"Progressive" Radio Host Enjoys Cheers While Eating Fellow Progressive [UPDATE: Rhodes Suspended]

by D. Cupples |  Last night, No Quarter posted a video clip (below) featuring "progressive" Air America radio host Randi Rhodes' spewing of vulgarity-laden hatred toward Hillary Clinton during a live performance.

Rhodes was more redundant than creative: she merely repeated the same vile vituperations.  Amazingly enough, Rhodes' simple words ("F*cking whore") actually revved up the crowd, which cheered on cue and lapped it all up like swine slurping up slop.

.

.

I suppose that's one way to coax alienated Hillary supporters to join Obama's team if he becomes the nominee.

I doubt this is the type of party unity Sen. Obama had audaciously hoped to inspire -- but it's precisely what he has inspired.

UPDATE below:

Randi Rhodes has been suspended .  Radio executive Charlie Kireker said:

"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts."

This doesn't seem to be a First Amendment issue, because Americans enjoy First Amendment protection against government actors, not against private actors.

I wasn't familiar with Randi Rhodes until I saw the video clip at No Quarter, which compelled me to Google Rhodes.  Her webpage at Air America is full of pro-Obama and anti-Hillary statements. That's her right.

My point is that Air America's executives likely knew about Rhodes' support for Obama and dislike for Hillary weeks (maybe months) ago -- yet they didn't suspend or fire her.  Thus, I suspect that the company's motives for suspending her now has nothing to do with which candidate Rhodes supports.

Most likely, Air America (which reportedly has financial troubles) simply doesn't want to alienate more potential audience members -- thereby reducing the company's potential ad revenues.

I could be wrong.  Memeorandum has commentary.

Comments

[damozel]

Disgraceful.

Thank God for the BBC. The American media is divided between Fox: The Original and Fox for Progressives. Perhaps some day we'll have real journalists and news commentators again.

[Charles]

I dunno. I think in New York, words like "f*cking" are used kind of like exclamation points.

[D. Cupples]

Hi Charles,

How've you been?

It's the combination of "fucking" and "whore" -- chanted repeatedly by a prominent "liberal" media personality (and potential opinion shaper) -- that warranted attention.

I suspect that if NBC (and the FCC) allowed Olbermann and Matthews to speak that way about Hillary, they would.

I have no problem with anyone all-out attacking Hillary's words, actions or record. I do that with Obama regularly. But no one at this blog makes vlugar, hyperbolic attacks on his persona.

That's the kind of stuff that Rush Limbaugh does, and -- until this campaign -- we never thought Dems would use such tactics against one of their own.

My point in highlighting this video clip was to show that there's some bizarre, frenzied, grass-roots-level hatred toward Hillary has been brewing.

Between some prominent media and Obama supporters (big and small), many Hillary supporters who comment at blogs have expressed the perception that Obama is being crammed down their throats.

That's a mighty large number of throats, and a cram-down will not promote unity.

[toni in florida]

Foul! It's unfair to blame that kind of crass BS on Obama, unless there's proof that he's encouraging that level of public discourse. He has inspired people who have become sick of politics-as-usual to become part of the solution in perhaps unprecedented numbers. I have yet to hear or read about him vilifying anyone, even the 'pubs who may, in fact, deserve it.

Rhodes' performance was disgusting and tasteless and beyond defending, but put the blame where it belongs: on Rhodes and the people who get off on that level of discourse.

[Adam]

What toni said.

[d. cupples]

Toni and Adam,

First (as I said in the post) I don't think that Obama intended to inspire this sort of hatred. But here we are.

The RESULT, whatever his intentions, is that his campaign has inspired extreme emotional fervor, which has manifested in hatred (though NOT in all supporters). It's like Ron Paul all over again.

As I've repeatedly pointed out in other posts, Obama IS playing politics as usual -- albeit, in a passive-aggressive, Eddie-Haskell way -- which adds hypocrisy into the mix.

Adam, ours is an on-going discussion. You've seen many examples of the Obama campaign's tactics from me (including his campaign emails, starting in early March).

Please don't exclude my past posts from the context of any retort that you might have.

Unless Toni has been regularly reading my posts since late February, she likely hasn't seen the examples because most MSM aren't covering Axelrod's Rovian tactics.

[Adam]

I don't see the passion Obama has raised in his followers and engendering this sort of reaction. Obama's overall message is a profoundly positive one.

The ridiculous attacks on Hillary evinced here are, in my opinion, primarily a sign of three things:

1) The feeling by a lot of Obama supporters that Hillary has run a negative campaign, is attacking Obama in unfair and underhanded ways, and is hurting the party. These feelings are extremely similar to a lot of feelings Clinton supporters have about Obama's campaign.

2) The overall negative feelings about Hillary that the right-wing attack machine has stoked over the last 16 years.

3) The relative positions of Obama and Clinton in the horserace, and the desire by some people for this race to end lest it help McCain. This particular driving force has very little to do with the positoons, personalities, or campaigns of either Obama or Clinton. Clinton and Obama could be Kang and Kodos from the Simpsons and this feeling would exist.

P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

[d. cupples]

Adam,

You said:" Obama's overall message is a profoundly positive one."

Yes, his WORDS (and public gestures) have been positive.

Some of his (or his campaign's) behind-the-scenes maneuvering has been downright destructive.

As for helping McCain, I covered that in a post about super-delegates yesterday or the day before.
"

[d. cupples]

Adam,

You said:" Obama's overall message is a profoundly positive one."

Yes, his WORDS (and public gestures) have been positive.

Some of his (or his campaign's) behind-the-scenes maneuvering has been downright destructive.

As for helping McCain, I covered that in a post about super-delegates yesterday or the day before.
"

[D. Cupples]

TONI,

there certainly is evidence that Obama (or his campaign strategists) has been riling supporters up into a bellicose mood. It was March 11, and he told his already emotional supporters that Hillary is attacking them (the supporters).

If that' s not a Rove or Limbaugh move, I don't know what is. I blogged about the campaign email and will gladly fwd it to you if you email me.

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/obama-campaig-1.html

[damozel]

Certainly Obama's words sound great. He's got a remarkable window display---just not much on the shelves, sadly.

And I speak as someone who, before researching this candidate, hesitated for 20 minutes before casting my vote for Hillary (who, though flawed, I at least know).

Besides both Adam and Toni are totally missing the point. It's not Obama's point that Rhodes is an ass. The point of her post, and mine before it, is to explain the extreme backlash against Obama by some Hillary supporters. If someone had done an equivalent 'comedic' riff on Obama, I'd be FURIOUS.

I'll hold my nose and vote for him if (when) he is foisted on me, even thinking---as I do---that he's the "progressive" (so-called) version of george w. bush, with better articulation skills and a more appealing line in blarney.

Sadly, the marginalized supporters of Hillary probably won't. And perhaps they owe very little loyalty to a party that's treated them so very scornfully.

[Adam]

"If that's not a Rove or Limbaugh move, I don't know what is."

Are you sure? Take a step back and think about that statement.

Sending a message to supporters, which is arguably talking about a very specific issue(saying that the other campaign is saying YOUR vote is unimportant) is as Rovian a tactic as anything you can imagine?

Let me give you a few suggestions of things that may be more obviously a "Rovian move":

- If Barack Obama leaks the name of an active CIA operative to the media in an effort to discourage policy criticism, that's more obviously a "Rovian move".

- If Barack Obama tries to get career atorneys that fail to serve his political agenda fired, that's more obviously a "Rovian move".

- If Barack Obama gets his political opponents thrown in jail on trumped-up corruption charges, that's more obviously a "Rovian move".

Do you really think this rises to the level of those sorts of crimes? Notice my choice of words there: crimes.

Really, let's not overplay this. It was, at worst, a distasteful tactic designed to rally the faithful to give money, with no concern given to the negativity it may engender. It was not an illegal, corrumpt flaunting of the rules of governance to serve his political purposes.

[damozel]

In other words, you're saying it was a Rovian move. I'm thinking election 2000.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

True, the "she is your enemy" tactic is NOT as bad as some of Rove's OTHER tactics -- but it is Rovian.

However, Obama's opposition to Michigan and Florida re-votes -- and his campaign's pushing for Hillary to move over for him -- ARE parallel to Rove's handling of the Florida Recount in 2000.

[Adam]

At worst, it was something along the lines of some tactics that Rove has used, yes. I have a different and more benign interpretation.

Karl Rove would send out a message like that. He would also insinuate that his opponents fathered illigitimate children with black women, or shot themselves in the ass to get a purple heart. He did a lot of things. But a LOT of campaign managers would send out that e-mail, while most of them would not do many of the things Karl Rove has done.

If we're saying it's "Rovian" provided that it's something Karl Rove would do, albeit not necessarily the worst stuff he's done, then that's not such a high bar to clear. Not every single thing Karl Rove has done is evil and objectionable. Even by my much more benign interpretation of the e-mail, I'm sure it's "something Karl Rove would do". Heck, putting on pants is a "Rovian move" as well. So is eating a bagel, drinking a cup of coffee, and going to work. I've been acting like Karl Rove all day, it seems.

--------------
The point is:

If the message itself is objectionable, then point out why and let those arguments stand on their own. Saying some other Bad Person would do the same thing is at best an irrelevant distraction, and at worst a way to obscure the issue using a negative attack. It's name-calling.

[EMO Amerifag Hater]

Sensitive Americans beware of human beings. They curse and will offend you! Ouchy my brain hurtz I can't stand words! Reality dictates that our language is no longer proper and superiority freaks can piss off while the rest of the world gets on with real life and has a good laugh EVEN AT VULGARITY!!!! Notice how this scum sucking swine hasn't cursed unless your wimpy sensitivities count piss, I'm sure that caused a clamor of whimpers.

Randi Rhodes is another victim of PC censoring which results in yet another ding in our individual liberties, thanks PC democrats.

[Adam]

Yeah, you're right, we totally got the government to outlaw Rhodes's routine.

Oh, wait, no we didn't. What exactly do you think censorship means? Or did you stop to think about that at all?

[EMO Amerifag Hater]

Adam you don't know what censor means, it is not limited to government.

Randi is censored by a culture of intolerance resulting in her suspension from work. Being kept from your livelihood is a very effective means of censor especially for a media worker having a broad intimidation factor for others. Politically correct offended spokespersons for the standards of society(you) are the kind of people who make a stand up comedian shake in their boots in a fascist society which has no value of individual liberty.

My relevant comment is about the members of our society which support intolerance. The offended emos create justification for Air America to suspend Randi. Prohibition banning alcohol did not arise because of the government, it was a faction of society which was intolerant and acted against the whole.

[Adam]

Censorship is the suppression of speech or media. Nothing is being censored here. Nothing was prevented from being broadcast. Rhodes's comments were disseminated far and wide.

That Air America chose to suspend her is well within their rights as a private organization. Depending on where the business is located, they don't even need to provide cause. Moreover, it does almost nothing to suppress her comments, which are already out in the open. She could surely find a microphone or a keyboard where she could repeat her statements, and I bet it would get wide media play. Again, no censorship. Get over it.

[D. Cupples]

Hi Adam,

You're right: Obama's tactics would be more accurately be called Karl Rove Lite (except supporting disenfranchisement of MI and FL, which is regular, high-calorie Karl Rove).

As you know from our numerous discussions [and as Toni pointed out above], Obama got many supporters because he CLAIMED to be above "politics as usual."

Instead, his campaigners are operating like Rove LITE.

Obama, himself, set the bar higher for himself -- and now he's not living up to it. Period. That's my main point. This doesn't bother you, and that's ok.

My second point: Obama's campaign has nurtured the sort of frenzied bellicosity that will make it difficult for him to unify the party.

[D. Cupples]

EMO Amerifag Hater,

As a First Amendment fundamentalist, I would not (and did not) suggest that Rhodes should be censored.

The F-word doesn't shock me, incidentally. I've said it many times after stubbing my toe.

My post merely points out that Rhodes is an example of the bitter divide that Sen. Obama's campaigners have inspired among supporters big and small -- which is why I mention Rhodes' audience's reactions.

Rhodes and others (e.g., Samantha Power) can keep saying what they do. And bloggers can keep criticizing their words.

The ability for everyone to weigh in is what the First Amendment is about.

[Charles]

Everyone seems very serious about what is, as DC says, a word heard often after stubbing one's toe.

I think that if the candidates were to get serious talking about issues, this sort of thing would be viewed, in perspective, as noise.

[Adam]

Charles,

A quick perusal of the candidate's releases over the last two weeks reveals that they HAVE been serious on the issues. Obama, for his part, has made at least three distinct policy speeches with significant new content in the last couple weeks. Hillary has made at least two.

The problem is that the media barely covers these things. Obama got far more coverage for bowling a 37 in 7 frames (why should I know that???) than he did for a brilliant speech last week on how to reform the regulation of the financial sector.

[EMO Amerifag Hater]

The public debate about the divisiveness of the democrats is overblown and shows the immaturity of our hive mind. I find it appropriate and necessary in the deck shuffle for new leaders.

What I am intolerant of is the democrats failure to reject war. Libertarians will forever be more peaceful and nurturing to the nation by protecting it from the abuses of federal government. If you can't get socialism done at the state level you won't get it at the federal either.