Hey Roger64/psychologist...

Get your head out of the Freud and back into some history books.

The dirty work of Republicans and the New York Times in the 1990s did not make Hillary Clinton vote to allow Bush to start a war.

That was Hillary's decision, and hers alone.

That decision was her political Waterloo. When she cast that vote, she proved, unequivocally and clearly for everyone to see, that for Hillary Clinton, politics ultimately trumps logic, reason, ethics and even common sense.

It is that shining moment in her career that has come to represent her as a politician.

So, as a psychologist, would you suggest that Hillary was self-destructive when she made that vote? Or is it narcissistic personality disorder -- in that she thinks she can do anything, including voting to send Americans to war, but then somehow explain it away with no repercussions because she's just so darn amazing -- and experienced, of course?

Sorry -- but I'm not buying that Hillary's latest woes can be blamed on vast right wing conspiracies and media attacks.

Because Hillary, in all her wisdom and experience, did it to herself with her monumentally bad vote.

Just wondering...

That's all...just getting in my two cents on another Fox News waste of space, ahem, sorry, reporter/pundit/interviewer/anchor.

even I think that it's ridiculous to make this about Hispanics. Because by that rationale, you could also say she's betraying women, because Solis Doyle's a woman, and not one of the male top campaign guys.

Whether fired or her own decision (I tend to think she was asked to step aside -- seems likely after all the coverage of the chaos in Hillaryland that we're getting from some other media outlets) isn't it possible that this has to do with the fit between Solis Doyle and the needs of the campaign? Maybe Solis Doyle did want to leave, maybe she screwed up, whatever. But it's quite unlikely that her departure has anything to do with her ethnicity.

And if Penn eventually "leaves the campaign to become a trusted advisor" or "spend time with his family" or "pursue his interest in Tibetan mythology" or whatever other excuse they use, do we then say she's trying to alienate the male vote? Or that she's throwing Jews under the bus?

Come on.

I don't have a problem with Alex covering this, as it seems that some from the Latino community have, ridiculously, decided to make this into a campaign issue. But should it even BE an issue in the first place? No way.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm also a woman, and I think that most of the MSNBCers are just vile.

Whatever he meant, and whatever sort of person he is, it was pathetic judgment for Shuster to say this, and frankly, I wouldn't want him working for me. It was an utterly incompetent thing for him to say, and apparently, according to you, Shuster didn't even understand his offense after the fact! So, Shuster is a reporter with such bad judgment that he makes HIMSELF the story and gets a presidential candidate threatening to boycott his network? If I were signing the checks, he'd be gone.

But then, the people signing the checks are also misogynistic Hillary-haters. So they'll keep him -- but they'll let him take the fall for it for a while. Why not. He's the designated scapegoat for this particular episode.

Is Shuster taking the blame for MSNBC's general anti-Hillary tone. Sure. Is it fair? No. Does it matter. HELL no. So Shuster is the straw that broke the camel's back. Big deal. Too damn bad. He is working for a bunch of Neanderthals, and those are the risks of signing up to work with a boatload of fools.

I'll give it Hillary, as she actually has the guts to stick up for herself and her daughter on this. I would cut off MSNBC if they said something so patently disgusting about my daughter too.

I know you admire her, and in this case, you should, Joan. Frankly, you should also follow her example. Because you can't have it both ways. Yes, all networks have their sexists and sexism-- but we all know that MSNBC is the big Daddy of the sexists -- especially lately with all their Hillary-hating and outright misogyny.

So, besides writing about it at Salon, what have you done about it? Have YOU asked MSNBC directly to change the tone?

Or are you too busy cashing your MSNBC checks, referring to Obama's "fluffers" and flacking for Hillary to mention your concerns to MSNBC directly, much less find another place to pundit that doesn't make denigrating women part of its mission statement?

Ok, Joan, my mistake. I thought you were paid for your punditry on MSNBC.

But if you're not being paid, then why would you continue to appear alongside those Neanderthals? It is just because it's the only place that asks? (And aren't most of those guys getting paid? What gives with THAT?)

But above all, if you feel that despite their biases, it's relevant for you to continue being on MSNBC, have you challenged them on their overt sexism, beyond your blog posts here at Salon?