Randi Rhodes is Wrong

Here we go again. Another radio talk show host in hot water. This time, my friend Randi Rhodes.

First of all, let me say, I'm a big fan. I listen to Randi whenever I can. She's a great broadcaster, and a passionate liberal. Day in and day out, nobody's a more effective critic of George W. Bush. And nobody's a more convincing supporter of Barack Obama.

But Randi went over the line in calling Hillary Clinton "a big f***ing whore." Sure, she's got a right to say it. But it was not right to say it, especially not right for someone who represents Air America and all of progressive radio.

Unfortunately, as I've learned on my radio show, too many Obama supporters don't understand that in order to love Barack Obama, you don't have to hate Hillary Clinton. They don't think it's good enough to build up Barack Obama. They think it's necessary to destroy Hillary Clinton, too.

And that's just wrong. Being passionately and enthusiastically for Barack Obama doesn't mean you have to say ugly things against Hillary Clinton. In fact, it's counter-intuitive. In politics, it's much more effective to be FOR somebody, than to be against somebody.

I hope Randi Rhodes is back on the air soon. But I also hope the personal attacks on Hillary Clinton cease.

Here's my suggestion to both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters: We're going to have to be together in November. So save your negative energy to use against John McCain.

Comments

[chicrod]

As a Clinton supporter and a Randi fan, it's been a rough few weeks since Randi came out in support of Obama. As an Air America fan, Randi's sexist comments were very disappointing. Honestly, I've lost interest in Randi for good now. To be an Obama supporter is fine wih me, but then to claim you want to unite, credit Obama for these sentiments and then use foul and divisive language to prove a point is just sickening and hypocritical. I actually enjoy a good argument and am amenable to opposition but Randi's language was just as harsh, tacky, cruel and unfair as calling Obama the N-word. It's just so disappointing coming from a such a well versed and well read person, and a woman to boot.. Calling those words "stand up" doesn't excuse using them and despite her patriotic intentions she has failed to spread these intentions with the fair heart and intelligence I once believed she had. To me, she has just joined the ranks of Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I am very disappointed in Randi Rhodes.

[kurd]

whore, does NOT = the N-word. and you know damn well it depends on who says it and in what context it was delivered in. if you think it's the same thing when chris rock uses the N-word and when someone like a white rush limbaugh fan says it---you took the blue pill.

[BoGardiner]

kurd, you have twisted chicrod's words beyond recognition. Apparently any tactic is acceptable as long as it's in support of your candidate. It's sad to see otherwise decent folks here lose perspective so much they defend what is CLEARLY indefensible.

[jmort]

Bill,
I wouldn't vote for Klinton at anytime, not even with your vote. Furthermore, I'll not waste any more time listening to your drivel.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

jmort, that doesn't make sense.

[kurd]

well, Randi said it off-air---end of story. just suspend her from doing any promotions for air america's ass. also, i don't like Bill Press preachin' to me on sexism or anything else. one---he's a Hillary and Bil and DLC supporter. secondly, he was one of the strongest voices in LA for Warner Bros. banning Ice-T's "Cop Killer" song. an easy race target of the day. ever since then, i haven't trusted him or his DLC ilk.

[Meanwhile]

Much as I agree with her politics, I cannot stand to listen to Ms Rhodes. She's obnoxious and arrogant and basically everything I hate about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter except for the message. Even though she takes the correct side of an argument, she often explains her reasoning in the most illogical ways. I'd rather listen to someone who is wrong for the right reasons than someone who is right for the wrong reasons.

[jdenham]

I am not a big Randi Rhodes fan but, Bill's premise is a little hypocritical here. Bill is probably the only one who does not know he is far to generous to Clinton daily. Randi right or wrong does not claim to be open minded. Bill on the other hand is very bias towards Obama, although claiming to be fair and balanced. He probably does not even realize he is bias. He has lost his objectiveness somewhere or just never had any. He quite often refers to his knowledge of politics, and discounts his listeners intelligence if it does not agree with his premise.
Of course this is my opinion and I suggest others listen to him and make your own judgement.

[LisaMarieC]

Thanks for posting this. I completely agree, and I've been listening to Randi Rhodes since the first show Air America streamed. While I'm all for free speech and dropping the F-Bomb once in a while, I was disappointed that Randi couldn't have found a more creative way of making her point. She is, after all, more than capable. Other than Rachel Maddow, she's the only female progressive commentator that can go head-to-head in the mainstream media against the rightie shouters. I'm afraid that this incident has hurt the inroads she's made on the talking-head shows.

[TomH7259]

Several people have quoted the First Amendment as allowing a person to say what they want. While that's true, I believe what the First Amendment guarantees is that the GOVERNMENT can't restrict what you say. Air America is not the government. There is no Constitutional Amendment that prevents a private employer from restricting what an employee says, and no Constitutional law that restricts them from punishing an employee for what they say. A person should realize that sometimes what you say or do has consequences. If your willing to pay the price, then say whatever you want, whenever you want. If you're not willing to pay the price, then perhaps it might be wiser to exercise some judgment when to keep your mouth shut.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. On its face, it prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[lisakaz]

Dumb thing to say, absolutely. Wrong? Not so sure.

I didn't hate Hillary a year ago when I attended an Obama engagement in Philly last spring. But since she has begun smearing him in recent months/weeks, I now would rather stick my hand in a blender than vote for her.

I'll be writing in Obama's name if he isn't the nominee.

[presto]

He is smearing her as well. If you cannot vote for her, you are voting for McCain regardless of what you write down. That means a Republican administration.

[truthyguy]

So you have a right to say anything you want EXCEPT if your employer disagrees with what you say. Even if your job description consists of saying what you want. Seems logical - if you disagree with what is said and want to quash it.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Good point, but you are forgetting something. The animosity towards Clinton is emanating from her unwillingness to stop lying, endorsing McCain, and defaming Obama. If that stopped, so would the animosity toward Clinton. If it looked possible that she would ever actually get behind Obama and concede then maybe the animosity towards Clinton would end. I think what Rhodes said was more stupid than anything else. It wasn't funny and it served no purpose.

However, those who are informed about the agenda of the corporatist DLC, members and leaders like Hillary and Bill Clinton, have a duty to inform other Democrats why voting for a DLC candidate is the worst thing we could do if we believe in Democratic party principals and values:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/27/55951/1586
http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

The DLC and Hillary Clinton's real plan for Iraq:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900021&contentid=254187

Bush trusts Clinton with his Iraq legacy:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080127/ai_n21218524

The right wing CATO Institute considers Clinton a neocon:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8495

[geobushono]

No contrition necessary on this one. Randi is correct. Corporate suits are not read for a working class Party formerly known as the Democratic Party.
Just ask Mike Malloy, or Cenk Unger, or Jeneanne Garafolo.......and a number of former members of the AAR family....­..........­..we're tired of pasty faced liberals....with $109M in the bank, telling us about equality at the parties with the herbert walkers.....how's that working for you hillary? Back tio the Goldwater Girl roots.
...and Bill, I don't agree with you on this one, but I listen every morning until Washington Journal comes on.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

"too many Obama supporters don't understand that in order to love Barack Obama, you don't have to hate Hillary Clinton."

One has nothing to do with the other, this is fallacious logic. In order to hate Hillary Clinton, you only have to educate yourself about her Senate voting record and the lies she tells in defense thereof. It has nothing to do with Sen. Obama. Many of us opposed Hillary's neo-con transformation, before we even had Obama on our radar. And the "destruction" of any neo-con, particularly one hiding within OUR party, is a noble task.

[geobushono]

Yeah the repugs didn't have a clue that WE didn't like her too...............I find that amazing, but they are uninformed about all things political so I guess this was a little arcane for them to grok.

[JamesA1102]

Clinton's and Obama's Senate voting records are almost identical. So if you hate Clinton for her voting record, shouldn't you hate Obama too?

[LouKane]

You forget that she made some awfully non-progressive, neo-con votes. Perhaps, those votes were made in the DLC spirit of "triangulation"!

1. Authorized the use of force in Iraq and defended that vote until just recently.
2. Voted for the Bankruptcy Bill that helps the Credit Card and Banking Industries, but sticks it to the little guys.
3. Voted to name a division of the Iranian military as a "terrorist organization", at the behest of Bush & Chaney.

[Blivet]

These blogs and the comments they engender show very clearly that talk radio is the opiate of the American miniminds. When I quit listening to trash radio 20 years ago it was already wallowing in the gutter. Nothing I see here is about to change that opinion.
There was actually a period 50-60 years ago when most offensive, crude and vulgar expressions were used in private but thanks to talk radio, such utterances are now forced onto the public whether they wish to hear them or not. The low level to which public discourse has sunk is emphasized whenever I hear potty mouth preteen age females using language I first learned in the Navy 60 years ago.
And don’t try to hand me the Freedom of Speech crap. Freedom of Speech is protected political speech not protection of gutter language used by those who want simply to be vulgar or by those who wish only to belittle someone they disagree with. With the latter often slanderous, it is surprising that more of that sort of expression is not brought into court.
But the Internet has produced a whole generation of cowards who rely on the anonymity of the net to get away with speech that would not be acceptable in public and would be actionable in court. Sooner or later some bloggers are going to learn that their anonymity is not as secure as they think.

[pkrbkr]

Addressing the statement, ". . . too many Obama supporters don't understand that in order to love Barack Obama, you don't have to hate Hillary Clinton"--I think it is very likely that the vitriol you refer to stems more from the divisive nature of the Clintons’ relationship with the public than a blind devotion to Senator Obama. There are many (arguable) reasons for the antipathy. NAFTA just starts the list. It is quite likely conversations would be more balanced and calmer if the only other candidate was Senator Biden or Senator Edwards, or Senator Dodd, etc.

[gerireig]

Bill, let me ask you a question: Which conduct was worse-Randi calling Hillary an effing whore or the Gridiron Club (officially "journalists") yukking it up with Hall Of Fame killer George Bush? (I don't recall you being outraged about this one). By the way, haven't you named Tony Snow as your best (or one of your best) friend? How could a Democratic insider have a Republican best friend who lies for a living? Is that wrong?