CNN's Castellanos: some women are bitches

I'm still pretty angry this morning over the absurd and asinine coverage that Hillary's gaffe about RFK is getting. (More on that in a minute.)

In the meantime, speaking of the media's coverage of Hillary Clinton, here's an outrageous piece of footage, where last week CNN's Alex Castellanos asserted that it's acceptable to call some women bitches. I'm not joking. Watch the footage above...

CASTELLANOS: "Her problem is she's Hillary Clinton. And some women, by the way, are named that [bitches] and it's accurate."

What is this, a cable news network or a rap video? And no, his quotation is not being taken out of context. (Again, watch the footage for the full context.) This is the kind of crap that our corporate media is focusing on in this campaign.

I can't even tell you how many times I've heard references to Clinton's appearance, her voice (how many times have we heard the word "shrill" when describing how she talks?), and her tears in New Hampshire, which received nationwide media coverage for days, and an overwhelming majority of it was not friendly or favorable. In fact, just about every instance where her New Hampshire tears were covered, the question was asked, "Were they genuine?" The list goes on and on. And yet, whenever someone raises the possibility that she's getting this coverage because she's a woman, the hackles of every political talking head get raised, insisting that the coverage of her is fair. Bullshit.

As for Castellanos, he's a political disgrace of the lowest human order - he's made a living delivering hate speech and attack ads during political campaigns. His track record speaks for itself, and his comments above prove what little regard he has for women. What a pig. It's people like Castellanos who give men who respect women a bad name.

I'm not defending Hillary at all costs - in fact, far from it. Her now infamous Bosnia distortions lies are well documented, and her explanation for her comments was laughable. As I've written many times, some of her bad coverage has been self inflicted, but nowhere near all of it.

The fact that her last name is Clinton has really done her no favors in this race, either. I don't think that makes her a victim of any kind - I'm not shedding tears for her - but it should at least offer up a partial explanation as to why she's receiving the coverage she does. But, she knew it was going to be ugly before she got into the race, so again, no tears for her.

However, anyone but the most rabid, partisan Republican would probably have to agree that the media has done anything but treat the Clintons fairly since they hit the national spotlight in the late 1980s-early-1990s.

And it's also true that our corporate media has virtually turned a deaf ear for the last eight years on the criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration (especially his first term). I can only hope and pray that the facts eventually come out over what Bush and Cheney have done to subvert the Constitution and damage this country; damage that will take years if not decades to repair.

But, instead, we get...

"LOOK! LOOK! OVER HERE! Hillary made a gaffe! Obama's not wearing his flag pin!"