Dear Betsy Reed

You're a fake and a fraud. We'd be furrowing our brows but we're too busy laughing at you and also feel you've got enough creases for the entire world.



As Elaine noted, you wrote a hysterical piece entitled "Race to the Bottom" and our only question was, "Now what will she title her autobiography?"



It was really amusing to watch you pretend to be a feminist as you ripped apart Hillary Clinton. You being the "executive editor" of The Nation. Just another useless vag trying to get male cred and doing it at other women's expense. That describes your scribble, certainly, but it also describes your 'performance' as "executive editor," doesn't it?



It takes a special sort of liar to hop the high horse and talk sister-to-sister after The Nation's appalling record of publishing women in 2007, doesn't it? 491 men, 149 women. That was the byline count, Bets.



We know it because it was dumped into our laps when women writers (actually feminists ones, but let's not force Betsy to leave her stupor) complained about the fact that they were regularly turned down by The Nation, that the same pieces were quickly snapped up by other outlets. But never of interest to The Nation. Betsy, you turned down a large number of them, or have you forgotten that fact?



So we instituted the tracking of The Nation magazine's record on publishing women with "The Nation Stats" when the first issue of 2007 was published. It was never a pretty feature, especially when we were tracking the entire issues of the weekly that managed to NOT PUBLISH even one woman. At the six month mark, the findings were published in "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis."



Of course, two days before that announced study was published, the magazine dispatched Sniffs Own Armpit to e-mail and whine. Remember that, Betsy? The Nation, we were informed (we already knew), had many women in leadership! The Nation was aware of the problem and working on it! And we weren't helpful! In fact, our own writing was apparently so powerful that it had Lakshimi shaking in her booties at the Microsoft start up sound, so traumatized was she by the fact that she could be held to a standard -- the standard would be accuracy.



It was all a bunch of lies, as is to be expected from The Nation magazine. But we took the findings underground. We didn't comment publicly in any way for the remainder of the year so that your crowd wouldn't be able to again try to push the problem off on us. Guess what?



Despite (a) being aware of the problem and (b) working on the problem, nothing changed, now did it, Betsy?



The first six months found published 255 male bylines and 74 female ones. And the 'improved' second half of the year? 236 men and only 75 women. Wow, women increased by one. And that's with the vages in leadership "addressing" the issue.



Can't pin it on us. We held our tongues after the lie that little us were instilling fear in women who might write for the magazine. (Apparently Eric Alterman, Christopher Hayes and other men more regularly called out took it in stride while the shrinking violets withered.) All that 'work' on your part and women only increased by one. How proud you must be.



Repeat it with us, in 2007, your rag published 491 men and only 149 women.



Betsy, we're aware you have a vagina but it takes a lot more than that to be a feminist. You're no feminist.



But weren't you posing as such in your "Race to the Bottom." As you raced to the bottom.



You wanted to grab a pack of smokes and head to the ladies' room, tell all of us, sister-to-sister, what was what.



No woman should be fooled by you. You are a woman who had the power to print women and you decided not to. You are a woman who regularly shot down submissions by women. You're not just a gender traitor, you are the enemy.



You got your own ass lifted up but you didn't do a damn thing to help other women. In fact, you stood in their way, by choice, even when called out on it. You are a disgusting liar and you have a lot of nerve scribbling your crap in which you pose as a feminist.



You open with a listing of some of the sexist things that have been said about Hillary and that may be a shock to many Nation readers since the magazine and its website have regularly ignored the sexism in this primary race. (Katrina vanden Heuvel calling out David Schuster use of "pimping" is the only exception that springs to mind. Added: Katha Pollitt has twice made time between stalkings to weigh in.) You certainly never felt the need to write about it when it was happening and you really don't feel the need to write about it now.



What you're interested in now is trying to trick readers, especially women (most have abandoned your crap-ass magazine, why don't you tell people how low subscriptions have fallen -- and don't include the 'trial' free subscriptions in your figures). You write that "women -- white women, that is" -- are dismayed by the sight of the "brass ring of the presidency slip[ping]" away from Hillary. You really are a sack of sh*t, there's no other better phrase for you, Betsy.



For the record, your stereotype is offensive. It's not just White women who are offended but it is cute of you -- the woman who dismissed concerns over Native Americans -- to try to play like the supporter of women of color. It's all part of the lie that only White women are supporting Hillary. Hillary does have a large number of women supporting her. That's to be expected, the United States has more women than men. Hillary also has a large number of White women supporting her and that, too, is to be expected from the country's demographics.



But we'll note that we were calling out the sexism before we got on board the Hillary campaign. We were still publicly and privately staying out of the race. So for you to LIE and state that women were motivated by the thought that Hillary wouldn't get the presidency is just disgusting. But you're a just a disgusting liar, a vag damned well determined to tear down other women.



It probably helps you sleep nights, to pretend that women calling out the sexism are only doing so because they support Hillary. If that LIE were true, it would certainly excuse the women supporting Barack being silent on the sexism. That would, of course, include you, dear.



You stayed silent and so did John Nichols and so did the Airs, and so did Richard Kim and so did self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders and just go down the list of all your trashy mouthed staff that overwrote the campaign coverage and never had the time to explore the very real sexism. And put yourself at the top of that list because you earned Best in Show in the dog contest.



Pretending that only women supporting Hillary have called out the sexism allows you to pretend that you EVER did something for women when you never did a damn thing.



"Mainstream feminists" get a special slap from you, don't they?



From the fringes, we suppose the mainstream looks scary as hell to your radical ass. Not "radical feminist," mind you, just crackpot who thinks she can stack the deck and convince people that she's reporting truthfully.



"Mainstream feminists" is really a hilarious charge if you stop to think about how feminism is about equality and equal opportunities and how you, in your position at the magazine, have refused to implement either. Feminism is far too radical for your closeted ass.



You then try to have it both ways. You use "misting over moment" to describe when Hillary's eyes moistened as she was explaining how important it was to turn back the damage of the Bully Boy's years in the White House but you quickly go off into quoting "cry" and never correct that lie, now do you? What a piece of work you are. We couldn't stop laughing at how you, the 'feminist,' avoided noting that no one pushed the false crying claim more than Jesse Jackson Jr. (Obama campaigner) and how he lied and said she cried out of vanity. We think it's real cute how you avoid Fat Boy who went under the knife -- apparently on tax payer dollar -- to get rid of fifty pounds.



You then LIE again and claim that moment aided Hillary when, in fact, that moment wasn't big news in New Hampshire and the most cited reason for those deciding on Hillary at the last moment was the debate. Your so full of lies they probably ooze out of your enlarged pores.



Your disdain for Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan is both palatable and non-surprising. What else would a self-hating woman feel for two women who've given their lives to fighting for the rights of all women? In your nightmares, we're sure it's big, bad women who scare you and puny ass men who ride to your rescue.



It's really amazing to watch as you go outside your own magazine to cite sexism. But The Nation loves to publish and republish Katha Pollitt's column on how few women The New York Times publishes . . . while ignoring their own imbalance. Finger pointers are rarely up to self-exploration, are they?



"The sexist attacks on Clinton are outrageous and deplorable," you write. Yes, they are. So why is it that they have never been judged worthy of an editorial by The Nation? Because you aren't interested in them. You're not even interested in them enough for an article. You're just offering up your pap smear -- which we're sure you licked -- of how awful Hillary is.



You really are pathetic. You really are destructive. Fortunately, you're self-destructive and you'll realize what we mean by that because it's already taken care of. Enjoy.



You offer up a bunch of lies about the Clinton campaign using racism. You're just a pathetic liar. It's hilarious to read you suggest that Hillary has played "cowboy" but we're aware that you don't get out of your isolated, elitist world too often. (We find the fact that you consider yourself "elite" hysterical. Your world's crashing down, hon, be prepared.) The one playing "cowboy" would be Barack. That's who donned the cowboy hat in Texas, posed for it in a photo-op after photo-op. It's hilarious to watch you try to claim that racism accompanies Jeremiah Wright's coverage when the fact that he's a crackpot is what accompanies his coverage finally. The fact that he, using his 'authority,' told people repeatedly that AIDS was started by the US government and done so to do away with African-Americans makes him a crackpot and, in the past, The Nation has called out crackpots like that, haven't they?



These days they play silent. We don't. We know that homophobia has no place in a feminist world. Oh, homophobia. We might need to explain that to you, Betsy. That's a hatred of gays and lesbians. That's what Barack Obama used in South Carolina to scare up votes. Somehow you must have missed that. Must have missed that human rights groups protesting an announced event, the Obama campaign ignoring it, going through with the event featuring multiple homophobes (including an 'ex-gay') and then bragging that they got what they wanted out of the event.



The Nation stayed silent on that, didn't they. Even Laura Flanders. There was Laura, while this was going on, writing her laughable plea to Barack to break free from Richard Daley. As if Michelle and Barack weren't up to their necks with the Daley machine. As if Michelle's family didn't go way back. What a loser, what an idiot.



We searched in vain for that event in your article, for a sentence possibly reading, "And the Obama campaign's use of homophobia has many crying foul." Of course we didn't find it because you're not a feminist and you're more than willing to toss gays and lesbians under the bus if it gets your man elected.



It's cute to watch you claim that "references by Clinton campaign officials to Obama's admission of past drug use" were racism. Admission? He was joking on network TV with Jay Leno. We're searching our brains for your suggestion that Bill Clinton's pot use being raised in 1992 was somehow evidence of racism. You never made that claim for the obvious reason that it wasn't racism. If Barack writes and talks about doing "blow" and pot, others talking about it is not racism.



Somehow any critique of Barack is registered by your ilk as "racism" against a "Black" man. Barack's bi-racial.



You then move on down your list of 'racism' by noting Hillary's comments about LBJ and MLK, which you term "tone-deaf but historically accurate". What kind of deaf are you if you can't grasp that comments which are "historically accurate" (by your own admission) don't qualify for racism?



Then came the amusing quotes from the Liars and Losers and, note, we said "Liars and Losers" and not "Losers or Liars." First up for your dog show is Lie Face Melissa Harris-Lacewell. Anyone who wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt probably gave up the minute you quoted her as a reliable source.



For those not in the know, Lie Face went on Democracy Now! as an 'objective' professor with no preference in the Democratic primary. She just happened to catch a speech by Barack and weighed in on that. Though both Lie Face and Amy Goodman knew Melissa was part of the Obama campaign, neither felt the need to tell the audience that. It's how you slant the coverage, how you stack the deck. "Why, even someone not supporting Barack is blown away!" It's a lie, it's unethical and, as unethical as it was for Amy Goodman to participate in that little stunt, it's more unethical for Melissa because she went on representing Princeton and they are looking into that now and into other of her little stunts.



Like when she was part of a journalistic roundtable on Charlie Rose and didn't disclose that she was part of the Obama campaign. No other campaign had a spokesperson at the table. And of course Melissa's attitude is always "Why lie a little when you can lie a lot?" Which is how she brought up Tavis Smiley and informed PBS viewers that there were some people angry with him having standards for Barack. Of course the liar forgot to mention that she helped get that ball rolling with her February 15th piece "Who Died and Made Tavis King?" What an amazing one person echo chamber Lie Face is: She leads the attacks on Tavis online and then, a month later, shows up on PBS to reference the attacks without ever disclosing her own role in it.



And you want us to give a damn about anything that Lie Face has to say? Not since her "I'm sitting here in my Black womanhood" statement has she made such a howler as what you quote, Iowa "felt like reconstruction." How the hell would she know what Reconstruction felt like? Just on the face of it, that claim is so laughable, such a reach, that a real writer would have known not to include it. But you are just a scribbler.



Lie Face then claims that Bill Clinton ("that moment") referencing Jesse Jackson's earlier win in South Carolina following Barack's own was "racism" and you rush to agree. As Elaine pointed out, in the modern era there were three people who could be referenced: Rev Jackson, John Edwards or Bill Clinton himself. To reference John Edwards would have been seen as rude since he was still, at that point, a candidate and since he did not win South Carolina. To reference himself would have had everyone calling him vain. That left Rev. Jackson. Who knew that noting his accomplishments was racist? (He certainly didn't. He agreed with Clinton.)



Betsy, you play godless in your writing. You want to quote Wright's damning of America without the context. You want to pretend he'd just stumped his toe and cursed. He was the church's pastor. He stood in front of the church and called on God to damn the United States of America. You minimize that and it's one of the reasons that you're so out of touch with America. The offense wasn't about race, it was about a pastor using their role to call down damnation on the country. You leave out his crackpot science and quickly rush off into racism when it really wasn't the point. Seeing a pastor, of someone who wants to be the president of the United States, standing in front of a church and calling on the Lord to damn the country is offensive.



You reference the nearly 4,000 word speech "A More Perfect Union." It was a bad speech, a really bad speech. It addressed nothing. But it's cute the way you ignore what the press ran with and what Obama ran with days later. "My White Grandmother." Or, as Barack termed it days later, "a typical White person."



For the record, we don't count Deadbeat Dads as fathers. Nor do we consider it to have been necessary for Barack to mention "White" when speaking of his grandmother; however, he wanted to play the race card -- as he so often does.



Barack has only one grandmother. He never met his paternal grandmother. The woman on TV is only one of the many wives his *polygamist* grandfather had and Barack may have met her (briefly) after he was an adult. By contrast, his only grandmother raised him. By contrast, he chose to live with the woman. Now maybe you couldn't mention that because you're so very busy trying to portray Barack as "Black" when he is bi-racial?



Bill Clinton, as Elaine pointed out, speaking about, as you word it, "a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup" had no reason to mention Barack. But you saw that as "McCarthyism." You try to push that off on others but your context makes it clear. It's not McCarthyism. McCarthyism requires the government. But it's all your pathetic set has to remain in the political closet, now isn't it?



If you can't scream "McCarthyism!" every time a little truth slips out, you might get exposed.



You are aghast that Barack was asked, by George Stephanopolous, about his ties to Bill Ayers. He should have been asked about his ties to Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You ignore that and act like it's no big deal for someone who wants to be president to hang out with someone who was wanted by the federal government, someone who would be in a prison right now had the government not committed their own abuses. You lie that "Time after time, Clinton picked up the line . . ." Did you drop acid during the debate? Or was it before?



You go on to write that ABC's "debate has rightly been condemned." You showed no concern about the MSNBC debate, did you? Not now, not ever.



You trot out Kemberle Crenshaw and Eve Ensler and, we'll assume, that was only to add to the laugh factor. No one takes those women seriously and for good reason. If you doubt us, ask Ms. about how they tried desperately to get Crenshaw last article highlighted by the press and how no one was interested in it. Because she's not a writer. Because she appears to inflate her claims and because most of the Real Media judge her unreliable. You've got a curious cast of freaks to 'back up' your argument and we laughed at everyone of them.



You lie and say Obama has never claimed that racism has factored in. We laughed so hard.



We'd encourage you in stand-up but looks appear to be a necessity these days and we think you're already frustrated enough.



As we finished laughing, we realized "sack of sh*t" really didn't describe you. You're a street walker, hitting the corner to do business for your man, your pimp. There you are lying for Barack and trying to pretend you're a 'feminist' because what's more 'feminist' than lying to build up a man and lying to tear down a woman?



Your kind has been around forever. In fact, we picture you cheering on the deaths of other women. "Burn the witch!" we can hear you shout to prove you're not like those women. To prove you're as masculine as any man. (Betsy, you don't have to try so hard to prove that.) It's really amazing to grasp that behind all your inflated and created charges against Hillary, the real thing at work is that you think a woman should run a political campaign as if it were a tea party. Hillary's real crime, in your eyes, is that she's a fighter. You'd be creaming your panties right about now if she had -- as you wrote the "Good race, Hillary" column announcing her resignation.



Hillary fights. She doesn't "fight like a man." She fights like who she is. You're so busy denying your own gender that you're appalled by that fact. You're disgusted that, even with all your magazine and the Roosevelt Institution's conniving, Hillary hasn't been knocked out of the race. So you hit the corner to troll for your man one more time. They say the only thing more shameful than being a dirty joke is being a dirty, old joke. Tell us, Betsy, is it true?



You close by quoting noted 'feminist' Chris Rock. We think that about says it all.



Poor little Betsy, hiding in the shadows, plotting Panhandle Media's take down of Hillary, penning the cover story of yet another attack on Hillary, and she's still standing. She's still fighting, she's still winning. That's because real women know nothing is given. That's because real women know how to fight. It's fight or die. It's fight or be raped. You learned how to backbite and smear, you just never learned how to fight. So, a warning, slink off now, because if this hurts your wittle feelings, know that you have yet to see what two pissed off women could do to you.



Rot in the hell of your own making,



Ava and C.I.