]

Pard, I don't have to provide supporting evidence for the obvious.

Well I don't see it as obvious. You sound like a fundamentalist all of a sudden, I know you know better.

Don't waste our time here. Women do not start wars.

Have they ever been given the opportunity to start one?

They commit only a fraction of the murder and violence men commit. It's biological. Get over it.

How is it biological?

Could we evolve into a more violent gender in the future? Sure.

We're the same species you know. If we evolve, we evolve together, how can one gender evolve differently from the other?

But we aren't more violent than men now and leadership has nothing to do with it.

Yes it does. Women never started wars because heads of states start wars. How many female heads of states has there been in human history?

Individual women are more than capable of starting wars. I never said they weren't.

So individual women can but groups of women can't. Can you explain more?

 

[Pardalis]

Skeptigirl, if women don't start wars, then am I to understand that you are voting for Hillary because she's a woman?

 

[Shadowdweller]

So you missed the fact Matthews led the discussion? He praised DeLay (Delay was deeply involved, not just in corruption, but in earning millions via his consulting firm by using his position as Speaker of the House, to stop a Bill from coming before Congress that would have stopped slave labor practices including accused forced abortions in the US possession, Saipan). In doing so, Matthews was giddy over telling Delay that the people in the focus group thought Hilary was "a know-it-all". Matthews initiated that discussion, DeLay merely added to it as they laughed together about it.

Incorrect. Matthews is praising DeLay in that clip for appearing on short notice, hence the repeated "I owe you" statements. Matthews appears excited over the focus group finding, but the reason for or behind this is not at all clear. Given that his commentary program, Hardball, obsesses over details and interpretations of political campaigns it is hardly surprising or inappropriate that he would be interested in such a thing.

Point: Matthews is not expressing his own opinion of the candidates.
Point: Matthews is not joking with DeLay
Point: Matthews did not make the "nothing worse than a woman know-it-all" statement.
Point: Matthews did not laugh or respond with any sort of apparent approval toward the statement.

Yes, DeLay is a scumbag. Merely acting in a friendly manner toward a scumbag is NOT evidence of misogyny, particularly in a case where one does in fact owe them. And trying to prove misogyny by denigrating a person's associates is a form of Ad Hominem fallacy.

 

[Hokulele]

Pard, I don't have to provide supporting evidence for the obvious. Don't waste our time here. Women do not start wars. They commit only a fraction of the murder and violence men commit. It's biological. Get over it.

Could we evolve into a more violent gender in the future? Sure. But we aren't more violent than men now and leadership has nothing to do with it. Individual women are more than capable of starting wars. I never said they weren't.

Paging Maggie Thatcher . . .

 

[brodski]

Paging Maggie Thatcher . . .

Come now, apart from the Falklands, and a de facto civil war with the NUM, what wars did Thatcher ever start?

Could it be that "women don't start wars", because a statically insignificant number of women have ever been in a position powerful enough to start wars?