Randi Rhodes Poll, are we progressives?

I was never a big Randi Rhodes fan.  However, I supported her show by listening on occasion.  But Kossacks, do we really want to support the vile rantings of anyone against one of our own? Or not one of our own?  I do not approve and certainly would never encourage any of the crap that Randi Rhodes spoke about HRC or Ferraro.  This is never, ever my idea of a progressive movement.  We must be inclusive, listeners, welcoming, showing positivity, creating a movement by leading by example.  The comments are wrong, but they are amplified by those in our community that support these comments in blogs and it creates more harm and divides us.
I would like to think we are spirited debaters and not ugly haters.

Please take the time for this poll.

Thank you and peace, progress and a bigger, stronger movement for ALL.

Go Obama!  HRC supporters should be honored and welcomed!

•  tips for unified progressives

  by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM PDT

  •  I am reccing you for talking about this,

    I really like Randi Rhodes. I have enjoyed listening to her for years, and it was her say it and let whatever the fallout may be vibe that made me like her when she is talking about Iraq and when she talked about Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. She can be awesome in her rage.

    I disagree with her commentary about HRC and Geraldine Ferraro. I am still willing to listen to her, but she lost most of my respect with that commentary. I have had to look at myself and why I find her outrageous comments that I would never say, but agree with okay. When I disagree, it hurts. And yes, I think she has become the liberal answer to Rush and I don't think I like that. She is entertaining, she is sometimes painful to listen to, as long as she brings in listeners she will have an audience, just not me anymore.

    by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:23:27 PM PDT

    •  I completely agree

      If I detest the right wing liars, I will not be guilty of supporting the same in my clothing.  

      I want to live in a progressive world, freedom is valued, and all views are considered.

      Peace to you.

      by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM PDT

    •  Randi on LKL tonight 4/10

      about to air again in PST...

      by NovatoBon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM PDT

  •  AGAIN?!

    It's been diaried to death.

    by khereva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM PDT

•  Here's the thing...

  This is not important because Randi said rude things about someone that she's clearly disappointed in. This is important because it's a first amendment issue. We may disagree with Randi's sentiments, but, as a good progressive, I cannot support AirAmerica's decision to stifle her voice and remove her from the airwaves. AA owner Mark Green is a rapid Hillary supporter, and it was his decision to take her off the air -- not because of what she said, but because of who she said it about.

  by Timroff on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM PDT

  •  Please don't bring the first amendment into this

    It doesn't apply to a privately owned and operated radio station.

    by Angry White Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:24:38 PM PDT

    •  Also, the first amendment only tends to enter

      discussions when it relates to something that a progressive has said.  It's always absent when we are taking on a Republican for offensive comments.

      by smash artist on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM PDT

    •  a privately owned and operated radio station

      She didn't say what she said on "a privately owned and operated radio station".

      by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:30:30 PM PDT

      •  She has a contract

        with AA which she no doubt violated.  Don't believe me? Well: a) she "resigned" and b) there will be no litigation.

        by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM PDT

        •  a contract

          What kind of "a contract" are you suggesting? A contract in which they control every word out of her mouth, even when she's not on the radio?

          by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:37:48 PM PDT

          •  Heh.

            Yes.  Every television and radio personality has one, pretty much.  AA has a real, fiduciary interest in the reputation of their brand.  If she does somnething that damges that, they can axe her.  Tough world, huh?
            You think she'll sue? Har!

            by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:41:34 PM PDT

    •  She was on her own time at a private event

      and they're canning her. How is it not a first amendment question?

      by Timroff on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM PDT

      •  No.

        It's not.  AA spent a lot of money promoting the AA/Randi Rhodes brand.  She damaged both.  They have no obligation to keep her around.

        Also, despite its name, Air America is not a branch of the government

        by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:49:26 PM PDT

      •  Actually the event was sponsered by an affiliate

        of Air America, AA payed for the plane ticket, and was involved in sponsering the event.

        I like Randi and I listened to her show, in fact I talked to here a couple of times on the radio, but she shouldn't have called them Whores.

        by pjbamerica on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:03:01 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't said on a privately owned radio station.

      So the first amendment definitely applies-- as it was retaliation for something said elsewhere.

      by khereva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM PDT

      •  Um, no it doesn't

        The first amendment only exists to prevent the government from restricting freedom of speech. As Air America is not owned by nor affiliated with the United States government, the first amendment does not apply in this case. Period.

        by Angry White Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM PDT

        •  I just tried to rec you again.

          I very much agree and after reading this thread again, I think it is time for bed. Sheesh, people. Not you!

          by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM PDT

        •  Correct. I'm not terribly offended for Clinton

          and Ferraro. For Clinton, at the least, such comments are far beneath her and I doubt she or any other person who's achieved as much as her waste a minute of time thinking about what a Randi Rhodes thinks about her. Once you get to that level, you have people who'll be offended for you for free.

          Ferraro, on the other hand, doesn't have Clinton's stature, but I doubt she's a gives a damn either.

          But AA is supposedly a buisness. And they sell a product to progressives. And progressives tend to be sensitive to slights, or percived slights, against certain groups (just like conservatives have their own heightened slight radars, just for different groups) So let them be a buisness, and push their product accordingly.

          by kingfishstew on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:09:10 PM PDT

    •  She has a right to say what she wants...

      She doesn't have a right to get paid for it.

      End of discussion.

      by Rico on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM PDT

  •  I have a first amendment

    right to my own show on Air America?  Cool!

    by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:27:59 PM PDT

    •  that's gonna cause some problems

      if as few as 10 of us assert our first amendment rights to a show on Air America, the scheduling would be a nightmare.

      But that probably means we have a first amendment right to a show on Fox, which would be a big improvement.

      by unterhausen on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:46:27 PM PDT

      •  When it comes to Fox News I'm a 2nd Amendment guy

        by kingfishstew on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:10:32 PM PDT

  •  This is not a first amendment issue.

    Just like how Rush Limbaugh still being on the air is not a first amendment issue. This is about entertainment, and when the entertainer offends the core audience, it is completely within the corporate overlord's rights to take away the podium. Does that suck for Randi? Yes. I like her a lot and have listened to her for years. I did not e-mail AAR when I heard about her comments, it was pretty much over by the time I heard about it, but I understand their decision.

    It is corporate. Don't offend the bosses or the listeners. Randi did both. Sucks for her, but she has found a new gig and I am sure her loyal listeners will keep on listening.

    by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:28:45 PM PDT

    •  Don't offend the bosses or the listeners

      She didn't say what she said to "the (radio) listeners". She said it at a private comedy show.

      by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM PDT

      •  She said her remarks at an event

        that was hosted by an AAR affiliate and she was working for AAR at the time. She was not at a private person's home riffing on HRC, or even at a comedy club. It was a corporate event.

        by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:40:33 PM PDT

    •  Offend the audience?

      Did you listen to the you tube? They were loving what she was saying -- and the majority of callers to the show the last week are upset that she's gone.

      The one she offended was fucking Mark Green. At least we can get that part right.

      by Timroff on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM PDT

      •  Yes, I did watch the YouTube vid.

        Ick.

        I was not writing about the people that were in the audience of that event, but the people that listen to AAR and her show and I am one of them.

        I made a point to listen to the show that Sam Seder was guest hosting after her suspension and one guy who agreed with me actually got on the air, he didn't last long with his commentary, but he got on the air. I am sure there are many other people like me who were silently hating her comments.

        And well, if you piss of your boss, that sucks, but yes the boss can fire you. Not a first amendment right at all. You know that.

        by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:56:48 PM PDT

  •  If the "shoe" were on the other foot

    AA owner Mark Green is a rapid Hillary supporter

    Funny... there was a similar comment on another diary where a commenter pointed out that the word is "rabid" not "rapid."

    Anyway, if Randi loved Hillary and called Barack indecent names, I'm betting you would be all in favor of her suspension.  And I would agree with you there.

    I basically agree with the analysis of Caoilainn, and would add that I would absolutely lose respect for any progressive in a public setting who uses such names against another progressive.

    Randi can dislike Hillary all she wants, and give the factual reasons why, but to name-call in such a rude manner is not respectful.  Senator Clinton is still a U.S. Senator, and if/when she loses, she will still be voting on issues that affect me.

    by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

    •  I've heard this

      that Green is a Hillary supporter and therefore ... something.

      So a little in defense of Green and AAR a sec.

      + Green's brother has a show on AAR and is not a Clinton supporter

      + I can't think of any other hosts on AAR that are Clinton supporters?

      + I've never heard any AAR host complain that their content was being edited

      + Even on Mark Green's show - he has on many - many Obama supporters.

      Mark Green might be making bad decisions for AAR such as canning Sam Seder's and other's shows. He might even be a big jerk for all I know, but I don't think any of this has anything to do with Green being a Clinton supporter.

      by ZappoDave on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:36:44 PM PDT

    •  Not just "indecent" names...

      But the most foul, obscene, derrogatory name you can possibly say about a woman, or, in this hypothetical shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario, a black man.

      Just imagine.  

      And all of this was part of her critique of Ferraro for saying something she considered racially offensive.  To me, that totally destroyed her credibility on the Ferraro/Clinton subject.

      And actually, it was the final straw for me with her credibility on anything.  If I wanted to hear an angry person spout rage and obscenity, I'd listen to Rush Limbaugh.

      by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

      •  Exactly...

        If I wanted to hear an angry person spout rage and obscenity, I'd listen to Rush Limbaugh.

        by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:49:38 PM PDT

  •  I don't know exactly what Mark Green's thinking

    was on this -

    not because of what she said, but because of who she said it about

    but I try to turn it around before I make a judgment.  Suppose Limbaugh had said the same thing about Michelle Obama?  Would I want him to be suspended?  Would you still be arguing FOR his first amendment rights?  

    Also, as I understand it, those rights refer to laws the government makes, not decisions by employers.

    In this particular case, I found the remarks offensive, and would have found them offensive no matter WHO was saying them about WHOM (and have hide-rated similar comments on this site in the past).  I think a suspension of some length was appropriate, and was hoping she would return after a week or so.

    I will still listen to the Air America shows of which I'm a fan, and will look for a way to podcast Randi when her new show starts.  And move on.

    by Lujane on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:32:18 PM PDT

    •  Limbaugh would get a raise and more advertisers

      We all hate the man, but his show is still on and Air America is pretty much in the trash. I'm not saying she was right, but hey in a private show she can say anything she wanted to. Especially when the network running the event approved and Green is saying it was their event and people paid them not Air America.

      by jkb246 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:49:44 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't disagree with you more

    Randi Rhodes was under contract with Air America. All media contracts contain morals/conduct clauses that allow management to sever relationship with any employee who jeaopardizes their source of income: advertising dollars. She appeared under the aegis of air America, her airfare was paid by air America, and she was billed as as an Air America radio personality. She is certainly free to say whatever she wants. They are free to sever ties to her if they deem what she says as detrimental to their image. They were well within their rights to demand an apology. The fact that she quit will save them a lot of money.

    And let's get one other point clear. Randi Rhodes is not a comedian. She is a radio commentator. However, this would not matter either way. She was in violation of her contract. She was given a proper opportunity to save herself. She chose not to and she is gone. IMO, good riddance.

    by DWKING on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:33:26 PM PDT

    •  This is so

      obviously, head-slappingly true.  Too bad no one cares.

      by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:36:53 PM PDT

      •  I care.

        Which is why I won't be listening to her when she's back on my local "progressive radio" station next Monday.

        I'm sticking with Amy Goodman from now on.

        by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:40:05 PM PDT

•  Pie

  Don't really know what she said... don't really care. The Randi Roads Show is more about Randi Roads than I care to listen to. She's smart, she's interesting, but she's not my cup of tea. I'm a Maddow podcaster. Not that they re mutually exclusive but they are oh so different.

  by bobinson on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:25:56 PM PDT

  •  bobinson, FYI, she spells her last name Rhodes

    and her show is about informing the public of their rights, IMHO.  Hers were taken away by a radio station which wasn't involved in her outrageous and offensive comments during a live show.

    by Little Lulu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM PDT

    •  Her show is informing the public about their

      rights?  Geez, I've been listening to her for years up until recently, and I've never, ever came to the understanding that she was informing me of "my rights."

      Randi was always known, until recently, that anything she said could be verified.  In fact, she encouraged it.  I always held her in high regard with the way she handled the issues... by backing them up with facts, and then, of course, giving her own analysis.

      She was totally out of line in her comments during the AAR affiliated sponsored event, and she's recently been sounding like she's got a tin foil hat on.

      Sam Seder, on the other hand, has repeatedly stated why he voted for Obama.  Sam's reasoning is refreshing and honest.  No problem with that.  Sam didn't/doesn't need to trash or name-call Hillary to "endorse" Obama.  In fact, he clearly stated he isn't endorsing anyone; just sharing whom he voted for and why.

      I wish Randi could have taken a clue from him.  I may listen to her in the future just to see if she's learned anything... everyone makes mistakes from time to time.  I did have a lot of respect for her, but she's lost some of that from me.

      by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:38:05 PM PDT

      •  let's be clear: was not an AAR event

        The event was hosted by an affiliate of AAR (i.e. not CBS but channel 5 in where-ever land that is a CBS affiliate). Green 960 transmits several of the AAR shows but it also programs the Ed Schultz Show which is not on AAR. They also produce much of their own local programming which airs during evening drive time.

        Green 960 in SF still rocks over any other political talk station in the area. They may still host the RR Show in the future.

        by bobinson on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:48:18 PM PDT

        •  Sorry; I added an extra "d" to the word

          "affiliate."  That was a typo.

          by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM PDT

    •  Rhodes' "rights" were NOT violated

      The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of expression from GOVERNMENT interference.

      The Supreme Court has ruled that there are three tests under which a PRIVATE action may be deemed a "state action" for purposes of determining whether the action is prohibited by the First Amendment.

      But there's no way that Air America's suspension of Rhodes could meet any of those tests, and therefore be deemed a "state action."

      Therefore, Rhodes' First Amendment rights were NOT violated.

      by NYLefty on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:31:26 PM PDT

•  There is vitriol everywhere, here included

  The same anger that caused her to say what she did can be seen everywhere at the moment.  I happen to think this is a movement in crisis.  Yesterday I wrote a diary trying to seek answers about the anger I experienced at mydd and the backlash I got, the hatred point at me was really eye-opening so I've lost much of my optimism.    

  by HGM MA on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM PDT

  •  Stay here, let's try and take it back

    I think this site is worth it, for now at least.

    by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:28:56 PM PDT

•  She's not an 'ugly hater.'

  You just didn't understand the bit.  It was meant to be ironic.  A well known feminist is suddenly calling Hillary Clinton a fucking whore?  Why would she do that?  It's not like she wrote an editorial and said, "I've come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is actually a whore."  It was part of a satirical bit where she was pointing out the race-baiting of Ferraro that Hillary clearly gave tacit approval for.  It was meant to be shocking in order to point out that beneath the polite civility of race-baiting is real ugly.  It was supposed to jump out at the audience to make a point.  She wasn't really making the argument that Hillary is a whore.  

  But because we are a simple minded people, the race-baiters get away with it as long as they don't use naughty words and the people who recognize it and are offended by it get sent up the river if they use naughty words in a comedy bit that points it all out.  

  This story isn't about prostitutes.  It's about the Clinton campaign engaging in race-baiting.  Whether you can see that's what they were doing or not, that's what Rhodes' bit was about.  

  by Sun dog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM PDT

  •  Seems a bit of a reach

    by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM PDT

    •  But it's not

      Randi Rhodes is a feminist.  She's also very passionate about racism.  She's against it.  Can you explain why a feminist would call Geraldine Ferraro a 'fucking whore?'  She just forgot that was demeaning to women?  

      Do you ever see any comedy outside of the sanitized stuff on tv?  This was meant for the people in the room.  The fact that once someone is a public figure, anything they do in any public context can be shown on youtube a thousand times is an issue we're going to have to deal with.  Because context does matter.  If all you do is show someone an isolated video clip, it gives the impression that the speaker meant the words as a video clip and not as one on one communication with the people in the room.  So then you get sanctimonious people who know a naughty word when they hear one calling for their head without understanding or even trying to understand the words and why they were spoken.  

      And it's another one of those cases where the truth is just a tad more complicated than the easy, sanctimonious, 'think of the children!' response.  The truth is just too much work sometimes I guess.  It's a reach.  

      by Sun dog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:37:35 PM PDT

      •  Macacca... n/t

        by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:39:24 PM PDT

        •  What did you call me?

          Yeah, I get it.  But that doesn't work.  Comedians skewer politicians.  That's because we are a free democratic republic and all that.  We the people can call those in power any name we want.  People in power can't point their finger at someone at an event and throw a racial slur at them.  

          There are a lot of nuances to this story that people are ignoring.  Too complicated.  Rhodes gets canned because we are a Simple People.  

          by Sun dog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM PDT

          •  No, I didn't call you anything.

            You said you "got it."

            I was merely pointing out that one word "Macacca" ended what might/would have been a successful senate race by the person who said it, and maybe even a successful presidential race in the future.

            Because context does matter.

            I don't disagree with you there, but "context" is analogous to "appearance" of impropriety.  It doesn't have to rise to the level of impropriety but just appear so.  That's what I meant by "Macacca."

            People who don't like Hillary are apt to "make excuses" for Randi, just like people who love Bush make excuses for him.

            I'm sorry, but millions of Americans aren't going to take the time to watch the whole video and analyze the "context."  That's just the way it is.  In fact, that's how Bush got re-elected... or elected or not in 2004.

            Randi is very savvy.  She full-well knew her comments would be made public, yet she still chose to use those words.  Her choice.  It's my choice to continue to respect and support her or not.

            by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM PDT

    •  a bit of a reach

      It's not "a bit of a reach". That's exactly why Randi said what she said, because she was mad about their race baiting. And BTW, Ferraro is STILL going on Fox News with her bff Sean Hannity to race bait. She insists she's not going to stop. I don't see how any "progressive" can condemn someone for calling out Democrats who like Democratic hating Fox News better, the way Hillary and Ferraro and the rest of their friends do. I didn't like it when Lieberman went on Fox to trash other Dems, and I don't like when his fellow Liebercrats Hillary and Ferraro do it either.

      by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM PDT

      •  William, I will not stoop to their level

        That is why I am a progressive. Stop watching Fox.  To allow yourself to react in the same manner as they bait, brings you to their hateful world.  

        As a progressive, I wish to ATTRACT people rather than out insult them.

        by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM PDT

        •  stoop to their level

          Are you saying that being a progressive means never getting mad at anyone, no matter what they do that you think is wrong? I don't think it works that way. As a matter of fact, I think it's the job of progressives to denounce what they feel is wrong with society. BTW, I don't watch Fox News, I saw the clip of Farraro on Fox with Hannity from a Youtube clip posted on another website.

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

          •  Getting angry and getting even are 2 seperate

            paths.  I get angry all the time, but to deflect and energize my actions by becoming more of what I want to see, not becoming what I see on the ugly right.

            by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:20:01 PM PDT

            •  not becoming what I see on the ugly right

              The Right denouces and works against whatever is good in the world. Progressives denouce what is bad in the world. I could never see denoucing what is bad as "becoming just like them".

              by William Domingo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Have to disagree.

    Look, RR has been saying that really critical, horrible, offensive things about the Clintons on her radio show for the past few weeks (which is why I've been listening less and less.  It's not even good radio.)

    So it doesn't seem like her "fucking whore" comment was ironic.  It seemed like the FCC-proof version of what she's already been saying for weeks.

    I don't buy that as an excuse at all.

    by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:44:09 PM PDT

    •  But do we ask why?

      Why is Rhodes saying horrible things about the Clintons?  She's just gone crazy and must be removed from public?  

      From her perspective, race-baiting by those in power is what is horrible and offensive.  The fact that there are people who are good at it and know how to do it without saying the buzzwords that will get them busted just makes it worse.  

      Maybe,  upon examination, you really can't detect the race-baiting.  Maybe you just don't want to examine it too closely.  In her way, Rhodes was trying to shock people into seeing it for the ugly thing she sees it as.  

      by Sun dog on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM PDT

      •  Still not convinced. Sorry.

        She's a shock jock.  For the left, maybe, but a shock jock.  And she's said a lot of over-the-top stuff about Hillary in recent weeks.

        So, no, I don't think her use of "fucking whore" was some sort of brilliant and intentional use of irony on her part to shock us with the ugliness of racism and race-baiting.

        I think it was just her being ugly.  Period.

        by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM PDT

  •  I watched the whole thing

    I know from comedy. I've been married 3 times.

    I thought it was spot on as far as content, not so funny, but I did chuckle in an ironic way.

    TFH

    by Tinfoil Hat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:27:46 PM PDT

•  Please forgive me, I confuse easily

  but how, exactly, did you support the Randi Rhodes show by listening occasionally? Did anyone know? Were sponsors moved to increase their advertising budget? Or was your support limited to the theater of your mind.
  I fear you have an exagerated sense of your role in the scheme of things.

  by DaNang65 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM PDT

  •  buying Gold Bond Medicated Powder? n/t

    by murrayewv on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:31:19 PM PDT

  •  God almighty, picky picky picky

    Are you married or with a partner?  I bet not. If you were, you wouldn't jump down someones throat by combing through every word.  What is your point?   I have an 'exagerated sense of (my) role in the scheme of things.'?  What the hell?  What scheme of things?  Cause if there is a 'scheme', I want to find out the 'thing'.

    You see, it's easy to take a shot.  Give people a touch of slack. I'm sure you are a reasonable and decent person.  Try not to question the motives and heart of people. It's easy to do, but it becomes personal and takes away from you, not me.  

    by realwischeese on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:46:53 AM PDT

•  Sorry. I disagree. While I felt Randi's words

  were over the top and outrageous, in context I found them to be funny, just like her audience did.

  I'm a big fan of Randi and I plan to switch to Green FM if I can access it on my radio or live streaming.  I honestly believe she has one of the most important voices on the radio in this country.  Throwing her off AAR for these remarks was equally over the top, IMHO and AAR will suffer with her departure.

  Long live Randi Rhodes!

  by Little Lulu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:28:50 PM PDT

  •  She's been hired on at

    Nova M Networks --- google it and there's an announcement there.

    by ZappoDave on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:30:28 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! n/t

      by Little Lulu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:32:25 PM PDT

      •  You're welcome!

        Mike Malloy will be on there tonight - streaming and am sure he will have lots to say and it wouldn't surprise me if Randi were on his show - be it calling in or whatever.

        by ZappoDave on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM PDT

        •  Randi's booked for Larry King tonight.

          I didn't check to see if she's actually on now, but I tivoed for the 12 midnight re-airing.

          by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM PDT

        •  Mike's on vaca this week. Mark Maron is subbing

          He's talked about it just a bit.  The Texas polygamy raid and finding the awol Marine took precedent.

          by JVolvo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:21:51 PM PDT

•  I've denounced, rejected, and moved on

  When news of her suspension first came out, I wrote a diary condemning her remarks.  I still stand by everything in that diary, but I think it's time to move on.

  What was said was said, and I think we only continue to add fuel to the fire by bringing it up again and again.

  by smash artist on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM PDT

  •  Then?

    You're not up to live blogging her appearance on Larry King tonight?

    by ZappoDave on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:31:37 PM PDT

•  and the obvious: HRC is not a progressive...

  just to state the obvious part of this hoopla.

  by another cascadian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:31:56 PM PDT

  •  Well,

    she used to be.  Or so I was endlessly reminded when I used to rant about her nad Bill in the 90s.

    by bugscuffle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:34:14 PM PDT

    •  neither of them were then

      The Clinton Administration was republican lite at best.

      He was elected twice as Governor of Arkansas.  How fucking liberal could he be for that to happen?

      by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM PDT

      •  Do you really want to go down that road?

        If we start dismissing governors of southern states or red states, we're going to back ourselves into an ugly corner, aren't we?

        by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM PDT

        •  I'm a realist

          I'm in Tennessee.  I've volunteered for Blue Dogs and was damn proud to see them elected.

          They aren't progressives and it will be a while before a progressive comes from here.

          Bill Clinton is a lot of things and progressive is not one of them.  I don't see how calling a non-spade a non-spade is dismissing him.

          by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:54:30 PM PDT

          •  No, you're right.

            Upon second reading, I realize you're not dismissing the state, just stating that Bill was never progressive.

            I guess I'm just hyper-sensitive today.  There seems like a high volume of hate on DKos today toward Hillary, Bill, women...

            But what you said was true.  He never was progressive.

            My bad.

            (Maybe I just need to take a Xanax.)

            by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:57:14 PM PDT

  •  If we want HRC supporters to come over...

    then how comfortable are we making it?  Progressives=snarky personal putdowns?  The tent has to welcome her supporters.  I see no other way for victory.  Pissing people off by supporting childish rants does the Obama campaign no good.

    by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:40:06 PM PDT

    •  THANK YOU. nt

      by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:40:56 PM PDT

    •  re: HRC supporters to come over

      Let me add that it's just not trying to get people to vote for Obama in the upcoming states, but it's also to try and make people feel welcome and enthusiastic about wanting to actively work for Obama in the general election.

      by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM PDT

      •  well said gooderservice

        by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:47:00 PM PDT

        •  I met a woman tonight who was all

          excited that she just found out she was going to meet Caroline Kennedy tomorrow night.  Someone gave her a free ticket.

          I was only half listening, but I think the gist was that there was a group of people who were still undecided in PA, and Obama supporters were getting them together to try to persuade them to vote for Obama.

          I think that's where Caroline Kennedy came in.  But like I said, I was half-listening (involved in something else at the time) after she mentioned she got a free ticket to see Caroline.

          by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM PDT

•  What she said was crappy

  but the way she was treated as a result was worse

  It was a private show.

  We swift boated her.

  by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM PDT

•  I'm not sure how I feel about this

  I think she has every right to criticize Clinton but I can't support the kind of language she used. What if Bill O'Reilly called Hillary a "whore"? Wouldn't we be outraged?  As a woman, it bothers me.  And Hillary may be a lousy politician and closet Republican or whatever horrible thing you all think she is but she is not a whore (as far as I know). Why does Randi have to go for the sexist insult?

  by Valhalla on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM PDT

  •  A caller to Sam Seder

    brought up a good point, I thought, about how when O'Reilly went in his private time to the restaurant in Harlem, and stated his "surprise" about nobody yelling for Mf'ing iced tea, the progressive and liberal radio and many others trashed O'Reilly for what he said.

    So it's not just Randi was "on her own time" at an AAR affiliate sponsored event; it's what she said, the words she used.  

    She could have gone on and on about Hillary's tactics, what Hillary has or hasn't done, anything... except to resort to calling another woman a "whore."

    She didn't use very good judgment that night.

    And by the way:  from my own observation, people here are less upset what Randi called Hillary than they were what a person in the crowd at a McCain event called Hillary and McCain did not denounce that person immediately.

    by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM PDT

    •  The Whores on the Hill ?

      Hillary wants Lobbyist money. The word whore fits. Is it that her label was too acurate for the sensitivity of Our whoring congress and the biggest whore president we have ever had. Whoring is paying for playing or status quo. The word is not exclusively female or sexual. I can take Randy or leave her but firing her for comments not made on the air is kinda iffy. I'd hate for my boss to fire me for my opinion. Seriously do you want to lose your job over your misspeaks? An apology would have been ok especially since she was doing a comedy skit.

      by barbybuddy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM PDT

•  um, she's RANDI RHODES

  this is what she DOES.    

  and there is a big difference between what makes a MOVEMENT and what makes a party line.  

  and is it EVER factually incorrect to call a politician a whore?  yes.  but not as frequently as this country deserves.  

  by panamaniaco on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:43:16 PM PDT

•  Dammit, CNN!

  Why is some idiot Marine who killed his pregnant wife bumping Randi off of Larry King? So he's been captured,  so what, has the murderer of 4000+ US soldiers been captured? Some of them were women, maybe even pregnant. I'm more than positive MANY Iraqi civilian women killed were pregnant. Where's the breaking news on THAT??

  by Uosdwis on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM PDT

  •  she talked about AAR wanting to revise

    her contract...presumably to prevent her from doing this sort of stand up routine again... before she was interrupted by the "breaking news" for those who didn't hear.

    by Wendy Slammo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:56:35 PM PDT

  •  Breaking News

    And the really sad part is that they will still be calling "breaking news" after six hours of continuous coverage.

    by InternetJunkie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:57:42 PM PDT

•  this has nothing to do with what she said

  its about who she said it about.  AAR's management are hardcore Hilary supporters.  They were just looking for a reason to get rid of her.  
  They've also dumped the best people from the lineup.  I hope Seder follows her along with Hartman.  Rachel Maddow will leave for MSNBC very soon so that leaves a very weak schedule.  
  AAR is dead in the water - just as their new management team wants it.

  by omahaliberal on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:55:11 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry you feel that way.

    I think we don't have enough liberal radio shows, so I don't wish any liberal radio show to be unsuccessful.

    I've certainly disagreed with AAR's changes since new management came in, but I don't wish them to fold.  

    by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:04:50 PM PDT

•  I wish you would have added to your poll...

  I support Randi, do not think she was wrong, and I also support Obama.

  I support Randi, do not think she was wrong, and I also support Clinton.

  I think Randi was wrong, and I'm an Obama supporter.

  I think Randi was wrong, and I'm a Clinton supporter.

  I'd be curious to see what the breakdown is and if that has anything to do with support for Randi or not.

  by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:03:00 PM PDT

  •  you smart, I like larry king, what can I say?

    Actually, I don't like Larry, sorry Larry.

    by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

•  Randi Rhodes is one of our own

  She is a liberal. Clinton is not.

  by liberalej on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:03:58 PM PDT

•  Now Hear This

  All of you who think Randi is shrill, vitriolic, lacking in facts or humor - she's gone from AAR.  You never have to listen to her again.  Okay?  Time to move on kids.  Enough with the polls already!

  As for the rest of us who happen to like diversity - Mike Malloy vs. Thom Hartmann, Marc Maron vs. Mark Riley, Hillary vs. Barack - well, we get to listen to Randi again come Monday and are looking forward to it.

  If I wanted to follow Reagan's 11th Commandment, I'd be a republican.  Only Democrats are willing to point our the sins of their own.

  by InternetJunkie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:04:31 PM PDT

  •  I could say the same thing to you... Move on.

    Now Hear This....  Time to move on kids.  Enough with the polls already!

    If it's all the same to you, I'm enjoying reading the comments and participating in this discussion.  I find it very interesting.

    But if you, whoever you are, have determined that this case is closed and we all should shut up, then..... never mind.  I hope you don't mind, but I'm not going to take your unsolicited advice... even if you do mind.

    by gooderservice on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:08:27 PM PDT

  •  wish I could recommend you twice!

    by omahaliberal on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:10:14 PM PDT

    •  just to clarify

      I recommend junkie's comments - we are moving on - to Nova M.

      by omahaliberal on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM PDT

•  blah blah

  HRC isn't a progressive. Not even close.

  by THEpersonal ISpolitical on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM PDT

  •  blah, blah. I agree. She is not as progressive as

    I would like. But for fuck's sake, she is better than McCain and I am not going to stand for people calling her a fucking whore. That sucks.

    by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:06:32 PM PDT

•  Bye Bye RR

  Aside from what RR said at the event- I have long found her to be tedious, and often had to turn AA off because of her pointless rants. She has people on and then won't let them talk, because she's repeating some drivel for the 30th time. She fights with callers who are trying to agree with her. Sam Seder is a vast improvement, I hope he stays. Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, Rachel Maddow are the best, and unfortunately come on last.

  by Karl Rover on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:20:22 PM PDT

  •  I am sad about this, but I agree.

    I like Randi, but Sam Seder is so much easier to listen to and I love Mike Malloy and Rachel Maddow. I have only listened to Thom Hartman when he was a guest host of a show I do listen to regularly, I have no clue when he is on in his own show. Maybe I should figure that out.

    by Caoilainn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:48:52 PM PDT

•  you poll demonstrates why I can't stand

  the obamaniacs.  i am sure that they would be more than willing to throw anyone who doesn't agree with them into detention camps.   (shades of Bush)

  by twinpeaks on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:56:47 PM PDT

  •  There are certainly a large percentage of Obama

    supporters on this site who are blinded by loyalty.  The mission is to take out the current administration i.e. McCain.  I believe Obama to be a more electable candidate, but we shall see.

    The reason I ran the poll was to see a snapshot percentage of the Kossacks who tolerate abusive attacks.  I was disappointed with the percentage.  

    by realwischeese on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:06:56 PM PDT

    •  i am not disappointed because I am not

      surprised.  I have known for some time that the obamaniacs here are incapable of being reasonable.

      I would have not chosen either Hillary or Obama for President and haven't decided who I will vote for.

      I fear that if Obama is elected and he doesn't come through with whatever it is that these Obamaniacs expect from him, they will turn on him like a bunch of ravening wolves.

      I will make a bet that they voted for Bush over Gore in 2000 because Gore was boring and they would have preferred to have a beer with Georgie.

      Gore is my hero and I am convinced he would have led our Country to true greatness.

      by twinpeaks on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:14:51 PM PDT

      •  I really agree.....

        this massive defense of Obama by supporting a woman who calls women "whores" is sad and pathetic.  I read some pro-Obama diaries or anti-Hillary diaries and the rabid commenters often mention how they voted for Bush.  They will be jumping ship the first time Obama screws something up.  And Gore was trashed and attacked as dull and now we realize they was actually very cool all the time.  Sad.

        by murrayewv on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM PDT

        •  You are totally wrong and this is intentional

          garbage.    

          I read some pro-Obama diaries or anti-Hillary diaries and the rabid commenters often mention how they voted for Bush.

           This is an absurd accusation as I am a regular Kossack and have never seen any comment or diary that an Obama supporter has revealed that they voted for Bush.  Most rabid Obama supporters are liberal progressives like me, and spit at Bush and his fascists.  

          Do not lie to make a point.  You are acting as bad as the Obamiacs that you criticize.

          by realwischeese on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:33:45 AM PDT

          •  hereare some examples.....

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            http://www.dailykos.com/...
            followed by http://www.dailykos.com/...

            I don't like being called a liar by you.  You are not however acting as bad as Randi Rhodes.

            by murrayewv on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:51:57 PM PDT

          •  User number 153184

            So you have been a regular, posting kossack for what, a few months?  I have been doing this for three plus years.  I am sick of people like yourself who see every point you disagree with as a lie.  

            See your strong recent support for Obama:
            "http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/11/211733/951/504#c504

            My only problem is this one (0+ / 0-)
               

            they cling to guns or religion or antipathy

            This was an unfortunate choice of words and phrasing.

            Barack understands that every one of his enemies is looking to seize on a slip.  It's just unfortunate.  Watch the polls slip back.  

            Keep on plugging Barack, you'll still  be the nominee.  I hope this puts a real spark in your campaign.  Some emotion, Jesse Jackson style, time to throw down.  It's time to bring it, neg ads and the works.  Show us what you got!

             I am not particularly offended by this comment from Obama- franly the more he is attacked by Fox and company, the more comfortable I am voting for him.  

            Recall your comment elsewhere in this thread.... when someone asked you how listening to Randi Rhodes was supportive:

            God almighty, picky picky picky (0+ / 0-)
            Are you married or with a partner?  I bet not. If you were, you wouldn't jump down someones throat by combing through every word.  What is your point?   I have an 'exagerated sense of (my) role in the scheme of things.'?  What the hell?  What scheme of things?  Cause if there is a 'scheme', I want to find out the 'thing'.

            You see, it's easy to take a shot.  Give people a touch of slack. I'm sure you are a reasonable and decent person.  

            Finally you conclude:

            Try not to question the motives and heart of people. It's easy to do, but it becomes personal and takes away from you, not me.  

            by murrayewv on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:12:05 PM PDT

      •  You must divorce peronalities from the election

        McFlip-flop is ruled by the neo-cons.  They have bought and paid for his political soul.  Either HRC or Barack are going to be far better for the people of America than the past or continuation through McSame will be.  There should be no doubt in any reasonable person's mind.

        by realwischeese on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:29:07 AM PDT

•  To Suffer Rule By A Satin Fist

  Clinton is the first woman to do so well in the democratic party's presidential primaries, just as Obama is the first minority. So its understandable that there are certain sensitivities towards them.

  In Hillary's case, I do believe there is some sexism at work in the dislike people have for her. But I do think that, as with Obama and race, there's probably more sexism directed at her from her older antagonist than her younger antoganist.

  But as I consider some of the other female rulers through history, I do think the sexism arguments tend to simply things to greatly.

  Elizabeth I or England comes to mind. A female ruler of the time, who actually had another female as her principal rival for a time early in her life.
  A queen who ruled England during the turbulent times of the Reformation, and sided with the Protestants.

  And sometimes I think people like Elton John - the englishman himself - would be just as out of place and wrong for saying Elizabeth's catholic opponents hated her because she was a women. No, they hated her because she was protestant.

  Okay, far removed from our own place and time. But hopefully you can understand my point. Hillary, and Obama, by putting themselves out there are going to accumulate a group of people who don't like them. And for a lot of them, it's going to have relatively little to do with her being female or him being black.

  by kingfishstew on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:58:06 PM PDT

•  Randi on LKL tonight

  about to air again in PST

  by NovatoBon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:00:28 PM PDT