If Randi Rhodes said this on the air, then the case would be less of a stretch to make. But she did say it at a seperate venue. All that noted….Randi Rhodes long since made the decision to be a mediocre progressive comic rather than a radio host. If she is to get fired or suspended, it is to be on that point. Not on outrageous action, but clearly on the basis of lying about which pursuit she was after.

Air America and Progressive radio should hire more folks like Maddow who retain wit, but not bile, who have actually made a decision about their career direction.

I have an item on schultz I want to post today..

What seems a “man bites dog” story is that this follows precisely the arc of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright story: post a no-longer-timely video on YouTube. Make sure it's just a couple of minutes of a longer piece (e.g. 45 minutes in this case) and THEN leave it to the Junior High School mentality of the “gotcha” MSM and the blogosmear™ to pass judgment without any context. As Wright became a “racist” so Rhodes is a “misogynist.”

And we all sniff ever so daintily as we sip our chamomile tea, pinkies extended?

No: as Pogo said, We have me the enemy and he is us.

Well, I'm a conservative who doesn't listen to Limbaugh. I suppose I think there are better things to do with my time. My partner is a Democrat who likewise won't listen to liberal talk radio (altho, truth be told, she spits out obscenities among friends at any mention of GWB …yes, Runasim, “whatever men can do…”)

I think among the American “chattering classes” (lovely British phrase, that) there is a growing extremism of discourse.

Opponents are not just stupid, or corrupt…they are not evil and the worst person in the world.

Of course, outside the “chattering classes” life goes on in its American way.

Ask someone on the street who Randi Rhodes is? You will probably get the answer: “Isn't she that porno actress?”

However, within the chattering classes, and the talk radio audiences, people are louder and nastier than ever.

In the world of my friends and acquaintances, these personalities play no part or they just occasionally check them out out of curiosity. No one I knwo reads DailyKos or the like.
Is there a sane world out there whcih is simply non-participatory?

Anyone?

Thinking of Maddow and Schultz, my own comment above was more of a blanket condemnation than the medium deserves. There are exceptions.

Maybe that's because there is no gendered aspect to this.
Women fight with each other because of boyfriends, because of envy, because of clicqueiness (sp?) and now, because of politics,.
The trend is for more fights to become physical.
More women are involved in violent crime.

We've come a long way, baby, and whatever men can do, women can do.
So watch it with your partner.

I think another point about talk radio. You can divide the shows into two types, which is really oversimplifying it:
(1)Talk radio shows (left and right) that seem to be aimed at electing and defeating candidates.
(2) Talk radio shows that are informative and fun and good broadcasting, which is why they get audiences.

Now, Rush and Randi fit into BOTH. These are two broadcast professionals.

Ed Schultz is a Democrat but his show seems a lot more about selling the product by getting and keeping an audience than turning his show into a vehicle mostly for a party (even though he is indeed partisan)

PS: Rush said in an interview that he is all abouit getting, holding and expanding audiences.

PSS: I originally wanted to BE a talk radio host and go into radio when I was in college. So I'm both a huge fan of and student of talk radio. (On the internet the tthree BEST blog talk radio hosts are Ed Morrissey and TMV's newest co-blogger Jazz Shaw and his coblogger at Middle Earth Journal Ron Beasley. There are other good ones as well, but these three I think could do ANY kind of talk radio — including regular broacast).

But this is about more than just demonization. Was no one else struck by the fact that this story involves a woman…denouncing two other leading political women of our times…as “f**king who**s”?

I know there was a post today at Huff&Puff calling McCain a “F**king Who**e” with similar lovely language…but the “Wiki Woman” story was fascinating for the fact no one is vandalizing McCain's and rarely Obama's wiki. The demonization brigades have their limites perhaps.

HRC, on the other hand, is attacked and insulted in the foulest terms possible.

Does no one else see a gendered aspect to this?

That said, I read your blanket condemnation and thought about the many times I've listened to Rhodes when it was obvious she had done her homework, when she presented a detailed, factual, reasoned argument easily on par with what you might hear from an attorney or member of Congress. I remembered hearing Rhodes conduct interviews intelligently, skillfully and courteously.

Finally, I remembered many times when Rhodes has blasted Democrats.

Is that Rhodes all the time, every time? No. I've also heard her carry on like a nagging fishwife.

My point is that Rhodes isn't the one-dimensional bash-and-trash artist you make her out to be. Capable of going too far, of being offensive in a mean-spirited way? Sadly, yes. But there's more to her and her work than that.

I agree Rhodes deserves criticism and suspension for the specific incident cited. The rest is lumping her with the worst from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and others of their ilk, which is not accurate or fair.

On the overall point about the low level of broadcast political discourse, I agree. Unfortunately, political talk radio is a mass-market, lowest-common-denominator medium where most listeners seem to tune in to stoke their own resentment.

It seems to me, the language is just a symptom of a much deeper disease.
When I think of the children watching and learning, from all this, I'm very alarmed.

I dug further in Google, and there seems to be no other source for that allegation in the US News report that Limbaugh recently called HRC a “whore”.

Given our heated climate, I find it hard to believe Clinton supporters would not have raged about such a slur…leaving traces on the Internet.

Moreover, the fact that Bill Clinton appeared on Limbaugh…I am sure his sources would know whether Limbaugh called his wife a whore or not…reinforces the likelihood this may be a false allegation against Limbaugh on the US News reporters part.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-20…