So much for feminism. On the syndicated "Chris Matthews Show" this weekend, CNN's senior political analyst, Gloria Borger admitted she felt like Hillary Clinton was being ganged up on by "the guys." During a discussion about how female voters in New Hampshire reacted to Hillary Clinton being criticized by her political opponents, Borger seemed to undercut the whole concept of women wanting to be treated as equals, in effect saying, sometimes you just can't pick on the girl.
The following exchange occurred on the January 13, edition of "The Chris Matthews Show":
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I want the two women to talk about this. This is a time of exposed nerves. I know so many women who read the papers, keep up with events as much as all of us do who have very complicated feelings about her, and not necessarily positive, yet in the maelstrom of this past weekend in New Hampshire, they began to say, "You guys are killing this woman, stop it."
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Women feel like everyone else, that they've known Hillary for a long time. And they have opinions about her, and a lot of women don't like Hillary Clinton. But at that debate when John Edwards decided to team up with Barack Obama and hit her and say, you know, and criticize her together and gang up on her, which they did.
MATTHEWS: You felt that?
BORGER: I thought, whoa, the guys are ganging up on Hillary Clinton!
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Earth to Gloria. They were
January 14, 2008 - 16:34 ET by DaBirdEarth to Gloria. They were ganging up on a person, who happens to be a woman, that is running for the same job as they are. They were not ganging up on her because she is a woman.
Is it that complicated Gloria?
Apparently so...
January 14, 2008 - 16:47 ET by motherbeltIs it that complicated? Apparently so.
And Gloria, don't you realize you're just making your heroine look weak? You are acting like she's "not ready for prime time."
If she's not fit to play with the big boys, she needs to get out of the sandbox.
Its going to be a tricky
January 14, 2008 - 16:55 ET by DaBirdIts going to be a tricky campaign season for us conservatives. Not only do we have to run against the democrats, but we have to run against the media too. Any attack the conservative candidate makes on the democrat candidate will be met with the racial or gender card. The media will be all to obliging on pushing the sterotypes of conservatives.
Thank goodness we wont have to face a black woman in the election. We wouldn't have a chance.
"Thank goodness we wont have
January 14, 2008 - 17:03 ET by Chris Norman"Thank goodness we wont have to face a black woman in the election." DB, Don't be too sure. Remember, Hillary does a mean southern black accent! :)
BORGER: I thought, whoa,
January 14, 2008 - 17:04 ET by motherbeltBORGER: I thought, whoa, the guys are ganging up on Hillary Clinton!
The men are treating her just like they would treat another male candidate. What's wrong with that? You're the one who thinks she needs to be handled with kid gloves because she's a woman, Gloria. What does that say about YOU? Who's the sexist, here??
I totally agree with that
January 14, 2008 - 17:28 ET by lotrI totally agree with that assessment -- Hillary herself has observed as much ("they [Edwards and Obama] are attacking me because I'm the frontrunner"). But Hillary doesn't have to play the gender card -- the MSM is doing it for her!
Two-faced Hillary
January 14, 2008 - 17:17 ET by fitzfongHaving it both ways...as usual.
First, Hillary wants to get credit for being tough, because she's "fought for 35 years" and will be "ready on day one". Then she wants to be protected from even the mildest criticism because it's akin to "hitting the girl". If she can pull this fraud all the way to the White House, it will be a permanent embarrassment to this country.
Since the idea of women
January 14, 2008 - 17:17 ET by KeithSince the idea of women being equal to men is a LIE in the first place, perhaps we should start there and work backwards. When a young boy is raped by a female teacher, no one complains, they say he ought to be grateful. Stupid liberals like Bill Maher make jokes about it. When it's a young girl at the hands of an older man, it's a different story. We shrink back at the thought of women in combat roles even thought Israel has had them doing that for years. Why? Because in your heart of hearts you know damned well that women are not the equal of men. They aren't the equal physically or mentally in most cases. And yes there are smart women. That isn't the point. Yes there are women who are smarter than dumb men. That also isn't the point. There isn't a woman born on earth who is capable of leading men into battle only a weak and spineless man would think so. There isn't a woman alive who could beat me in a fight. No matter what her training is. After three beers which I don't drink and choking on cigarettes that I don't even smoke, I could knock Leila Ali out with one single punch. And the last time I was in the ring with anybody was TWENTY YEARS AGO. Maybe it's time to stop pretending and risking our lives by being p.c. MAYBE it's time to let women know that while they should be RESPECTED as equal and certainly not ABUSED in ANY fashion, this is a courtesy, due to the elegance of men. The dirty little secret is that, if all men had a meeting and decided to chain women to their stoves, what could they do about it? If your equality depends on someone else "letting" you be "equal" then how "equal" are you really? And yes this argument extends itself in every direction.
Ignorant
January 14, 2008 - 17:28 ET by BlondeI'm going to respond to your ignorant post so everyone here can see it as written and you can't edit it.
Equality as a courtesy? Get a grip, Keith. You've really gone over the edge this time.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, While Keith has
January 14, 2008 - 17:32 ET by LeonBlonde,
While Keith has taken an aggressive approach, I found it an interesting read.
What would happen if all of us men decided that this whole equality thing was a joke?
We could kick it back to 1950 in a flash and you could do nothing about it.
Intriguing post Keith. Got my wheels spinning. Although, there might be a better way to get your point across! ha.
Leon
January 14, 2008 - 19:54 ET by BlondeYou're a misogynist a**.
"Nothing 'I' could do about it". Dream on, little troll.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Guns ... the great
January 14, 2008 - 20:25 ET by drillanwrGuns ... the great "equalizer" ...
Quite, drill
January 14, 2008 - 20:36 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I keep expecting Leon to
January 14, 2008 - 20:41 ET by motherbeltI keep expecting Leon to come back with "Hey, I've been kicked off MUCH better sites than this one!!"
Well, mb
January 14, 2008 - 20:53 ET by BlondeHe could try it....but.....
Do you think the KosBots would care one iota about a thing Leon has to say? He only posts here to get a reaction. It's pretty bloody pathetic.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde blonde blonde, I
January 15, 2008 - 12:13 ET by LeonBlonde blonde blonde,
I don't post here to get a reaction.
I post here because I respect many of the mastheads and many of the posters. I value the information I learn here.
KOS is all fine and good, but then I wouldn't learn about anything but one side. Plus, I find the mastheads/editors/contributors at KOS to be boring, uninformed, and annoying. By coming to Newsbusters I can get a more balanced view of current events.
As for being a mysogonist or whatever, that's garbage. It is a fact that men could physically dominate all women if we chose to do so. We have more money on the whole, more power on the whole, and more influence on the whole. Don't rail against me b/c of our patriarchal society. It was well-established long before I came along.
some insight
January 15, 2008 - 12:26 ET by lotrAmerica needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. -- Mother Teresa
Dear Blonde I think you
January 15, 2008 - 13:42 ET by KeithDear Blonde
I think you let your emotion get in the way of common sense. It is a tried and true axiom that when a group is "oppressed", it's oppression cannot end unless they take over by force or the oppressor relinquish it's power. This has been true in every conflict in the history of man where the oppressor is either the majority or in the case of the minority in South Africa, the most powerful and heinous. The reason that Malcom X's movement was doomed to failure is because armed resistance by thirty million against 270 million is IMPOSSIBLE! The only chance we had of being freed was relying on the fact that non -violent resistance would "prick the hearts" of decent whites who would become our ALLIES! This is exactly what happened, whites who had been taught that we were not HUMAN BEINGS came to see us as so! They started to feel compassionately towards blacks and the rest is as they say, history! But make no mistake about it. Blacks in this country would still be slaves if not for the abolitionists, most of whom were WHITE! They are the one's who were instrumental in changing the public's opinion of former chattel. The civil rights movement would have simply been a lot of black people dying like the Sudan, if the white power structure were not willing to "share" or "relinquish" their power! Perhaps by my framing it with an issue with which you are not intimately connected, your emotion can stop blunting your common sense. For a long part of our history after the civil rights movement we were only "equal" because of the "good graces" of white people. That argument could still be made today because the ratio of the populace hasn't changed all that much, although OBVIOUSLY White people have! The same is true for the man vs woman struggle. Except that you are at a further disadvantage than even blacks! Blacks had to be "oppressed" to retard their progress because without oppression there is no difference in the strength or intellect between a black man and a white man. Women however are the weaker sex. While black men with military training and weapons could make armed insurrection very painful for whites, their efforts by sheer force of numbers, would be doomed to defeat. Women on the other hand couldn't even put up "token" resistance. Most "powerful" women can be brought to tears by someone YELLING at them, how good would 99% of them be in a fight? Thank Jesus that women are NOT made with combative spirits and are largely weaker and more compassionate than men or there wouldn't be any procreation! But my over all point is true. Women are equal AFTER the roads and bridges have been built by men and our technological food gathering called supermarkets makes it so you don't have to kill the food you eat. IF someone pulled the plug on technology, you'd see very quickly how equal you are not. Hmmmm. I think I just got my next movie to write!
Like to see you push out a
January 15, 2008 - 13:55 ET by Airforce_5_OLike to see you push out a baby Keith. Weaker sex my rear end. Get a grip Preacher.
Keith, I sure would like to
January 14, 2008 - 17:43 ET by bassndudeKeith, I sure would like to see you in the ring with Chantal McNamara. How long to knock her out?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
About a minute, if I was
January 14, 2008 - 20:50 ET by KeithAbout a minute, if I was being charitable. I was undefeated in my campaign in the ring.
Woo Hoo, Big Man
January 14, 2008 - 20:54 ET by BlondeI am so utterly unimpressed.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Equal? What is the point of being "equal"?
January 14, 2008 - 19:38 ET by BritcomA man and a woman are not equal (i.e. the same). They are different, but not better in a moral sense. The fact is God (or nature if you prefer) made them different with different purposes. Those purposes are complementary and powerful for our species and should be respected and accepted with a pragmatic understanding that for 10,000 plus years this world and this civilization has been formed BY men FOR women and no law or PC definition or newly coined word can undo all those millennia of human genetic development.
Women are humans just like men and both are constrained to their mammalian genetic roles which are manifested in each's physical, mental, emotional, hormonal, and temporal state. No human can obtain happiness or success while at the same time denying or rejecting their own nature.
Denying ones own nature is a form of self-loathing and can only lead to misery and a wasted life. But real joy can be experienced when we are in harmony with our human nature and not struggling against it for unnatural modern purposes.
Meaning, what, wives should
January 14, 2008 - 19:49 ET by balboaMeaning, what, wives should just stay home? And single people are ruining the natural state of life?
Careful...
January 14, 2008 - 20:13 ET by BritcomCareful, you said "wives". That is significant. When a woman decides that she wants to be a wife, that is a vocation with a legal status. Not all women are "wives". Women have a choice to become a wife or not to become a wife. Those who choose to be wives should accept the responsibility that comes with it. Those who choose not to become wives are not bound.
Individuals cannot "ruin the natural state of life"; the natural state of life will ruin those who attempt to struggle against it.
A woman is designed with motherhood in mind. A man is designed with defense of his mate, his children, and his tribe in mind. This is true of most social mammals.
Again, so all wives should
January 14, 2008 - 20:57 ET by balboaAgain, so all wives should become mothers, and all mothers should stay home?
bal, my new style American liberal friend ...
January 14, 2008 - 21:22 ET by drillanwrNow, don't make me fall in love with you for where you are going with your side of this ... Don't forget, you and I have a certain level of "civil opposing animosity" to uphold. Heh! ; ^)
Bal
January 14, 2008 - 21:30 ET by RESTLESS 1Is the concept really that foriegn to you? Used to be that mothers could afford to stay at home and raise the children. Sadly, that has changed for many and our culture has been a steady, downward spiral since.
Added: I don't mean to say that women should not work, or minimize their contributions. It is just that it seemed like the whole concept of a mother staying at home caught you a little off guard.
No, it's not foreign to me.
January 14, 2008 - 21:37 ET by balboaNo, it's not foreign to me. My mom stayed home until we were old enough to be alone. I just don't think someone should say "All moms should stay home." Some can't afford it, and some want a career. They shouldn't be told they're going against the "natural order" of things.
Why not?
January 15, 2008 - 07:53 ET by BritcomBiology dictates our roles, not society. Failure to live out one's role is a personal failure and is emotionally devastating to the individual. This is true of either sex. No one is telling anyone what their role is. The role is hard-wired into our species and cannot be denied or mental, emotional, and psychologically damage is done to the individual.
While some individuals may seek to damage themselves by denying their natural role, (they have the right to so choose) but, this sort of self-destruction should not be encouraged, endorsed, or subsidized by society. It leads to misery and no one wants that. One need only look at the violence and bitterness that exists between men and women today. This is not normal, it is the manifestation of a war that exists as a result of people's inability to maintain the naturaly fulfilling roles that nature has instilled in them as humans and as mammals.
In other words, we become miserable because we cannot do what makes us happy and what makes us happy is to be what nature intended each of us to be. One cannot argue with nature and expect to win the argument. As biological creatures existing within the ecosystem of this planet we are part of nature itself and we have no power to will ourselves to be something other than what nature formed us to be. It is self-deceptive to believe that we can force such a change without damaging ourselves. Nature, like physics, must maintain its integrity and its balance.
Home is not a prison, home is where everyone wants to be, but everyone wants to venture out once in a while. Employment is a form of daily slavery, why would anyone want to be at work when they can be at home. If a wife has to work, then something is wrong with society, not something right with work.
The whole "struggle for equality" slogan is a lie designed to hide the real agenda of its promoters, the goal is to make everyone a "worker" (man and woman and eventually children too) and the boss will be "the State" otherwise known as Communism. It is a failed experiment, but it's promoters remain in continual denial of it's demise, maintaining that it is not a dead horse, but only asleep and that they alone have the secret to waking it up again. But that horse is rotten and it stinks of death and corruption. And it is the same dead horse that Soviets, Yugoslavians, Red Chinese, Cubans, and Nicaraguans have been trying to awaken for generations.
To a Communist everyone is "equal" and everyone is a "happy" slave, and everyone is equal in their potential... they all have none. Thanks, but nature is a far kinder and gentler master.
Britcom
January 15, 2008 - 10:30 ET by balboaFailure to live out one's role is a personal failure and is emotionally devastating to the individual.
That's one of the most narrow views on life I've ever seen, and I don't think anything could be further from the truth.
What I find absurd is that
January 15, 2008 - 03:04 ET by tracheostomyWhat I find absurd is that the majority of left-leaning feminists often want the respect of motherhood without actually taking on the role itself.
"We have the ovaries. We are the nurturers, the givers of life, etcetera. therefore we all deserve the same respect." When at the same time, they show disdain for those on the "baby-track", they resent the stay at home mother, and collectively try to push Roe down everyone's throat.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Political Plague in a pantsuit and pumps
January 14, 2008 - 17:31 ET by drillanwr'The Guys Are Ganging Up on Hillary Clinton!'
Would THAT be considered an oxymoron (in a sexual context ... of course).
Should she make it to "The Big Show" this kind of bullsh*t just ain't gonna fly ... i.e., That dog won't hunt.
If the "woman" can't hold her water against her own countryMEN ... well, she ain't gonna get very far with Castro, Chavez, UBL, Amydidherdad ... et al.
If the American people haven't caught on already to this little, "You can't hit a girl" tactic this woman and her ilk are selling, they surely will by the general election ... the the presidential debates.
She just continues to undo modern feminism without remorse or regret.
The problem, as I see it,
January 14, 2008 - 17:43 ET by motherbeltThe problem, as I see it, regardless of the Borger comment, is that Clinton wants to have it both ways...and she thinks she has a lock on what American women want...a President who is tough, but doesn't worry that her mascara will run if she cries.
Maggie Thatcher knew that to run the country she had to have more b**lls than the men. She wouldn't DREAM of doing what Clinton did in public. Not only that, it wouldn't even occur to her to THINK that way, nevermind say it out loud. (at least that's my take on her.)
But hey, maybe that is what American women want. Dick Morris said HRC is going to bring out millions of women who have never bothered to vote before. Maybe he's right.
God help us all.
mb
January 14, 2008 - 17:49 ET by drillanwrHopefully you and I and our sisters far outnumber those women ... What shall we call them this time out? No longer soccer/mini-van moms ...
What shall they be named?
Soccer pawns?
January 14, 2008 - 17:58 ET by fitzfongSoccer pawns?
hmmm ... I'm still thinking
January 14, 2008 - 18:09 ET by drillanwrhmmm ... I'm still thinking ...
drill
January 14, 2008 - 18:21 ET by BlondeI was thinking "dumb bunny" for anyone stupid enough to vote for HRC. Of either sex, actually.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Sucker moms?
January 14, 2008 - 18:46 ET by fitzfongSucker moms?
fitz
January 14, 2008 - 19:13 ET by drillanwrI think you're onto something there ...
I think NBs needs to take suggestions and a poll on this ...
What To Call The New "soccer moms" Who Wouldbe Sym(pathetic) Hillary Voters (emphisis on the pathetic part of the word)
drillanwr, Yeah, these
January 14, 2008 - 20:41 ET by fitzfongdrillanwr,
Yeah, these Hillary voters (especially the ones that had their post-"tear" epiphanies) remind me of the useless wastes of space I used to work with...the ones who would bust into the company lunch room at 5 minutes to 1, lower the blinds and turn "One Life to Live" up at full volume, disrupting the lunches of countless fellow employees. I used to call them "The Soap Queens", or, alternatively "The Peg Bundys".
We could call them Cameron
January 14, 2008 - 20:49 ET by drillanwrWe could call them Cameron Diaz-es
Remember?: "If You Think Rape Should Be Legal, Then Don't Vote! ..." (Now, where's my Chi-Com Red Star tote bag with matching Che T-shirt ...?)
That's the Ticket, drill
January 14, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Blonde"Camerons"....it's perfect.
Air-Headed. Stupid. Inane. Vacuous.
Like that.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Emo-bots, anyone? Hillary
January 14, 2008 - 21:25 ET by drillanwrEmo-bots, anyone?
Hillary cries like a girl because of the big-bad political men and the meany MSM, and the Emo-bots run in and pull the lever for her.
She sort of triggers some mechanismin them ...
Hi B the Clintoons
January 14, 2008 - 21:27 ET byhave set women back years
speaking of degrading women --- check PM
GoHunter08
When a lot of Hillary's
January 14, 2008 - 21:30 ET by nkviking75When a lot of Hillary's supporters were little girls, toy manufacturers were advertising dolls which cried real tears. I guess Hillary is just updating the concept.
BTW, remember those dolls that wet their pants?
Heh, heh, heh.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
How about the "Sob Sisters"?
January 14, 2008 - 19:33 ET by motherbeltHow about the "Sob Sisters"?
That one's good too. See,
January 14, 2008 - 19:47 ET by drillanwrThat one's good too.
See, we can do it.
Drill
January 14, 2008 - 21:40 ET by RESTLESS 1"...Castro, Chavez, UBL, Amydidherdad ..."
Now that is funny. :>)
I don't believe Hillary is woman
January 15, 2008 - 03:58 ET by SlicksterI think she is a transvestite.