Check out this video that shows Larry King doesn’t even know the meaning of misogynistic and Michael Moore thinks the concept is funny! “Never to late to learn a new behavior,” quips Moore. (The Larry King and Moore exchange is halfway thru the video.)
How does a CNN talk show host NOT know the word misogyny? How is that possible? And btw, Moore never does take the time to comment on the media misogyny 2008—that is just not important enough to address. And of course, addressing that question would give it legitimacy. Over and over the media denies misogyny as problematic for women seeking high office.

Moore, btw, refused to support Hillary b/c of her vote for the war—so he claims.
But if by now anyone who doesn’t get what FemiSex has been saying all along: that if Obama had been in Congress in 2001, he’d have voted FOR the war…. Well, if you don’t get that by now …then…I’ve a FISA vote to sell you along with the Brooklyn Bridge and torture turn arounds, Obama rendition parties, and who exactly is Mr. Habeas Corpus asks Obama, NAFTA renegotiate who?…Foca what? DOMA? or, Don’t Ask me about Don’t Tell, etc, etc, etc..the list goes on and on...
Here is the Latest Greenwald installment on Obama’s say-one-thing-do-another chicanery :

Obama contemplates Executive Order for detention without charges.
“…the White House is "crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely." TPM calls this "the latest installment in the Obama administration's tendency to mimic the Bushies on war on terror tactics."

There has now emerged a very clear -- and very disturbing -- pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he's assured that he'll get the outcome he wants. If he can't get what he wants from those processes, he'll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway. In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. “

(read the whole thing, it has a great summary!)

What Obama says on is never much in line with what he does. It seems to be his favorite trick. Treat the people just like G.W. did: lie to them.

This was never more clear than with FiSA. From an op-ed in the Times on June 16th:

“The Eavesdropping Continues.” : as a senator, “Obama voted for {expansion of FISA} even though he had been passionately denouncing illegal wiretapping for months.”

Obama has been consistent on one thing: his ability to say one thing to “his” peeps (always accompanied by his I’m-better-than-you finger jabs) at campaign rallies …and to turn around and do the exact opposite at the vote or policy table. Big media is in on the whole joke, refusing to make any issue out his many many lies.

(E.g., in the above NYTimes op/ed, the author gave Obama an out, saying perhaps he did not read the full text of the FISA expansion law he voted for, and then, despite the entire op/ed being about recent massive over-collections of date via wiretapping sweeps, the Times gives Obama this pass:

“We do not believe that Mr. Obama is deliberately violating Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did….”

What a frickn’g joke the Times has become. Mr. Bush was told it was better to over-collect data in the hopes of catching a bad guy, and he went for it. Mr. Bush did not want to read the apple pie recipe you email to Mom, but if he found something useful (to himself or the country) we wanted to read that.
The SAME goes for Obama. He doesn’t want a terror strike on his watch and is just as willing as Bush to forgo legal issues to be sure he ends up with no mud on this face. If he finds out just which reporter is working on which story with his electronic sweeps, so be it. All the better to shut them out at press conferences.

This site is devoted to journalism, not protectionism. Mr. Obama needs to be reported on in a truthful manner. The journalism creed: IF YOUR MOTHER SAYS SHE LOVES YOU CHECK IT OUT, still goes, at FemiSex.

At the Times, not so much. Rather, with Obama it is: If Obama says he loves you, take his word on it! Oh journalism, the dying art.
Another glaring example of Obama protectionism at the Times: story title: “On gay issues, Obama asks to be judged on vows kept.” (Tues. June, 30th, 09) This article, supposedly on O’s broken promises to the gay community since taking office, did not even bother to mention that not only has Obama not acted to get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, he has gone to court to protect the DOMA. This is just more of the Times Obama Protectionism Act.

Obama is a liar and his truthiness is just getting worse. Michael Moore opted to overlook this point in his rush to get Hillary off his plate.

Moore is just a man who can’t accept a female in the White House and comes up with all sorts of ways to overlook what an HONEST look at Obama would have told him in the first place—Obama is a politician just the same as Hillary. Obama is just one with an exceptional ability, almost pathological ability, to look us in the face and lie…over and over and over again.
Hillary fibbed about sniper fire, Obama fibbed about Selma, those are equal fibs. The media harped on Hillary’s fib and buried Obama’s.
But most important!! .....
Policy matters ramp up to the level of lies. Obama lied in the most bald-faced fashion about policy issues during the campaign. His underground water lies, for exapmple, struck me as a measure of this man and what was to come. The media buried this important story, not mentioning it again after it broke. Anyone who looked at Obama's record of present votes as a state senator or his skipped votes in the Senate, could have easily take the measure of this man.
He would have voted for the war; yet.... he took the opportunity to make a name for himself by saying he would not have voted for the war. Classic Obama. The pattern was there, folks. If Obama had been in the Senate, he would have done what it took to get re-elected in 2004. Moore is either a dolt or opted to over-look this fact.
Obama has always done what it takes to get elected. Fine, that'sa pol. But don't pretend Obama is something he is not, it just makes you look silly.
FISA, renditions, FOCA, dention camp, rule of law, yawn. Moore was played like a fiddle by Obama, but for Moore it has been worth the price: no woman in high office. O would have voted for the war and Moore knows this!

Hillary truthfulness record on policy, was, by comparison, a sterling diamond crusted record—the woman does what she says she will do! Obama does the opposite of what he says.
Mr. Moore will not support a female over a male, at least not until his is 90 and on his deathbed and she won’t have a chance to rule over him. But doesn’t he look the fool, for being so easily fooled by Barack Obama.

A primer for Larry and Michael: Mis = hate and gyn is the Greek root for women.
But a far easier way to remember it: Brian Williams, Keith Olberman, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, any male newspaper publisher, ect., etc.
Misogyny is a sickness that permeates our society.
Mr. Moore has the more common form: disogyny.
Dislike for women of power. He has a thousand ways to deny this, but like my momma always told me, trust them not by what they say, but what they do…and who they support when the chips are down!

Additional links-

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/20/obama_supports_fisa_legis...

http://www.femisex.com/content/o-finds-his-inner-w%E2%80%94torturous-tal...

http://www.femisex.com/content/naomi-wolfs-subliminal-sexism-obamas-stan...

http://www.femisex.com/content/obama-embraces-hyde-amendment-and-yet-aga...