[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo]
Randi Rhodes was suspended by Air America Radio for derogatory comments about Hillary Clinton (video above). She warned the audience at an event sponsored by Air America that “You know she’s going all Lieberman on you.” There were also some less objectionable insults, such as calling her “a big f***ing whore.”
Air America Radio released the following statement:
Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.
“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts,” said chair Charlie Kireker.
My first thoughts upon hearing of this were along the lines of “Air America is still in operation?” and “Randi Rhodes is still on the air?” Beyond that, while I would not have used the same language and cannot agree with everything she said, at least Randi Rhodes does not fall into the mind set of knee jerk support for a Democrat because they have a D after their name, even when their views and conduct are very bit as repellent as the Republicans they seek to replace (and emulate). Maybe Randi Rhodes and Samantha Power can team up and form a successful act.
The Radio Equalizer feels that “In the weird world of ‘progressive’ politics, there are no standards of decency and punishment comes only when part of the lefty base has been offended.” While such a generalization cannot be made based upon how one marginal radio network handles one person, he does support his argument with regards to Randi Rhodes with examples of comparable attacks on Republicans which went unpunished.
I’m not sure if it is worthwhile responding to a track back but, for the record:
1) I didn’t call it an F-bomb
2) The claim that it is used on this site is misleading. His link to a search pulls up six posts (out of over three thousand) where the word is used. In each case it was in a quotation from someone else and never in material written by me.
He is correct that I did not ask for her head on a platter. I agree with The Radio Equalizer that this is no worse than other things she has said in the past. here is a difference in that in this case the target is a Democrat as opposed to a Republican, but that doesn’t matter to me. Actually, while I’m no fan of John McCain, in some ways I found some of her comments on him to be the worst.
As for the response, it is up to Air America as to what they want associated with the station. Personally I don’t go along with the partisan idea of allowing anything to be said about Republicans while opposing criticism of Hillary Clinton because she is a Democrat but what AA does is not up to me.
First, what kind of huddled mass of snivelization have we become to be so offended by a “dirty” word?
Second, i remember when Randi Rhodes evoked mental images of a really short with stringy blond hair wearing spandex pants and shredding guitar solos for Ozzy. Ah, the good ole days.
Senator Clinton and Mrs Ferraro ought to sue Rhodes and Air America for all they’re worth–which can’t be much!
Lex,
I think that the target of the “dirty” word and not the “dirty” word itself is what got her into trouble on this one. Personally I don’t go along with the idea of choosing targets along party lines, but Air America probably sees their financial success based upon aligning with all Democrats. (Can “Air America” and “financial success” be used in the same sentence?)
I can see where some would object to what Rhodes said, and i certainly do not agree with everything she says. Personally I find the war mongering from portions of right wing talk radio to be far more objectionable.
Mike,
What Rhodes said might have been objectionable to some but being mocked in such acts is part of being a public official. Clinton and Ferraro wouldn’t get far if they tried to sue, and they would sure look bad if they tried.
Besides, I doubt many people are aware of what she said and all a suit would accomplish would be to draw considerable attention to Randi Rhodes.
This is my first time reading this blog. I am struck by the title of the blog and unexpected content of this string. Very interesting.
You said: “Personally I don’t go along with the partisan idea of allowing anything to be said about Republicans while opposing criticism of Hillary Clinton because she is a Democrat but what AA does is not up to me.”
Bravo, I sometimes listen to AA on weekends doing chores — on earbuds, because the “criticism” (i.e. raucous language, profoundly irrational thought and wild-eyed accusations) is simply too much in my opinion for my kids or anyone else in civilized society to hear — but when nothing else is on, it is interesting in a girl fight, or more apropos, circus geek show sort of way.
And yes, what AA does is not up to you or me, but the “public interest” agencies which apparently give AA the minimum in PSA dollars to eke out its existence. And guess who has FOB’s in those agencies?
night tiger,
Wild-eyed accusations???
How can you say that? You mean to say that Mitt Romney’s supporters aren’t a suicide cult, and that she was wrong in comparing John McCain’s years as a POW to men in prison doing you know what? You call these wild-eyed accusations? 🙂
Personally I generally listen in NPR. I listened to Air American occasionally in the past but if their content wasn’t good enough to keep me listening all the ads were enough to get me to stop listening. It doesn’t help matters that I can only pick them up on line. Maybe if I could listen while driving I’d put them on sometimes (primarily for entertainment value).
It’s probably a just a rumor, but one story going around is that Clinton supporters are behind this in a move to replace Rhodes with Taylor Marsh. If that happens I certainly would not listen to Air America.