James T. Harris: Girlie Man

James T. shows off his superficiality with this post pondering the physique of Barack Obama. I thought it was jealousy at first, until he gets later into his post with this:

Now... I'll say it... What the hell is going on with Michelle?
Could there be a correlation between the towel she's wearing and the chip she's eating? And before you all start tripping on me, remember, Hillary showed hers first!

Getting rather catty there, aren't you James. I think this goes beyond mere sexism. Given that he is snarky with both Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, I think he is just afraid of strong women. That can happen to men that aren't secure in their masculinity, you know.

Fischer's Not Into Voting Rights Either

Fischer, like most of the squawking heads, likes to think he knows of which he speaks (or types).
He put up a post saying, basically, that the voter should be informed before he or she goes to the polling place. Whallah! concurs, for the most part.

The one exception is where Fischer writes:

If you’re voting for the challenger because you feel it’s time for a change, you should stay home.

That's just wrong. McCain is promising more of the same failed economic strategies and even worse than failing foreign policies that this country has suffered for the past seven years. I want a change. I don't care if it's Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, I will be voting for them, as that I want a change. I want to return this country to greatness. That would require a change from our current course of affairs.

Locally, I see the parks in shambles, people unable to get to work because of bus cuts, people unable to get mental health services, people unable to get AODA services. I see delays in court hearings denying people of their legal and civil rights. I see inmates escaping from supposedly secure facilities. I want that to change. I will be voting for state Senator Lena Taylor, as that Walker has repeatedly shown that he is unable to effectively or wisely run the county government. I want to change that.

Fischer also forgot one thing in his tirade. If you get your news and/or opinions only from local talk radio, you should stay home.

How Not To "Man Up"

One of James T. Harris' favorite phrases is "man up." Perhaps he needs to learn what it means himself before he uses it.

Just yesterday, I pointed out that Harris committed the same infraction that a MSNBC host did. But the host was suspended. Harris is on the radio as I type this post.

Others have picked up on Harris' faux pas (foe paw in McBridean French). The illustrious Jay Bullock writes an open letter to Harris pointing out the hypocrisy of Harris' post, and the Blue Knight also has a nice summary of the blatant sexism occuring on the right.

But as I sat down tonight to survey the Cheddarsphere, I turned on the radio, only to hear Harris defending his post, mewling, "I wasn't saying it, I was only linking to it." What a manly way to admit an error.

And to make it even worse, Harris puts up another post criticizing Senator Clinton for not wanting to take part of a debate on MSNBC, after the incident. He felt that makes her weak. This is coming from a man who is always belittling people for not being good parents. He feels that Clinton should go to the debate, or be seen as weak, but he also the same guy who criticized Nancy Pelosi for going to the Middle East and visiting Syria.

He even questions why Bill Clinton wasn't going to punch the guy out. Like that would resolve anything. I could just imagine how the right would be jumping all over something like that. But this little tangent reminded me of another of his sexist rants blaming her for being too masculine. Her crime? Wearing pant suits.

The truly sad part of this whole debacle isn't even what Harris is saying. The saddest part is there are some on the right that feels that Harris didn't go far enough. They would refer to Chelsea campaigning for her mother has "whoring".

How utterly disgusting, hypocritical and classless.

Wild Speculation

McBride has already demonstrated the danger in making wild speculations about other people. Apparently, the ensuing selective outrage over a side comment befogged the vision of the James T. Harris, or he just didn't care.

Harris does his own bit of wild speculation by posting about an unsubstantiated rumor regarding Hillary Clinton. He immediately follows it up with another post showing an even wilder speculation that Senator Clinton is having a lesbian affair.

Why did he do this? Was he channeling his inner Karl Rove? Does he find such idle gossip titillating? Or is he just trying to fit in with his peers of the right-wing media?

Only he could explain why he was being so irresponsible. I'm not sure I want to know the answer either. But I wonder how he would feel if someone were to be reckless enough to give him a dose of his own medicine. Like, if someone were to link to this post, with this quote:

I was frustrated and impatient, but at least I was in Victoria’s Secret, right? Wrong. Here’s the rub: there was nothing in the store that appealed to me. Nothing. I’m not kidding. I couldn’t concentrate. I’m not comfortable looking at sexualized stuff with a bunch of little pre-teen girls looking at the same stuff!

and then speculating why he was in there in the first place. I'll stop there, because I'm not that reckless.

McBride's presidential prediction

She predicts the general election debates will be between Rudy and Hillary, and the candidates will wear protective face masks.

Wait, She Can't Do That, Can She?

McBride again shows her journalistic integrity with a post deriding Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate, for answering a question about terrorism as she promotes her candidacy. McBride goes starts with:

Her first thoughts about another terrorist attack occurring involve how it could help her politically.

.

She then goes on to state that the Democrats are at a disadvantage, in her opinion, in the event of a future terrorist attack, because the Republicans are the deciders and the do-gooders, while the Democrats are just a bunch of obstructionists.

.

Several issues could be brought up about this posting of McBride's. One could be trivial and point out that McBride's link leads to the Blogger sign in page, as opposed to a real news story like this.

.

Or one could discuss how McBride thinks that infringements of rights, isolationism, violations of the Geneva convention and human rights, and an illegal war which caused a recruiting boom and training camp for terrorists is actually a good thing. This could be followed up with McBride's disdain for diplomacy and statesmanship.

.

But the true McBrideian part of the post is that she lambastes Clinton for answering a question about terrorism, but puts on her cheerleader uniform and picks up her pom poms for Mr. 9/11, Newt, and her real life version of Jack Bauer (who not only capitalized on terrorism politically, but also monetarily).