Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow: Sotomayor-haters & racists (Republicans) get their daily spanking

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 10:21 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow: Sotomayor-haters & racists (Republicans) get their daily spanking
 
Run time: 07:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM9lNL09y5c
 
Posted on YouTube: May 29, 2009
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: May 29, 2009
By DU Member: swag
Views on DU: 2321
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm Not a Big Fan of Maddow's
At least not since her pathetic actions during the Democratic primaries, however, here she knocks it out of the park on three occasions. Sad that she didn't hit a fourth homerun and actually deal with the real substance of why Tancredo was calling Sotomayor a racist (her statement that she HOPES a Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, reach a better conclusion 'about cases of racial and sexual discrimination' than a white male 'would' who hasn't lived that life).

Even though I don't like Maddow (and I'll explain that in a moment) I'm confident she would have torn that baseless argument apart as well.

In regard to my dislike of Maddow, it's because I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the past presidential election. During that election, I felt that Maddow and Olbermann, both huge supporters of Obama, did everything in their power to unfairly and sickeningly smear both Hillary and Bill Clinton, painting them, as the Obama campaign itself had, as racists. For those actions I no longer watch their shows (although truth be told I'd never watched the Maddow show since she didn't get it till after all that).

It's sad, really, because I at one time admired both of them more than probably 99% of the people on the planet. But I lost all admiration for them both during that campaign. In fact, I don't watch much of anything now. I've gotten to tired of watching these scum, and even though they're on the side of progressive Liberals on many issues, to me they're still scum. Perhaps I'll forgive them one day, but I doubt it, and I'm usually not one to hold a grudge.

I also don't have a great deal of respect for Obama because of the tactics of his campaign in that regard. Although I cried my eyes out during his acceptance speech, it was not because he, Barack Obama, had won, it was because we as a nation, despite my personal reservations about him, had overcome one of the most difficult hurdles our country has ever faced, electing a minority to the highest office of the land.

My tears were tears of joy at our nation's accomplishment, not of Obama's. That being said, I do wish him all the best in his endeavors to make this nation great again, and have been rather pleased so far with what he's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. In other words, you're a PUMA
or a REPUKE...

nice try tho...sorta...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Spare me, TankLV
I've dealt with people like you before. You're no better than the "Repukes" you ridiculously try to paint me as. You're the type of person who thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with EVERYTHING you believe in HAS to be nothing but a Right-Winger posing as a Liberal.

I don't feel any real need to prove my bonafides as a Liberal Democrat. In fact, to me, you're anything but someone I would need to prove them to, since you're anything BUT a Liberal. You're a Left-Wing Fascist no better than the Right-Wing Fascist scum like Bush and Cheney. The fact you don't recognize that in yourself though is understandable. Bush and Cheney don't feel they're evil either...lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. We're pretty much over the primaries now.
You're new here, so I get it. But it's time to let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Can't Trust Em, I understand the sentiment
And in many ways I am over it. I wish Obama all the best, and as I said, have so far approved of his job performance completely. That doesn't negate what I know happened though in regard to the primaries. And while I may forgive him, I will never forget. As far as Olbermann and Maddow are concerned, there's no reason for me to forgive or forget about what they did.

I'm a Liberal Democrat who is also a very independent thinker. I will most likely vote for Democrats in the future, but I'm not an idealogue or a demagogue, and I will never respect anyone who is. Obama, while I disapproved of his campaign's tactics, has shown me enough to be competently sure he's neither. Olbermann and Maddow are both. The simple fact their demagoguery is almost universally aimed at Right-Wingers and Repugliturds doesn't negate that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Olbermann and Maddow base their point-of-view and activist journalism on facts
They have an edge of tabloid TV to them, particularly Keith. That does not make them demagogues. The right-wing demagogues ignore truth and facts. It is a WORLD of difference.

Nobody lost the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton but Hillary Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Sorry, Hissyspit, but I Vehemently Disagree
Edited on Fri May-29-09 01:59 AM by hotnuke
On Both counts. While I'll agree that Olbermann and Maddow both only resort to demagoguery about 30-40% of the time, and do, for the most part, rely on facts (unlike the right-wing scumbags like Sean Insanity, Bill O'Lielly, and Rush Limpballs, who spout demagoguery 99% of the time they're on air), they are guilty of demagoguery. You can say they're not all you want, I've seen otherwise. And while that demogoguery is aimed at Repugliturds, it's still demogoguery. I disdain it no matter who it's coming from. There's no need for it, in my view. The Repugliturds give everyone enough ammunition to attack them honestly without resorting to such tripe.

As for the second thing, again, Hillary lost the election because the Obama campaign, and it's puppets like Olbermann, Maddow, Chris Matthews, and many others effectively smeared and painted the Clintons as racists just prior to the South Carolina primary. You can deny this too, but I have mountains of evidence to support it.

Again, I'm past it all. Nothing is going to change the fact Obama is president, and compared to the Traitor Bush, he's a damn saint. I wish him all the best, and will likely vote for him this time in 2008 if he continues to go the way he's going. It won't change my views on what happened though. And I'm sure you'll continue to believe what you want to believe. C'est la vie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sigh.
Rachel and Keith make solid points. Points you and I may not always agree with, and that's normal, we're human after all. Sometimes their points may not be scientifically rooted in fact, and are expanded by their opinions, but they both make absolutely sure that when they state opinions, they tell you that's what they're doing.

KO has a "Special comment" routine, where he raves against what he disagrees with. He even named it a "COMMENT" act. Now if you want to rave against demagoguery, you need to look inward as well. The fact that you're "disgusted", as you so eloquently put it, by their opinions and their lack of support for the candidate you preferred makes you the demagogue. You see, they weren't disgusted by you because you supported Hillary, they didn't challenge the opinion you're entitled to. They simply supported another candidate and stated their opinions on why that is publicly.

I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time, and I don't agree with you on this point. Still, you don't disgust me, and I don't blame you for the state of current affairs. It's my opinion (purely subjective) that you'd live a much happier life if you didn't look for ways to build and argument disgust and contempt for the opponents that beat you, but rather accept the realities, and try to learn from them instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Sorry, Fedja, but your take on this is simply lame.
First, as I said, while a good majority of what Olbermann and Maddow say is rooted in fact, they DO resort to demagoguery at times. You can deny it, but I have the distinct feeling you don't even have a clue as to the definition of the word.

Second, your assertion that I was and am disgusted with their "opinions" or their lack of support for the Clintons is simply BS. I'm not disgusted with their opinions or their lack of support for Hillary Clinton. They, as everyone, are welcome to support the candidate of their choice.

However, they went FAR beyond just supporting Barack Obama. They completely, and utterly defamed and smeared the Clintons at every turn. They, along with Chris Matthews and many others in the media, every chance they got, painted the Clintons as racists, using BOLD-FACED LIES, innuendos, and half-truths to make their case. THAT is what disgusts me. You can deny this. You can pretend I'm just making it up. However, I have MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary.

I would suggest you go look up the definition of a demogogue and demogoguery. Your labeling me a demagogue is ridiculous in the extreme. In fact, I will save you the time looking it up. The definition is below:

Demagogue: a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by treating or manipulating (a political issue) and obscures or distorts that issue by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

I have not obscured or distorted the facts here. And I'm not trying to arouse the emotions, passions, or prejudices of anyone. They, on the other hand, did just that leading up to and following the South Carolina Democratic Primary when they continuously fed the public the lies and distortions the Obama campaign was using to portray both Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists who didn't care about blacks.

They've also, many times, done the same thing in their attacks on Right-Wingers. And while I admit the overwhelming majority of the time they bring facts to the table to bolster their arguments against Sean Insanity, Bill O'Lielly, and Rush Limpballs, they also resort to demagoguery at times. Frankly, it's pathetic precisely because they don't need to with those clowns.

Again, you can deny it (especially the part about their culpability in heinously smearing the Clintons) but if you ever want to really look at the facts in an objective manner, I'd be happy to send you some detailed information and have a discussion with you. You're welcome to e-mail me at hotnuke2007@hotmail.com any time. However, please spare me any further pathetic attempts at labeling ME a demagogue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Boy, you really stunk up this thread, hotnuke.
Whew! Do NOT go in there! hotnuke's been busy.

The tone you take seems hostile, over-defensive, and offputting, at least to me. I thought this would be an interesting thread, but instead it is a series of long, dull, tendentious posts from you that seem to be mostly empty defenses of the Clintons and shallow critiques of other posters. Who needs this?

I'm going to postpone Ignoring you in hopes you will go away on your own, but I really have read enough from you to last a lifetime.

By the way, I think Rachel is great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Please, mwb970, Ignore me. I've already ignored you
You're obviously a pathetic moron too full of himself to have anything substantive to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. I don't deny facts, but your spin on them.
I can use dictionaries as well:

Demagoguery: to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

The only reasons you list for disliking Rachel and KO is their... and I'm quoting here
"culpability in heinously smearing the Clintons" and
"unfairly and sickeningly smear both Hillary and Bill Clinton".

You also called them "scum" on two occasions.

All of this is supported by the "evidence" you have to support your opinions, even though they're all subjective derogatory labels, but this evidence is somewhere else.

Personally, I like both Hill and Obama, and both took nasty shots in their campaigns. From where I stand, Obama did it with a bit more skill, allowing fewer angles for people to call him on it. In no small part, this contributed to his primary victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hotnuke Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Okay, Fedja, you wanna go that route.
I was hoping you'd rather have a civil discourse and would have e-mailed me. I would have gladly sent you the information I was referring to and we could have discussed it. Instead, you seem bent on being just another moronic jerk on a message board, so I'll provide some of the information I was talking about right here. However, after that, I'll be ignoring anything else you have to say. You're beyond pathetic to me.

First, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there was a huge controversy over race in the primaries. However, contrary to popular opinion among media puppets of Obama's like Olbermann, Maddow, Chris Matthews, and others, this controversy was not engineered by the Clintons, as they claimed literally hundreds of times throughout the primaries, but instead, was engineered by the Obama campaign itself.

It began the night of the New Hampshire primary. Shockingly, especially so to Obama and his supporters, Obama didn't win New Hampshire; Hillary Clinton did. Knowing that even with his win in Iowa Obama still had less than 30% of the support of the black community in South Carolina (in fact I believe his poll numbers among blacks at that point was like 20% at that point, with Edwards getting somewhere close to his numbers, and Hillary garnering nearly all the rest) Obama's campaign saw the writing on the wall if they couldn't turn that around in a hurry.

Enter Jesse Jackson Jr. one of Obama's senior campaign advisers. He appears on MSNBC that night, hosted by none other than Keith Olbermann, and made the following comment (and I’m paraphrasing here, but it’s pretty accurate and you’re welcome to google for the YouTube video that shows it) that Hillary’s “tears” needed to be examined in light of the “Fact” (and fact is a complete falsehood on his part as he hasn’t got a clue as to whether this is factual) that Hillary never cried about Katrina. He made this remark three times, and its clear intent was to say HILLARY CLINTON DOESN’T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.

No one from MSNBC, including Maddow, who was a panel member, made any comment about this heinous statement, and in fact her and Olbermann would reference it in smears of Clinton a few times over the coming 24 hours.

Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown (a major advocate of the Obama campaign who spoke on Obama’s behalf on every major political show on TV), also appeared on both MSNBC and CNN and began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black.

This charge of racism leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS, and both Olbermann and Maddow, among many others trumpeted this same charge by constantly asking their viewers, "Could this possibly be? after referencing Dyson's remarks. This was sheer and utter demagoguery on their part.

The Obama campaign then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, especially Olbermann, Maddow, and Chris Matthews, all picked up on this and whipped it into a frenzy, in order to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale".

Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, as Ted Kennedy did, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale".

Are you recognizing any of this from what the Right-Wing scumbag DEMAGOGUES like Rush Limpballs are trying to do to Sotomayor? Well, Olbermann, Maddow, Chris Matthews, and many others on MSNBC ran with this one for literally weeks, consistently misquoting Bill in order to obscure and confuse the FACTS and to play on the emotions, passions, and prejudices of blacks and others. That, again, is sheer and utter demagoguery.

I'll end it there. There are literally dozens more examples. I'm sure someone like you is likely to ignore what I've already supplied, so why bother with more. You'll shrug it off and say, "ahh, that's BS." You can do so, but you're only lying to yourself. All of this is FACT. On the record, and utterly true. They did this, and they've never even ONCE apologized to the Clintons for it. To me, Olbermann, Maddow, Chris Matthews, and others are pure scum. Obama at least has the excuse that he was fighting for his life in a presidential contest. Yes, his tactics were heinous and trite, but they were done, I believe, simply out of his desire to win.

Olbermann, Maddow, Chris Matthews, and others, being journalists, while they may want a candidate to win, and support him, should be above employing such heinous tactics themselves. They're supposed to be the arbiters of truth in our society. Obama was simply being a politician. All of them fight dirty at times. The media figures I'm talking about weren't "just being reporters", they were COMPLETELY ABANDONING their role as reporters, and became nothing but shils. Total media whores for the Obama campaign.

For that, they have my utter contempt, and likely always will. To me, in many ways, they're no better than Sean Insanity, Bill O'Lielly, and Rush Limpballs. For while they champion liberal, progressive, and Democratic causes, they've shown me that at the drop of a hat they will abandon their integrity in a heartbeat. In fact, they've shown they have not a shred of integrity to begin with.

And if you don't like that I say so, too friggin bad. Go cry to someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I apologize.
None of it was based in fact. None of it was true. Right?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
http://www.zimbio.com/2008+Presidential+Candidates/articles/2286/Clinton+campaign+staff+perpetuating+Obama

Right?

The Clinton campaign made some baffling mistakes and people jumped on it. Not because it was Hillary, but because it was dumb as hell. As for the whole South Carolina issue, here's the video link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/clinton-camp-says-obama-i_n_83451.html

Now I'm no rocket scientist, but that response was dubious. It launched the silly race debate, but Bill, a skilled politician, should know better. It was simply a mistake and fallout was inevitable.

Again, I don't take sides and I have no preference for either candidate, but watching the Clinton campaign in those primaries was often like watching a car accident.

I understand where you're coming from and why you're upset. In any football (soccer to you) match, the losing side hates the referee. I've been there myself, but I don't exactly see how you can jump on said comentators as being heinous and scum. It's clearly taking everything far out of proportion and ignoring the facts and circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. You sound very tired. Maybe you should get some rest. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Scalia, Alito and Thomas all have...
Edited on Thu May-28-09 11:45 PM by Triana
...penises.

When THEY say the same things Sotomayer said (or if they are "empathetic", etc.) - THEY'RE RIGHT and A-OK.

When SHE makes those same statements (or SHE is "empathetic"), SHE'S WRONG and NOT OK.

And that's - I believe, the crux of *some of this misogynist ranting about her. SHE is as damn smart as they are if not smarter and they don't LIKE that. She'd hold her own on the court with Scalia et al. and they don't like THAT either.

*the rest of it is just wingnut bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
12. Wow Sotyomayor is a member of the kkk. I did not know that.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
13. Do you think over-ruling a presidential-election result could be construed as ... well...
say, marginally activist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-29-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Excellent point, Joe...
Kudos to you! }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC