Does Clinton's Cheerleaders understand what it means to mount a real challenge (compete) in a state?

[Skwmom]

When you don't have the name recognition of your opponent, you don't have the Democratic Establishment in your pocket, you don't have the corporate media hacks and surrogates (including lobbyists) cheerleading for you and attacking your opponent what does it mean to mount a challenge to your opponent?

Earth to Maddow - opening a couple of offices isn't really mounting a challenge.

Clinton, having the state political network in her pocket had a major advantage b/c they could help get out the vote for her.

And Bernie doesn't have unlimited funding (i.e., the 1% in his pocket) so he has to target his resources in certain states.

Is Maddow a few bricks shy of a full load or just willing to advance any asinine argument to earn her corporate paycheck? My money is on a little of both.

I'm so glad to see we have an objective interviewer (Maddow) in the next Clinton/Sanders Corporate Dog and Pony Show.

If I taught a journalism class, Maddow's show would be a goldmine for lectures on the lack of journalistic integrity. Ms. Selective Outrage, aka Clinton Cheerleader, is such a media whore. Update: And so is Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Anderson Cooper and many others.

Update: For your reading pleasure:

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

[Agschmid]

1. Lol... Don't like the facts she presents, call her crazy.

What else is new?

[emulatorloo]

4. And calls her a whore.

[Agschmid]

5. I didn't even get that far...

The shit that flys as "discussion" these days.

[Bubzer]

8. Agreed... but then, I've learned to ingore most of your posts. Solves that problem quickly.

[Agschmid]

10. More "discussion" I see.

It seems you also don't really ignore it all that well...

[Bubzer]

14. That's your perspective. I've done a great job of glossing over the vast majority of your posts.

It's saved me quite a bit of time! Especially given your "quality, articulate and well thought out discussion"...
note the

Have a great day!

[Major Nikon]

2. Results...

On Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Does Clinton's Cheerleaders understand what it means to mount a real challenge (compete) in a state?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511600598

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wow, disagree with Maddow all you want, but is calling her a whore really necessary? Over the top. (Last line of post.)

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:10 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The use of media whore has been around for a long time, the term has been used to describe males as well as females. It is very different than calling someone a "whore"
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Media whore is a common phrase on this site and not gendered in this context. The OP is not referring to prostitution but this common definition: "debase oneself by doing something for unworthy motives, typically to make money: he had never whored after money." I would not have used the word for Maddow however, precisely to avoid this misunderstanding.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is a common, if unfortunate, phrase. I've seen men called media whores too. I choose not to use the term but it is not sexist in the way it would have been had the OP left the "media" part out.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed, the last line was ott and completely unnecessary. They'll let it slide anyway.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not the naughty word police. Context matters.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Summary of this post: Damn you, Rachel Maddow!

[Bubzer]

6. No... Summary of the OP: Damn your, lack of journalistic integrity Rachel Maddow

[emulatorloo]

7. So do I get to call you a 'Whore' since I disagree w your post?

Just because you disagree w the story does not make Maddow a 'whore.'

[Bubzer]

9. False framing. You're intentionally divorcing the word "media" from the word "whore".

The phrase "media whore" is used regularly on this site, regardless of gender or network it's being attributed to.

And you can damn well bet, I'll alert on it, if you do as you've suggested.

[Agschmid]

11. Oh look a threat of alert stalking...

[Bubzer]

16. More false framing. Bye!

[unapatriciated]

17. I happen to agree with buzz

To say you do not understand the meaning of media whore and threaten to call a fellow duer a whore is wrong. The two are a very different. Media whore has been used for a very long time in regards to sensationalizing just for ratings regardless of gender.

[emulatorloo]

20. Do you not know what a rhetorical question is?

I do not call people "whores".

[Bubzer]

23. You dont? But you ask them permission to?

[emulatorloo]

25. ...

Not playing your game, Bubzer.

Have a nice day.

[Bubzer]

28. You started the "game" by trying to frame the poster as calling Maddow a whore...

instead of a media whore... a well known and well understood differentiation. You seemed to think no one would catch you and call you on your bullshit... but you got caught. Feel free to skitter back under your rock.

[emulatorloo]

31. Sorry, Yr not going to bait me into saying something 'alertable'

[Bubzer]

34. Ooooh I sense some projection there. I'm guessing you alert stalk dont you? You dont have to answer.

I don't really care and it doesn't really matter. See the difference here is you're trying to stir up shit... trying to create an issue that doesn't exist. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn you were the one to alert on the post.

Look, I'm not interested in getting you to say something 'alertable'... in fact, I'm really not interested in further conversation with you at all... however, I'll re-state my warning: if you call the poster of the OP (or anyone else) a whore, I'll absolutely alert on you. If you're not going to do that, then we're done here.

[emulatorloo]

36. I don't call posters 'whores'. I call out posters who call others 'whores'

I am sure you understand the distinction.

Have a nice day.

[Bubzer]

37. I also understand the distiction between "whore" and "media whore"...

But I guess this is another case where distinctions only matter when emulatorloo says they do...

[unapatriciated]

24. do you not understand context and meaning.

You are stuck on a root word that does not mean the same as what the poster used.
I don't care for it myself, but language is ever changing and the op did not call Rachel a "whore".

[emulatorloo]

27. Poster called Maddow a whore, I don't care what qualifying adjectives are used.

If you are ok with that, fine. Have a nice day

[unapatriciated]

29. They didn't but if your ok with

coloring the truth, it's ok with me. Just try to stay within the lines.

[Bubzer]

32. So, words only matter when emulatorloo says so... okay.

[emulatorloo]

13. Whore is whore and we don't call women whores on DU

[Bubzer]

18. No. "Media whore" has clearly different connotations...

or are you pretending to be completely new to politics? Because, I could totally believe that.

[PonyUp]

41. Ever heard of a corporate, attention, or friend whore? n/t

[unapatriciated]

12. The term media whore is totally different than

calling someone a whore. It has been used to describe both genders in the media for some time. It is a common term when describing journalists or others in the media who sensationalize just for ratings. It is not one I would use personally but it is not the same as you calling a poster a whore.

[emulatorloo]

15. I didn't call the poster a whore. I asked a rhetorical question.

[unapatriciated]

21. You asked if it would be ok since they used it.

We all know the meaning of both and they are not the same.

[Bubzer]

22. Exactly right!

[randome]

19. In other words, if, like Sanders, you have few friends, it's very difficult to be President.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Trust Buster]

26. I think Rachel Maddow is hands down the best in the business.

[Bubzer]

30. I think she used to be. I think she's nowhere near as good as she once was...

and her ratings (current and historical) would seem to bear that out.

[Trust Buster]

35. The only thing that's changed is the Sanders supporters perspective.

She's still the best on the Left IMO.

[Bubzer]

38. That's far from true. Maddow's numbers were declining before Hillary or Bernie even announced a run.

I will grant that her numbers dropped more after the primary began, though.

[Skwmom]

40. If she represents the best, God help us. n/t

[demwing]

33. "Media whore"

As you noted, any media personality, regardless of gender, who exchanges journalistic integrity for a paycheck, is a media whore.

In fact, I'd say that there are significantly more media whores than journalists, by a very large margin.

[Bubzer]

39. Ding ding ding!

[MineralMan]

42. Calling Rachel Maddow ANY kind of whore

is so far over the top, I can't even begin to express my disgust with this. I'm sorry, but a disagreement with her does not call for such calumny to be heaped on her head.

You should consider self-deleting your post, in my opinion.

[geek tragedy]

43. so Bernie lost those states because he couldn't win them, not

because he didn't contest them?