Does anyone else find it offensive

[SusanCalvin]

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

that Mrs. Greenspan is one of the moderators of this debate? I find it impossible to take her seriously, myself.

On edit.

Anrdrea Mitchell, who is married to Mr. Greenspan.

I still happily plead guilty to mentioning the connection, and add that if I disagreed with hubby on fundamental moral issues we would no longer be married. Thanks for helping me appreciate hubby.

[GoneFishin]

1. That's despicable. I did not know that.

[elleng]

9. Nothing despicable,

more admirable that you've seen her doing her work for years and accepted her as a journalist.

What's despicable is that DUers use the fact that a professional journalist is married to a well-disrespected wall street person as a reason to disrespect HER.

[tularetom]

15. Don't know about anyone else

But I have never accepted her as a journalist. And I have disrespected her since I first became aware of her existence, probably around the time of the first Gulf War when she sounded like a star struck teenager every time she mentioned Bush Sr.

The fact that she is married to a slug like Greenspan is just icing on the cake.

[840high]

103. I remember that. Don't care

for her at all.

[passiveporcupine]

120. Agreed

I never liked her. Long before I ever knew she was married to Greenspan.

[SusanCalvin]

16. You mean the person

Who had a large hand in running us into the state we're in now and then said "oops"? One is known by the company one keeps. I don't like Carville and Matalin either.

[Skwmom]

35. Her lack of journalistic integrity is what has earned her the disdain of many. n/t

[GoneFishin]

46. Yep. Her lack of integrity showed in her repeated mischaracterization of Bernies elimination of

health insurance premiums as a tax. Sleazy hack.

[synergie]

96. Wait, doesn't he call it a tax himself? He just explains that it's a tax in lieu of a premium.

[fleur-de-lisa]

55. I agree somewhat.

I don't think she's much of a journalist, but I don't like the disrespect shown to her on DU.

[SusanCalvin]

64. With reason, IMHO.

Actually, I wouldn't call it "disrespect." I'd just call it pointing out.

[tazkcmo]

75. I disrespect her on her own merits.

As for a journalist? That's not even funny.

[Plucketeer]

118. I don't care WHO her husband is

That she's a corporate journalist is all too clear. In fact, at least 75% of the swine that feed America it's "news" need to be tossed out with the rats and liars they pretend to examine and interpret for us daily.

[SusanCalvin]

84. That's OK.

I disrespect her husband as well. And one is known by the company one keeps.

[pennylane100]

147. Do you mean that is despicable that you know that,

or that it is despicable for her to come out with such a blatant attack on Bernie Saunders.

[GoneFishin]

148. I do not think Greenspan should have been a moderator any more than Karl Rove should be.

[onecaliberal]

2. YES!

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't even say what I think of her because I would be permanently banned. The stench coming from that woman is horrendous.

[MissDeeds]

70. +1000

I'd be banned if I said what I think too. Mrs Greenspan's political bias should have kept her off the
platform tonight.

[angrychair]

3. Yes. nt

[Mike Nelson]

4. I would have picked...

Joy Reid.

[fleur-de-lisa]

58. Agreed. She would make a great moderator!

I don't understand why they don't have her on more often. She is a great journalist!

[SusanCalvin]

74. I like her too. nt

[elleng]

5. I find it offensive that you refer to Andrea Mitchell,

a journalist for many years, as Mrs. Greenspan.

[SusanCalvin]

11. Well, she is.

And I know what he is.

[synergie]

98. That's nice, but you do realize she's not some growth on his side and a person in her own right,

right? If you have issues with her, you could address them personally instead of pretending that she's nothing more than her husband's wife. She has a name and a career, and I respect that you don't like her, but what decade are you in when you attack her for her husband's anything?

[SusanCalvin]

100. Sigh....

I was questioning her bona fides to moderate any political debate, considering her connection.

And I sure will question her for her husband's anything. She married him, and his history and principles.

[synergie]

107. Then try doing that, what you are doing is literally stating that your issue with her is

guilt by association and guilt by marriage and you addressed her thusly to denigrate her.

Her husband is nowhere near her day job, nor is he on that stage, asking or influencing her questions. He also married her and she has her own history, principles and identity.

How about you pretend she's a person in her own right and address any actual concerns with her behavior, history, record on her own merits and not as some OfAlan creature.

[SusanCalvin]

109. Damn right it's guilt by association. eom

[synergie]

134. Which is a form of ad hominem fallacy. And an indication of a lack of persuasive or legitimate

argument. This not something one should be proud of doing.

[SusanCalvin]

142. Nope.

I definitely form opinions about people based on whom they choose to associate with. Parents and children, you don't have a choice. Spouse, you do.

[synergie]

146. Yes, what you're doing is what pretty much every tyrannical government has used to abuse

those they did not like, guilt by association is how they chose who to kill, imprison, torture etc. It's an ad hominem fallacy used by those who lack the evidence, reasoning or legitimate argument against those they dislike for whatever reason, it's how the other 6 million people ended up in ovens, it's how the gulags were filled, it's how the witches were burned and the heretics identified.

You have a choice in how you choose to conduct your life, through emotion and terrible fallacious argument that is the hallmark of the intellectually lazy or through sound reasoning, facts, evidence, logic and common sense.

People who are not remarkably shallow and are intelligent human beings look at things beyond their party registration, because that's not sane or rational reason to kick someone out of your life, unless you truly cannot handle any opinion that is not an echo of your own.

I have no siblings, but I have dear childhood friends who are dreaded Republicans and whom I love and am loved by dearly. Despite our political differences, we agree on a great many things. Marriages, families and friendships are built on shared values, human relationships and love, none of these things has anything to do with something so paltry as party affiliation.

I'm really sad for you that you don't seem to realize this, and I'm glad that you won't have to actually put your rather narrow and closed minded view of the world ahead of any actual loved ones, but I truly am sorry for you.

[cui bono]

112. No, she's not. She did not take his name. That is not her name.

It's sexist to refer to her that way.

.

[SusanCalvin]

119. Sorry for being ham-handed. Seriously.

But I still stand by my ham-handed point.

[cui bono]

121. Then why not eidt out the derogatory part of the OP? I see you added a disclaimer of sorts.

[SusanCalvin]

123. Derogatory?

Not correct, yes. Sorry, corrected.

Derogatory (unless she's ashamed of her husband, which I would be), no.

[cui bono]

125. Yes, that's the part that makes it sexist!

.

[SusanCalvin]

126. Not sure what you mean.

Restatement:

Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. She claims to be a journalist. If she agrees with her husband's moral values and view of the world, no way - most certainly not as a moderator of a political debate, particularly a Democratic one. If she doesn't, why is she married to him? There.

[cui bono]

129. That's better in that you are stating your opinion of her professional career.

Using "Mrs. Greenspan" when she did not take his name, is a throwback to when women were considered the "little woman", an extension of their man or worse, their man's property. It's not that long ago that women couldn't vote, weren't "allowed" to work, couldn't get hired or get ahead in many careers. We still don't get equal pay and are still a long way away from being equals in the work force.

Using "Mrs. Greenspan" instead of her real name perpetuates all of that type of thinking.

.

[SusanCalvin]

143. OK, so it was shorthand. Possibly would have been better to say it the long way,

but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[FlatBaroque]

13. I find it hilarious that you refer to that propaganda tool as a journalist

[Agschmid]

14. It's ridiculous isn't it... Jeez.

[elleng]

17. Yes it is, and highly offensive.

I am an attorney, was married to an attorney who was a republican, and it would have been intolerable for either of us to have been called down by anyone due to disagreements people might have had with either democrats or republicans.

[Agschmid]

18. Try canvassing in NH...

Half the house is liberal half the house is republican and it just depends on who is home when you knock on that door. Always a crap shoot.

I also find it a bit ridiculous to refer to a woman with an important career just by her man... Sexist in some ways.

[elleng]

20. Sexist 100%, and that's really my gripe.

I had a couple (elderly by the time I met them) in my family, New England too, and both of them active in their parties, different parties!

[SusanCalvin]

25. See #23

YMMV, but I try not to be married to people who disagree with me on what I regard as moral issues, at least in this day and age. R and D in my childhood? Not the same thing.

[Agschmid]

28. That's fine, you get to make your own decisions. As does she.

[SusanCalvin]

39. Of course. And we all get to comment, FWIW.

[Agschmid]

42. We certainly do.

But we shouldn't get to make sexist comments like referring to a woman only by her husband, as if she wasn't her own person.

Not saying you did this specifically but it certainly happened right here on DU.

[SusanCalvin]

49. It has, and I could have done it better.

I still say a journalist with that connection is questionable. And I would say that if it were a connection other than marriage.

[Beaverhausen]

51. She has been a journalist far longer than she had been married

[SusanCalvin]

54. Well, look at whom she chose to marry.... nt

[Beaverhausen]

69. Maybe she married him for the sex?

[SusanCalvin]

73. You mean like Maria and Aahnold? nt

[SusanCalvin]

21. Whatever.

I myself would not marry an R, nor stay married to one who turned. YMMV.

[sammythecat]

122. I get what you're saying

My first thought on seeing the moderators was the fact she's married to Greenspan and likely no fan of Bernie Sanders. Referring to her as "Mrs. Greenspan" was just a succinct way of making your point. Frankly, it pisses me off that you are being attacked for being sexist. They're being dumb, mean, and unfair. You were simply making a valid point.

I suppose it's possible for people with differing ideologies, or even moralities, to be married, it must be very rare and certainly beyond my understanding. Carville and Matalin, for instance. How is that even possible!? Makes me think it's just a shtick for both of them and I don't trust the sincerity of anything either say.

[SusanCalvin]

124. Thanks for the Carville and Matalin comment.

I will never, ever get that.

[silenttigersong]

130. I am also sorry

Seems these few are attacking you,bullies,the sexism police or something like that.

[SusanCalvin]

144. I dunno. I actually don't feel particularly "attacked" -

I have my opinion, they have theirs, it's been polite, I think - dunno for sure this AM as I doubt I'm going to read everything that went on since I went to bed at midnight.

[tammywammy]

26. + a million!

That was my first thought!

[treestar]

135. +1

It is defining her by her husband. When she has made a name for herself.

[saltpoint]

6. Agree. She's never been much of a

journalist and she's as bad tonight as she usually is.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. It's a conflict of interest! Bernie handed her husband his arse over his economc policies. She

obviously doesn't like Bernie. She shouldn't be allowed to participate in these debates.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[choie]

45. Thank you!

It's an obvious conflict of interest.

[navarth]

92. THIS

I'm glad somebody mentioned it. I didn't think she laid a glove on him, though. Neither did she hurt Sec. Clinton.

[840high]

110. ...+1

[litlbilly]

8. I do to. Bernie took her husband apart in a congressional hearing and basically tore him a new one.

Not sure if Andrea remembers that?

[FlatBaroque]

10. I just hope the next time Mrs. Greenspan gets run over by a horde of reporters

Bernie steps on her neck instead of helping her like he did last time.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I'd say she's not a proper choice....

[Beaverhausen]

19. Take this sexist shit elsewhere

I'm so sick of professional women being defined by what their husbands do.

Shame on you.

[elleng]

22. THANK YOU, Beaverhausen!

[SusanCalvin]

23. It ain't sexist.

I would not marry someone whose basic principles conflicted with mine.

If that changed, there would be a divorce.

Thank you for helping me appreciate hubby.

[Beaverhausen]

24. It is sexist as fuck

Cut it out.

[SusanCalvin]

33. No, I won't. And it isn't.

She is married to a person who had a huge hand in where we are now. I find it almost impossible to believe she can be unbiased. But I will admit I find it almost impossible to believe a member of the 1% can be unbiased. Yes, I am, in general, very, very angry and frightened about the state of the world.

[Beaverhausen]

43. Well I don't agree with everything my husband does

And I think many women can think for themselves on many issues. Women actually have working brains, as you well know.

[SusanCalvin]

53. I absolutely agree.

But if I disagreed on a very fundamental issue and we could not work it out, I would be gone.

Remember, Shriver basically said she married Schwarzenegger for the sex.

We all make mistakes....

[saltpoint]

27. It's not remotely sexist. eom

[Beaverhausen]

31. Really? Does she use her married name professionally?

Or, because she is female, does she have no identity of her own?

[FlatBaroque]

36. Propagandist for the 1% is now a profession??

[saltpoint]

37. She's parading as a journalist when in

fact she's never been a good one.

There's your bottom line.

It's not about gender. It's about incompetence.

[kath]

40. And what about HRC changing her name back and forth, depending on what she thought was most

Politically expedient at the time??

[Beaverhausen]

44. When had Hillary not used the name Clinton?

[kath]

60. Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/the-fascinating-history-of-when-hillary-clinton-has-chosen-to-use-her-maiden-name/

Like most things with her, a finger-to-the-wind thing. Always, always, always holding up that moistened finger.

[Beaverhausen]

85. So for 34 years she has used the name Clinton

Got it.

[synergie]

102. Honestly, the pettiness and the casual misogyny is astounding. Guess you should moisten a finger

sometime and figure out what century it is.

[SusanCalvin]

78. Of course she has her own identity.

I was just (maybe ham-handedly) pointing out a connection.

[tammywammy]

32. Referring to a professional woman by her husband's name is incredibly sexist.

It doesn't matter whether you like her or her husband, it's sexist bullshit.

[SusanCalvin]

48. OK.

Please replace with her name everywhere I mentioned it, and add that her spouse had a huge hand in where we are now and then said "oops."

[cui bono]

115. Of coures it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511023392

.

[Agony]

29. If she was professional she would have recused herself.

[redwitch]

50. Yes!

I have very little respect for Andrea Mitchell and for the others responsible for allowing her to moderate. Conflict of interest anyone?

[SusanCalvin]

57. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ nt

[kath]

38. Hillary got where she is precisely because of Bill.

Rode his coattails, each step of the way.

[Beaverhausen]

47. Wow. More sexism.

Is this DU?

[Joe Shlabotnik]

76. +1 n/t

[SusanCalvin]

87. Sorry, don't agree with this one. nt

[valerief]

30. I can't stand her. She's a useless tool in everything she does. nt

[tblue37]

34. +1 million! KnR. nt

[Duppers]

41. Definitely!

Just posted in the debate thread, Damn Mrs. Greenspan.

[question everything]

141. Her name is Andrea Mitchell

and she has been an accomplished journalist well before she married her husband.

that you think that a woman should be defined by her husband shows more about you

And, as I posted below: would you refer to Elizabeth Warren as Mrs. Mann?

[Cha]

52. Results on your jury, Susan.. and Yes to your Question.. I find it damn offensive.. thank you.

Does anyone else find it offensive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511022541

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This calling Andrea Mitchell "Mrs. Greenspan" bullshit needs to stop. It's sexist to keep referring to a professional woman by her husband's name. It doesn't matter if you like her or not, it's sexist bullshit. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 17, 2016, 10:59 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get A Grip, Alerter. End of story.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, no, I won't vote to hide. Take up your issues over this with the poster you're offended by. Weak alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While it is true that it is impolite to refer to a woman by her husbands name when she wishes to be called by another. In the case of Andrea Mitchell, she has reported or opined on issues which are directly connected with Alan Greenspan, without disclosing her relationship.
To say the least this is a journalistic mistake at the worst it is completely dishonest.
With other journalist who commit similar acts it is acceptable to aply derisory labels, Tweety for Chris Matthews or Dancin Dave for David Gregory.

[SusanCalvin]

62. My first alert (as far as I know)!

Thanks for letting me know. Now I feel better for not keeping to my resolve to stay off the tablet during the debate.

[Kentonio]

68. I just got my first alert tonight too!

Although to be fair I probably deserved mine (and the ensuing hide..).

[Kalidurga]

56. No

Bernie handles opposition from journalists very well. It shows he isn't afraid of being grilled by the opposition and he will stand up to it. In a sense she is a perfect moderator for Bernie debate.

[SusanCalvin]

67. Oh, I agree in that sense.

Still, I feel everyone should be aware of her connection.

[silenttigersong]

59. Yeah

I think she displayed bias.

[SusanCalvin]

72. Y'know,

I don't know or care if she did or didn't. Just the connection should have been enough for her to recuse herself.

[relayerbob]

61. No

[Fast Walker 52]

63. definitely-- she should have made that disclosure when asking about wall street

[mountain grammy]

65. Yes, I do!

[FSogol]

66. Every one of her "questions" was a RW talking point.

Ridiculous to have her there.

[backscatter712]

71. Hey, I'll have you know that Andrea Mitchell looked amazingly well preserved tonight!

I give kudos to her mortician.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

131. That was worth a chuckle.

[SDJay]

77. My Wife Is Canadian

so she doesn't vote and therefore doesn't pay a ton of attention to this stuff. She sat and watched the debate with me tonight and I didn't say anything because I was interested in her opinion without her hearing my perspective on things. One of the first things she said after listening for about 30 minutes was, "Is that woman who's asking the questions of Senator Sanders Hillary Clinton's lawyer or advocate or something? It's painfully obvious that she's incredibly biased for some reason."

It was painful. I wasn't aware of a lot of the backstory that appears on this thread, but I did know that she was buddies with Hillary and of course the identify of her husband and his history with Senator Sanders.

I enjoyed Bernie handing Andrea Mitchell her ass on a platter with his response to that awful question about Bill's past.

She's a hack.

[SusanCalvin]

81. Thanks

For catching me up on what I missed by not sticking to my resolution to stay off teh tablet.

[SDJay]

83. No Sweat!

My wife was a very good solo control variable. She's highly intelligent, totally objective and without bias in this context and not in the least bit timid about expressing her opinion after she's taken some time to learn about something. In short, I always look forward to hearing what she has to say because I know it's honest and most likely on-point.

She zeroed right in on Mitchell and said her conduct was off-putting.

[840high]

117. ...+1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. Lester jumped in to silence Bernie when he started his "class warfare".

[SusanCalvin]

89. I must say, though

That I thought Bernie needed to back off a bit. I say this as a Bernie supporter.

Of course, it's obvious I did not stick to my "no tablet" resolution, so what do I know....

[zentrum]

80. Excellent point. Yes, it's offensive.

Very.

[question everything]

82. Do you also refer to Elizabeth Warren as Mrs. Mann?

Her name is Andrea Mitchell.

[SusanCalvin]

86. OK, it may have been ham-handed.

Still, one is known by the company one keeps, and THAT was my point.

[Juicy_Bellows]

88. I think you rocked all over this thread.

[SusanCalvin]

90. .

[Beaverhausen]

93. Because women have no thoughts of their own

They are just simple-minded beings who get their opinions and facts from their husbands, right?

You keep digging your hole deeper and don't even see what you are doing.

[SusanCalvin]

94. I have thoughts of my own.

If they differed from hubby's on fundamental moral issues, we would no longer be married.

Thank you for helping me appreciate hubby. I will give your best to him.

[question everything]

140. Thank you for the edit. And no, it was not I who alreted

I rarely do. I prefer to rebut

I have seen this misogyny on DU ever since I jointed, and have seen it as an undercurrent on many anti Hillary posts. Many who refer to Ms. Mitchell by her husband name have generally been men. So I was surprised to see one posted by someone with a female name. (Never mind Johnny Cash's "a boy named Sue...&quot

I came to the debate at mid point and did groan when she brought Bill Clinton into the discussion. For both of them.

[Eric J in MN]

91. I had concerns before the debate, but her questions were fine. NT

NT

[FailureToCommunicate]

95. Meh. I was prepared to be upset, but by in large both NBC moderators did fine. Now Chucky

on the other hand...

[Hulk]

97. It's not a secret that she's a repuKKKe shill

I despise the woman. I thought the moderators were terrible, with only a few minutes where they had control of the candidates. Mitchell is disgusting. Sort of "why do we still have DWS as spokesperson for the DNC"? She is just as awful. Her television appearances are embarrassing, at best.

[George II]

99. No.

[SusanCalvin]

145. Your frog is hilarious!

[hrmjustin]

101. No and her name is Andrea Mitchell.

[SusanCalvin]

105. See above re my ham-handedness.

But she married him, his history, and his principles. One is known by the company one keeps.

[hrmjustin]

111. Well I'm not a fan of hers but I am not offended by her there.

I have no opinion on her marriage.

[kath]

106. Thanks for enlightening us. No one here had any idea whom they were talking about.

[hrmjustin]

114. Cheerful as always kath!

[sammythecat]

132. Yes and she was referred to as "Mrs. Greenspan" to make a point.

She was quite obviously not making a misogynistic statement. Is that what you thought she was doing?

Honest to Christ, the mean and phony self-righteous indignation displayed in this thread is truly puke inducing. You people should be ashamed.

[chapdrum]

104. Yes. Yes. Yes.

She tells Sanders, "You didn't have to answer it that way."
NO moderator is in the position, imo, to say that to ANY candidate.
She was the one taking Sanders to task, mainly covertly but barely.
Doesn't help that hubby is the odious (at best) Alan Greenspan.

Same treatment by the "moderators" from ABC, last time.

So utterly effing predictable.

Then the "post-game" wrap-up with Chuckie.

Perfect.

[cui bono]

108. Many - myself included - find calling her Mrs. Greenspan offensive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511023392

.

[SusanCalvin]

113. Yes, ham-handed, I completely admit.

Guilt by association I absolutely meant and happily plead guilty to.

[INdemo]

116. Her and her husband(Alan Greenspan) are good friends with Bill and Hillary

especially since Bill and Hillary have reached that elite financial status through their efforts of huge speaking fees and no doubt some very good stock trades which come form knowing where the sure bets are,..

And the fact that Bernie Sanders had Alan Greenspan in the hot seat about our financial stability during a Congressional hearing.

[shadowmayor]

127. Can't stand the cheerleader for the wall street thugs

Yes! Totally offensive. It's not just that she's married to that turd Greenspan, but the fact that NBC deems her OK to be a moderator. Her obvious derision towards anything Senator Sanders says or proposes is sickening. Just because she's been on my goddamned TV for decades doesn't make her any kind of journalist worthy of note. Bet she has no friggin' idea what it means to be part of the poor working class in this country.

Despite her presence and some of the inane questions, it was a great night for Democrats as we got to see three adults speak and act like informed and compassionate people. Dealing with Iran is a good idea? Who knew after watching the repukes trying to out-nuke each other. Bet the families of those "lost" sailors are feeling damned glad that we have a President willing to negotiate with Iran!!!

[mudstump]

128. Alan Greenspan feelin' the Bern!

[CharlotteVale]

133. Yes, a very offensive conflict of interest.

[bigwillq]

136. No (nt)

[RiverLover]

137. Yes (nt)

[EndElectoral]

138. Why wasn't Maddow chosen to moderate?

[olddots]

139. This is a conflict of interest entrenched in the whole media

these so called political debates are a prise fight to entertain the 99% .Conflict sells the "news "