You truly are one of the few pundits left for whom I have any respect. That is because of one thing. You seem capable of putting the Constitution in front of your ego, your pocketbook and all other superfluous issues.

However saddened I am that NBC is being even more hypocritical than ever, I must admit I am one of those women who totally resented the Olberman, Matthews, Shuster, et al sexism of MSNBC.

While I am, like the overwhelming majority of women, smart enough to know I really am limited when it comes to my vote (NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCain works for me), I remain angry and frustrated and if you ever meet Phil whatshisname, or when you talk to Olberman, you can tell them "I do have other places to go."

I am a well educated (two MA degrees), have been an educator for four decades, from elementary to college level, and I am not easily swayed by anything but the issues. But after four decades of working for the democratic party; taking a back seat for years, doing the grunge work while males sat around, asked us for coffee, and planned and debated; after going door to door for a party who gave the leadership roles to men for most of my life, the treatment of Hillary by Dean and the DNC with the openly obnoxious assistance of MSNBC, I am struggling to get past the anger. And so are my friends.

So why should I care about Olberman or Maddow or Matthews when despite their so called liberal leanings, to them, sexism was acceptable, funny and a tool for winning.

Maddow was the most disappointing. I have a lot of gay friends and relatives. Most of them were not getting it. They KNOW their communities overwhelmingly supported Hillary and yet the only gay voices on the tube were all anti Hillary (from Maddow who was a bit more subdued to the openly hateful Aravosis and Sullivan).

I KNOW what your point is. We need the Olberman and the Maddow voices to give the balance to the overwhelming right wing view presented on the tube. Sadly for women of a certain age, we already feel shut out, silenced and ignored by our own party. Why would believe Olberman or Maddow will do anything to change that?

women get the point. Read your updates and understand the principle to which/of which you are speaking. We all KNOW that the corporate media has silenced so many liberal citizens. We know that somehow we have to get out strong, unbiased liberal voices for democracy.

But many of us do not see Olberman or even Maddow as the way to do it. If they were willing, and gleefully able to silence the voices of half the democratic party with their bias and spin, why would I believe having them on the air is any better than anyone else.

Their egos drove their agenda in the primary. I can't imagine that if they were offered more money, more prestige for doing corporate bidding, they would turn it down. Seeing how easily lying came to them in the primary, I have no doubt that who they will always put first is themselves, not democracy, not liberal ideals that support democracy.

in posting in your last column about MSNBC and Olberman and Matthews supposed demotion.

Long before I began watching Countdown, I was watching Hardball.

And it still, to this day, after watching what Chris Matthews did to Al Gore, after how he described George W as having a "sunny nobility" amazes me than anyone can begin to see this pundit as "liberal." Never mind his personal hatred for Hillary. Never mind the sneering of him and Shuster and Olberman unable to contain their glee over sexist trashing of Senator Clinton. He openly trashed Al Gore; openly bragged on W, on Mc Cain and people still insist he is "liberal" because he was "against the war." WOW.....

Got to go to work (for my self interest...I teach.....mostly poor children and spend time being told I am lousy by the pundit class because "public education" is a failure.......but that's another post.