Why did Mrs. Greenspan Automatically Think of Hillary When She Saw This Ad?

[sabrina 1]

The ad is based on what Bernie's whole campaign is based on, the disastrous effects of money in our electoral system.

When she interviewed Bernie today Mrs. Greenspan asked him 'why have you decided to go negative against Clinton in your latest ad?

Bernie asked her if Hillary's name was mentioned in the ad?

'No'

He asked if her campaign was mentioned in the ad"

'No'

I thought it was a strange question considering the ad focuses on the issue that is so important now to a majority of Americans.

Maybe Mrs Greenspan was thinking of Hillary because like every other politician practically in DC, she is beholden to Wall St.

Anyhow, she said it, not Bernie. It's a great ad, btw.

[hrmjustin]

1. Great way of demeaning a woman Sabrina!

Disgusting!

[polly7]

2. wtf?? nt.

[hrmjustin]

3. Wtf is right polly.

[polly7]

4. What are you going on about? nt.

[hrmjustin]

6. Calling Andrea Mitchell Mrs Greenspan is demeaning.

But you knew that.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Seems a lot of people are committing this sexist attack. le sigh...

[frylock]

18. Classic!

[hrmjustin]

19. It is wrong. I love that poster but i disagree with using that term to describe her.

[JonLeibowitz]

34. okay, just so we're clear it isn't a "berniebro" sexist smear.

[hrmjustin]

39. Explain your thinking on this. I never heard this term.

[JonLeibowitz]

50. what term?

[hrmjustin]

55. The one you just asked me about!

Geezz!

[JonLeibowitz]

59. I asked no question.

However there was for a time on this board that it was the bernie bros disrespecting women and "mrs greenspan" was one such attack. Naturally, the above image ends that conspiracy; though of course, people are free to comment that it is sexist I wanted to point out it is not one-sided.

Ciao!

[Dont call me Shirley]

215. She IS Mrs Greenspan, why would that be considered a smear other than the fact that Mr Greenspan

led the attack on the middle class, working poor and poor.

[nolabels]

238. Come on Shirley, put on some more Mr. Greenjeans

Besides, life is too short if you're not having fun

[Dont call me Shirley]

245. ...

:rofl

https://m.

On edit, I couldn't get the gif yo work so replaced it with this one, enjoy.

[nolabels]

246. All right everybody, -get in crash positions

[AgingAmerican]

172. No, you just dont want to talk about your candidate

So you do this

[polly7]

26. Now where's that fainting couch when you need it?!? The one I've been seeing

thrown at Sanders supporters all day. Was it repossessed maybe? Gone back to IKEA?

[hrmjustin]

30. I will light a candle for Sanders supporters.

[polly7]

40. What about the OP and trying to turn the ad into a negative attack against Clinton? nt.

[hrmjustin]

42. I will not light candle for the Ad.

[polly7]

46. IOW, you have no interest whatsoever in the attempt to smear him with something

he didn't do, gotcha. Why didn't you just say that right at the start?

[hrmjustin]

49. I made my point from the start.

I am not required to give you a list of what I wish to talk about.

[polly7]

52. And I'm not required to agree with your point.

Why are you playing victim for something that never happened? When and where did I say you needed to give me a list on anything?

[hrmjustin]

63. Oh polly!

[polly7]

65. Well .............. where is it???

You ok?

[hrmjustin]

68. Always better when I get to talk to you.

You have a pleasant evening.

[polly7]

70. Awww ....... thank you. You too. Maybe after you get some rest you can find it. nt.

[Prism]

133. The oddest thing about the internet is misperception

For example, sometimes you figure you're just talking to a teenager. And they behave as they do. And you kind of indulge it with a slight eye roll and a resigned, "Oh, bless."

Then you realize that person is way older than you, and you're like, "Wait, what? I thought passive aggressive gay catty was over in like 1997."

But, no. It yet lives on somehow.

And then you're like, "Oh, Jesus."

Which you would think is synonymous with, "Oh, bless," if only for the etymology. But, no, not at all.

[polly7]

179. LOL .............. love it, Prism.

I admit, I'm pretty naive when it comes to judging someone's real intentions on the internet but I am under no illusions that this poster takes any joy out of interacting with me at all. (that list ..... ). Hope he did have a good rest, though - all that derailing day after day has gotta be mentally tiring, imho.

[Prism]

180. Whoa! Six hides in a day?!

I honestly don't think I've seen that one before.

Poor lil fella.

[polly7]

182. Oh, my!

... and that's all I'm going to say.

[kath]

192. Seven.

[sabrina 1]

190. Polly is a woman who epitomizes strong women, never allowing anyone to emotionally

manipulate her, seeing the phoniness that so often rears its ugly head when it comes to women on this forum. Yet many of us have watched faux 'feminists' abuse, or try to, one of the most admirable examples of how women in REAL LIFE actually are.

Did you express outrage, as much as you are expressing here in defense of the very privileged Mrs Greenspan lest she be horribly damaged by letting the public now of her close ties to Wall St, when polly was being laughed at for the loss of her child?

Maybe you did, I don't know as I found it to disturbing actually to follow that shameful assault on a woman who has a longtime respected record on this forum, coming from, supposedly 'feminist's. Hence the term they have and are earning 'faux feminism'

[sabrina 1]

184. Feminists all over the country have been calling out this 'faux feminism' USING women for political

purposes, it's so gratifying now to see, especially younger women, expose it for what it is and thoroughly reject it.

Of course most women on this forum never fell for it.

Mrs Greenspan will not suffer one fraction of an iota because someone on the internet identified her as the wife of the notorious Alan Greenspan.

I note the LACK of concern for the women who were and still are victim's of Mrs. Greenspan's husband's policies.

Most women's priorities are vastly different from the privileged and those who seem to feel such great 'concern' for them.

It's comforting to me though to that the few who care so much about the plight of poor Mrs. Greenspan, are a very small minority.

[sabrina 1]

107. How sexist it is to try to protect a 'poor little woman' from full disclosure of possible biases,

considering the position of trust she holds. As a woman. I find that to be extremely insulting to women and women have been saying this TO Hillary as she loses more and more support from women. Stop using this sexist meme that makes women look weak.

And here we go again.

Most strong women would reveal any possible biases when in a position of trust.

People are so sick of the way women are being used ONLY by the Clinton campaign. Fine with me, it is driving many women who find it extremely insulting, to the real Feminist in this race.

[JonLeibowitz]

109. ...I agree with you.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of camp weathervane. Every word I wrote was intended as sarcasm.

[sabrina 1]

110. Lol! Sorry didn't get the sarcasm. But no harm done, it needs to be repeated as often as possible

until they STOP portraying women as weak and in need of protection. Mrs Greenspan needs no protection, she is an extremely privileged woman and she needs to inform people, as any strong woman would do, of any possible biases she may hold.

Mrs Greenspan is the most succinct way to inform the public of her close ties to the notorious Alan Greenspan.

No idea why a few people here find that to be upsetting. It makes zero sense especially since she has no need of their protection. She is part of the power structure that has victimized OTHER women. I see little concern for the victims of her husband's policies from the same sources. Such hypocrisy, it's stunning.

[JonLeibowitz]

111. Exactly. I see "Mrs Greenspan" as a snarky way of pointing out the obvious biases she won't reveal

[dflprincess]

221. Exactly. nt

[Prism]

131. You

I like you.

[kenfrequed]

157. Well the poster can pat herself on the back

She did a great job with her thread-hijacking.

[sabrina 1]

189. Lol! Oops!

[cui bono]

200. Doesn't matter who does it, it is sexist and demeaning. n/t

[polly7]

15. No, I didn't know that.

I just had to google ... so, she's married to Alan Greenspan. Big deal.

[hrmjustin]

22. I think it is demeaning.

[polly7]

28. I don't. nt.

[Bonobo]

41. Mansplaining. nt

[Luminous Animal]

51. Well, here is a bit of womansplaining.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1086915

[Bonobo]

56. The ties between Ms. Mitchell and her husband are important and although this bumps up against

some intersectional issues (of which I do understand the criticism), it does not erase the importance of those ties and conflicts of interest that actually do exist.

To posit that a long spousal relationship exerts a large and undue influence on an individual is not sexist, although I agree that the phrasing of "Mrs. Greenspan" can understably ruffle the feathers of some.

Nevertheless, we are on a political primary discussion board and the sexism issue is not particularly relevant from that POV.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Then spell it out with out the demeaning shorthand. Andrea Mitchell is odious in her own right.

[SusanCalvin]

76. Well I can agree with that!

[sabrina 1]

195. Here's some more womansplaining, to say it is demeaning to address a woman as 'mrs.whoever' is to

demean the vast majority of women who choose to call THEMSELVES 'mrs. whoever'. It's true that mostly fairly privileged women do keep their own names, many times to protect their financial situations.

But most women share their family finances and do not have their own 'financial advisers'. To demean all of them by claiming THEY are demeaning those who make a different choice, is pure sexist and it is using women as a political tool, which is typical of those who care only about 'winning'. Winning what, where is Equal pay after all these elections where Dems promised to 'fight' for it?

Where is support for women plunged into even more poverty by policies pushed, not just by Republicans, but by Democrats.

Most of us women have a lot more to worry about frankly than whether or not someone calls us 'mrs'.

[Luminous Animal]

197. It's about choice and how one prefers to be addressed.

I have a fairly large circle of female friends who are school teachers,bar tenders, nurses, etc...

95% have kept their name and it had nothing to do with privilege or finances.

[sabrina 1]

229. That's your experience and others are different, most of my married friends, all of them very strong

women in their own right, use their husband's name. Both choices are fine, to say one is 'sexist' and 'demeaning' is sexist itself, to slam women for a choice they make because it isn't considered 'politically correct' could not be more sexist.

Mrs Greenspan however is not part of the circle of ordinary working class women, teachers, nurses etc. She is part of the power structure of this country, in good part because of her marriage to Greenspan.

She is a public figure, in a job that requires the public trust.

The topic of this OP, which apparently is less important than whether Mrs Greenspan's very privileged feelings are hurt, was about a woman, married to a man who is powerful and who used that power to DESTROY the economy of this country, interviewing Sanders about his ad, in her capacity as a trusted news person.

In this interview with Sanders she attempted to paint his ad as an attack on Clinton.

The ad was about the terrible cost to ordinary Americans of the influence of Wall St money on our Government.

Why would she think it was negative to discuss this most important topic? Well, maybe because she lives in a different universe to most ordinary women.

Maybe because she is married to Mr. Greenspan who was rightfully taken down by Sanders for his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the damage his policies were doing to ordinary people.

Addressing her as Mrs Greenspan identifies the possible biases she, who should be without personal bias given the job she accepted, may have due to her close ties to Wall St.

To try to compare these very privileged members of the ruling class to nurses and teachers is simply ludicrous.

[Luminous Animal]

231. And she is not Mrs. Greenspan. She is Andrea Mitchell, asshole in her own right. She will always

be Andrea Mitchell, asshole in her own right no matter who she marries.

She already had her own biases before she got married.

Using your logic, it is okay to refer to Hillary Clinton as Mrs. Bill Clinton in order to define her political positions.

[sabrina 1]

233. Of course it would be okay to use a simple and commonly understand word to identify any biases

a Public figure might have after watching something like this where the bias was clear. Many people do not know Mitchell is married to Greenspan. Some in this thread didn't know, now they do.

I would have no problem addressing a man in a position of trust by his wife's name, eg, 'Mr Matalin' to identify why he may sound more like a Republican than a Democrat

It's a common way to say 'this person fyi may be biased, see who they are married to'.

I can't believe how the reason for identifying her as Greenspan's wife, went over the heads of some people here.

Some of course did not miss it, which is why they tried to use it as they always do when it comes to women, as a means of distraction.

[Luminous Animal]

235. Yeah. And is so difficult to type… Andrea Mitchell wife of Alan Greenspan.

[sabrina 1]

236. What did you think of what she said to Sanders about his ad?

[polly7]

240. pfffft ......... nobody cares about

that.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Seems none of this same discussion shows up for any of the links when I did a search for 'Andrea Greenspan' here and found pages and pages of them - but I haven't tried them all, by any means - I don't have time for that. I will say though that some people who have such a problem with it on this thread should probably be a bit careful. Also, I wish I'd read some of these, I'd have known right off what her agenda might be.

[sabrina 1]

244. I expected exactly this polly, lol. Mission accomplished as they say. Thread got kicked, people

reading are always who I care most about, and now a lot more people know that Andrea Mitchell is Mrs. Greenspan.

You have to work with the 'material' you have.

Been here long enough to have learned how to use it!

Iow, I am very pleased with the results!

[Luminous Animal]

17. Yes it is. Her name is Andrea Mitchell.

[JDPriestly]

115. Why is it demeaning? I do not feel demeaned when people call me Mrs. and my husband's last

name.

[cui bono]

201. Her name isn't Mrs. Greenspan, it's Andrea Mitchell.

If one chooses to take their husband's name and be "Mrs. xxx" so be it. I personally am against that as well. But this is a professional woman who uses the name Andrea Mitchell and to call her Mrs. Greenspan takes away her persona as an individual. It lessens her as a human being. It makes her part of her husband rather than a full person in her own right.

.

[cui bono]

199. I have to agree with you on this one Justin.

I always ask people to not call her that. It is sexist.

.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

241. Oh, the drama!

Jesus Christ. We've been calling her Andrea Greenspan on this board for years, and it's not going to stop now because you're not able to understand what's being referenced.

[polly7]

242. Yeah ....... I just had to do a search. There are pages and PAGES that show it

going back over a decade. And yet, with none of the same discussion that derailed any of those threads. See, if I'd read those before I'd have known more about her and what her agenda might be.

[frylock]

8. Don't engage.

[JonLeibowitz]

14. see post 12, lol :p

[frylock]

20. ha!

Well played!

[Autumn]

24. Well done

[DJ13]

5. Huh?

[frylock]

9. Don't take the bait.

[sabrina 1]

13. Which woman is being demeaned? And please, women are sick to death of the 'poor me, I'm a female,

go easy on me, I'm so weak and so easily hurt' if that's what your comment implies.

Never saw you come to the defense of women here, one who is this thread, who have been thoroughly abused by people on this site and who don't have the ammunition, being they are just ordinary people, to withstand the horrible, nasty implications thrown their way by people I believe you are quite friendly with.

To give credibility to this silly meme, that women need to be protected from every little slight, one has to be consistent.

[hrmjustin]

27. While trashing another human being you could at least use the name she goes by.

hou can say she is wrong but what you did was demeaning.

[sabrina 1]

38. How is it trashing a woman to address her by her husband's name? I have never been ashamed or

felt 'trashed' if addressed by my husband's name. I'm very proud of him. What a silly thing to say. She IS Mrs Greenspan, isn't she?

The public has a right to know who our 'journalists' are, what connections they have that might cause a bias in their reporting the news to us.

Are you implying that she is trying to hide her connection to Alan Greenspan, the man who more than contributed to the corruption that caused the crash that cost so many so much?

Friend of Ayn Rand, intolerant of anyone, speaking of trashing women, like Brooksley Borne who WARNED him and his Walls St buddies that there would be a crash if they continued their Neo Liberal policies.

Mr Greenspan was quite abusive to Brooksley Borne. Too bad that he didn't just address by her married name. I think that would have been preferable to the abuse he rained down on that beautiful, intelligent woman.

[hrmjustin]

53. Too cute by half Sabrina.

If you don't know I sm suprised at you.

[Autumn]

57. Right. She is a journalist and her husband is Greenspan, I have no problem reminding

and clarifying exactly who she is married to.

[cascadiance]

203. I wonder if it would be "sexist" to call James Carville James Matalin...

... to remind people that he's married to a Republican in Mary Matalin in the same way.

Or I wonder how many Republicans might call Mary Matalin Mary Carville as well.

[Autumn]

204. Go right on ahead and do so if you wish.

I am not one to tell people what they are or are not allowed to do.

[sabrina 1]

230. For the same reason as I addressed Mitchell by her husband's name, it not be sexist. IT would inform

people who had not made the connection, and as public figures, identfying any possible biases most certainly is not sexist.
But to some, using women this way, calling everything 'sexist' is nothing more than a ploy to try to distract from the real issues. And from what I've seen here, it's pretty sad to see people actually trying to avoid talking about the terrible effects of money on our political system.

[dsc]

69. No she isn't Mrs. Greenspan

because she chose to keep her name since she isn't the property of her husband.

[sabrina 1]

88. The Greenspans are Divorced?

[JTFrog]

122. Are you saying a woman has to take a man's name if they marry?

That's an awfully sexist point of view.

WTF?

[dsc]

139. marriage doesn't make a woman the property

Of her husband. She kept her name as an adult her choice should be repected. I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept.

[kenfrequed]

158. Sure

She has nothing in common with her crazy, free market, randroid, bastard of a former Federal Reserve chairman. Absolutely nothing. They don't share interests, money, hobbies, or any ideology at all. She is entirely monadic in her worldview formulation and never the twain shall pass.

In fact I am quite convinced she never speaks to Greenspan about anything remotely policy driven or serious.

What a ridiculous bunch of garbage.

She is married to Alan Greenspan. That is enough to make me not trust her motives.

[dsc]

162. then say that

but don't call her Mrs. Greenspan.

[sabrina 1]

234. I did say that. But in a much shorter way. So what is your objection to identifying her possible

biases as she exhibited in the interview with Sanders? Or maybe you didn't think it was biased to try to characterize the ad as an attack on Hillary when it was in fact an attack on the World her husband, and she, reside in, having the enormous influence they have over our government
pe
The ad to most people was anything but negative, being Americans view money in politics as one the most important issues in this campaign, therefore they would view the ad as positive.

For anyone who wasn't aware of her personal reasons for viewing it as negative, Mrs Greenspan worked perfectly.

[Luminous Animal]

79. if I am not an asshole and my husband is not an asshole, I would prefer to be recognized by my own

lack of assholeness and not my husbands lack of assholeness.

If I am an asshole and my husband is an asshole, I would prefer to have my assholeness independent of my husband's assholeness.

It is called recognizing agency.

It is akin to calling Ann Coulter a man. First it is a grave slight against the transgender community. Second, it is women and men not taking responsibility for the fact that women can be monsters.

Andrea Mitchell, in her own right, by her own name, is not a very nice person. Also, she is married to a man who is not a very nice person.

[sabrina 1]

92. As a woman, i have to say that if my husband was an asshole, there IS a way out, I would divorce him

You are known by the company you keep, like or not. And both of them are public figures who epitomize the close ties of Wall St to all our institutions that are meant to serve the people HONESTLY.

The public has a right to know HER close connections to Wall St especially since she has 'reported' on stories that require a non-biased view.

I doubt she thinks of her husband as an asshole. I give her more, dubious to be sure, credit than to stay with someone she thinks is an asshole.

He is of course, his abuse of Brooksley Borne eg, a smart, actually brilliant woman who tried to warn him about the coming collapse unless he did something about the derivatives he was so in love with at time.

His treatment of that woman alone, not to mention all the rest of us who suffered the consequences of his Ayn Rand policies, says that he is an asshole. But Andrea appears to be quite happy with him.

No, she isn't using her own name because she thinks her husband is an asshole. She prefers that the public who have good reason to view him that way, not know the connection. I believe she is obliged, considering the role of trust she holds on the 'news' media to use her married name frankly.

[Luminous Animal]

98. She is an asshole in her OWN RIGHT. No need to diminish her own assholeness by erasing her name.

Her name is Andrea Mtichell… asshole. Married to Alan Greenspan…. asshole.

If Alan Greenspan dies and she remarries. She will still be Andrea Mitchell… asshole.

[AgingAmerican]

171. It's about changing the subject

By faux outrage.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Her name is Andrea Mitchell. Calling her Mrs. Greenspan presumes she is a mere extension of the MAN

to which she is wed.

I am Julie W_________. I am not Mrs. D____________.

[hrmjustin]

36. Thank you!

[Luminous Animal]

44. During the 2008 campaign, I found myself in the embarrassing position of defending

Sarah Palin against misogynist slights and attacks. If it is not okay for their side, it is not okay for our side.

[hrmjustin]

45. Agreed!

[sabrina 1]

47. Mr and Mrs Greenspan are public figures. The connection between Wall St and our so-called 'news'

media is something the public has a right to know. I'm not aware of you being public figure and one who disseminates information over the airwaves to the public. As a private person you have a right to go by any name you want.

But when you become a journalist, if your husband happens to be a man who was one of those principally responsible for the neo liberal policies, still being sold to the public, that wreaked havoc on millions of people who will never recover from their corrupt policies, then you would be waiving any right to keep from the public what your personal connections are.

Why I prefer not to be a public figure, despite all the advantages, wealthy individuals like Mr and Mrs Greenspan enjoy. I understand I would be giving up certain rights that as a private person, I am entitled to.

[Luminous Animal]

62. No woman is referred to Mrs. (husbands last name) unless that is THEIR CHOICE. NOBODY.

[SusanCalvin]

71. I would not dream of calling her that were I to meet her personally.

(Not bloody likely.)

As shorthand, in discussion, for whom she *chooses* to associate with, well....

[JDPriestly]

119. I am Mrs. _______, my husband's last name.

I would probably not answer if you called me Miss ______, my maiden name. It has been too long. If I had chosen to continue to use my maiden name, then maybe I would answer when called it. But unless Andrea Mitchell chose to keep her maiden (I assume Mitchell is her maiden name) name when she married, then she is Mrs. Greenspan. Does anyone know whether she opted out of changing her name when married? She can call herself pretty much what she wants on TV. I don't know what Andrea Mitchell would think about being called Mrs. Greenspan. That is my point. It's really up to her. And what she is called on TV may simply be the result of what she was called when she built her career.

It's very possible that Andrea Mitchell is her maiden name and her professional name.

She married her second husband, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, twenty years her senior, on April 6, 1997 following a lengthy relationship.[20] Previously, she was married to Gil Jackson; that marriage ended in divorce in the mid-1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Mitchell

She married Greenspan in 1997, so she could have changed her name from Jackson back to Mitchell and not taken the Greenspan name.

This is complicated, and we probably should not try to guess and judge. She is married to Greenspan.

[JTFrog]

166. You have to opt in not out to change your name. It's not automatic.

You have to go to the social security office and file for a name change before anything else.

[JDPriestly]

188. It's been a long, long time, but I think you are right because my Social Security card has my

married name. Long, long time is 52 years. So you will understand if I don't remember that little part of the name change.

It's up to the woman. Those of us married long ago are almost always Mrs. ______.

Andrea Mitchell is definitely the better half of the Greenspan couple.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. a woman

what woman?

[hrmjustin]

31. Read.

[Luminous Animal]

35. Are you saying that Andrea Mitchell is not a woman?

I don't have a TV. I don't think I've ever seen Andrea Mitchell in action; so, what I know about her, I've read here. I'm pretty sure she is a woman.

[AgingAmerican]

48. Yeah, that must be it!

[The Wielding Truth]

73. Would I be demeaning call Hillary Mrs. Clinton? I like Hillary and would not want to offend.

[JTFrog]

167. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton uses Clinton in her full name, so no, it would not be demeaning. n/t

[aspirant]

174. It's only sexist if the individual says so?

So the Mrs Clintons of America, who don't find it sexist are wrong in your view?

[JTFrog]

176. I think you are arguing just to argue.

If a woman chooses to change her name to her husband's last name, it is her right. However, the assumption that women must take their husband's name when marrying is sexist regardless of who makes that assumption.

[aspirant]

177. If we call her Mrs. Greenspan just how are we forcing her ("must") to change her name?

I glad you agree that since we are not forcibly escorting her down to the Social Security office for a name change we can't be sexist.

[ljm2002]

74. The fact that Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan...

...is highly relevant, given the ad's direct call-out of Wall Street's influence on our politics.

Calling her "Mrs. Greenspan" is a simple, direct way to convey that fact. Certainly we should be reminded of it whenever Andrea is reporting on Bernie, who famously reamed her husband long before the financial meltdown that he helped to engineer.

Trying to drum up pseudo feminist outrage over this usage is just silly IMO. I'm pretty sure Andrea won't be harmed in any way by the fact that some people on some message boards, when discussing politics, refer to her in this way in order to make sure their readers understand how close she is to the story she is covering. Goddess knows she never brings it up herself when reporting on financial stories.

[SusanCalvin]

81. ^^^THIS^^^

[zeemike]

96. Yep.

But the pseudo outrage did deflect and distract from the point that the OP made...mission accomplished I guess.

[840high]

106. Yes - ty

[senz]

117. Exactly. It's so obvious.

I think the commenter simply wanted to throw something disagreeable into the thread to detract from an excellent new Bernie Sanders ad.

As it is, he did succeed in hijacking the thread, for which I'm sure his buds have rewarded him with lots of nice back pats and encouraging words of praise.

[a2liberal]

121. How hard is it to say "Alan Greenspan's wife"?

Don't get me wrong, I disagree vehemently with the posters who claim it's demeaning or sexist to point out who she is married to... yes she has her own agency but she also has chosen a spousal relationship which carries with it an inherent bias.

On the other hand, I absolutely do think it is demeaning to refer to her by a name she has not chosen to take. You can just as easily directly convey the relationship the way I did in the subject.

And I'm a strong Bernie supporter...

[ljm2002]

125. It seems like a fine point to me...

...and I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that if the OP had chosen to use your preferred phrasing, the very same objections would have been leveled at them: that "she is her own woman" and "it's demeaning to refer to her as if she does not have her own identity".

[a2liberal]

127. I think that's only half the criticism

If you read through the comments here, yes some are upset about her spouse even being brought up. But a lot are upset just about the name issue (you'll see some folks with Bernie logos complaining about that) and it just seems unnecessarily antagonizing to persist in that.

[aspirant]

129. Why hasn't Mrs. Clinton

changed the family's business to the Rodham Foundation?

[a2liberal]

130. Because she chose to take her husband's last name

when she got married. Now some more hardcore feminists would probably say that's wrong too, but I believe in choice. She chooses to go by Mrs. Clinton. Andrea Mitchell chose to keep her maiden name. Both choices should be respected.

[aspirant]

134. If I choose to

call her Mrs. Greenspan, why aren't my choices respected?

If she doesn't like how I address her she can ignore me.

[kath]

224. No, she did NOT take his name when she got married - she only did it later, when she thought it

would benefit both of them politically.
alway, always, ALWAYS with that finger to the wind...

[a2liberal]

227. That may be

Frankly, I don't know the history. But in answering the question that I was, it's kind of irrelevant when she chose to take it.

[sabrina 1]

232. The charge made that it was 'sexist and demeaning' to address women by their husband's name, The

goal, as it so often is with 'faux feminists', was to distract from the fact that we have a journalist who attempted to accuse Sanders of running a ngative ad against Clinton, when in fact the ad said nothing about Clinton, it did however attack Wall St's influence on our politicians with their huge donations.

For whatever reason, women's issues are used this way often by people who appear to have little interest in those issues other than to use them for political purposes.

That the priority of some people here is whether or not a very privileged member of the ruling class might sufffer by addressed by her husband's name as a means of identifying her possible biases is simply shocking, being we are all supposed to be democrats here.

[a2liberal]

237. Here's what I don't get

Look, I hate to even be arguing about this with you seeing as we're on the same side of the main issue, but why is using "Mrs. Greenspan" so important to you? You talk about the other side's priorities but it seems like your priority is also focused on the name.

If not, then why not eliminate the distraction from the main issue -- unless it really is about offending people? What does "Alan Greenspan's wife" not convey? Like it or not, people can care about this while still caring about issues of privilege and the ruling class. It's similar to someone getting offended if you call Sarah Palin the c-word while talking about her latest blatherings, or call Caitlyn Jenner "Bruce" while addressing her right-wing views. I'm not saying it's the same thing or the same degree, but it's along the same lines. Why focus so much on defending it instead of just editing it and moving on?

(And I do realize that some people here are offended by the association even being brought up, which is ridiculous, but as I said before I don't think that's what the majority of the complainers are saying.)

[treestar]

145. Exactly.

If they want to make something of it, they can simply refer to the fact they are married.

[sabrina 1]

136. 'pseudo feminist outrage'! exactly that nonsense has been rejected by a majority of feminists, many

addressing Hillary's campaign due to the insult to women this image that powerful, wealthy women like Mrs Greenspan need to be protected.

I have taken not over a long period of time of the fact that the small group of people who engage in this 'pseudo feminist outrage', very harmful to women btw, do not ever seem to be present in threads where real harm has been done to women, physical harm, harm done to them as a result of our Wars. The women of Libya eg, and Iraq, and Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and their children.

But when you raise this issue, what our bigoted, sexist FP has done to untold numbers of formerly, in many cases, educated professional women now reduced to the status of women in medieval times, they accuse of you of some nefarious motive.

I'll reserve my sympathy for the women and children who have been victimized by Hillary's wars and I wont lose a minute's sleep over whether calling Mrs. Greenspan by her husbands name is going to do her any harm.

[treestar]

144. what BS

No one should be judged by their spouse in any fashion. What an excuse. And if that were the real motive, you could refer to her being married to him without using Mrs. and his last name alone.

[ljm2002]

150. No one is judging her by her spouse...

...but it is legitimate to highlight who she is married to, especially when that bears on the story being reported. As I mentioned, in the case of her reporting on either Bernie or stories about finance, that is exactly when it needs to be pointed out, so people are reminded of her possible biases.

Andrea Mitchell never mentions who her husband is when she is reporting on stories like this. And since she is not just reporting, but interviewing people, with questions she has chosen to ask -- well it does seem very relevant for viewers to know who she goes home to at the end of the day.

Anyway, dollars to doughnuts that, no matter how the OP brought up the fact that Andrea Mitchell is Alan Greenspan's wife, she would have been taken to task for it because certain posters on this site love to stir things up while adding nothing to a discussion.

It's a shame to see people try and use feminism as a cudgel like this, especially when their real aim appears to be sidetracking a discussion in an attempt to neutralize a poster whom they disagree with.

[treestar]

152. why should she have to mention who her husband is

while working at her career, ever?

Even if she has interests in common with him, or work in the same field, it is sexist and unfair. I don't care whether she is right wing or left. Men don't have to tell who their wives are or mention being married when they are working in the same field. People also do not automatically politically agree with their spouses.

[ljm2002]

153. " Men don't have to tell who their wives are"...

...you are making a false equivalency. If it was a male reporter whose wife had been the head of the Fed for years, and he was interviewing someone on a financial story, then damn straight I want to know who his spouse is.

If the media were more honest they would simply let us know these things in order to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest. Of course they are not, and apparently the very notion of conflict of interest is now something we are not allowed to even think about.

You say "People also do not automatically politically agree with their spouses". No one said they do. But when one is married to the man who ran the Fed for many years, it seems to me that is a relevant bit of information. YMMV.

TTFN

[treestar]

160. Baloney no reporter or even TV pundit should have to do that

It's a form of guilt by association. Just because her husband was head of the Fed does not mean she should have to mention that whenever she does a story on finance. Lots of people work in finance. And she is not responsible for whatever her husband did. You are assuming everyone is corrupt all the time. Like if I had a spouse who worked at a bank on Wall Street, it would have to mean I was corrupt and the spouse was doing corrupt things also. Real voters do not think like that. Bernie supporters are going way overboard.

[TrollBuster9090]

101. Not really. She demeaned herself when she married "Grand Nagus Greenspan."

And it's not meant to be demeaning when people call her that. It's meant to remind people that, as a journalist, she has a huge conflict of interest. When a reporter is covering the Circus, it's alright to remind people that he/she is married to one of the elephants.

Allan Greenspan (Not exactly as shown)

[progressoid]

214. "Grand Nagus Greenspan"

[TrollBuster9090]

225. Thanks! Grand Nagus Greenspan works almost as well as Roger "Baron Harkonnen" Ailes.

Gotta love sci-fi conservatives.

[AgingAmerican]

170. Instantly trying to change the subject

Because they want to talk about ANYTHING but Hillary!

[Jefferson23]

7. It seems as if Clinton is suggesting, she can take their money and it's meaningless.

The Republicans take their money but that is a bad thing, that means trouble.

Bernie does not take their money and is doing fine without it, so why is she taking
the money if this is a mostly Republican problem? If he can run a campaign without
it, why can't she?

Andrea stepped right into it, btw...that was well done, Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

23. She revealed herself. How cosy the relationship between our so-called 'news' media and Big Money.

How eg, could Andrea Greenspan report on the criminal role played by her husband in the collapse of the economy that cost so many millions of people so much. Many will never recover.

[Jefferson23]

43. Shameless and I recall she did the same with Eliot Spitzer, who unfortunately was

not careful with his personal life and the top bananas went after him due to
that editorial column he wrote about the thieves of WS.

Andrea could barely contain her glee when Spitzers fall came..she hates justice.

[sabrina 1]

54. Yes, hypocrisy at its best, as Andrea tries to hide her connection to the now notorious

Mr. Greenspan. I am being admonished for using her married name. How odd, no? I think we the people have a right to know the connections that might influence those who are delivering the news to the public. At least when you know Andrea's very close relationship to Mr. Greenspan, you are then free to judge her commentary, re people like Spitzer in the context of her own personal connections.

[polly7]

60. I didn't know.

And now I understand why she was trying to turn his ad into something it wasn't. So thank you, and GOOD WORK SABRINA!

[sabrina 1]

75. Lol, many people don't know that Andrea is the wife of the notorious Alan Greenspan. As a woman who

claims to be a journalist, I think she should not be trying to hide that fact. She does, after all enjoy all the advantages his money can buy.

So when I learned that she was the wife of Greenspan, I had the advantage of listening to her speak, eg, as someone above pointed out, about cases such as Elliot Spitzer's. I listen to her keeping in mind that Spitzer was known as the Sheriff of Wall St who was well on his way to bringing down Wall St criminals.

Naturally someone like Mrs Greenspan would not be too thrilled as most people were, with someone who was actually doing his job when it came to Wall St corruption.

I am amused at the objections to my reference to her cozy connections to Wall St. I suppose I could have written a long diatribe about her marriage to Greenspan using the name she goes by.

It just seemed more succinct to simply use her married name.

AND I have a sneaking suspicion, don't ask me why, that I would have been admonished anyhow.

[polly7]

82. It sure makes it all more understandable for me, and yes ... you probably would have been!

There's always something to distract from the issue brought up, doesn't seem to matter what it is. Sorry I contributed to it. But I did learn, so that's always good.

[sabrina 1]

100. No, you are fine. I actually am thrilled with the response frankly. To see people on DU actually

trying to PROTECT these extremely privileged people is as revealing as many of the other odd things we've witnessed on this Dem site. I love it when rocks are turned over and you get to see what is underneath.

I'm curious that way! It's just highly amusing to me to see this privileged wealthy woman being PROTECTED here.

It's 'sexist' lol, to call her by her married name, is it? Well, the RICH do experience privileges the poor do not.

Poor women eg, generally do go by their married names. I never felt they were 'demeaning' themselves by doing so.

Many are proud of their husbands. See that's the thing, it was SUPPOSED to be 'all about choice'.

Which is fine, if you are NOT a public figure. Once you begin to enjoy all the privileges Mrs Greenspan enjoys, then you take a job that involves the public trust, full disclosure as to who you really are, what biases you may have due to personal connections, is required.

It's really very simple.

And as saw in the interview, her own biases were revealed when she asked Sanders that question. Why would she assume that referring to Wall St Corruption and control over our Politicians, was NEGATIVE?

I think it's fantastically positive that we are finally addressing this huge problem in this country.

But then I'm not married to Mr Greenspan! Lol!

[polly7]

181. If I hadn't seen 'Greenspan' in your post and then that strange first reaction to it,

I'd never have known ... and I thought I'd been doing pretty well keeping up on a lot of it - the ties and associations between those with all the power to mislead in the MSM and push their own agenda onto the public.

I agree with you ..... imo, anyone with the type of bias she has has no business even interviewing a political candidate - especially, without disclosing her own relationship to someone who caused what that candidate is fighting against. That takes a lot of gall. How he could even sit through it is beyond me. The man has the patience of a saint.

I'm very glad you're not married to Mr. Greenspan.

[sabrina 1]

185. What this is has now been identified by women all over the country as 'faux feminism'

It's stunningly incomprehensible to see 'serious people so 'concerned about the potential harm that is going to come to Mrs Greenspan by identifying her connections to Wall St.

But not a word of sympathy for the women who suffered as a result of Mrs Greenspan's husband's policies.

I will cry no tears for the elite who have contributed to the ruin of millions of women and children in this country.

Thanks polly, that is why I used Mrs Greenspan, so people make that connection.

And IF I were married to Mr Greenspan, I would not accept a job that cause me to be personally biased.

[Jefferson23]

77. Mrs Greenspan? I suppose I can see both sides of how that is used to mock her and

is that fair game.

If one knows the history of her husband and as you say, the horrific consequences,
and her abuse of her position in the MSM to go after people to cover for her husband
then you can see it is understandable. When she used her position as a professional
she did so for her husband..she was not acting as Andrea Mitchell, journalist.
She was acting as his wife and protector..so I can see how that Mrs thing would
be appropriate.


Personally, I prefer to refer to her as a tool for the corporate thieves and her
husband can go to hell.

[SusanCalvin]

84. .

[sabrina 1]

87. She and he are public figures. She has reported on people like Elliot Spitzer, the Sherriff of

Wall St. Many people had no idea of her own connections to Wall St and why she might be somewhat biased in her reporting of someone who was doing his job and putting the corrupt on Wall St where they belonged.

Many people STILL do not know that cozy connection between the Corp Media, people like the Greenspans eg, and Wall St.

Addressing her by her married name, which has implications that the public has a right to know, is more than acceptable, imo.

In fact, as a journalist, she should use the name herself so the public is aware of who is delivering the news.

Our entire media is a Corporate Tool but people still don't know just how connected it is to Wall St.

[Jefferson23]

89. She is unprofessional, if she had recused herself I would respect that.

I remember all the nasty things she said about Spitzer going back to his
days as a prosecutor...she has no interest in justice..literally.

Now she is doing it with Bernie, but he handled it perfectly...more will be
coming.

[a2liberal]

123. "her married name"?

I think what most people are getting upset with you about is exactly that presumption. Unless you have some evidence that she chose to take her husband's last name (which some see as a sexist tradition)... the publicly available evidence seems to suggest that she did not.

You can convey the same sentiment by saying "Alan Greenspan's wife" and not upset a large portion of the people getting upset. Of course that won't help with those getting upset that you are connecting her actions to her husband at all, but you can't help upsetting them since they fail to (or choose not to) recognize the inherent bias in a close spousal relationship.

[sabrina 1]

132. People are entitled to their own opinions. I am of the opinion that language is for the purpose

of communicating information. I am not of the opinion that women who choose to take their husband's name are in any way contributing to a 'sexist tradition'.

No woman I know could be described as doing anything she didn't want to do herself. That is demeaning to all the women who choose to go by the name of their husbands.

Andrea Mitchel did choose to keep her own name. My attribution of 'Mrs. Greenspan' has little to do with whatever the 'concerns' are of the few who chose to focus on what to me, is trivia.

It has to do with letting the public know of the close ties of the Corporate Media to Wall St right down to their 'reporters' who are in a position of trust and should be required to fully disclose any biases they may have due to personal relationships.

I'm not sure why we are always required to cater to the few who claim to be perpetually offended, and not to those who THEY continually offend.

I am offended by the constant portrayal of women as weak, focused on trivia, unable to survive the terrible tragedy of being referred to as 'Mrs'.

I appreciate your comment, but am certain that no matter how I referred to Adrea Mitchel, there would have been 'concerns' expressed.

Iow, this isn't about women, but it is using women, most of whom are demeaned when accused of 'holding on to a sexist tradition' for choosing to go by their husband's names..

The Greenspans' tribulations are of little concern to me, they are perfectly fine.

I reserve MY outrage for the VICTIMS, many of them women, of the policies of Mr. Greenspan.

.

[JTFrog]

124. Because it's not her fucking "married name".

Antiquated and sexist to insist a woman use her husband's last name.

FFS.

[aspirant]

126. "antiquated and sexist"

Did the Clintons name their child Chelsea Rodham or Chelsea Clinton?

[JTFrog]

135. And as far as I know, Chelsea still goes by Chelsea Clinton.

An adult woman has the right to retain her own identity. Most people know how to respect that.

[aspirant]

141. So how respectful is

St. Bernard (a dog) and BS (his initials)to an adult man.

[JTFrog]

156. About the same as BO (endured that one during Obama's candidacy).

But neither of those are antiquated and sexist.

[aspirant]

164. So Bernie and BHO should endure

while fragile little Mrs. Greenspan has no endurance

Associating Bernie with a dog isn't sexist? How about a cheating dog, The Big Dog, the Player Dog which I call male sexist crap. This has been going on for many years and is quite antiquated.

[JTFrog]

165. There are plenty of things to attack her for.

Not taking her husband's name is not one of them. Two or three wrongs still don't make a right.

You can call "male sexist crap" if you want. But your posts in this thread suggest you probably don't give two shits about "sexist crap". If you did, you certainly wouldn't be making all these crappy comparisons.

[aspirant]

168. "sexist crap" includes both genders

Freedom of choice for all.

Let Mrs. Greenspan call herself whatever she chooses, no problem but others on this thread are free to choose how they address her for her actions.

[JTFrog]

169. Sure, people are free to engage in sexist attacks on DU.

That's been apparent for a long time now.

[aspirant]

173. Mrs Greenspan (my free choice) is free to call herself Andrea Mitchell anytime.

See how easy that is.

[JTFrog]

175. Yes, sexist attacks are not difficult.

Got it.

[aspirant]

178. Mrs. Clinton doesn't consider it a sexist attack on herself

"Got it"

[sabrina 1]

183. Is she or is she not married to Alan Greenspan? I don't CARE whether she has adapted the name

It serves the purpose of letting people the cozy relationship of Wall St and our so-called media.

But thanks for letting us know what is important to YOU. I like to know where people stand.

Now, as far as sexism goes, I have yet to see anything MORE sexist than to USE this 'faux feminism' which has zero to do with WOMEN, in order to protect the privileged.

I'm not terribly interested in the enormous DAMAGE that this OP is going to do to poor Mrs Greenspan.

I am worried about the damage her husband, Mr Greenspan's, policies have done to poor working women and their families who have more to worry about than whether someone calls them 'Mrs' or not, trying to survive those devastating policies

I get your priorities, mine are vastly different.

[JTFrog]

186. You get nothing.

Despite all of your feigned omniscience, you fail at assigning motives and priorities to others. My priorites ARE vastly different from yours. But they are none of the things you claim. As usual.

My priorities are making sure a Democrat wins office this year. I have absolutely no love for any right wing conservative hacks. I also have no desire to bern the party down. I think that's where our priorities really differ.

In any respect, I am not worried about "damage" done to "Alan Greenspan's wife". If you notice a pattern with my posting, it's that I have a habit of jumping in and calling sexism where I see it. That doesn't change my priorities one iota.

But thank you for your input.

[sabrina 1]

193. No you don't get it. My priorities are to see the best possible Representative of the People

win the this election. I am not supportive of Representatives of Corporate America running the people's busines.

As I said, and you confirmed, my priorities and yours are vastly different.

And you did not call 'sexism' where you saw it. Sexism WAS introduced into this thread, it happened when every woman who uses her husband's name which is a majority of American women, including people like me, were DEMEANED and attacked and accused of harming women in order to protect the most privileged of women from something as trivial as this.

FFS, do you not SEE the sexism in that, abusing and demeaning a majority of women FOR POLITICAL purposes? Women are sick to death of being uses as political footballs THAT is sexism.

[JTFrog]

196. What I have seen

is many of your posts on the subject of sexism and the dismissal of said sexism.

So, no I don't see what you see.

[Autumn]

10. Awesome hard hitting ad. Easy answer.

Millions in contributions in and speaking fees. Ask yourself who has earned Millions in speaking fees. Hillary.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

11. what a fail,

Sorry Mrs. Greenspan; the bell tolls for thee.

[Fast Walker 52]

16. Great ad! He really really has great people working for him.

[jillan]

21. I'm more shocked Mrs. Greenspan didn't first think it was about her hubby.

[Jarqui]

37. It's just great that she immediately thought of Hillary

and said so.

I do not mind "Mrs Greenspan" because it's an efficient way to communicate Andrea's GOP bias that was on display during the last debate and shouldn't be if she's really a journalist. She deserved a little of what she dished up.

[sabrina 1]

61. Well, normally if a woman wants to go by her own name, I'm fine with that. But when a woman

claims to be a trusted journalist who happens to be married, and has all the advantages, financially of that marriage, to one of the most notorious individuals who is in no small way responsible for the suffering of so many millions of people, I believe the public has a right to know about these connections.

She is a public figure. So is her husband. That connection should be known.

[SusanCalvin]

72. ^^^^THIS^^^^

[Jarqui]

78. Absolutely. Particularly in light of how she handles herself. nt

[reformist2]

29. Most people now think "Wall Street sycophant" when they see the name Hillary.

[polly7]

33. That is a great ad. nt.

[SusanCalvin]

58. I plead guilty to using "Mrs. Greenspan" the same way,

As shorthand for whom she *chose* to be associated with.

The shorthand may be considered objectionable, but the association remains.

[Bonobo]

66. That is precisely what I wanted to say above.

Although objectionable, it is forgivable (to me) when used in the service of pointing to her close ties.

[99th_Monkey]

64. Bernie's new ad is apparently hitting a nerve. It didn't even need to mention Hillary

because everyone who can still fog a mirror KNOWS.

[MeNMyVolt]

80. Sexist BS. She's not "Mr.s Greenspan".

[SusanCalvin]

85. OK.

She's Andrea Mitchell.

Who freely chose to be closely associated with Alan Greenspan.

And virtually never mentions it.

Nor recuses herself where appropriate.

There.

[sabrina 1]

94. Just stop using women for political purposes, that is

what is sexist.

This woman is married to Alan Greenspan. I haven't seen any reports of their divorce.

As a news person who has reported on Wall St stories, she most certainly should provide FULL DISCLOSURE as to her own extremely close ties to Wall St.

She should be known in her job as Mrs Greenspan so that the public knows of her ties to Wall St, period.

If she is ashamed of those ties, then divorce him. I would. But then I doubt I would have married him in the first place, despite all the advantages she enjoys as the wife of someone who had so much power, unfortunately.

[Bonobo]

138. I don't think it's fair to single out how they are using women for political purposes.

The same treatment is given to POC after all.

[Doctor_J]

83. Sanders runs an ad about one issue. Hillary's media minions start pouting

Ah, to feel so entitled.

[jalan48]

86. Mrs Greenspan is what she needs to be called.

How many Americans have no idea she is married to Alan Greenspan? It's not sexist-it's educational.

[sabrina 1]

108. Absolutely full disclosure when you are in a position of trust. I wonder why people think

women who have the power and money Mrs Greenspan has, need to be protected. That is so SEXIST. And more and more Feminists have come forward to say this is why they are not supporting Hillary, due to the sexism her supporters display when they try to portray women as weak, especially very privileged women like Mrs Greenspan.

[Motown_Johnny]

91. Why do I think of horses when I see a saddle?

The answer to your question and to mine are very similar.

[sabrina 1]

112. I like that Mrs Greenspan actually made the connection for anyone who didn't make it

themselves. Bernie didn't do it. I'm sure however it was unintentional, but revealing that she views talking about the corrupt system we live under where Wall St is buying our government as 'negative'.

A majority of Americans view it as positive that this most important issue is finally a major issue in this campaign.

But then she is the wife of Alan Greenspan, a fact that a few people here seem to have a problem with me exposing. For whatever reason.

[Motown_Johnny]

143. The problem is that it is not her name.

Can't you just say "Alan Greenspan's wife"? That would at least be accurate.

Using a name which is not her's isn't just pointing out that she is his wife. Many woman choose to not use their husband's last name. Your forcing it upon her is seen as disrespectful.

I admit that I have done the same thing but I now see that I was wrong to do so and have stopped. It isn't difficult. I suggest you give it a try.

[aspirant]

148. "not her name"

What is her legal name? If someone calls herself Mrs. Jones is she an impostor.

"many women choose" so it's a choice and Sabrina is free to choose also. If she doesn't like Sabrina's choice she can ignore her.

No one is "forcing" anybody, if she doesn't like how somebody addresses her don't pay attention.

Free Choice for all, " I suggest you give it a try"

"Motown Johnny" is not your name, I'm free to call you Elmer Fudd if I choose.

[Motown_Johnny]

149. Mamy consider it demeaning.

Lots of women don't take their husband's last name. Forcing it upon them is simply wrong.

[aspirant]

151. and many don't "consider it demeaning"

Tell me just how Sabrina calling her Mrs. Greenspan is "forcing it upon" her.

So now she is forced to change her name on all her business cards, her MSNBC show, her Drivers License, her bank accounts, her credit cards etc. because Sabrina called her Mrs. Greenspan on little DU.

This is a joke right.

[Motown_Johnny]

154. If you don't understand the disrespect then you are incapable of understanding my argument.

No reason to continue this.

[aspirant]

155. What a cop out.

"my argument" you're way or the highway, huh

[Motown_Johnny]

159. Some people would not have a problem with the "N word" either.

I suppose that is my way or the highway too?

I can't explain to them the disrespect that word represents.

If you are similarly incapable of grasping that woman have a right to choose to use their husband's last name or not then the problem is with you.

[aspirant]

161. Mrs. Greenspan = the "N word" ....beyond LOL

No problem here, you said it was "forced upon her" which is a complete joke and you ran away from explaining that enforced concept.

Mrs. Greenspan is free to call herself whatever she chooses and I AM free to call her whatever I choose, when I choose

If you are "incapable of grasping" the Democratic principle of Freedom of Choice for ALL, "then the problem is with you"

[Motown_Johnny]

163. I didn't say that.

I simply pointed out that some people can't grasp when they are insulting someone.

Yes, you have the freedom of speech. I would never attempt to deny you that. I am just pointing out that your speech is insulting. Nothing more.

[sabrina 1]

226. The reason you can't explain is because it is not demeaning to use the word Mrs, nor has it

ever been. THAT is why you can't explain it. What is demeaning to all those women who do use their husband's name to attack them and insinuate they are NOT THEIR OWN WOMEN. That is so incredibly insulting to millions of women and it is sexist beyond belief to USE women this way to try NOT to talk about the actual topic of this OP.

Which was the fact that Bernie's ad never mentioned Hillary, but Mrs. Greenspand instantly claimed the ad was an ATTACK.

Iow, she right away connected Hillary to Wall St, which Bernie never mentioned in the ad.

Why would she consider it a negative thing to talk about the damaging effects of Wall St money pouring into our government?

Most people at this point in our history, consider it a positive thing.

[aspirant]

113. Maybe some think

of all the debt these Wall Street maniacs have saddled on them, the Greenspan way.

[kath]

93. sabrina, do you have a link to that clip, please? I saw a snippet of it on the evening "news" and

would like to see more of it.
In the bit I saw, I thought Bernie handled himself very well.

[sabrina 1]

97. I saw it on the news too, and haven't seen a clip yet, but I'm sure someone will put it up on

Utube. Yes, Bernie handled it beautifully. She probably regrets asking that question which turned out to be a confirmation of Hillary's Wall St connections.

Sanders didn't have to say it, she did it for him.

If I find the clip I will post it in the OP, sorry I don't have it kath.

[kath]

99. Thanks. I spent some time searching for it a little while ago, with no luck.

I agree with you that it's interesting (and funny)that Andrea-MarriedToAlanGreenspan-Mitchell admitted that she, along with everyone else who has been paying any kind of attention, knows full well that Hillary is joined at the hip with Wall Street.

Likewise, I will post the clip here if I am able to find it later tonight or in the morning.

[thesquanderer]

211. Here's the link

It starts at about 50 seconds in

http://on.msnbc.com/1OUHWk3

[kath]

223. Thanks so much. bernie handled himself very well (like he always does with the media assholes)

[NRaleighLiberal]

95. Goldman Sachs. Speaking fees. Brilliant ad!

[sabrina 1]

102. Yes,and Mrs Greenspan inadvertently filled in the blanks that Bernie left out! Lol!

IF someone hadn't made the connection, Andrea did it for them. And I loved Bernie's response.

Pointing out that HE never mentioned Hillary or her campaign.

Oops, I'm sure she's kicking herself right now.

She revealed that she viewed talking about Wall St's purchasing of our government as negative.

A vast majority of Americans view it as a positive thing, something that has long needed to be discussed and FIXED.

But then she is the wife of Alan Greenspan which many people don't know.

Why I referred to her as Mrs Greenspan and am surprised to see that some people here think she needs to be protected from that disclosure.

I don't agree at all, I'm for full disclosure when you are asking for the public trust.

[SoapBox]

104. Yup!

The trap for Bernie would have been, Who exactly are you talking about in your ad?

But, The Bots know exactly...and like you said...Mrs. Greenspan filled in the blanks automatically.

Brilliant ad.

[sabrina 1]

105. It is a brilliant ad, never mentioned Hillary or her campaign. Mrs Greenspan did though

She did what Bernie didn't do, inadvertently I'm sure. But it's good that she helped people make the connection. Lol!

[aspirant]

103. Let's see

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Andrea Mitchell Greenspan

It's the Clintons and the Greenspans, not the Hatfields and McCoys

[JDPriestly]

114. I love the ad. Mrs. Greenspan may have a point of view. Anyway, Bernie has dressed her

husband down in Congress. Maybe she doesn't really like Bernie?

I do.

[sabrina 1]

116. Lol, well, this is why I believe in full disclosure when someone is in her position as a 'trusted'

news person. YOU know about her connection to Wall St. but many people do not, which is why I refer to her as Mrs Greenspan, the easiest way to let people know to listen to her keeping in mind her potential biases.

Bernie's take down of her husband was classic. Too bad every one of our Reps didn't do the same thing, and that he wasn't fired. But sadly that was not possible, as he and his fellow power brokers are in charge, for now.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

118. It mentions "Goldman Sachs" and "Speaking Fees" so that's obviously Hillary....

Then it actually implies being paid those six figure speaking fees was a form of bribery.

How DARE he!!!

[sabrina 1]

120. Well, yes, it did. But if Hillary were the ONLY one doing it, it wouldn't be a problem.

It seems to be what they all vie for, to be invited to speak at Goldman Sachs and other Wall St banks etc.

Hillary happens to be running in the same race, but it could be ANYONE because if they can run for the WH most likely they are taking huge amounts of money to pay for it.

True, it isn't hard to figure that since Hillary happens to be his opponent one could conclude he was aiming at her, but she's not the only one, sadly

[Spitfire of ATJ]

128. In Mrs. Greenspan's circle it's no big deal to get a six figure fee for flapping your gums.

[saltpoint]

137. Sanders' questions to the "reporter"

took her point out at the knees.

The "reporter" in question is a sham journalist. She doesn't just follow the money, she bathes in it.

[Fumesucker]

140. Poifect!

Damn, Bernie trolled Mrs Greenspan hard and she bit like a starving barracuda.

I don't use this often but...

[tk2kewl]

142. every time someone tries to make bernie eat a shit sandwich...

they end up being the one gagging it down.

bernie is great at this.

[WillyT]

146. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[raouldukelives]

147. The truth always sounds like an attack to those accustomed to lies. nt

[Go Vols]

187. Dear NBC News: It's Time For A Talk About Mrs. Greenspan

“I don’t care if you fuck an elephant, just so long as you don’t cover the circus.” -- Abe Rosenthal, with a quote made famous after he fired a New York Times reporter who was sleeping with one of her sources.

It boils down to this: We can't trust her.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/dear-nbc-its-time-we-had-talk-about-m

[mhatrw]

191. It reminded me of a Columbo episode.

"How did you know the murderer was a female?"

[sabrina 1]

194. Lol, it did actually. She actually did for Bernie, connected Hillary to Wall St, what he didn't do

himself. Bernie handled it beautifully.

[cui bono]

198. Can we please not call Andrea Mitchell Mrs. Greenspan?

It's sexist. She is a woman in her own right no matter who she is married to and she chose not to take his name.

And as you can see, doing so derails the point you are trying to make because it turns the discussion into one about using a name that isn't her name, so it doesn't help the cause.

.

[sabrina 1]

206. I consider it sexist and demeaning to all the women who are ALSO women in their right, like me and

millions of others, to tell us that we are being demeaned by using our husbands' name.

But then we're just the working class, we don't have all the 'assets' and financial advisers to help us separate our findances from those of our husbands. But frankly most women don't think about that, they are mothers and wives and very much WOMEN IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

Sorry Cui Bono, but as one of those women being insulted by this meme, I disagee strongly with you.

But setting all the sexism aside, I'm used to not being listened to on this forum as a woman, it was taken over long ago by a few loud voices claiming to represent all of us women, Mrs Greenspan is in a position of trust on what is supposed to be a 'news media'.

Many people have no idea of her very close ties to Wall St. She and he are public figures, we poor women who apparently weren't smart and/or elitist enough to know we were being 'demeaned' or 'demeaning' other women, are not public figures.

Some of us are very proud of the choice we made when choosing a husband, it is extremely sexist to insult the millions of women who are not public figures with something to hide.

IF I were in a position of trust such as hers, I would fully disclose, using Mrs if it would serve the purpose, any possible biases I might have.

Mrs Greenspan doesn't need your protection. But the many women, many of calling themselves Mrs whoever, could use some support as victims of her husbands policies, their entire families harmed gravely, many who will never reoover.

[cui bono]

207. But Andrea Mitchell didn't choose to use her husband's name. It's about her choice.

And by using it one doesn't respect her choice. It can easily be stated that she is married to him without changing her name in the process.

If you or anyone else wants to be called Mrs. xxx then that's what I would call you, I wouldn't call you Ms. zzz (maiden name) since you chose to take your husband's name.

I think you know that I pretty much agree with you on everything, but not on this. And now I don't even know what your OP is about because of this. That's the point I was trying to make. It detracted from the point of your OP because I, and others, find it off-putting.

.

[sabrina 1]

209. And many of us women did and have just been insulted and again NOT LISTENED TO here on DU

because we are not rich enough I guess, to be heard. Sexism is exactly what I call that. It is telling us ordinary women we are too stupid to do what Mrs Greenspan chose to do. Again, if she was not a public figure your defense of her would be fine.

I'm not a public figure and have been called a lot worse the Mrs something or other. Yet I saw no one rushing to tell me I had a right NOT to be called some of what these same defenders of women, have called me and others.

But again, as I said, DU is probably the worst place on the planet to talk about women's issues.

This thread wasn't about women's issues, but again WE WOMEN WERE USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL to try to distract from the real issue the OP was about.

They do it every time, look for some minute teeny unimportant word or phrase preferably wrt to women and then jump in pretending to care about women.

It has never fooled a majority of the women here. Their sexist use of women as political footballs is simply disgusting.

Meantime my reference to Mitchel as Mrs Greenspan has informed several people of something they didn't know, her close ties to Wall St through her marriage, and that is all I wanted to do.

[cui bono]

216. I have to disagree with you on this one sabrina.

I don't think women were used as a tool to distract from your message, I think your message got muddied by you using an incorrect name for Andrea Mitchell, which you seem to know is an issue for enough people to make it a distraction.

I like your messages. I would love for your message to reach people. But in this case, as you can see from the thread of discussion, the choice to use "Mrs. Greenspan" has detracted from your message.

Personally, I honestly don't understand how it is not clear that this is demeaning to Andrea Mitchell. But in any case, because enough people feel that way, the effect is your message is undercut.

.

[Depaysement]

202. Actually it's rigged by their clients nt

[TIME TO PANIC]

205. Best ad yet!

[SidDithers]

208. Her name is not Mrs. Greenspan...

She has her own identity.

You don't call Elizabeth Warren "Senator Mann" do you?

Sid

[sabrina 1]

210. Hey, Sid how are you doing?? Haven't seen you for a long time. Thanks for kicking my thread and

helping to get the word out that one of our 'trusted newswomen' is in fact closely tied to Wall St, Mrs Greenspan should have done that herself, full disclosure should be required of all public figures in positions of trust.

I'm just doing my small part and thanks for the help!

[SidDithers]

212. Woosh...nt

Sid

[George II]

218. Most people already know that Andrea Mitchell is married Alan Greenspan. She's never...

...kept it a secret, she just chose to retain her own name after marrying him.

Lots of career women do that. You seem to have a problem with it though.

[sabrina 1]

228. I have a problem with our Corporate Media and all the Wall St connections that control

the news the American people receive. And no, most people do not know Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

243. Brother Sid! So good to see you here. You're back, I'm back, we're all back.

[passiveporcupine]

213. LOL n/t

[George II]

217. Andrea Mitchell goes by her OWN name, why do you refer to her as "Mrs. Greenspan"?

[snort]

219. Mrs. and Mr. Andrea Mitchell:

[link:?600x600|

[aspirant]

222. Is this Mrs Mitchell and her boy toy?

[polly7]

239. That's him?

He looks a lot like that Murdoch. Almost like they were separated at birth.

[mhatrw]

220. Mrs. Greenspan, Mrs. Greenspan, Mrs. Greenspan

Dammit, I said it three times and yet none the pseudo-feminists defending this corpopublican tool have disappeared!

[sabrina 1]

248. Lol! I love how people defend these people under the pretect that they are defending women.

Never fooled me, or most other people either.

[amborin]

247. of and for Wall Street