Freaks: They're still with her! (Ava and C.I.)

In November, it will be two years since the 2016 elections.  Yet some still can't let go.  Bitter enders?

To be clear, anyone who supported Hillary in 2008 and is still upset about the 2016 election?  We're not making fun of you.  We know you have real scars from real battles.  So the PUMAs and others, we don't have any quarrel with you.

Our quarrel is the 2016 newbies, idiots all of them.

Sexism, they whined, Hillary had to deal with sexism!

They don't know from sexism.  Where were they in 2008?

Check out this video from WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER about some of what took place in 2008.




Some.

Because even WMC couldn't tell the truth.

A lot of us did, online.  And we faced pushback and worse.

We were lucky, maybe because of our focus on Iraq, we didn't get seen as 'winnable' or 'hushable.'  By contrast, WORDPRESS took off in 2008 because so many women were forced off BLOGGER/BLOGGERSPOT.  And forced off not just by threats and harassing e-mails.  They were actively targeted and denied service.  That's why they relocated.

Many women left blogging, it just wasn't worth it to them -- the attacks on women in general, the attacks on them in particular.

Any of those women want to be with Hillary, we will not fault them.

We share those scars with them.

But, guess what, we don't really give a damn about those of you who couldn't say one word in 2008.

Katie Couric wasn't silent -- even though sexists at CBS slammed her for speaking out.






As she observed of the 2008 run, "One of the great lessons of that campaign was the continued -- and accepted -- role of  sexism in American life -- particularly in the media."

She went further, "It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this campaign season, it's all the people who crossed the line and all the men and women who let them get away with it."


Yes, all the men and women who let them get away with it.

We don't forget those who crossed the line.

And we called it out in real time.  Which meant calling out Barack Obama for his sexism.  One mainstream journalist dared do that in real time, Marie Cocco.  There were actually two.  Can you name the other?  Please, unless you read this site you probably can't name Marie.

The other was Bonnie Erbe, host of PBS' TO THE CONTRARY.  From Bonnie's "Obama and the Democrats Owe Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters a Formal Apology for the Campaign's Sexism" (US NEWS & WORLD REPORTS):


The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable.




It also meant calling out our 'friends.'  That's what FAIR and their radio program COUNTERSPIN are, right?  Our friends?  No, they're our 'friends' and proved it repeatedly in 2008.

As we explained in May of that year:



Last week, we noted that FAIR's radio program CounterSpin is happy to ignore sexism and, at the top of Friday's show, they appeared bound and determined to prove us wrong.





Peter Hart: One of the most disturbing features of the media coverage of the Democratic presidential race is the way racism and sexism have been expressed. CNN viewers were treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are. Not everyone's so out in the open. MSNBC host Chris Matthews opened his May 18th show wondering how Barack Obama would connect with regular Democrats? Obviously code for working class Whites. This would seem to make the millions of Obama voters so far irregular. But then consider the May 14th op-ed by Washington Post Writers Group Kathleen Parker. She wrote about 'full bloodness' and the patriot divide between Obama and John McCain offering that there is "different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines through generations of sacrifice." This makes Obama less American than his likely Republican rival and his success part of a larger threat "There is a very real sense that once upon a time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity." Well thanks to The Washington Post, Parker's rant appeared in newspapers around the country including the Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune. We're not sure what those papers used for a headline but one blogger suggest [nonsense] would do. Parker's attack wasn't even new. Before in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wondered if Obama had ever gotten misty thinking about his country's rich heritage. John McCain by contrast "carries it in his bones." There's an appetite in corporate media for such repellent ideas as Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell recalled, Noonan's column was praised by NBC's anchor Brian Williams as Pulitzer worthy.





If you paid attention, Peter only proved us right. The first time this year CounterSpin can note any of the sexism, it's when Hillary's called a bitch and it produces a single sentence in which the 'pundit' isn't even named. 

[. . .]


We'll come back to CounterSpin but let's go to the CNN moment that Peter's talking about -- or, rather, alluding to. One sentence isn't really talking about anything, now is it? He doesn't even identify the pundit in question or the program which really underscores how little CounterSpin was interested in it, now doesn't it?

Peter is commenting on GOP operative Alex Castellanos' comments on the May 20th broadcast of The Situation Room. Gloria Borger (US World News & Reports and frequent target here) declared that Hillary Clinton's criticism of the sexism in the media was probably accurate ("And so I'm sure there is.") and Jeffrey Toobin thought she was "dead right" and noted Maureen Dowd (unnamed) retelling a 'joke' in a column where Hillary is called a "white bitch." Castellanos wanted to disagree ("you're dead wrong. She's dead wrong.") On the term, Castella declared, "And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate." Media Matters has transcript and audio here.

It's amazing when you think about it, Hart has one solid case of racism and one solid case of sexism. Sexism is reduced to one sentence with no direct quote and neither the program or pundit is named. However, Kathleen Parker is named and quoted and it's six sentences of commentary. Hart also includes a Chris Matthews citation that may have nothing to do with racism and a Peggy Noonan citation that is only racist if we live in a world where Peggy's forced to stop recycling her usual garbage because the person she's targeting is bi-racial. Again, Peggy hates all living Democrats equally.



This was CounterSpin's initial 'foray' into sexism. The one time they've noted it in all of 2008. How proud they must be and how, well, fair they must feel that just once, for one non-specific, fleeting sentence they realized that sexism existed. By contrast, Media Matters has 19 items listed this year. Of course, both outlets refuse to call out Keith Olbermann -- can't get rough with Katty-van-van's friends.



They were far from the only 'friends' we saw in 2008 ignore sexism.  Bill Moyers and Dr.  Kathy -- remember them?  We called them out throughout 2008 and had to return to that sewer in June of 2008:

Wednesday, Katie Couric opened her "Notebook" (CBS Evening News) and proved the old adage, "If every woman in the world told the truth at the same time, the world as we know it would change forever."

If you doubted it, you missed what followed Couric calling out sexism. An intense effort to play dumb, attack or stay silent. On Friday, The New York Times went with with the first tactic. In a long article that said very little (no women in broadcast or cable news were sought out for the story), Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman offer "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage." Heavy on featuring men (all quotes on the front page are from men) and short on women. All women featured show up late in the story (and inside the paper where it continues). Among the tiny number featured is one our readers know very well, Dr. Kathy:

"Largely, the problem was on cable and in the blogosphere and on the Internet, and that's a relatively small audience," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "But while it was limited, it was limited to influential people."

Oh, Dr. Kathy, we try to be nice. We tried. But as Staci Lattisaw once suggested, "Nail It To The Wall." "It" would be your ass, Dr. Kathy. Dr. Kathy lied to The New York Times and let's deal with that first. "Relatively small audience," she insisted last week. Well, golly, what did she say in May?

"Secondly, we know something about how the electorate is using the new media environment," Dr. Kathy told Bill Moyers on May 2nd. "Meaning lots of cable channels that you have an option to go to, even when you're watching traditional, mainstream broadcast. People aren't watching 30 minutes of NBC or CBS or ABC anymore. There's a whole part of the electorate that is watching a segment of it. It gets what it needs of politics, and it starts to channel-surf to find other political information. And over a third of the electorate says, it's done that at least once or twice in this most recent viewing experience."

To the paper last week, she insisted "the problem" (what is it, vaginal odor -- she can't say "sexism"?) was exposed to a "very small audience." Yet last month, on PBS, she was stating one-third of the electorate (ONE THIRD!) was utilizing cable channels and the web for information. Dr. Kathy has always struggled to build a relationship with the truth. The two remain estranged.

During the primary campaign, Dr. Kathy was brought on frequently as an 'expert' by Bill Moyers (to his Bill Moyers Journal -- which airs on the non-cable PBS and has a very large audience). On one of those segments (January 9th), Senator Hillary Clinton 'crying' was addressed. Hillary didn't cry but Dr. Kathy felt the need to bring that moment up and, 'expert' that she is, she credits it with Hillary's success in New Hampshire despite the fact that late breaking voters identified their reasons for going with Clinton as the Saturday debate. From the transcript of the January 9th broadcast:

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But that's not the whole story. In the Hillary moment, characterized very differently by people-
BILL MOYERS: The moisty moment?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, whatever adjective or adverb you use, Hillary Clinton has this moment in the diner.
BILL MOYERS: The national press was cynical. Clinton is hoping that showing that other side will bring women in particular to the polls, almost as if she had done it deliberate. We don't know whether she did or not. But the two significant newspapers in New Hampshire didn't cover the event at all. And local television coverage in New Hampshire was pretty matter of fact about it. It became a bigger national story than it did a local story.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Mm-hm. But what's also interesting to me is you're not sure whether she did it deliberately or not.

What's interesting to us is that 'expert' Dr. Kathy brought it up on her own, interjected it and didn't know what the hell she was talking about. What's interesting to us is that Bill Moyers calls it a 'moisty' moment -- oh, ha, ha, you are so very funny.

But along with trying to be funny, he also likes pranks. The same episode.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: We saw a sensitivity factor…But there are a lot of issues for which we can be emotion on this campaign.

That's how the transcript 'plays' that moment. It is not how it played on TV**. (And we called it out in real time.) The "..." was not used on PBS, Jackson's actual words (aired on MSNBC) were. Dr. Kathy wants to tell The New York Times it was the bad world of blogs and the bad world of cable. But Moyers played Jackson entire sexist attack on Hillary. (Watch the episode online if you doubt us.)

And Dr. Kathy? Not a word. Brought on as an 'expert.' Moyers plays the sexist attack on Hillary and Dr. Kathy responds?

BILL MOYERS: What do you think?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Much of the commentary about that moment is simply a Rorschach read on people's ideological relationship to Hillary Clinton. The question for the electorate at large is: Does it speak to her capacity to lead? It's the same question that one should ask of everything one sees of candidates.

Jackson has just falsely lied and attacked Clinton in sexist terms and Dr. Kathy doesn't address that. She doesn't point out that he's lying when he says she cried about her appearance and she certainly doesn't point out that he had a chunk of his intestines removed to lose fifty pounds -- so who is he to accuse anyone else of vanity?

We had to put up with that.  Our so-called leaders of 'independent' media attacking Hillary Clinton in 2008 in a sexist manner, looking the other way to insist that it wasn't happening.

We had, please remember, Amy Goodman bringing on Barack campaigners who weren't identified as such on camera.  They were allowed to trash Hillary while pretending they were objective.  People -- excuse us, liars.  Liars like Melissa Harris whatever her current husband is.  Lacewell?  No, now it's Perry.  Who knows what it will be tomorrow.

Dr. Kathy, Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, Cenk Uygur, Randi Rhodes, Chris Matthews and so many more using sexism to attack Hillary.

Our blood is boiling just thinking, yet again, about all that happened in 2008.

We lived it.  And other women (and some men) who lived it as well?  If they continued to support Hillary in 2016, we're okay with that and would never call them out for it.

But they're very different from the Debra Messings, aren't they?

Where was Big Hillary Fan Debra Messing in 2008?  She wasn't there.

Nor was Patricia Arquette or Jamie Lee Curtis or any of these 'concerned' 'feminists.'

It's a recent concern that they have, probably a viral one that will wear off eventually.

We have no respect for those bitches.

They stand on our shoulders, they try to lay claim to the work we did in 2008.

These Jill come latelys are useless and always will be.  They didn't call out anything that happened in 2008, not one attack.

And those attacks -- oh, that's part two, honey.  That's where we explain to you why 2016 Hillary was killed in 2008.





-------------

**Here's what they played on TV, on Bill Moyers' PBS program, Jesse Jackson Jr. declaring that Hillary cried and cried for her appearance:


Not in response to voters resp-, uh, not-not in response to Katrina, not in response to uh-uh other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears --