Sarah Sewell & Her Cult

It really doesn't matter to us that Sarah Sewell (aka Sarah Sewar) doesn't like Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad." That article went up December 30th of last year and it's a rare week when The Cult of Sarah doesn't argue for it to come down for a variety of laughable reasons.



Last week, Sarah Sewar dispatched more students to plead to us. It needs to come down, we were instructed, for feminism.



What a laugh.



It's not coming down. It didn't come down when the Cult started their smear campaign on the work of David Price (e-mails from January 12th through Feb. 20th). It didn't come down when the 'Monty McFate is really a sweetheart' e-mails came in (those began the day the piece went up and stopped only when Monty's sister got busted for being a NRA operative infiltrating peace groups -- apparently they then had to work on silencing others and put us on hold). It certainly didn't come down during March when the e-mails focus was how this could 'hurt' Barack. (Sewer is an advisor to Barack.)



None of the attempts have worked and none will.



But the new thread is 'for feminism.'



Sarah Sewar's not a feminist. She's a War Hawk. She's responsible for the counter-insurgency strategy being used in Afghanistan and Iraq. She wants even more war (and apparently thinks Barack will provide her with it -- we don't disagree with her on that).



Sarah Sewar elected to go on The Charlie Rose Show with her running buddy Monty McFate. Don't like what Ava and C.I. wrote?



Well, you don't have to.



But we read over it (Ava and C.I. didn't bother to). We're fine with it.



Sarah Sewar (an adult) goes on TV to preach more war? TV's a visual medium. Ava and C.I. regularly critique the appearances of men and women on TV. Don't like it? Don't read it.



We searched the e-mails pleading Sarah's case on behalf of 'feminism' last week for anything beside Sarah's appearance (we'd say she's "ghastly") and didn't find any. The e-mails had no argument other than Sarah's appearance was judged and that's just not feminism! Well, tell her to stick to radio if she doesn't want her appearance commented on.



Two especially took exception to this:



We weren't sure whether Monty was attempting to play the Marci to Sewer's Patti de Pastilles de menthe or the Alice B. Toklas to Sewer's Gertrude Stein but we did enjoy the sucking up Monty did to Sewer for two main reasons. One, Sewer was basking in it and looking even more the pompous fool than usual. Two, we know Monty. We know how she operates. She butters up a dupe right before she attempts to steal credit. Monty's a backstabber and a publicity hound so we are eager to see exactly what damage she'll inflict on Sewer before this is all over.



Sadly, the two didn't even grasp that "Patti de Pastilles de menthe" is Peppermint Patty (from Peanuts). But we've seen the broadcast and Monty is sucking up to Sarah and, as Ava and C.I. know (Monty's from this area), when Monty sucks up, she's up to something, usually a back stabbing.



One of Sarah's grad students insist that Ava and C.I. called Sarah a "whore" and that is just not feminism! Here's the section and be very scared of the comprehension level of Sewer's grad students:



For those not in the know about Sewer, when not appearing on TV to look like an unwashed freak who just pulled her hair to one side, is a Bloody War Hawk. Some call her a War Whore, but we try to avoid that term and just call her a War Hawk with an "ugly" sometimes tossed in. As a War Hawk she operates out of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy which is really just a fancy way of saying she's a Destruction Pusher. There's no place on the globe that she doesn't feel her big nose can be stuck in and should be stuck in. Granted, it is a large beak, a ski run -- if you will, and it probably is difficult for her to contain it in her so-so dwellings, but not only does no one need to see it, no one wants to.



Though Ava and C.I. don't call her a "War Whore," we will. We're also aware that despite the power Sarah Sewer holds (including on the Barack campaign), no one dares criticize her. When she's discussed, it's one or two quick sentences and then a race to move on.



Sewer needs to be discussed. She is for the Iraq War and is a Barack adviser. Sewer wasn't just for the Iraq War when it started -- as Ava and C.I. document it, she is still for the illegal war:



Sewer came close to unhinging in public when she went into rapid-fire mode, spitting out sentences about the failure of states, her desire to create "a strong, international force," how the illegal war must not be seen "as a failure" and her "concern" that, if Iraq is seen as a failure, "we'll move towards isolationism" or, worse, send in the military to "strike him and get out" (as opposed to occupying -- and "him" wasn't identified by the War Pig). That truly does concern Sewer because her whole existence, her belief system such as it is, is rooted in the notion that she, and only she, possess the wisdom to decide.



The Iraq War, an illegal war, unprovoked, must not be seen "as a failure"?



Again, this is one of Barack's foreign policy advisers. Here's Ava and C.I. pointing out that Charlie and Sewer thought it was cute to have a little insider-baseball talk at the expense of the viewers:



He found it just awful that politicians weren't echoing the War Hawk work that Sewer and Monty were doing, "You don't hear candidates talk about this."

"We do actually," Sewer said in full repression mode. She went on to whine that War Hawk Barack Obama "gave a speech" incorporating their plans for War Eternal but it was lost as people focused on other things. Still, Sewer assured Chuckie, "at least one candidate has done that."

Smirking like the valet that mistook himself for an insider, Chuckie offered, "I'm familiar with some of the people behind the scenes that you know" who wrote Obama's speech. He means, among others, Sammy Power. But she's become such a drag on the Obama campaign that no one's mentioning her, not even her buddy Chuck. Yet, watching, we had to wonder what PBS thought of that nonsense?

He's familiar? So what? Are people watching Public Broadcasting to have Charlie smirk about things he knows but doesn't intend to impart? Isn't he required to mention the names he knows? He brought it up, he wasn't under grand jury questioning. Exactly what, if anything, can our PBS friends find to defend in that moment? (Our answer, when the calls come in, will be "Not a damn thing" only we'll be use stronger language.)



For the record, Ava and C.I. received no complaint from PBS Friends about that commentary. The only feedback on it was that Rose doesn't need to have a private conversation on the public airwaves.



One of the e-mailers last week insists it is embarrassing for Sewer and for Barack that the commentary is up. We'll assume that's because Sewer is the one The Nation, Democracy Now!, The Progressive, et al refuse to explore. They give her a pass and she gets away with a lot of damage.



She went on broadcast TV and bragged about how tight she was with "at least one candidate," insisted the illegal war must not be judged a failure, advocated occupations of other countries and bragged about her counter-insurgency work.



She gets no pass from us.



Don't like the tone, oh well.



Applause to one for identifying herself as a student of Sewer's. We checked the rest, you all are.



Which is another reason the article stays up: Sewell does a lot of damage, including infecting college minds.



She's an adult, she went on television, she looked ghastly. Ava and C.I. are covering TV. If a visual detail strikes them as worth noting, they note it. They noted the strong camera work in Flashpoint. They noted that the Princes of Malibu treated the two young men like they existed from the neck up while zooming in on bikini-bottomless women.



In one of our personal favorites pieces, they write, "Judd Hirsch's belly? Don't get us started. We both gasped when he was shown walking on a golf course. Whatever happened to the cast of Taxi? Apparently Judd ate them."



You don't have to like what they do and you don't have to read it.



You do need to grasp that they're writing about a visual medium (this week's commentary finds time to mention visuals including bad camera work). Children are off-limits to them. That's child actors and children who are non-professionals. They draw the line at that. Anyone else who goes on TV is fair game if they stand out to them.



We grasp that Sewer doesn't like the piece. We grasped that a long time ago, many, many e-mails ago. It doesn't upset us. Again, we're thrilled that Ava and C.I. had the guts to do what the 'brave' voices of 'alternative' media didn't: Call out Sewer.



One of last week's e-mails wanted to insist that Ava and C.I.'s commentary was not "the feminist belief system." There's no "the." Ava and C.I. repeatedly have noted (since 2005) that they are offering "'a' feminist take, not 'the' take."



One of the Cult e-mailed four times last week, noting each time that she had e-mailed before and not gotten a response. You did get a response, the same response that all Cult members have received: Loud laughter on our end.



But in case she's only taking the weekend off and planning to e-mail over and over next week as well, we're putting this up so that she knows we read her e-mails -- her e-mails and the rest from Sarah's Cult. We read them, we laughed at them.



We laughed as the arguments for why the commentary must be taken down shifted over and over. We laughed at the ones explaining they were writing at Sarah's request. As the e-mail count on this multiplied and multiplied, we started to picture that Sewer added Ava and C.I.'s article to a class reading list. That made us laugh even harder.



-- Jim, Dona, Ty and Jess

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" -- if any parent of any of us requests a highlight, they get it. Jim's father requested that we highlight this piece by C.I. He's read over a transcript of the Friday press conference and says the United Nations has allowed one of their employees to completely cross the line and that every reporter he's shown the transcript to are outraged at a UN rep attacking the press, covering for a government and blaming individuals for a government that refuses to address a disease.

"Thomas Friedman mounts his Huffy bike" -- In this chapter, Betinna faces the return (and departure) of husband Thomas Friedman who frets over his new love and fancies himself Mary Tyler Moore.

"Adults in the Kitchen" -- Trina calls out Barack's crap and his refusal to take it seriously -- his refusal and many others.

"sunsara taylor," "Sunsara Taylor and political honesty" and "Iraq snapshot" -- Rebecca, Elaine and C.I. all note Sunsara Taylor's powerful speech.

"Nancy Pelosi: The fold-out politician" and "nancy pelosi donates to cindy sheehan's campaign!" -- Kat and Rebecca note "No offshore drilling!" Pelosi's latest cave and how it helps Cindy Sheehan.

"The company he keeps" & "THIS JUST IN! CAROL FOWLER TERRORIST AND ASS!" -- Cedric and Wally cover the continued decay of the Fowler family with Carol Fowler being the latest embarrassment.

"Jeremiah was a . . . piece of trash" -- The 'upstanding' Jeremiah Wright, portrayed as a man of God to listen to by all the fringe media. And during that? Cheating on his wife with an employee who has now filed a lawsuit against him. Cheating on his second wife, we should add. His first marriage broke up when he gave marriage 'counseling' to a couple -- but wanted one on one sessions with the wife -- the woman who ended up being his second wife. For any who remember his mocking of Bill Clinton at the front of the church which included hip thrusting, Jeremiah's inability to keep it in his own pants probably comes as no shock. His 'standards' were on display for all to see long ago, as Marcia outlines.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Running Scared" -- Isaiah's comic explaining Barack's reaction to Sarah Palin.


"House Armed Services Committee" & "Iraq snapshot" -- Mike and C.I. cover the House Armed Services Committee hearing.

"Child labor scandal" -- a scandal that didn't get a great deal of attention but should have. Ruth caught it.

"the new 'obama girls'," "How stupid is Michelle Cottle?," "Sexism and bad journalism" "the new 'obama girls'," & "The crazies" -- Rebecca, Marcia, Elaine and Mike's state of the world/media overviews.

"Barack the unwanted," "THIS JUST IN! BARACK NEEDS RESCUING!" & "I don't want Bill campaigning for Barack" -- Cedric, Wally and Kat covering the weak Barack.

"Andrew Romano, Jeff Roca" -- Ruth explaining just how many voters Barack's running off.

Truest statement of the week

Divisive: Senator Obama called Sarah Palin's speech "divisive". Really? Which part? The bit where she said that Obama has written no legislation? The dig at the styrofoam columns? The comment about a "community organizer" having no responsibilities? The laff at his egomaniacal "seal"?
A statement is not a smear if it is true.

Joseph, "Good for the goose . . ." (Cannonfire) [Palin's speech can be read here.]

Truest statement of the Week II

But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.

-- Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq" (Baltimore Chronicle)

Truest statement of the week III

I enjoy WMC but I'm seeing that Feminist Wire has apparently finished for the day without noting John McCain's pick of a woman for his running mate. I do however see the following at Daily Kos: "The Old Man and She" by Jimmy Crackcorn to which Geiiga has posted, "You think maybe McCain misunderstood that just because she's his 'running mate' doesn't mean he gets to mate with her." The comments only get worse.
I don't know a thing about the woman. Except she's a "former beauty queen." I see that over and over in the press. And people, reporters, saying she’s not qualified because she's only a 2nd year governor. And then saying "beauty queen" one more time.
She's a Republican and I'm sure we do not agree on abortion or LGBT issues. I have no plans to vote for her.
I will not, however, stand by while another woman is trashed.
And let’s get really damn honest here, she's being trashed by Barack's campaign. The lack of experience line is coming from Barack's campaign and quoted online by The Los Angeles Times and many others. WMC can't make that obvious point ever. That's why I am only a lukewarm supporter. That and the fact that as a LESBIAN
I will not support a man who puts homophobes on stage.
Thank you to my sisters at WMC who refused to call out Barack's use of homophobia. Wave to me when it's my stop. It's a long, long walk from the back of the bus.

-- Heather posting to "Katie Couric & Sexism in the Media" (WMC).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Another Sunday. We managed somehow.


Along with Dallas, the following worked on this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

And let's move to what we came up with:

Truest statement of the week -- We had two possibilities from Joseph (and we had about 16 nominees for the truest). We went with this one because Palin was eliminated as truest herself. If we included one truest from her speech, some felt it would be argued that we were saying the entire speech was true (and that e-mails would pour in on that). The other reason is that only one politician has ever gotten truest and we'd like to keep it that way. The one who got truest really had to speak truth to power. (It was Bill Clinton.) So we went with this one from Joseph of Cannonfire instead of another one by him.

Truest statement of the Week II -- Chris Floyd, daring to go where other 'alternative' 'journalists' fear to tread. He stands in good company of journalists telling the truth re: Saint Barack The Christ-Child. He joins John Pilger, Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford, and a limited number of others. The small, the brave, the real reporters.

Editorial: The Sour Grape Girls -- Somewhere around Tuesday, C.I. came up with the "sour grape girls" and began talking about it with Elaine. (Who flies in tomorrow by the way. We're very happy about that.) She began talking about it with Rebecca and who passed it on to Ruth, who passed it on to Marcia, who mentioned it to Mike and before you knew it, I (Jim) was hearing about it. "That's an editorial!" I exclaimed. And then complained that others might have already written about it at their site. Fortunately, they all expected it would be an editorial so they just walked it to the line without crossing it. This may be my favorite editorial we've done this year. In part because it's completely unexpected from us and in part because I really love it when I read it.


TV: More sexism, more self-promotion -- Ava and C.I. turn in another blockbuster. We weren't sure how good it would be and knew that the edition probably hinged on it. (Gutter Trash, et al has made us very non-enthusiastic of late.) We had the editorial topic and Mike was bringing over Kwame Kilpatrick (he covered it at his site throughout last week) and that was all we had.
Reading it out loud to everyone, we began to realize we had the spine of our edition. With Ava and C.I.'s permission we snipped two sentences which became two other pieces. This is a very strong commentary from them and obviously nothing is going to stop them from continuing these.

The Palin effect -- This is one of the things we snipped. We participated in phone calls but thought it was just to drive home the point that, yes, there are Republican feminists. We assumed that, at best, a quote or two from them would pop up in Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. Grabbing a sentence from their commentary allowed us to write this. As we were writing it, Ty checks the e-mail and a reader (Dee Dee) had e-mailed a highlight. And I'm being told we have a third truest. Okay, well anyway, this was a strong piece and I think we're all proud of it.

Truest statement of the week III -- We just put that up. Longterm reader Robyn e-mailed that and she also wondered if that was community member Heather? We don't think so because she didn't mention it and those aren't sites she visits (Los Angeles Times and The Daily Toilet Scrubber) that we're aware of. If we though it was community member Heather we would have put "Daily Toilet Scrubber" in place of that offensive site. But it's a powerful comment and we agree with Robyn, it's one worth making a truest.

Ty's Corner -- Dona wanted short pieces but no one could think of any. Ty was looking at various visuals we have but have never used and saw Beanie Babies in a box with "Ty" on it. (Ty jokes he is the black Beanie Baby on the right and the one on the left is his boyfriend -- that joke due to skin color, not due to political positions -- Ty is on the left there). He was advocating for a "Mailbag" piece this week which Dona shot down because it would turn into a roundtable and there were topics C.I., Kat and Ava asked us to table this week. (Want to guess which ones?) If we went into mailbag, we'd go into roundtable and, at some point, one of those topics would be blurted out. Ty agreed with Dona's points. But he wanted to note some e-mails. Seeing the visual, he proposed that while we tried to figure out short features, he write a quick column. We were all on board with that. A comment I need to make about this planned regular feature right now: This is Ty's feature. No one else's. No one else would try to horn in . . . except me. In 2005 or 2006, we tried to do a continuing online novel. It started great. And it was Ty's idea and largely written by him and Jess. I had to break off a piece of that, just had to. And I took it in a direction that worked for the next chapter but didn't work for what they were doing. That was the last chapter and the planned series was dropped. My ideas soured them both on the piece. I suggested they do a chapter where they made mine a dream (nightmare?) or just ignored that second chapter. But they were soured on the idea. So I'm stating right now that this is Ty's feature and I will not be horning in on it. I will not suggest themes, I will not do anything other than read it. (And help type and/or edit if Ty asks.)

Whose Media Center? -- This came about via another sentence we raided from Ava and C.I.'s commentary. We love this. We generally put the editorial top as our writing, then go to Ava and C.I. (the most popular every week) and then go through the rest in order of what we think are either the most important topic or the least important. (Highlights has always been the last topic -- even before Mike and company were writing it. It being last is not a reflection on our opinion of it, just where it has always existed -- long before anyone else started helping out here other than the core six.) Ty wanted his piece further down and Ava and C.I. insisted it had to go higher up because (a) it's a way to note a solo piece of writing and (b) Ty responds to the bulk of the e-mails and readers know him so this will be popular with our regular readers. We really weren't sure of the order this week and that's probably a good thing.

Kwame -- Mike has been covering this at his site. We thought about moving it higher up and thought about placing it after Ava and C.I. but Mike asked that it run low.

The vain woodman -- This was the only "short piece!" we came up with. Jess thought we should do something and remembered an illustration of Woodward we did back in 2006. Dona made a case for this being higher up (to break up the set piece feel) and that would have worked. With Mike wanting the piece he led on to be lower in the mix, we didn't want to move this higher.

Highlights -- Mike, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Elaine, Ruth, Marcia and Wally wrote this and we thank them for it. We also thank them for including this:

A note Jim's asked us to add. Readers have complained whenever Jim didn't include "A note to our readers" due to time constraints. He says they now have another reason to complain about that. The archives got screwed up when the template was switched in 2007. But reader Jody e-mailed to say that you can go through "almost any" week's edition via Google. For those that have "A note to our readers," simply type in "the third estate sunday review," select "search this site" type in "A note to our readers" and then the date (such as "September 7, 2008") and it will pull up that week's note and allow you to find what features were offered that week.

Thank you to Jody for passing on that tip. Obviously, we really did a note each week. It would make each week's edition searchable. I did blow it off several weeks because we were just too tired. With what's Jody's passed on, we will now always include the "note" (although I think we have for about two years now.)

So that's what we came up with. We would have liked to have done some coverage of Ralph but there wasn't time. I will note here what we tried to keep out of all articles mentioning Palin: We are not voting for John McCain. We are not voting for Barack Obama. Except for Ava and C.I. we are all on record as voting for Ralph Nader. (Ava and C.I. have not revealed who they are voting for and don't plan to.) Covering Palin does not require an endorsement of her. At various points last week, Ava and C.I. (in their joint-entry) and Rebecca and someone else (Marcia? Ruth?) wrote that they would say it one more time, they weren't voting for McCain. We're all tired of saying it. We don't think it needs said again. Ava and C.I. also pointed out that there are readers of our site that are supporting John McCain and every time we include that, it feels like a stab and like "Why do they keep saying that? We know that. No one asked, they just keep bringing it up." None of us had thought about it that way and we tried to make sure it wasn't in any of the articles. I'm covering it in the note and this is the last time you'll read it here unless we're answering a question. If you're a reader and you're supporting McCain, that's your business and we don't think any less of you. We don't think you're stupid or uninformed. We know you made the decision that feels right to you and we don't want to pester anyone about their vote. Our McCain supporters who have continued reading are as welcome here as any other reader.

Last point, Ty went on a vacation this summer. When he did, his name wasn't included in the "note," obviously. He didn't work on that edition. When he came back, for several weeks (as reader Bill pointed out last week) his name wasn't included. That's because we grab the sign off line from past notes (and we do the same with 'here's who helped'). No one noticed, until two or three weeks ago, that Ty's name wasn't in it. (No one participating in the note.) When we did, we made sure to add him to it. Except for one week this summer, he has worked on every edition. Bill pointed out, "It says Ty in your comments but Ty's not at the end, so I'm sure it's just an oversight." It was an oversight and a big one.

See you next weekend.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

***Ty adding that on Monday (September 8th), I posted "CounterSpin's wrong, Ava and C.I. are correct".

Editorial: The Sour Grape Girls

The sour grape girls. Maybe you saw them last week?



They booed and hissed Sarah Palin.



They declared John McCain was "pandering" to get women voters by choosing the governor as his running mate.



Considering that the Democratic Party has offered nothing for women (unless you consider Barack cozying up to anti-choice evangelicals and dismissing women who get abortions as "feeling blue") it's amazing that the sour grape girls would accuse the Republican Party of "pandering."



To quote Betty's oldest sister, "What's really happening?"



Hillary didn't get the Democratic nomination. Take it up with the 'rules' committee. She didn't get asked to be Barack's running mate. Take it up with Barack.



There is no excuse for Hillary not being on the ticket -- either at the top or as the running mate.



That's a decision the Democratic Party made.



Now along comes John McCain doing what the Democrats refused to do (see a woman as competent to run) and you've got the sour grape girls booing and hissing.



You're booing and hissing at the wrong people.



Take that frustration and anger and aim it at the Democratic Party.



We should all be thrilled that John McCain did what Barack wouldn't.



Doesn't mean we have to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.



But it's extremely short-sighted to boo and hiss the fact that a woman made the presidential ticket of one of the two main parties in this country.



Some are trying to argue, "But she's not the right kind of woman!"



It's a Republican ticket.



That's as foolish as P-Diddy's idiotic video where he takes John McCain to task for choosing Palin (and also flaunts his ignorance on the Alaska population demographics). McCain was never supposed to choose someone as a running mate that would please Barack supporter P-Diddy. Why would he even bother to try?



The Republican Party is not the Democratic Party. Are people unaware of that?



Of course Palin is going to represent the values the Republicans cherish.



That's why she's on the ticket.



The sour grape girls took the announcement of a Republican running mate and, despite being Democrats, wanted to pout and whine that it wasn't the right choice.



It's exactly the right choice for the Republican Party.



Hate to break it to everyone, but the Republican Party does not try to find a liberal or even moderate running mate. They are the right-wing party.



All the 'leaders' who wanted to act like they're disappointed in McCain's choice? We're disappointed if they were truly foolish enough to ever believe that McCain's choice of a running mate would please them. We're not talking about fresh out of high school graduates. We're talking about learned women who know a thing or two.



The sour grape girls appear frightened that some women might decide to vote for the McCain - Palin ticket. Guess what? Some may. And attacking Palin will only drive those numbers up.



If Palin goes through anything like what Hillary did, you better believe that a number of women (we have no idea how many) will begin considering voting McCain - Palin because the attacks on Hillary were attacks on all women.



If your goal is to steer voters from Palin, you won't achieve it by attacking her. What shaped up last week was indeed a cat fight. It was one-sided because Palin ignored it. Feminism wins nothing in a cat fight and when feminists are seen as initiating a cat fight, it hurts the cause.



Repeating, McCain's choice should never have delighted you. None of you are Republicans. You made it about a woman. You never would have written those embarrassing pieces if Palin had been a man.



What's most likely behind those pieces is very real anger over what was done to Hillary by the Democratic Party. Your anger is misdirected when aimed at McCain or Palin. Sad thing is, you're all smart enough to know that without us pointing it out.

TV: More sexism, more self-promotion

Last week the RNC held their convention at the Xcel Energy Center in Minneapolis and The NewsHour and Democracy Now! covered the convention. It wasn't pretty for anyone but the GOP.

Let's start with the convention itself which we watched like anthropologists studying another culture. Hysterically, some Democrats wanted to offer that the Republican Party didn't talk about "plans." That claim went a long way towards revealing that Thomas Frank isn't the only crackpot 'helping' the 'left' these days.

The 'fear card' was not played at the RNC convention. Let's dispel that myth right from the start. The fear card was played at the Democratic Party convention in Denver -- over and over, as they attempted to say that John McCain was exactly like the Bully Boy. You heard it over and over in speech after speech -- even if some, like Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden -- blew the line by stepping on the laugh.



The biggest surprise for us was the lack of the fear card. Some wrongly insist it was played and that's because they're so hopeless and stunted they can never see beyond their own limited view. There are very sharp differences between the base of each party. One of the differences is over security. While Democrats can rightly point out that Bully Boy has done nothing to make the world (or the country) more secure and can point to his repeated efforts to utilize fear as a campaign tool, they err when they insist the fear card was played last week.



9-11 is not just a 'hot button' issue to the Republican base, it is an indication of what they see as the differences offered in leadership from the two parties. That's a very important point and one that those killing trees with all their useless 'how to win!' books better start grasping. After nearly seven years, you'd think they'd have figured out something but their bad (and banal) writing demonstrates no knowledge learned or even that basic facts have been grasped.



The difference in leadership was supposed to be accentuated by a speech on the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building and we've seen or heard no commentary that grasped what was being set up there. The first 9-11 was what was being sold. While that is ahistorical, you have to grasp what was being set up to grasp the points of the convention and, yes, the GOP was on message all week.



Oklahoma was spoken of in terms of people pulling together. Left out of the summary (intentionally) was what was done? How did Bill Clinton pursue 'wrong doers'? That was the unstated question which was supposed to hang in the air and it did. They played that very well. We have always opposed the illegal war on Afghanistan. That's not the issue. We're not Republicans. And until you can strip away your own point of view, you're never going to grasp what they managed to pull off in Minneapolis.



The Clinton administration approached the terrorist attack from a legal framework. Unless you can grasp that Republicans do not see that as a good thing, you'll never get how each speech was making the point that, whatever else he did, Bully Boy took action. It was there in Governor Sarah Palin's speech, in one of her least understood remarks where she stated the Obama-Biden ticket was more concerned with the rights of terrorists. It was there throughout.



9-11, for the right, was not just a tragedy, it was a tragedy that couldn't have been predicted, that was totally unexpected, and that came after all that 'we' did for so many in trouble throughout the world. Bully Boy and the right used 9-11 to ratchet anger and hatred. That was then. The message points are instilled in the rank and file in the GOP and the convention was about massaging those points. Bully Boy gave a yawn-fest speech (he was the worst speaker at the convention -- though 'at' was via satellite for him). But even he stayed on message.



The message the convention was sending can be boiled down as: "We do take action." For their base, Democrats are wishy-washy and don't stand up. For their base, Democrats are splitting hairs when decisive action needs to be taken. Many studies (some genuine, some crackpot) have underscored the differences between Democrats and Republicans finding the members of the Republican Party are more distrustful of the world around them. The convention last week acknowledged that distrust over and over. It played to it. It did not advance it.



Why didn't it advance it? Because the point they were attempting to make was that "Republicans take action." Belabor it and you can lose some portion of the base which will rightly note (yes, even Republicans can note this) that the action wasn't effective.



The perceptions of the two parties were played with throughout. It was done very effectively and very skillfully.



Those wrongly insisting the Republican convention offered nothing are begging to lose every election because they refuse to see what really went down. 9-11: The Tragedy That We Took Action On! was played over and over. The fear card wasn't used because the selling point (to avoid tying McCain to the Bully Boy) was action -- not exploring the action, just noting it.



Minor perceptions were utilized as well. One example would be the wrongful stereotype that Democrats don't give a damn about the country. John McCain's military service was stressed, Palin's son and nephew being in the service was stressed, the men and women serving was stressed. "We stand up in time of need!" was the call.



Utilizing perception management, the convention played to why people identify as Republicans to begin with. Palin would give a crowd pleasing speech (and an amazing speech) on Wednesday night but the convention all week was about solidifying the base behind the ticket.



That's what the Democrats didn't grasp. That's why their convention flopped. They didn't manage perception. They insisted upon making the entire convention about Barack. (Only Hillary and Bill Clinton spoke of why people were Democrats -- going to the core issues.) Reality is that the Republicans were no more solidified behind McCain in the primaries than Democrats were behind Barack. Had the Republicans utilized the same primary system, McCain would not have been able to declare (presumed) victory in March and Mike Huckabee could have stayed in the race. Republicans used a winner-take-all strategy for awarding delegates from each state and they did so because that's how it works in the general election for the electoral college. Had such a system been utilized by the Democratic Party, Hillary would be the nominee. They're not interested in soothing egos, they're interested in winning. They aren't interested in a primary system that allows stragglers to stay in the race, they're interested in finding out who is the strongest candidate.



The Democratic 'leadership' seemed truly confused that the unfair system could backfire on them. You heard that in June, July and in August leading up to the convention. They couldn't understand how anyone could disagree with their crooked system. (One example of the crooked system will suffice. More people voted for Hillary in Texas than Barack. She won the vote. Due to caucus rigging, Barack ended up being awarded more delegates in a state he lost than the winner received.) They thought they could run their crooked and rigged system and appoint a leader who was not popular with the base. As it dawned on them (due to polling) they decided they could 'heal' the wounds by selling Barack throughout the convention. It was an embarrassment and it wasn't effective.



By contrast, the Republicans didn't worry about doing a sell on McCain. They noted their candidate repeatedly -- as every political convention does. But they grasped their mission as getting the base together for the party, not for an individual. So they touched on the themes that resonate with their base over and over.



If Barack loses (no one knows the outcome until the votes are cast and counted -- and we see whether the Supreme Court decides to sit the election out or not), the Democratic convention will be one of the many factors pointed to by historians. It will be noted, in higher toned language, that speech after speech informing people how 'groovy' Barack was really wasn't the way to drive Democrats to the polls. It will be noted that the gauzy sop tossed out over and over about Barack was issue-free and, as it repeatedly stressed how 'groovy' Barack was, only made the point he must not be so 'groovy' if everyone can't shut up about it and get to the issues that matter.



On every level, the Republican convention was a success. Democrats had hoped it would be thrown off message on the first night due to a hurricane. Instead, they opened on a low-key note that was effective. Laura Bush and Cindy McCain walked out on stage together Monday night -- a First Lady and the woman who would like to be the next First Lady. Laura got right to the point immediately, "But as we all know, events in the gulf coast region have changed the focus of our attention." It was one of those effective speeches that Laura can carry off and she handled it very well. Cindy opened with, "I am so proud to standing next to Mrs. Bush as we work together to extend our support to relief efforts in the gulf. As each of the gulf coast governors just expressed to us, their challenges will continue in the days ahead. I would ask that each one of us commit to join together to aid those in need as quickly as possible. As John has been saying for the last several days, this is a time when we take off our republican hats and put on our American hats." Cindy noted Cause Greater, a website where people could help with the relief efforts by making donations. Laura mentioned her husband twice and John McCain once. Cindy mentioned her husband once. It was a very effective start when transposed with the last speech of the Democratic convention, Barack in that stadium looking far from presidential and very much like a celebrity.



The women managed to send the message (true or false) that the Republicans were about the American people and after Barack's latest bit of vanity, it was a highly effective moment. Democrats closed asking America to worship one man. Republicans opened asking Americans to pull together.



Again, should Barack lose in November, the two conventions will be examined by historians at length and the Democratic Party convention will be seen as one reason the party lost.



We open with that overview because neither The NewsHour nor Democracy Now! provided it.



What did they provide?



If your most pressing concern about the upcoming elections is Amy Goodman's arrest than possibly you were well served and 'informed' by Democracy Now! and its ten hours of coverage last week. Tuesday's two hour broadcast noted the arrest in headlines and went to straight to it for the first segment. It was referred to in the second and fourth segment. It was the third segment on Wednesday's show. Thursday it was referred to in the second segment and was the topic for the fifth segment. And Amy Goodman was going to the well on it again Friday for the fifth segment. Has one arrest ever gotten so much attention?



You can't visit the website for Democracy Now! without being aware that Amy was arrested. Before anything else, across the top of the screen you see, "Drop the Charges Against Amy Goodman and DN! Producers." Mumia doesn't get this kind of attention and he's on death row. Doubt us? Monday evening it was time for an action alert proclaiming that Amy Goodman had been "unlawfully arrested" and that her arm had been "yanked" ("DN! Urgent Action Alert: Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrest At RNC," 6KB). Four hours and one minute later, it was time to issue another press release (also called an "action alert) only now, instead of "yanked," Goody was "violently manhandled by law enforcement," to inform people exclusive video would be broadcast on Tuesday's show and that "Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press" ("DN!: Action Alert: Update on Arrest of Amy Goodman and DN! Producers," 7KB). Wednesday afternoon it was time for "DN! Action Alert -- Drop the Charges Against DN! Journalists!" (6KB) asking that people flood the county and city attorneys' offices with phone calls and e-mails. And on Friday, because Panhandle Media is nothing but begging, it was time to use the arrests to beg for donations to the program ("DN!: After RNC arrests, we need your support more than ever," 6KB) which bragged the "YouTube video of Amy's arrest has been viewed more than 750,000 times" -- as if all viewing were sympathetic to Goody. And noting various publications that covered "journalists arrests" -- as if all articles even mentioned Goody. Now the arrest was never not mentioned in last week's "daily digests." What we're noting above is the special e-mails sent out on top of the "daily digest."



Not surprisingly, all that self-focus didn't leave a lot of time to actually cover the convention. Tuesday's first segment broadcast the video of Amy's arrest and, as usual, she couldn't tell the truth. She declared, "Shortly after, I arrived and was arrested while questioning the officers about Sharif and Nicole’s arrest." The video was then shown. Amy Goodman arrived on the scene as people were being arrested. Denis Moynihan (a true idiot) is with Goody and antagonizing the police. (Yelling "Release the accredited journalists!" is neither press-like behavior nor is it likely to calm a chaotic situation.) Goodman was advised "get back on the sidewalk." Denis continued yelling like a crazed banshee and Goody refused to go to the sidewalk even after again being directed to do so ("Sidewalk now!") at which point she was arrested. It was not a surprise, it was not a great tragedy though didn't some try to paint it as such.



Including Goody. She described it on air Tuesday, "Finally, I made it to the police line, where the police in riot gear were lined up. I asked to speak to a commanding officer. They immediately grabbed me. I said, 'Sir, I just want to speak to a commanding officer. My reporters are inside.' They've got their ID. I mean, we've done this in New York, as well, when there is confusion about a reporter. They immediately grabbed me, handcuffed me--and as you haven't quite talked about, those plastic handcuffs cut right into your wrist, and they make those tight --pushed me to the ground." She was arrested and she deserved to be arrested. There had been riots and, in fact, the building her program was housed in had a window broken. She was asked to step to the sidewalk and, had she done so, she could have then made any request to the police from there. However, she refused to comply immediately making her suspect (before you even factor in Denis' non-stop crazed screaming) and she got arrested.



Goody needs to lose the sense of entitlement. It's there in her words. She told the audience that she ran down the street and told a police officer "Get me to that site. Our reporters have been arrested." Golly, Goody, we don't think it even works that way in NYC. The police are not your taxi service. We spoke with network correspondents to ask if they would ever make such a request and were informed that they wouldn't. Goody said of that officer, "he didn't comply." Didn't comply is what she did and why she got arrested. She did not follow the order to move to the sidewalk and she had lunatic Denis yelling like a psycho at the police officers. She got arrested. It wasn't the end of the world though she has played it like it was.



David Brancaccio interviewed her for a segment that aired with Friday's NOW on PBS. Brancaccio maintained the journalistic skepticism and Amy was selling hard about the unfairness of it all. She was likening the security at the two conventions which only drives home the fact that while in Denver, check Democracy Now!'s archives, when asked by anyone (including private security officers) to step somewhere, Goody immediately did. She didn't last week. She refused to comply and she got arrested. Possibly had Denis not acted so nutso, the move to arrest her would not have come so quickly but, sorry to have to be the ones to break the news to you, her arrest was a valid arrest. They may put her on trial or they may not. But there was cause to arrest her.



And, to repeat, a security officer only had to ask her to get her moving in Denver. A police officer orders her twice to the sidewalk in the middle of a chaotic scene and she refuses to comply while Denis adds to the chaos by screaming his little head off. Amy got what she deserved and she's tried to turn it into the equivalent of Chicago 1968.



Which is the other thing they don't tell you about. Denver was floated as Recreate 68 with such 'notables' as Tom Hayden promising a blood bath riot (as late as April) if Barack didn't get the nomination. What happened in Denver was everyone walked on egg shells so as not to make things look bad for Barack. A private security guard tells you to go to the sidewalk and they all did (bloggers and Goody). They wanted headlines (and bad press) for the GOP convention so they didn't worry about rules. They didn't worry that police felt they had a riot on their hands and no officer has time to be out in the middle of that and give an interview. Would Goody have tried to stop rescue workers en route to the Twin Towers on 9-11? No.



So everyone needs to grasp that while some journalists were wrongly arrested, Amy Goodman was not one of them and this is more attention-seeking behavior from her. The National Lawyers Guild's Heidi Boghosian (also a co-host of Law and Disorder) explained the basics better in one segment of the half-hour CounterSpin on Friday than Goody did all week despite repeatedly returning to the topic. The difference may have been that Heidi addressed the law and the threats to civil liberties while Goody played drama queen.



Threats? David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder were arrested and have a court appearance on Tuesday for possession of Molotov cocktails and for "shields" that would have caused harm (due to the screws and devices on the outside) that were apparently to be used to start a riot outside the convention hall. They are innocent unless proven guilty but the FBI is leaking to the press that McKay is recorded stating, "It's worth it if an officer gets burned or maimed." That's in addition to the eight arrested the Saturday before the convention began that Alan Gomez (USA Today) reported who "are members of a group called the 'RNC Welcoming Committee' . . . and [are] charged with conspiracy to commit riot in furtherance of terrorism. A warrant filed in their case stated they discussed kidnapping delegates." Those are not the only arrests and the bulk weren't mentioned on Democracy Now! last week. She carried a press conference by the eight on Friday and neither she nor the participants mentioned kidnapping delegates. Something's are never addressed by Pravda On the Hudson. But sometimes, the police are to be believed without question . . . when Goody likes the crimes and the leaks. Which is why the week prior, not only did Amy Goodman run with the police version of events on arrest (allegedly men were plotting to kill Barack), she dropped all qualifiers after headlines when she repeatedly brought up the arrest. So sometimes we believe the police and sometimes we don't, judging by whether we like what they feed the press apparently.



Nicole Salazar is among the press members who have valid complaints about police brutality and wrongful arrest. Amy Goodman is not among that group. She brought it on herself by refusing to tell Denis to shut up and by refusing to comply with an order to go to the sidewalk. It wasn't the great walk to China. It would have required only a few steps on her part.



All of her self-created drama left little time to fill two hours each day with coverage. (It should be noted that WBAI didn't play two hours of Democracy Now! last week or the week prior. They stuck with Goody's one hour on the schedule. All the other Pacifica stations dropped their programming to give the show two hours each day. WBAI, which knows Goody better than anyone and remember her past false cries of 'assault,' wasn't eager to turn their station over to her and that says a great deal.)



The biggest speech of the two conventions was Sarah Palin's. This was the first time she would be speaking (to the press or to the people) since the announcement was made that she was John McCain's running mate. So it's interesting to compare what Goody offered over the last two weeks. Palin's speech was reduced to 523 words. While her Democratic counter-part Joe Biden was only broadcast for 332 words by Goody, it's equally true that America well knows Biden who has been in the Senate forever, run for president more than once and chairs high profile committees. There was no excitement over Biden's speech. Palin's speech saw record ratings and was only a half-million short of Barack's ratings for the number of people watching at home. Equally true is that Goody didn't interject during Biden's speech but was happy to do so during Palin's. Barack? He got 888 words broadcast on Democracy Now! for his convention speech segment. (If you want to include headlines, the Dems get even more time.) John McCain? The party's presidential nominee saw his acceptance speech reduced to 332 words when Goody broadcast it. After the segment of Barack's speech, Goody chose to air a feel-good segment she dubbed "reactions" to Barack's speech. Last Friday, she offered no such segment for McCain. She didn't bother to speak to delegates to find out what they thought of McCain's speech. [All of that is in the first hour of each broadcast. On Friday's second hour, she played more of McCain's speech. The second hour is the one least carried by TV and radio stations, as Goody well knows.]



Let's go to what else Pravda on the Hudson did with regards to Palin speech, an attempted 'fact check'. (Goody provided no fact check for Barack and wisely chose not to air his comments on "universal health care" because even her devoted audience isn't so stupid to swallow that garbage.) First up, Goody repeatedly mispronounced Palin's last name throughout the Thursday broadcast (the day after Palin spoke -- when any journalist should have known how to pronounce her not so difficult last name). Goody brought on Pacifica wanna be/reject Shannyn Moore for the alleged fact check which only reminded us that when Goody goes north, facts fly out the window.



Moore got in this unsubstantiated smear, "Certainly, I can tell you that in small-town Alaska, rumors abound. And this isn't any other case from that. And I know people in the media in Alaska who have known of Bristol Palin's pregnancy for, you know, over a month and didn't bring it into the press, because they didn't think it was any of their business. And certainly there have been rumors abounding regarding Trig and his--whether it was a decision or avoidance of some sort of 'how to get out of trouble' card. You know, I don't have anything to verify that, but that's certainly the small-town rumor that's gone about." 'Trig' Palin, the governor's son who has signed up for military service, certainly doesn't deserve to be smeared by Moore or anyone else. If Moore thinks she has information, she might try producing it. Smearing someone who's joined the military with rumors? Not classy and not journalism. And it may remind some of how, when Barack was exposed by AP as having had his campaign tell Canada not to take his words on NAFTA seriously, The Nation's John Nichols showed up (from Canada!) to tell Goody that he was on the hot trail of a big scoop about how it was Hillary who was really talking to Canada. The big scoop went poop because there was never anything there. But when Goody goes north, she loves to air false rumors and try to pass it off as 'reporting' and 'fact.'


For the record, Trig Palin? A newborn infant (born this year). For the record, Track Palin is the son who is in the military. A huge mistake and one an 'expert' on the topic shouldn't make; however, for the record, Moore isn't a journalist, she's Alaska's version of Randi Rhodes -- and don't we all know how that story ends?



Moore was one of the few women to appear last week but Goody did have time to put on the pig twice busted for seeking sexual encounters with underage girls online. Again, the woman published in Larry F**nt's H**lter magazine which tells you all you need to know about Goody.



When not talking about her arrest endlessly on air, she managed to interview Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, provide an update on Sami Al-Arian, chat with Jon Stewart (Stewart wasn't funny, few are when accosted in an airport), offer a report on Hurricane Gustava via disgraced Jordan Flaherty (LeftTurn turned nuts -- and those who have e-mailed to complain about the 'independent' publication becoming a Democratic Party organ get added to the publication's junk mail list -- they've forwarded the e-mails the publication sends out). If you mistook the bulk of what Goody offered for 'news,' you're probably also seeking out Access Hollywood for investigative journalism.



Then there was The NewsHour and, as with last week, we aren't speaking of the hourly newscast proper, but of the special that provided live election coverage each night after the newscast finished airing. Like Goody, they weren't interested in women. It was so bad, we wondered if Margaret Warner had been detained in Denver. Judy Woodruff was there doing what she does so very well -- interviews. She does other things very well but PBS isn't interested because she's 'just' a woman.



That point was driven home best on Thursday when the boys decided to again explore women. It was interesting to see so many speaking about women and notice that not one person speaking was, in fact, a woman. You had the three male 'historians' (will get back to them), you had Jim Lehrer, David Brooks and Mark Shields as 'analysts' and you had a man from PEW research plus Ray Suarez. Eight voices discussing women -- eight voices and all of the male. Don't count on the increasingly inept watchdogs to call it out. They didn't do a damn thing when women were sidelined by PBS in Denver and they're not going to do a damn thing now.



But it was really something to witness, really something ugly.



First up, 'historian' Peniel Joseph. He continued making multiple errors when speaking of the historical record. We'd asked about that last week (asked PBS Friends) and been told they'd look into it. When he distorted 1992, we called to ask what was going on? Seems there's a big mistake PBS made. They put him on air. The others are billed as "presidential historians." We hadn't noticed that until PBS Friends pointed it out. Peniel's not. Because he's not a "presidential historian." He is an "African-American historian." Not a historian who is African-American, he's a historian who specializes in African-American history. In other words, there's no reason for him to be on air as PBS Friends informed us. That's why the others are billed as "presidential historians" and he's billed as a professor (he's actually an associate professor, Brandeis notes "Associate Professor of African and Afro-American Studies" and when Tavis Smiley brings Peniel on his program he notes him as "a leading scholar of African American history") at Brandeis University. Telling PBS viewers the truth might lead to complaints. It should lead to complaints. He rarely knew a damn thing he was talking about and the reason for that is it's not his area of expertise.



No female presidential historian (Doris Kearns Goodwin is only one of many female presidential historians) was booked as an expert for either convention but a historian specializing in African-American history was?



He had nothing to offer but multiple mistakes and the reason for that is he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Raising an issue we hadn't even thought of, PBS Friend 1 explained, "This wasn't an affirmative-action thing. He was recommended by ___." Actually, who he was recommended by goes to that it was an affirmative-action hire. And we're not opposed to that or to affirmative-action. We think there needs to be more diversity on air. But we're also aware that the African-American community includes many presidential historians such as Roger Wilkins. Bringing them or any other African-American presidential historian (male or female) on backs up the need for affirmative-action, makes the case. Elevating someone completely unqualified like Peniel only fuels the attacks on affirmative-action. PBS should have to explain why they made the decision to include someone whose field is African-American studies in a presidential historian roundtable for both the Democratic and Republican conventions.



His multitude of mistakes go to not having studied the topic he's brought on to discuss and being too young to have lived through most of it. As a general rule, 'historians' under forty don't garner a great deal of respect -- regardless of race or gender. And on the subject of race and ethnicity, it takes a lot of damn nerve to misrepresent Latinas which Peniel did. Like everything else he gas bagged on, he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.



We didn't raise the affirmative-action issue, it was raised to us (to be denied) and we were told if we wrote about it, we'd fuel critiques. That's not really our problem. We weren't the ones who decided to present presidential historians on broadcast TV and invited someone unqualified to take part. PBS has to answer for that, not us. We wouldn't have even gone there on our own because we know how PBS works (multiple favors) and would have just assumed Peniel was someone's nephew, college buddy or lover.



Listening to Peniel and the other boys slam women as "bitches" (being PBS, they went out of their way to avoid using that word) was really something to witness. "Even Nancy Reagan," gushed Jim, demonstrating that, in their minds, regardless of political party, every First Lady had been a 'ball buster.' Rosalyn Carter, Betty Ford, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Pat Nixon . . . all 'ball busters.' It was an informative segment . . . only not in the way PBS might have hoped. What it informed was just how any woman with power (perceived or real) was a threat to these delicate male egos. It was unbelievable and hard to watch.



While Amy Goodman couldn't pronounce Sarah Palin's last name, Jim had his own problems. Carly Fiorina's last name was beyond his grasp even with David Brooks trying to help him. Most things (what some would call facts) were beyond's Jim grasp all week. Such as when he declared a speaker was talking about the Supreme Court being liberal and "that's the Supreme Court under Sam Roberts." Under who, Jim? Samuel Alito is a justice on the Court. John Roberts is the Chief Justice. Then there was this choice bit, "That narration was done by John Thompson. Fred Thompson! You recognize his name." You might, but Jim didn't.



PBS Friends said that our comment last week about Michelle Obama speaking at the DNC convention (and how we could only remember Marilyn Quayle speaking at the RNC) would be addressed. Was it? No. They offered women introducing men. That's not what Michelle Obama (or Marilyn Quayle) did. They offered on air that Pat Nixon introduced a film about Richard Nixon at the 1972 GOP convention. They offered that Hillary introduced Bill at the 1992 DNC convention. That wasn't the issue we raised last week. We raised the issue of spouses doing an address to the convention. Not as FDR's widow, mind you, but as the wives of men running for office. Women with no elected history of their own. During their brief discussion, they couldn't remember whether Barbara Bush addressed a convention. While it's true that Big Babs' run in with Shannen Doherty in Houston was much more memorable than anything offered onstage that year (1992), it's also true that journalists and historians should know the basics.



Judy Woodruff offered reporting from the floor and was, yet again, the only thing PBS could point to with pride. She was allowed to report from the floor as the convention came to a close and summed up quickly and factually. None of Gwen's royal 'we' or any other nonsense. As the youth craze set in at CNN, Woodruff wisely decided to leave (after being assigned insulting segments that played like In The Kitchen With Judy!). On PBS, she's practically a millennial. She's also one of the increasingly few reasons to follow the news. It's never about Judy, it's about what's happening in the news.



At least PBS can claim Woodruff as a positive. All About Amy was all Democracy Now! offered last week. Viewers (and listeners and readers) are forgiven for thinking it was the Amy Goodman convention. On Friday's NOW, she was spinning like crazy and still making herself the martyr for her refusal to follow a police order to get on the sidewalk. "I ran up to them and I stopped and I said I want to talk to your commanding officer," she declared and then quickly moved to, "I mean it wasn't seconds before they grabbed me." No, that is not what happened as her own broadcast demonstrated but that's Pravda on the Hudson for you. They'd never survive a cross because they embellish everything with each telling. She went on to insist that "when I came up I was the only one." Apparently she forgot the whack-job Denis is caught on tape approaching with her. Brancaccio asked her if she was "not just sort of swept up in the bigger process?" She answered in the negative but any honest telling of Goody's career includes one self-dramatizing pose after another.



And when she does that (as with the WBAI problems at the start of this decade) it makes it very difficult for the people with real complaints who are real victims to be believed. She's already poisoned the well. It's shameless self-promotion and there she was, on PBS, doing it again saying that her coverage was "from the suites to the streets to the convention floor, we've got to cover all aspects" and, sadly, David Brancaccio failed to ask her what she observed at the Green Party convention in July. She refused to cover that political party's four-day convention. She consistently refuses to cover it. But you can count on her expanding her hourly daily program to two hours for the Democrats and the Republicans -- while insisting that she does something different and that she goes to where the silences are.



Cynthia McKinney's running mate Rosa Clemente spoke at the Nader Super Rally in Denver and, last week, at the Super Rally in Minneapolis. Goodman didn't air either speech. She didn't even acknowledge that the Minneapolis Super Rally took place Thursday in Friday's two-hour show. Democracy Now! broadcast twenty hours over the last two weeks and here's what 'alternative' translated as: one segment with Ralph Nader, one segment with Bob Barr. Otherwise the entire show was turned over to the two major parties (with hisses for McCain and kisses for Barack). That's not an alternative. It is propaganda, the sort you can hear on Air America Radio (which is praying they can make it through the November election). When people outside the two political parties are left to beg for scraps from 'alternative' media, it's time to face the reality that there is no alternative broadcast media in the US. That's the message Goodman made clear last week, PBS just demonstrated that the network built as an alternative to the enshrined order has allowed sexism to be as institutionalized there as anywhere else.