I think if you watched Rachel Maddow face off against Pat Bucanon the other night over Sotomayor you might not be so cynical. Rachel told Pat he was dating himself with his cry about old poor put-upon white men and how they are naturally smarter therefore deserve everthing nature has bestowed on them.....she spoke of her dismay over his remarks and point of view; she didn't let him spew his biotry unanswered as so many host do. She spoke up and called him on it all and yet as they closed the segment they both remained civil. No shouting no insults just open honest retort. She's new and young but she's smarter and hard hitting with a style and humor unequaled in her peers.

-- purplesky

I have seen comments alluding to this conversation here and there on Salon over the last couple of days, and I finally watched it, twice. There is NO FUCKING WAY Rachel won that argument. None. I don't care how you look at it, what criteria yo use, there is no way Rachel won that argument.

Rachels' argument was stupid. Sophomoric. Asenine. What did she say? That of all the Supreme Court Justices in the Supreme Court's history, why have so few been non-white...? And Pat answered her, correctly - because for most of this nation's history, white men have been in charge. White men have been the only ones trained and educated enough to be qualified. And white men have been discriminatory towards non-whites. Pat said so. He admitted it. So what is her fucking point? That we should now appoint an unqualified-affirmitive action pick just to make up for the realities of an unfair history?

Did Rachel understnad that Pat had a personal opinion that Sotomayer was unqualified, and debate him on that issue? No. Why the hell not? If Rachel thinks Sotomayer is qualified, then why doesn't she fucking debate her qualifications? Rachel just said "I disagree." Pat asked her point blank why she disagreed with him, and she refused to answer. She just completely ignored his question.

Pat cleaned her clock. Rachel showed no intellect, no insightfulness, no intellectual agility or creativity. She didn't say anything. She just accused Pat of being a racist and a bigot, and not wanting Sotomayer on the court because of her race and gender.

How in God's name anyone can watch that debate and think Rachel won is beyond me. I don't know how Pat stands it. No wonder he laughs all the time.

It reminded me of the time you said that Salon didn't win the Pulitzer Prize because they didn't enter the contest. Another gem. Oh, well, thanks for the howl. One always needs a good laugh in the midst of the Obama economy. So please, please please, keep up the Pulitzer Prize winning prose.

posted by chaumont.

Well how homey, sweet and American pie!

Advice to Americans. Take your heads out of your arses and go and see the damage your country CONTINUES TO DO to the planet and then tell me what a great guy some self serving bozo jurnalist was. Actually tell it to all those Iraqis lying dead in a morgue or an Afghani with his legs missing, or a Vietnamese still trying to work out why your soldiers killed his mother and he keeps having these fucking nightmares!

Who gives a shit about some hack who led a comfortable and long life and what a couple of idiots on CBS think about him. Mourn all the millions your nation has murdered in the past 60 years you pack of deluded Pollyannas.

And read below just one of the many wonderful things your new beige president is doing in your own backyard.

go to.

http:7www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFoQE/zJjS/bil8h

Reverse Obama Administration's Approval of Tongass Logging

Target: President Obama

Sponsored by: Care2

In a stunning blow to the environment, the Obama Administration just approved a clearcut of 382 acres of timber in a roadless area of Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

The clearcut in the Tongass will involve building 6.9 miles of roads and rebuilding another 1.9 miles of old roads. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack put a temporary halt to timber sales in roadless areas of national forests -- but he approved this timber sale despite the concerns of people who care about this important temperate rainforest, home to numerous endangered species.

Vilack argues it'll provide much-needed jobs for the region -- but even in troubled economic times, we cannot sacrifice the future of our planet! Urge President Obama to reverse this decision and ensure no more clearcutting and roadbuilding occurs in the Tongass.

Yep he sure is a great guy this Obomber.

And that's the way it is!

Your ignorance is stunning.

You said:

Rachels' argument was stupid. Sophomoric. Asenine. What did she say? That of all the Supreme Court Justices in the Supreme Court's history, why have so few been non-white...? And Pat answered her, correctly - because for most of this nation's history, white men have been in charge. White men have been the only ones trained and educated enough to be qualified. And white men have been discriminatory towards non-whites. Pat said so. He admitted it. So what is her fucking point? That we should now appoint an unqualified-affirmitive action pick just to make up for the realities of an unfair history?

First of all, it's completely untrue that white men have been the only people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. That's easily one of the dumbest, least informed, most ridiculous statements I've read on Salon. And there is a lot to choose from here in the comments section.

You have no proof to support such an asinine, ignorant statement, and you know it.

Second: Sotomayor is a very highly qualified pick. She has the education, the work experience, and more time on the Bench than any nominee in the last 100 years. Her record and her educational background can go toe to toe with anyone now sitting on the Supreme Court.

You made the mistake of accepting Buchanon's dumbshit premise that Sotomayor IS unqualified and then you go from there. Take a close look at her record. She easily, easily qualifies.

She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was elected to Phi Betta Cappa, won the Pyne Prize as a senior, the top prize there for undergraduates.

JD from Yale Law School. Editor of the Yale Law Review.

17 years on the bench. She is more than qualified.

The really ugly thing about all of this is that these same sorts of discussions just don't happen when white males are under consideration. You just don't hear people questioning their educational background and achievements. But whenever a minority gets a shot, the right wing goon squad comes out of the woodwork to try to tear them down. Minorities and women go through far more rigorous defense of their qualifications than white males. The assumption from wingnuts is that they aren't qualified. That's where you start from. You assume that it's all about affirmative action and work up your outrage from that point.

Honestly, you people are truly what others think of as "ugly Americans". You epitomize the arrogance, bigotry, ignorance and sense of entitlement inherent in that term.