Far-right attacking one of their own

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/laura-ingraham-i-never-ca_n_176840.html

Shortly before the whole Ashley Biden cocaine incident, we saw another attack on a famous politician's daughter: Meghan McCain. Though this one isn't something that was orchestrated by the MSM like the previous instance.

This time, it's a far-right crazy like Laura Ingraham attacking Meghan McCain, who officially has zero relevance in politics--and hasn't had any relevance really ever (unless we count the fact that she campaigned with her father...hardly making her relevant in the politosphere.) And of course Ingraham isn't attacking McCain's policy stances, or what little we know about her politics (she supports gay rights...anything else?). It's just a veiled superficial attack on her looks.

Ingraham called McCain fat. Which McCain Ingraham is looking at, I'm not sure. But is this really the type of mud-slinging that the Right should be doing right now? Doesn't it have other things to worry about as a party on the verge of implosion, other than spewing vile hatred like this?

Well, apparently Ingraham's rationale for the name-calling was it was all meant to be in good fun...that she was joking. Ah-hah! Now that I know she was 'attempting' to be funny, I can still not laugh. What garbage.

What's even more ridiculous here is that after McCain defended herself against the smear-attack (she was well within her right to do so, in my humble opinion), Ingraham then devoted a whole Talking Points Memo on the O'Reilly Factor to McCain being used by the left as a pawn to cause in-fighting among the right. Really, Ingraham? YOU started it!

A more important question, again, is where are the cries of injustice here? Similarly to the Biden situation, no one on either side of aisle is bothering to stand up and denounce this type of sexist nonsense. Baseless personal throw-aways, coupled with the lowest type of attack: the superficial, is something everyone needs to denounce...not just in politics, but life in general.

As Senator McCain used to say along the trail all the time, 'Stand up! Stand up! This is America." Well, Senator, this isn't my America and it shouldn't be any other American's.

VP's daughter does coke? Where's the beef?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/news/nationalnews/friend_of_bidens_daughter_shopping_tape__161772.htm
Last week, the NY Post was the first major publication to claim that it had seen a videotape of Vice President Biden's doing coke at a party. Though the paper opted not to purchase the tape, which was being sold by an apparent former friend of Biden's, it still ran the story saying that she was using the drug.

Is this newsworthy? Is the VP's daughter's abuse of drugs worth being reported on? In short, yes, of course.

But what kind of source is this to rely on as a crutch? And if the tape wasn't worth buying, why was the story worth printing?

For months and months, the far-right blogosphere and pundits claimed that the liberal media was bringing up Sarah Palin's family for no reason. Bloggers and talking-heads said it was out of line and unimportant for the media to 'attack' a politician's children. Well, what about here? Anybody on the right ready to talk? So far, nobody's come forward (Michelle? Ann? Hannity?).

More interestingly though, is it's noteworthy that not a single politician's son has been brought up over the course of the past year, except for praise. Beau Biden was a decorated soldier and attorney. Track Palin fought bravely in Iraq. But Bristol Palin was the promiscuous one who got knocked up as a teenager. And now, Ashley Biden is the cokehead, even though there seems to be very little believable evidence that proves it.

While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, is it a systematic pattern here? If not, at least an inherent double standard?

Rush is at it again.

As an independent (though Republican-registered) voter, I have been on the look-out for a new favorite pundit...one who best represents my current political mood, which changes daily. More ofter than not, I've got a moderate view of what's going on in the world. Though there are days when I'm far to the right or far to the left on certain issues. Nonetheless, I'm always amused by Ann Coulter and her craziness, way less amused by Keith Olbermann and his self-importance, and kind of scared by Michelle Malkin's venom. Lately, I've been especially into Rachel Maddow.

Who's the only pundit I hear about though? Rush. And boy, am I over him. Can't the conservative punditry movement have a better leader than this guy? He spews hatred at every turn, he's a screamer, and he just doesn't seem all that bright. And it's not because he's an everyday, folksy sort of guy. It's because his ideas aren't new. And they haven't worked, clearly.

Personally, I didn't mind the 'I hope Obama fails' diatribe he went on while on Sean Hannity's TV show. It's not shocking for a far right-winger to want the most liberal senator and newly-elected president to fail. That's how it works in a two-party system dominated by hatred of the other kind.

This latest one, courtesy of the Huffington Post, goes a little too far.

In a minor discloser: I am not by any means an Obama supporter. I voted for John McCain because I thought he was most independent of the two-party system, even though I was hesitant about Sarah Palin. I also really liked Hillary. And I, in fact, disagree with most of Obama's major positions.

But this is too much. We don't need this kind of political dialogue. Especially attacking the First Lady as 'angry.' That word was tossed around quite liberally during the last election. Michelle Obama was a stereotypical 'angry, black woman.' Hillary Clinton was an angry, scorned political opponent for Barack. And Sarah Palin was an angry simpleton when she talked about the MSM's coverage of the race.

Can we move on from this label? Why is it the women are always 'angry?' Even John McCain, who has a notoriously famous temper, wasn't called angry as much as these women, one of whom wasn't even running for office!

John Edward's Reappearance at Brown

Out of all of the election coverage over the past two and a half years, the news of John Edwards finally admitting to what most in the media have heard whispers about for years was thoroughly the most depressing. And there were a lot of depressing stories involving the '08 election.

After having stayed out of the spotlight for a considerable amount of time, Edwards reappeared yesterday at Brown University, where he gave a lecture that he calls "Beautiful America." He spoke mostly about the issues on which he built his platform while running for president: universal healthcare and poverty. Though, at this point, do we really want to know about his policies anymore?

I know I don't. I couldn't care less. What I really wanted to know was would anyone ask him about his affair. One student did (well, technically, she asked about the 'moral standards' of politicians) and Edwards gave a typically inexact answer.

Though a news story that I would usually enjoy talking about due to its salacious content---infidelity, the presidency, and a possible love-child, this one just made me feel uneasy. Putting it all into perspective though with the benefit of time, I do believe this story was important belongs alongside the other sexist stories by the media over the course of the last election.

Firstly, the media didn't even bother to report on it even though after the fact, journalists admitted to having known about the affair. Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to know how the mainstream media would have covered this story if all that was replaced was the name 'John' and replaced with 'Johanna?" Would it have been the lapdog it was, as opposed to the watchdog it's supposed to be? Could a Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin gotten away with this?

A 'Beautiful' Secretary of State?

Recently-appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already been fast on the move, traveling to different parts of Asia, as President Obama settles into his new job, to set a new tone around the world for America. Both Clinton and Obama aggressively campaigned on recreating the American image world-wide, to improve foreign relations. But the reality is, with all of the crises at home, paramount being the economic meltdown, the face of America will have to be largely be determined by Clinton, as Obama will be hard at work. Well, now that she's traveled, just how has she been received on her way around the world?

After passing through Indonesia on what CBS labeled the "Global Listening Tour," the Jakarta Post wrote that "journalists held their breath" as Clinton met with a foreign ministers. And in a later article, a reporter was quoted as saying, "She looks more beautiful than on TV."

Beautiful and breathless? Really? Are we actually talking about the world-superpower's new leading diplomatic voice and reducing her down to a pretty face?

I'm not certain that Condi Rice was ever complimented this way by the foreign or American press (I lean towards 'no'). But I am certain that when Colin Powell traveled outside the U.S. (which was few and far between, by the way), no member of the media wrote or spoke of how he looked. A Lexis-Nexis search yielded no results; certainly, no one mentioned his beauty.

While Clinton is supposed to be the new face of America, I think it's particularly troubling that we're actually talking about how her face looks, on TV or in person, rather than talking about how she's going to repair America's bruised image.

Didn't the media just spend a whole election talking about how Sarah Palin looked in her designer outfits? Or how about the NY Times and Washington Post doing whole articles on Clinton's laugh and cleavage? Not only did that dialogue offend most Americans (look at nearly any political poll following the election), it distracted us from issues that we just can't afford to be distracted from.

It's more than troubling that we're going through this yet again and we're only one month into the new administration. It's detrimental not only to the women's movement to aesthetically reduce the Secretary of State, but it's counter-productive to the very cause that she and the Obama administration are supposed to represent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/20/politics/washingtonpost/main4815167.shtml