And this is priceless. Olbermann has truly stared into the O'Reilly abyss too long:

Any suggestion that MSNBC "was somehow out to `get' Senator Clinton is false and unfair," Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message.

The bias has been most everywhere and completely accepted. It has felt the same as when GWB was pushed on us, and when the Iraq war was pushed on us. The press has a very large responsibility for our current state of affairs since they have repeatedly shown themselves to be not independent journalists. Instead they are independent in the sense of O'Reilly or Olberman.

Seriously, this is what the Obamabots always said, it wasn't sexism...  It was just Hillary.  It wouldn't have happened to a different woman.

where was the outrage over the nutcrackers?  you know every pundits head would have exploded if there had been Obama lawn jockeys for sale.  But, they keep writing this stuff off as though it was just "funny" or "deserved because it is Hillary"

If they want to use Bosnia as an example of her bringing it on herself, then where was the constant reporting of Obama's LIES?  At the same time the Bosnia story was reported, it was also reported thta Obama lied by taking credit for two senate bills he had nothing to do with.   Where was the outrage over that?  Did it need to have convenient video tape to get coverage?  Which is more important?  A lie about how you as First Ladt arrived at an airport or lies about your senate legislative record?

NO ONE is saying that sexism is the ONLY reason Clinton lost.  But, it certainly contributed to it and I would think they could at least acknowledge it.

During an appearance on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews said of Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around" and that "[s]he didn't win there [New York] on her merits." Matthews has referred to Clinton as a "she devil," compared her to a "strip-teaser" and called her "witchy." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys."

Matthews' sexism is hardly limited to his comments about Clinton; such rhetoric is just the latest in a string of sexist attacks he has made against prominent female political figures.

-- During coverage of the New Hampshire primary, he said that Clinton is the only viable woman presidential candidate "on the horizon." He couldn't think of a single female governor eligible to run: "Where are the big-state women governors?" he asked. "Where are they? Name one." In fact, several of the states that currently have women governors are comparable in population to the states in which the male presidential candidates serve or have served as governor.

-- In November 2006, shortly after the Democrats took the majority in Congress, Matthews asked a guest if then-presumptive Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer (D-MD) were elected House Majority Leader.

-- They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle [Obama] -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance." When Mitchell interjected, noting "You're talking about two ... lawyers," who went to "Harvard and Yale," Matthews defended himself, saying, "Cosmetics are a part of this game."

MATTHEWS: I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.

While giving post-debate analysis during the April 27 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted that Clinton would never admit to "ma[king] a mistake" in voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution "because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment."

Discussing the most recent Democratic presidential candidates debate on Morning Joe, political and social commentator Mike Barnicle said Sen. Hillary Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," eliciting laughter from the all-male panel that featured MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist, and David Shuster.

Remember Jon Stewart's famous appearance on Crossfire?  The thing that struck me about it was Tucker Carlson's humorless reaction to it all.  Here's a pundit who dishes out criticism towards anyone and everyone, yet when he's criticized himself, his reaction was "Is this how you behave all the time?  I'd hate to have dinner at your house!"  They simply can't stand to be criticized, even in the exact same way they feel entitled to criticize others.

Get Even in the Media. Every Clinton supporter I talk to heatedly brings up the media. Women who have never let the word "misogyny" slip from their lips now pair it alliteratively with media. If you have five minutes, go to the website of the Women's Media Center (womensmediacenter.com) and be aware that this is just a Whitman's Sampler.

It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks - "Life's a B - -, Don't Elect One." Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, "it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful." Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

"She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way."

is my favorite.  Because Obama was covered how? As a teenage ingenue?  I don't understand that at all. She was covered as a tough politician while Obama was covered as what?  A child?

My other questions is this: I thought Hillary lost.  Why are they STILL bothering with her? Oh that's right. They don't get any ratings without CDS in full force.

This is all a mirror image of the Gingrich years.  And this kind of machine, concentrated and unchecked, can lead to the kind of blind authoritarianism we've seen for the past eight years.  I know that sounds melodramatic.

What of the DNC moving its core operations to Chicago?  The Obama campaign's effort to undermine independent, progressive interest groups?

Did I get this correctly? If so, I'm horrified at her suggestion(s).

I have resigned myself to never seeing the like of Hillary Clinton in my lifetime. I have resigned myself to the fact that the Democrats have made the world a lot tougher for every woman competing for a job, education or just plain fairness.  

Let's not blame the media for this.  They are entertainers and bashing women sells.  If they had been held accountable, if sexism was as dirty as racism, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it.  

Let's put the responsibility for it where it belongs: on the Democrats who did nothing to stop it and didn't stand up for their loyal party member.  

Big Media is owned by GOP and functions as the mouthpiece of their current propaganda.  That's why what should be reliable personality traits in anchors seems to waver so wildly depending on what's going on at the time.  There was such a concerted effort across the board to trivialize, demean and hamstring Hillary Clinton by both the men and the women anchors; I watched in marvel as the months unfolded.

My first thought was: "Wow, they're really afraid she's going to take the nomination.  They're actually struggling and contorting themselves to present sexism as "normal" and "the only sane thing" when it came to Hillary."

The GOP fears the Clintons like nothing else.  And that's exactly why come Fall I'm writing in Hillary for president no matter what superdelegates get pressured or duped into doing.  

Why do you think Stephen Colbert's exquisite devil's-advocate satire has a subliminal McCain cartoon head popping up and chanting "O-baa-maaaa.  O-baa-maaaa"?

They knew who the guy to beat was.

A case in point was the "as far as I know" comment.  The first day it was discussed by Chris Matthews (when Iused to watch him) he was claiming she was sending the coded message that he might be a Muslim.  The panelists on the program ALL said you might be able to get that impression if you only READ the quote.  But, if you actually WATCHED the video, you could tell by the inflection in her voice that she wasn't trying to make that implication at all.  But, still Matthews kept it up.  He actually said that the Clinton's are such professional pols, that there is ALWAYS a message behind what they say.  Within two days of the initial coverage, EVERYONE in the media was reporting it as fact that Clinton was trying to imply Obama might be Muslim.  Even though everyone on that panel had said NO.

At the same time, no one in the media ever was of the opinion that anything Obama ever said had a "coded" message behind it, even when female panelists said it did.  Case in point here is Obama's "periodically, the claws come out" comment.  Every female pundit on Matthews explained the sexism behind that statement to Matthews, he just wasn't buying it.

There are many examples.  But the media, ewspecially MSNBC, always took the position that the Clinton's ALWAYS have a coded message and even if it was a surrogate that said it, the surrogate was being TOLD waht to say by Clinton.  And, the media NEVER took that position with Obama.  They always did the opposite with him.  Obama was too good and perfect to use "coded" messages.  And Obama's surrogates were never scripted by the campaign as to what they should say.

 The talking heads couldn't care less, I would guess.  They're not in it for much more than ratings.  Much like blogs and site traffic.  Sensationalism sells.  Interesting narratives sell (a presumptive pre-primary candidate knocked out by an insurgent, for example).  

Talk about objectifying a female! Making a nonperson of her.

I am shocked this was used. Perhaps it was snark, or disprespect? Intentional--or not?

Utterly amazing.