Friday, June 13, 2008

Pelosi v. Reid

Ben Pershing (Washington Post) documents that the war between Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) continues well after she trashed the Senate to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. At issue? The supplemental spending for the illegal war.

Spending that Congress really shouldn't be worrying about. Supplemental funding for the illegal war is something to be called out. As Grassroots for America points out, "Funding the war is killing the troops." Dems are supposed to be trying to end the illegal war, right? That's the lie, right? There's also the fact that you do not use supplementals to fund an ongoing war (legal or illegal). It's hiding the true financial costs to the country. Congress has no business helping the White House deceive the American people.

But the White House is whining they won't have their money to continue the illegal war -- won't have it when they want it (by July 4th). Pelosi rushes in to act the fool, "I have made clear to the White House ... that we want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president, and that will happen before we leave for the 4th of July. I feel confident that will happen. . . . . We don't have that much time left. There are two and a half weeks left until the recess, and we will have a bill sent to the president by then, and it will have to be a bill that will pass in the House and the Senate."

Pershing then reports:

But little more than an hour after Pelosi made her remarks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said there was little urgency for a July 4th deadline because the Pentagon has enough money to cover the cost of wars for another six weeks or so.
"They have enough money till the end of July, so we're not really that panicked about it," Reid said.

Nancy Pelosi, furthering the White House's own talking points, and prolonging the illegal war.

From the May 29th snapshot:

On US withdrawal (partial) from Iraq, Pelosi declared "it is essential and it will happen and it will happen in my view with a Democratic president and that will begin in a matter of months and that is the optimism" she's feeling. Let the rest of us know when her feet touch back down to earth. A November election is nothing to pin all your hopes upon but that's the game Pelosi wants to play.

Apparently a Democratic president will be able to control that US Senate which keeps letting her down over and over. She explained to the editorial board and reporters of the San Francisco Chronicle that she's all for withdrawal dates, it's that Senate that keeps insisting on 'goals': "The house keeps passing these bills with deadlines or, to accomodate the Senate sometimes, goals. We just sent them another one we'll see -- they sent it back without the redeployment language, we'll send something back to them."

However, she wasn't done pinning the blame on the Democratically controlled Senate. She was queried if the "Democratic Congress had pushed as hard as they could"? She insisted,
"The House has always voted to have the redeployment of the troops out. . . . From the House we have always fought but the senate [let's voice trail off into silence]" I'm not really sure the best way for the Speaker of the House to conduct themselves is to declare war on the Senate semi-privately. Maybe a war between the two houses of Congress is what it will take to end the illegal war? If so, Pelosi needs to take her comments to a very public forum which, apparently, this meeting was not since it was not reported on. She further instead of the Democratically controlled Senate, "they are guarding the president's desk."

It's the sort of thing that might have once fooled people. Apparently the only fool in the room was Pelosi. She was questioned: "Why not put withdrawal dates in this bill with the Senate and just stand up to them and say, 'it's got to be this way, we're not going to give in'?" In stops and starts, Pelosi gave a response that appears below word for word minus a stammer or two. If you can find more than three complete sentences in the following, wipe your glasses.

Nancy Pelosi: Well they see, that's -- there is a bi-partisan majority for that in the Senate -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- but there aren't sixty votes and so nothing would ever get to the president's desk. And there just isn't a -- a -- that just won't happen -- it -- this has been the obstacle from day one. Every -- we've sent now maybe a half dozen times to the Senate. They will not. They will not and I don't think that there is a -- I don't, I don't believe as much as I have opposed this war from the start and have said from the start there is no intelligence to support the threat that this administration is claiming so it has been a misrepresentation from the start, I know that. But it is -- I don't think people would want to think, although we're sending the bill with conditions, that the money is supposed to be used for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, that anybody's going to leave them high and dry. And that's just really the -- uh - - uh dichotmy -- if that's the word and -- and -- and exists in the mind of the Am -- they don't -- they want 'em out but they -- we can't leave them high and dry. We're saying this is the way we'll do it. We'll do it with the conditions that this money is used to bring them home uh to leave some of there to fight al Qaeda, if that's still necessary, to protect our embassy but otherwise -- and that isn't a lot of troops -- but otherwise they should be coming home if they don't go with these conditions --

Nancy Pelosi.

AP reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has stated today that talks with with the White House "dead end."

On the front page of the New York Times this morning, Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman offer "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage." The article continues inside the paper. On the front page you get three men -- quoted -- explaining sexism doesn't exist, it's not a problem. Thanks for sharing, pricks.

Inside the paper Candy Crowley (CNN) becomes the first woman to be quoted for the article and she sees the sexist in the "commentary."

Howard Dean, then we get Dr. Kathy (I'll get back to her), then it's time for Keith Olbermann to share with the reporters (via e-mail), back to manly Rem Rieder, reference to a laughable study (that did not address sexism and that did not address whether coverage -- when critical -- was accurate), Jeff Greenfield acts foolish (redundant) and it's tme to start winding down so we finally get to hear from another woman: Allida M. Black. Ellen Malcolm, then Kim Gandy. It's cute the way so many men are trotted out through the article. In fairness to the two reporters, going on the record would limit them; however, the paper could have quoted women in broadcast and cable TV without naming them and what I'm hearing this morning is if that had happened and they'd been contacted, they would have spoken. (But most of the women I've spoken with this morning were not contacted.)

It's cute what gets noting and what doesn't in the article. What was William Kristol's little comment that had NPR's Juan Williams in stitches? What was it about White women?

There were so many moments to pick from and, certainly, WASTING so much time asking men, "Do you think the press coverage of Hillary was sexist?" doesn't allow for much. My hands are tied on what I can say here because Ava and I are tackling it on Sunday. We were going back and forth on whether or not to mention Dr. Kathy. By playing LIAR yet again, Dr. Kathy, we'll nail your ass to wall and enjoy doing so.

The reality is that it wasn't just Hillary who was attacked, it was all women. And there was always time to slam women supporting Hillary. Those women were just obsessed with gender. Where was the similar comment about Barack's core support which was African-American voters? Oh, it was never said. No lectures were ever given to them about how they didn't need to vote 'identity politics.' Women were disrespected and insulted throughout. The media knew they couldn't get away with racism but they had no problem using sexism over and over.

It's interesting that the two reporters want to talk about the smaller audience for cable and fail to mention how it amplifies but that brings us back to the pathetic Dr. Kathy.

A number of dumb asses state that this is all due to Hillary's primary outcome. Really?

Note the following:

"TV: What's the measurement?"
"TV: The strong and the weak"
"TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past"
"TV: Nothing-ness"
"TV: Mission Impossible"
"TV: The return of I Dream of Jeannie"
"TV: A very strange week"
"TV: The Big Blather"
"TV: The Beauty & The Grump"
"TV: The Dead and Missing Persons"
"TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback!"
"TV: The Christ-child fumbles"
"TV: Tiny Tots"
"TV: Democracy Sometimes?"
"TV: Recyling the tired and the damaging"
"TV: Broadcasting False Narratives"
"TV: American Oh-Dull"

That's January to May. Ava and I also covered a cartoon and other programs that didn't apply. In the above, you should find examples of one standard for Hillary and another for Barack. When Ava and I started that (and we can drop back to our 2007 pieces as well), we weren't for Hillary. We're focused on Iraq. It's a really easy out to claim that pointing out sexism is just "sour grapes" over the outcome. But it's not reality. We were calling it in real time and that was before we were even supporting Hillary.

There was rampant sexism and Hillary was subjected to critiques Barack never was -- despite constant promises of "We're going to treat Barack the same soon." Go through Washington Week -- not mentioned by the Times -- and you'll be surprised by how many MSM reporters repeatedly stated, "Oh, we're going to start exploring Barack." They never did. Anything was a-okay with Hillary, it was kids gloves for Barack. And THEY ADMITTED IT. Go through the commentaries Ava and I wrote, you'll find us quoting them on that. There is no question that Hillary was subjected to a different standard of criticism and that sexism was regularly deployed in the attacks on her. There is no question that bi-racial was supposed to lead to "YEA!" and hosannas in the press but gender was nothing to take pride in. Try to and get smeared by Robert Scheer, Robert Parry, Norman Solomon, Mark Karlin, Keith Olbermann, etc.

It wasn't just Hillary being attacked, it was Gloria Steinem, it was Robin Morgan, it was women supporting Hillary, it was all women. And the attackers certainly included women. Jim's reading over my shoulder and freaking that I'm about to blow the piece Ava and I plan to do Sunday, so I'll stop on that note.

But think about all the columns on racism that were churned out. Where's the column on sexism? And don't just point to MSM. Or even just Panhandle Media. It's also the Pathetic Left. Take Kevin Zeese whose crap-ass organization never saw sexism worth calling out.

Kevin Zeese, Kat's name is "Kat," not "Kate." When ranting at a "Kate" in the public e-mail account, you only provide laughter but then your "I'm for the end of the war! Oh, Obama's so dreamy" crap has already provided many chuckles. The idea that Bambi groupies criticize you does not indicate you're doing a good job holding Obama accountable, it just goes to how little scrutiny Barack's received from the left. [Obvious exceptions include Black Agenda Report and Joshua Frank.] Want to prove Kat wrong? Kick the training wheels off your Obama criticism. Until then, don't clog up the public account with your e-mails. In fact, don't clog up the public e-mail account period. You never said ___ about sexism, no one needs to hear from you.

Since Kim Gandy was largely shut out of the Times, this is from Gandy's most recent "Below the Belt" column:

Indeed, Hillary Clinton's campaign inspired millions of women across the country, and the increased female voter turnout has helped many women running for Congress or local office in those primaries - but will those women candidates now face a media gauntlet that is more about their gender than their qualifications?

Yes, Hillary Clinton persevered to win contest after contest, despite the ridicule, scorn and derision that was heaped on her by the frat-boy commentariat, and we salute her courage and determination not to allow the self-important pundit class to drum her out of the race with their endless name-calling. But will that treatment be the norm for women who run in the future? Has it become acceptable?

Television commentary on her voice, her laugh, her clapping, her clothing, even her ankles - not to mention calling her a bitch and a she-devil, and comparing her to a crazed murderer, a hated ex-wife or a scolding mother - became so commonplace that we came to expect it. And Hillary rose above it, as we knew she would, but it took a toll on her campaign and on all of us. We should vow today, here and now, that we will not allow the media to do it to any woman ever again.

The worst offenders, NBC and CNN, have been hearing from women who are fed up with their bias and sexism, but that's not enough. For my next column, I'm working on the sexist media "Hall of Shame" -- and yes, you'll have an opportunity to weigh in with your own nominations.

Until then, a salute to Hillary Clinton, who said on Tuesday: "I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life."

Hillary, you have made a mark on history for eternity, giving little girls and little boys the full knowledge that women can compete, take risks, take the heat, make hard decisions, and be strong leaders. Whether you are President, Vice President, on the Supreme Court, serving as the Senate Majority Leader or just plain being the best-ever senator for New York and for ALL of us, we will be with you -- as we work together for equality for all, and a better, safer, more peaceful world for everyone, not just the privileged few. Yes, we will. Thank you, Hillary.

Send a thank you card to Hillary!

By the way, is the Times unaware that the sexism in the campaign has been addressed on TV program regularly throughout the primary and that they somehow avoided contacting the host of that program? A host who wrote about the sexism on parade this week? Wrote in a major mainstream publication? A lot got left out to feature a bunch of males telling you there was no sexism.

Oh, look! It's Bonnie Erbe! And she's writing for US News & World Reports! And she hosts PBS' weekly program To The Contrary -- the only program to seriously address the sexism in the primaries in real time and to do so regularly. Wow, Kit and Julie, don't you think you should have considered contacting Erbe? From Erbe's "Obama and the Democrats Owe Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters a Formal Apology for the Campaign's Sexism:"

Sen. Hillary Clinton may have come out full bore for the Barack Obama campaign on Saturday, but many of her supporters are having none of it.
Check out this CNN video on YouTube, which sums up the palpable anger many of her supporters feel. Another must-see Web stop is Ed Hale's site, That is shorthand for Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. Hale claims to have garnered 35,000 supporters within a week of launching the site.

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.

That was Monday, we noted the column in Tuesday's snapshot. How did Kit and Julie miss it? (In fairness to the two reporters, it's going to take a lot of space and work to cover what went on and mainly because so few called it while it was going on.)

The e-mail address for this site is