Dan Abrams who is the MSNBC legal correspondent and now has his own show after Countdown had a discussion on Jan 7 with Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan criticizing the media piling on Hillary.

I watch Abrams on a fairly regular basis now. I remember his old show, which was on earlier and used to focus mostly on Nancy Grace-type tabloid "legal" stories. He's really found his voice in the new format, and I agree that he's another wise move by MSNBC.

As frustrating as Chris Matthews can be, and as downright annoying as Tucker is, I think MSNBC is our best hope right now for a "mainstream" TV outlet that can actually handle issues in a reasonable way. (No, I am not affilliated in any way with that station.) I think it's also important sometimes to remember not to expect perfection from anything coming out of TV. Even Olbermann can say insipid things from time to time -- conversely, Scarborough and Buchanan sometimes offer nuggets of startling wisdom. And when David Shuster is on attack mode, it is a thing of beauty. Chuck Todd, Charlie Cook, and Chris Cilliza are often more insightful than not too, but only for those who can stomach political prognosticating.

Like it or not, despite everyone's best efforts to raise the salience of blogs, television news is something we cannot ignore. I like to think of myself as "rewarding" MSNBC for its positive, if halting, steps.

End commercial.

I just heard Chris Matthews say that John Edwards "looks cute."

It's getting to the point where I watch just to catch him uttering idiotic/weird/sexist/latently gay Freudian slips.

I think that's a viable theory. Probably not the only reason, but it makes sense to me.

Perhaps to dig a bit deeper, though, why do you think a degree of sexism is still acceptable on the Left, unlike racism?

Not rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested in anyone's possible explanation.

Just as it was also necessary for whites to protest for civil rights (and probably still is), it will also be necessary for men to protest for women's rights, in order for things to change (at least on the surface). I am less sanguine about the second than the first. Apparently, Gloria Steinem is, too.

Yes. Speaking as a male, there is a substantial amount of pressure to be "in on the joke" or the bitterness toward women. It's a call to camaraderie that seems much more ingrained somehow than any appeal to racial similarity. Having been raised almost solely by a very strong-willed woman, I've always protested (or at least cringed at) sexist words and actions. It's an odd feeling sometimes, I must admit -- almost "unmanly," for lack of a better word.

I just think that gender is a stronger force than race, on the whole. Sure, there are exceptions and instances where this is not the case, but gender strikes me as much more "biological," again for lack of a better word. When you think of racial differences, beyond mere appearance you are really talking about cultural differences. Cultural differences are malleable, and easily subject to commonality, when sought. On the other hand, just think of when you go out with a group of friends that involves both women and men. My guess would be that most have experienced, during that time, a gradual sifting and self-segregating along gender lines. Rarely is that the case on racial lines, when multiple races hang out, in my experience.

I also wonder how much may have to do with the simple fact that women and men must live with (or at least temporarily tolerate) each other, whereas the races can usually find opportunities to isolate themselves. Almost ironically, the general necessity of intimate contact seems to periodically force detentes between individuals of different sexes. I wonder if the outrage straight women feel toward male chauvinism is periodically tempered and quelled by this inevitable intimacy? If so, this pressure release could effectively sap much of the energy needed to push back more aggressively.

I digress... just waiting for the day's caffeine to wear off so I can get some needed sleep...