Dana Milbank: How About Some “Mad Bitch” Beer For Hillary Clinton

10:30 pm EST July 31st, 2009 | Media | 9 Comments

Oh this was the high brow kind of journalism that Dana Milbank was lecturing the Huffington Post over. Consider us all schooled.

Time for another one of those blogger ethics panels.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

9 Responses to “Dana Milbank: How About Some “Mad Bitch” Beer For Hillary Clinton”

  1. Steve LaBonne says:
    July 31, 2009 at 11:42 pm

    How about some Arrogant Bastard for Milbank?

  2. jr says:
    August 1, 2009 at 12:17 am

    Villagers being villagers

  3. Jaim says:
    August 1, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Milbank is on a real tear as of late when it comes to beclowning himself.

  4. daniel rotter says:
    August 1, 2009 at 6:27 am

    The liberal media in action.

  5. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Takes one to know one, Dana.

  6. Jay Tea says:
    August 2, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Oddly enough, Oliver missed three shots at Republicans in a row (Vitter, Pickering, Sanford), followed by a group shot at Republicans, then Sessions and Cornyn. Finally, some Democrats get theirs — Kucinich, Waxman, Byrd, and Rahm Emanuel. Then there’s the Hillary Clinton reference, followed by a shot at Palin.

    Let’s see… six Republicans by name, plus a collective, vs. five Democrats. What’s the balance in Congress again?

    J.

  7. daniel rotter says:
    August 2, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Were any of those “shots” at Republicans equivalent to implying that Hillary is a “bitch,” Jay?

  8. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 2, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Oddly enough, Oliver missed three shots at Republicans in a row (Vitter, Pickering, Sanford), followed by a group shot at Republicans, then Sessions and Cornyn.

    I don’t follow, Mr. Tea. What’s your complaint? That Oliver failed to note the naughty things an alleged mainstream political journalist said about Republicans before he called the Secretary of State a “bitch”?

    Is that it?

  9. Jay Tea says:
    August 3, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Quaker, those slams on Republicans referred to their congressional leadership in demonic/diabolic tones. Obviously they were trying to be equal-opportunity offenders, but 1) they simply weren’t that funny; B) they shouldn’t be trying to be funny; and III) it’s obvious where Oliver’s sympathies lie.

    The shot at Hillary was bad. But not really worse than the rest.

    They should leave the funny to those are actually funny — such as the guys from Red State Update, or ‘zo, or Crowder, or RedEye…

    J.